Skip to comments.Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis (Quotes from Free Republic)
Posted on 03/02/2007 5:01:02 AM PST by AZRepublican
WELLESLEY, Mass. The senior thesis of Hillary D. Rodham, Wellesley College class of 1969, has been speculated about, spun, analyzed, debated, criticized and defended. But rarely has it been read, because for the eight years of Bill Clintons presidency it was locked away.
As forbidden fruit, the writings of a 21-year-old college senior, examining the tactics of radical community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, have gained mythic status among her critics a Rosetta Stone, in the words of one, that would allow readers to decode the thinking of the former first lady and 2008 presidential candidate.
Despite the fervent interest in the thesis, few realize that it is no longer kept under lock and key. As MSNBC.com found, it is available to anyone who visits the archive room of the prestigious womens college outside Boston. With Clintons opponents in the 2008 presidential race looking for the next Swift Boat attack ad, and the senator herself trying to cast off her liberal image, Clinton's 92-page thesis is certain to be read and reread by opposition researchers and reporters visiting the campus.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The thought that all the crap I wrote down when I was in college could be the measure of me 35 years later is chilling, and absurd.
I agree, but I don't think that's the point. Her words are sure to be embarrassing and I suspect anti-American. For one thing we should have the opportunity to see if she actually WILL say her views are different. For another thing, she should, for once, be subjected to the same microscope she others to be under.
LOL. But it sounds as though wisdom has come with age in your case. The same can't be said for Hillie.
Hillary has to let that thesis out. She is in danger of losing the support of the Democrat base to Hussein. It will shore up her "street cred". The average November voter is too involved with American Idol and Oprah to care.
But I'm saying we should not waste time chasing ghosts from 1968.
If Hillary can't be beaten with 2007 data, she can't be beaten, period.
ping .. get your reading glasses out.
It would be interesting to compare the wording of her thesis with the words in that interview with Der Spiegel in Germany during her book tour.
From some of the translated quotes, that interview contained several supportive statements endorsing socialistic approaches to global issues.
[I have only seen an Internet-translation of the article. It would be interesting to see a version translated by someone who has the capability. That article, from the quotes I read, could be a real hot potato for the Senatorette.]
It's a shame that such effective security measures are not enforced at the National Archives in Washington.
You are assuming that the thesis that is visible now is the thesis that was written then ......
I'd be hard pressed to remember the pearls of wisdom I committed to paper that many years ago. All I can really remember is that I knew pretty much everything
BTW, do you suppose that if someone swiped a few documents from Wellesley by stuffing them into his britches, the incident would be shrugged off with a laugh?
My thought as well.
Ditto. See my post #16.
If Sandy Burger can switch/take/steal classified documents right under the fed's nose, I'm sure creating a more moderate thesis is not a problem.
Aha! A conspiracy!
Any font experts around?
Pray they don't run together. She could finance one heck of a run.
Maybe onyx can explain where she got that quote, huh?
And isn't it interesting that Mr. Dedman left out the part about Soros.
This thing has to be so stultifyingly boring that we probably won't wake up until well into her second term.
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)
This brilliant Alinsky-clinton observation by beyond the sea is the perfect segue to an analysis of Alinsky's influence on hillary clinton... which leads inexorably to hillary rodham's closely guarded Wellesley thesis. (Plan to do an extended piece on that shortly.)
In the Wellesley thesis, hillary discussed "how to change the American political culture." This discussion occurred in the context of a tribute to the leftist political organizer, her mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Does missus clinton reveal her own thoughts on the radicalization and even balkanization of the American political process? We can't yet say with certainty because the thesis has been sealed--closed to public scrutiny--from the moment missus clinton insinuated her radicalizing, balkanizing, liquidating self onto the national political stage.
If I had to guess, I would say she adopted Saul Alinsky's theories and practices without modification: hillary clinton exhibits no creativity, no vision of her own and tends to glom onto the latest fashion, whether it's Alinsky's Stalinist methods... or New Age occultism, recall her attraction to the teachings of
- Marianne Williamson, who some described as a "Jewish charismatic spiritualist"
- Ken Scott Nateshvar, yogi to the stars
- and the pièce de résistance, Jean Houston, the Director of the Foundation for Mind Research.
Houston was described by some as a "New Age" author who "studied psychic experiences and mystical connections to historical figures and other worlds." When the story of the Houston connection became public Houston became known as hillary clinton's "Eleanor Roosevelt Conduit."
- Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch (or its facile alliteration).
There is a great emotional likeness there too. Thank you for putting the photos side by side.
On Alinsky (http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html)
For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don't have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer -- especially a paid organizer from outside -- must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization."--beyond the sea
Is your objection about Hillary's thesis connected to the length of time that has elapsed or the age of the candidate at the time? What is the standard that determines relevancy for any such information?
To me, it her thesis could be related to policy positions she currently holds, e.g., socialized health care, then her thesis is relevant and should be examined and exploited.
True, but it would still be a useful data point, if only to demonstrate how far your views had changed.
When I was 15 or 16, Saul Alinsky was invited to speak at my high school. He was treated like royalty (although I'm not sure that I fully grasped the meaning of his brand of politics) and I shot two rolls of Kodachrome portraits of him while he was speaking. When I was 20, I was a registered Democrat and I thought that libertarians were wierdos (well, there's a contingent on FR that still thinks that libertarians are wierdos). By the time that I was 21, though, I had had my epiphany and was well on my way towards my current brand of politics. The change in my thinking by age 21 mirrored my growing understanding of the world and the maturing of my intellect. Can't say that about Hillary, though...
It can even be frightening to read my own FR posts from last year. lol
The instructor I had was a commie pinhead.
I intentionally wrote a thesis that would sound like he had written.
I got my A and wondered if the commie-pinhead knew that he had been duped.
Looks like onyx has a following :-)
You will have the measure of the student and the adult she's become by reading with a careful eye.
Let's hope your pearls of wisdom did not include attacking your own country.
Wow, Zeppo, your post is why I love FR; I looked for it and couldn't find it! Fabulous.
Won't onyx be surprised when she wakes up and discovers she's an "anonymous commentator?"
This is simply Mein Kampf, Passages, Communist Manifesto and Run Spot, Run; Run Hillary, Run..... all rolled into one insult to America.
Yes, it does!
and STARWISE and kcvl were nice enough to provide the Cliff Notes of the thesis in the following posts!
Long live FR!!
Bump to that! Just shows that the Clintons know how to get things done, huh?
Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Sounds like Hillary's golden rule. In fact, this rule sounds like the principle on which all Democrats live, and use as their main way of campaigning. All Ridicule, and no substance.
Your point is all well and good, but just exactly why was it sealed by the President of the United States of America for nearly a decade? There's gotta be a reason for this highly unusual action.
The Clintonistas impress me as primarily a propaganda and spin operation with very little substance or accomplishment. I think that fits with " Alinsky's tactic -- picking a target, freezing it, personalizing it and polarizing it" in a clinton war room. Whatver did we do without these greedy, power hungry, polarizing self-promoters?
Ain't that the truth...Back then I was a card carrying ACLU member etc etc ...thought we, the U.S. could support/save the world....How things change....
Very perceptive and compelling analysis...
Let's have a look at some MORE of Ms. Clinton's past writings/work:
She violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons. IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by her authorized biographer as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses.
Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events. That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores.
Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course of our investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form."
On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the case ... The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment."
During my 14-year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. With the exception of Ms. Rodham, Doar and Nussbaum, I recommend all of them for future positions of public and private trust.
Jerry Zeifman (email@example.com) is the author of "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot," which describes the above matters in more detail.