Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis (Quotes from Free Republic)
MSNBC ^ | 3/2/07 | Bill Dedman

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 Clinton’s 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 women’s college outside Boston. With Clinton’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acdc; awelleslywench; hildabeast; hillary; hillarythesis; thesis; thunderthighs; wickedwitch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last
"Just last month, an anonymous commentator lamented on the conservative Web site Free Republic, "She's a Marxist. Saul Alinsky's student. I sure wish we could unearth that sealed thesis of hers that she wrote at Wellesley.""
1 posted on 03/02/2007 5:01:03 AM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
You know, I think Hillary Clinton is an extremely dangerous woman and I will do everything in my power to prevent her election to the presidency - but if you read what I wrote when I was 21 it would tell you nothing about my thinking now.

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.

2 posted on 03/02/2007 5:06:03 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

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.


3 posted on 03/02/2007 5:12:09 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
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.

LOL. But it sounds as though wisdom has come with age in your case. The same can't be said for Hillie.

4 posted on 03/02/2007 5:18:27 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

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.


5 posted on 03/02/2007 5:19:34 AM PST by Fresh Wind (Vaclav Klaus: "A whip of political correctness strangles their voice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
it sounds as though wisdom has come with age in your case. The same can't be said for Hillie.

Agree.

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.

6 posted on 03/02/2007 5:20:16 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

ping .. get your reading glasses out.


7 posted on 03/02/2007 5:21:11 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Seeing as the Clinton's are the most untrustworthy people on this planet, it is more then likely the original Thesis was replaced by one more palatable to the general population.

Maybe the ink or paper on what is purported to be her Thesis can be analyzed to determine its age.
8 posted on 03/02/2007 5:21:55 AM PST by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Not to worry.... since anyone can get to it and read it, I expect a FOH or FOB will get hands on it and Berger-ize it. It'll be gone in a matter of days now.
9 posted on 03/02/2007 5:22:34 AM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

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.]


10 posted on 03/02/2007 5:22:46 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
"A visitor to the Wellesley campus is buzzed in to the wood-paneled archives, but only after storing coat and briefcase in a locker outside."

It's a shame that such effective security measures are not enforced at the National Archives in Washington.

11 posted on 03/02/2007 5:23:40 AM PST by Savage Beast (MESSAGE TO BUSH: Free U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton; neverdem; Howlin; Congressman Billybob; Fresh Wind

You are assuming that the thesis that is visible now is the thesis that was written then ......


12 posted on 03/02/2007 5:25:40 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

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
/snicker


13 posted on 03/02/2007 5:26:12 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

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?


14 posted on 03/02/2007 5:26:16 AM PST by Savage Beast (MESSAGE TO BUSH: Free U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

My thought as well.


15 posted on 03/02/2007 5:26:52 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
I read the article and have two observations. Note that they reveal almost nothing about the thesis and mostly focus on what she said about Alinsky in an historical way, not her opinions. Note also that this is really a preemptive strike. Out of all the media outlets that could have done this story it is no coincidence that it was first covered by a sympathetic MSNBC.
16 posted on 03/02/2007 5:27:31 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

bttt


17 posted on 03/02/2007 5:28:01 AM PST by DocRock (What would Solomon Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Ditto. See my post #16.


18 posted on 03/02/2007 5:28:35 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

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.


19 posted on 03/02/2007 5:31:14 AM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Aha! A conspiracy!

Any font experts around?


20 posted on 03/02/2007 5:31:45 AM PST by Fresh Wind (Vaclav Klaus: "A whip of political correctness strangles their voice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Interesting thought.


21 posted on 03/02/2007 5:33:03 AM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Jim Noble; onyx
Me thinks this author is a liar:

To: ohioWfan

Pray they don't run together. She could finance one heck of a run.

13 posted on 02/11/2007 9:34:59 AM PST by onyx (DEFEAT Hillary Clinton, Marxist, student of Saul Alinsky & ally and beneficiary of Soros.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Maybe onyx can explain where she got that quote, huh?

And isn't it interesting that Mr. Dedman left out the part about Soros.

22 posted on 03/02/2007 5:33:39 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
I think that is exactly what happened. It wasn't available when HClinton was running for NY Senate, but now it is?
Somebody switched it out and is now trying to present it as the 1969 version. Total Clinton lies and BS.
23 posted on 03/02/2007 5:33:47 AM PST by ishabibble (ALL-AMERICAN INFIDEL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Clinton's 92-page thesis

This thing has to be so stultifyingly boring that we probably won't wake up until well into her second term.

24 posted on 03/02/2007 5:33:53 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"but if you read what I wrote when I was 21 it would tell you nothing about my thinking now."

- But this is no normal university assignment, churned out over the weekend to meet a deadline. It was a 92 page thesis presumably produced after great thought and a thorough review of Alinsky and his writings. The writer of this story goes to great lengths to downplay Alinsky's Marxist teaching while playing up those few instances where Hitlery mildly disagrees with his tactics (but not his objectives).
If this thesis had been done by George Bush, his detractors would be going over it with a fine tooth comb to find evidence of his radicalism and wouldn't hesitate to lift his words out of context to prove it.
25 posted on 03/02/2007 5:34:32 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; NonValueAdded; All
OTOH, if her thesis is actualized by her recent history and current actions...
STALINIST RISING?
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)


 

From HILLARY "Zelig" CLINTON: WHEN A CONGENITAL LIAR'S RUTHLESS AMBITION EXCEEDS HER ABILITY:


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).

by Mia T, January 3, 2006
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers
+ Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


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


26 posted on 03/02/2007 5:36:13 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Do you believe that that Bill Clinton's letter to his draft board and the efforts he made to avoid the draft were germane in 1992 and 1996? Does it matter if Bill or Obama used cocaine in their 20s? Would it matter if a candidate had a felony on his record that he committed when he was 21? Or that he/she belonged to the KKK or Communist party when they were in their 20s? Was it germane/relevant that Kerry's antiwar activities [when he was in his mid twenties] be brought up?

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.

27 posted on 03/02/2007 5:36:15 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Wellesley College is a very easy drive from me.I think I'll go down today and take a peek.
28 posted on 03/02/2007 5:36:46 AM PST by Gay State Conservative ("The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."-Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
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.

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...

29 posted on 03/02/2007 5:38:29 AM PST by Zeppo (We live in the Age of Stupidity. [Dennis Prager])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zot; The Shrew; Nick Danger

Ping.


30 posted on 03/02/2007 5:47:10 AM PST by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
if you read what I wrote when I was 21 it would tell you nothing about my thinking now.

It can even be frightening to read my own FR posts from last year. lol

31 posted on 03/02/2007 5:47:44 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Howlin; AZRepublican
Just last month, an anonymous commentator lamented on the conservative Web site Free Republic, "She's a Marxist. Saul Alinsky's student. I sure wish we could unearth that sealed thesis of hers that she wrote at Wellesley."

See the actual post by onyx referenced in the MSNBC article.

32 posted on 03/02/2007 5:54:25 AM PST by Zeppo (We live in the Age of Stupidity. [Dennis Prager])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
I remember writing one of these things in college.

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.

33 posted on 03/02/2007 5:55:14 AM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo; onyx; Howlin

Looks like onyx has a following :-)


34 posted on 03/02/2007 5:58:20 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
If you want the short course on Hilary, and Mr. Bill, just rent the old Penthouse film, 'Caligula.'
35 posted on 03/02/2007 6:00:45 AM PST by Leisler (REAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WALK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It was sickening enough to read the first couple of chapters of her biography. The one she got all those millions of dollars for, right before she became a senator.

You will have the measure of the student and the adult she's become by reading with a careful eye.

36 posted on 03/02/2007 6:01:03 AM PST by OldFriend (Swiftboating - Sinking a politician's Ship of Fools by Torpedoes of Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Let's hope your pearls of wisdom did not include attacking your own country.


37 posted on 03/02/2007 6:02:01 AM PST by OldFriend (Swiftboating - Sinking a politician's Ship of Fools by Torpedoes of Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo; onyx; Mo1

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?"


38 posted on 03/02/2007 6:05:40 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
As I read the comments below, I see many discounting this document. They do so so at their Conservative intellectual and tactical peril.

The Wellesley years are critical to understanding Hillary, and especially to understanding why she is so dangerous.

She entered that very exclusive women's school a church-going, rather asexual, moderately conservative Republican. She left Wellesley a actively gay-friendly radical leftist, bent on the destruction of the United States, or at least the destruction of its then-current form of government.

Along with her valedictory diatribe against Senator Edward Brooke, a Black republican from Massachusetts, these documents are both "birth certificates" and early life histories of the Hillary we see today.... and they are more. They are a road map to 1992... and 2008

Along with her first experiences with the radical priest who took her to see MLK, these are the years that made Hillary what she is today. Her years since have made her more brittle, more hate-filled and more skilled at hiding her true feelings, but never forget that these documents record the thoughts, plans and dreams of a far-left intellectual toddler in the first years of her radical life.

These years were filled with campus radicalism, all night "bull sessions" with her roommates; women who have now openly "come out," and her own dreams of "mattering."

Most of us were smart enough to follow the dictate to "as an adult, put away childish things." Hillary has only become more committed to the sophomoric and sapphic logic that permeated her college days.

In addition, she is even more angry at the world because of the price she paid to become a public figure. Hillary without Bill would be a boring lawyer, stuck in some nameless government agency. Hillary with Bill became a public figure, and a woman who is, deep in her soul, embarrassed to her core every day by the man who fathered the child she needed for the public's acceptance of her "mother" role.

She has not changed one iota. She has simply become more skilled at hiding her beleifs and plans. To read these documents will be to read a CAT scan of her plans for "Hillary's America.".

This is simply Mein Kampf, Passages, Communist Manifesto and Run Spot, Run; Run Hillary, Run..... all rolled into one insult to America.

39 posted on 03/02/2007 6:07:39 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; onyx; kcvl; STARWISE

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!!


40 posted on 03/02/2007 6:08:00 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Bump to that! Just shows that the Clintons know how to get things done, huh?


41 posted on 03/02/2007 6:09:10 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Image hosted by Photobucket.comlotta links in the article except to her rant, er thesis...
42 posted on 03/02/2007 6:09:39 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"Personalize it"
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/2/


43 posted on 03/02/2007 6:10:08 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

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.

44 posted on 03/02/2007 6:13:30 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

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.


45 posted on 03/02/2007 6:14:27 AM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; onyx; Howlin
WOO WOO HOO !!

Onyx -- YES !

Boo Yah !!

46 posted on 03/02/2007 6:15:38 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo

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?


47 posted on 03/02/2007 6:15:52 AM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"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"

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....

48 posted on 03/02/2007 6:20:38 AM PST by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Very perceptive and compelling analysis...


49 posted on 03/02/2007 6:22:52 AM PST by Zeppo (We live in the Age of Stupidity. [Dennis Prager])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

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 (jzeifman@yahoo.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.


50 posted on 03/02/2007 6:24:09 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson