Hillary's Thesis

[Timbuk3]

I ran across this yesterday. Moderator, please feel free to move or delete if it's a duplicate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372

Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis
Clinton White House asked Wellesley College to close off access

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.

But can an academic paper from nearly 40 years ago really unlock the politics and character of any former student, much less the early Democratic front-runner for the White House?

This is your chance to decide before the political spin machines get their hands on it.

I don't agree that a thesis someone wrote as an assignment, 38 years ago when they were an undergraduate senior, is indicative of who they are today. It's interesting, though, that it's become a RW conspiracy theory. The RW fascination with the "clenis" is still strong, too, as is their fascination with all things sexual (HPV vaccine, "the sanctity of marriage", punishing women who become pregnant outside of marriage, support for laws against "sodomy", etc) so it should probably come as no surprise that they're pre-occupied with, and terrorized by, the thought of a woman President.

(Don't misunderstand me, here. The one thing I'm sure about in the primaries is that I won't be voting for Hillary, but I will still vote for her over any GOP candidate in the general election if she's the nominee.)

Anyhoo, it's an interesting article that's worth a read if only because it may provide some insight into why Hillary ("Hillabitch", "Hitlery", "Billary") is such a polarizing figure in politics.

[Spinzonner]

1. Well, some (kinds) of people

just define themselves based upon what they're against and what they can hate instead of what they're for.

[Double T]

2. The rethugs fear BOTH Clintons and now Hillary more than ever.

Take a look at what the rethugs are serving up for possible Presidential candidates, do YOU want any of those scoundrels to be your next President?? Didn't think so!! Support YOUR Democratic candidate of choice and vote for them in the primaries, then support and vote for the Democratic nominee for President in November 2008. If Hillary is the nominee, she absolutely needs YOUR support and vote; there truly is a vast RW conspiracy and she is and will be the target of their smear campaign.

[Tellurian]

3. Yes, Philip Shore's duplicate of this topic has been thoroughly debunked in GDP..

Shore's wide eyed appeal fell very short in the TRUTH telling department.

Avoid any advise from this individual.

[Selatius]

4. Even if it does reflect her current attitudes, I don't think being influenced by socialism is bad.

If you are in favor of things like universal health care and funding for public education, you are landing closer to the socialists than to the capitalists on the socialist-capitalist continuum. (Or the traditional left-right sliding scale)

The big question is where on the sliding scale of libertarian-authoritarian does one stand on. Most people are in between the two opposites, and a few such as Gandhi were closer to the libertarian end.

If you think crap like the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act are good things, let me give you a clue: You're probably closer to the authoritarian end than the libertarian end.

It's the authoritarian leftists the right uses as a bogeyman to keep everybody else on the left "in control."