Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis »

Posted by: okitech 1 year, 6 months ago

6.5

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 26

Propped: 39

Comments: 38

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

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.

Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 38

0%
SusanParrish1 year, 6 months ago

But Alinsky was no mere showman. He was a sometimes brutal seeker of power for others, schooling radicals with maxims such as "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."
Gee, who does that sound like?
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
  
  Karl Rove.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    SusanParrish1 year, 6 months ago
    
    Lol, be that as it may, I think Hillary definitely made a note of that particular statement.
    Obama '08!
    Reply
0%
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago

I don't particularly care for Hillary Clinton. I don't think that another polarizing figure is what America needs right now. I don't like her because of her politics, it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, despite the claims of some of my more liberal friends.
Reply
1 Reply
- 86%
  ADAGUY1 year, 6 months ago
  
  Okay, lets hear it, what is it about her politics that you don't like, and who are you supporting?
  Reply
100%
Helixbuilder1 year, 6 months ago

Who cares about commies they are dead!
Reply
0%
Amazing11 year, 6 months ago

Hillary is not my favorite person. I doubt that I would vote for her unless it was one of those "lessor of two evils" type of thing.
However, she wrote that when she was young. She did not join Alinsky even though a position was offered. And even at the time seemed to not agree with everything he said. I think we should take this with a grain of salt and look at what she's done lately. Like why she rejected Levin's amendment that would have made it much more difficult for the Iraq occupation to begin.
I myself have changed my mind on a number of things since reaching full adulthood. I used to hate asparagus. Now I love it. Used to love drinking milk. Now I can't stand it.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
  
  Agreed. Personally, I don't think that we should use anything (unless it was particularly aggregious) against anyone running for office unless they said it after they were 35 or already in office.
  I know that I've changed my views on many, many things since I grew up and I know I made some serious tactical errors that I would not make now. It's all part of the growing up process.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    Amazing11 year, 6 months ago
    
    When do I get old enough to not make any more mistakes?
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 60%
      Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
      
      Okay, stupid mistakes. Really stupid, damn I should have known better than that mistakes.
      I think that we stop making mistakes when they put us in the urn.
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        Amazing11 year, 6 months ago
        
        Aw, gee whiz. I was hoping someday to reach true perfection.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
        
        Well, unless you are going to live a really, really, really long time (and I hope you do!) then it is merely going to be going from one mistake to the other until the grave.
        It was like my wife (I've been married for 15 years, I KNOW better) asking me if she looked nice. I told her that I didn't like her shoes. Took me a week to calm her down.
        Reply
0%
GoldRush1 year, 6 months ago

To ignore the developing thoughts of youth is to ignore the best of history, going back thousands of years.
Most major social theory and thought was developed well before the philosopher was 35. Hillary will remain the greater of all evils, not because of who she might run againist, but because who she is. She has polarized the Democrats, she polarized her husbands administration, sought to drive a wedge through health care, opportunistically entered into New York politics and is seeking to continue her devisiveness into the next decade.
Hillary has repeatedly demostrated her penchant for broader application of socialism in the government. To enrich her further with power would undermine democracy and encourage a stronger more entrenched socialistic society for the generations to come.
Because of her philosophy, and in consideration of the need for a strong constitutional republic in the US, she will remain the greater of all evils.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
  
  I'm only going to say this once, because I'm tired of hearing it.
  Socialism, like communism is basically an economic system. It is not a political system. Neither, for that matter, is capitalism, it is also an economic system.
  There is simply no basis for the idea that socialism or communism for that matter will undermine democracy.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
    
    I've read the Communist Manifesto, please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, you know better than that.
    Communism is an economic/political system and socialism is an economic system. The only politics in the Manifesto, is that the people are part of a government that is in all ways completely democratic.
    I stand by my final sentence above, in that there is no basis for the idea that socialism or communism will undermine democracy. It is the use of a buzzword to provoke a response, it is not a logical or rational argument.
    Now, go ahead and post five or six quotes from someone to show that I'm wrong and we'll move on from there. LOL>
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Helixbuilder1 year, 6 months ago
      
      The Communist Manifesto is the theory; the practice however was quite different. Don't confuse the two!
      Reply
  - 0%
    amazed1 year, 6 months ago
    
    except.....
    that if the government owns all the means of production (socialism) then the government has all the economic cards in its hand, if the government controls all the money, wealth and production, then one cannot be truly free and many of the freedoms that do not directly rest upon economics are still likely to be compromised.
    While many of the countries that are socialistic (but not totally) in nature -- such as the northern European countries are not totalitarian, they do not enjoy the extent of personal freedom that a capitalistic society enjoys.
    By definition, capitalism cannot exist in a totalitarian society because totalitarianism demands total control of the population. There are a few autocratic capitalistic countries around, but as a rule, dictatorships will rarely grant entrepreneurs the freedom necessary to develop their enterprises.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
      
      If by 'freedom' you mean the absolute ability to do as one pleases, then there is no country on Earth that matches that description.
      Totalitarian societies generally do fit your description. However, one must not forget that fascism was the middle road between true communism and capitalism. It has some of the benefits of both. China and the US both function under a kind of 'fascist' system of government, in that there is regulation on industy and on behavior. In a true capitalist state there would be no regulation on industry whatsoever.
      Reply
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 6 months ago

And Ed brooke was a really nice man. I voted for him twice....
Reply
0%
cherev1 year, 6 months ago

Her ambition is matched only by her ruthless disregard for the lives of others.
Reply
0%
amazed1 year, 6 months ago

Any of you who have read any of my comments know that not only am I not a fan of Hilary's nor much of the liberal rhetoric, BUT...
we still have no idea what these thesis says or is about. It's 95 pages long, can't be posted and only limited amounts of it can be posted. I also suspect that the author isn't particularly a fan of Hilary's and therefore probably tried to cherry pick the more incendiary quotes from the paper. If that is, in fact, the case, then this seems to me to be a really mild thesis --especially considering the times and Hilary's age.
Hell, when I was in college, I was out there protesting VietNam and Nixon and Watergate and I-291 (generally just protesting because it looked so cool when the older people had done it)>
There's plenty of recent stuff that she's done since she "grew up" to impeach her character with.
This thesis thing is a non-starter.
Reply
67%
okitech1 year, 6 months ago

i'am sorry but the bottom line for me is that she could not engage that which was supposed to the closest and most sacred thing in the world. how can i trust her with something she is detattached from or has no keen personal interest.
Reply
1 Reply
- 57%
  amazed1 year, 6 months ago
  
  huh?
  Reply
50%
aniokly1 year, 6 months ago

Democrats have alway practiced the idea, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." We have been there, done that, and it was more harmful to the poor, and pitiful then helping them with a hand up, instead of a hand out.
Reply
3 Replies
- 0%
  Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
  
  Way to use your talking points from Rush.
  Please explain, without using buzzwords how the quote you stated is in any way a bad thing.
  Reply
- 50%
  ADAGUY1 year, 6 months ago
  
  "Democrats have alway practiced the idea, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." We have been there, done that, and it was more harmful to the poor, and pitiful then helping them with a hand up, instead of a hand out."
  Definitely, We are much better off to forget the "helping hand" ideas, and make them work in endless, meaningless jobs going nowhere, for peon wages. Then at least someone will benefit from their misery!
  Reply
- 100%
  moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 6 months ago
  
  The truly disabled and needy need a handout. Let us have the intelligence to discern when a person needs a handout or a handup. And let us continue to offer handouts to those who need them in the spirt of dignity for humanity.
  Reply
38%
braveone1 year, 6 months ago

a shame they hid Hillary's thesis,
nothing in the story to make Hillary a liability to Bill,
I saw a very intelligent woman investigating social issues and the world of politics.
Not voting for her, but admire the work and dedication that she and others endure to become politicians.
Reply
0%
ouzie-q1 year, 6 months ago

Ah the Hillary communist connection,
the distribution of state and private wealth for the claimed benefit of the common good. All citizens are purportedly equals under the auspices of Socialism.
Alas, we know this is not the case as the rulers soon rise to a echaleon in society unobtainable by the masses.
They begin to collect wealth and the signs and trappings of it accompany their newfound power. Hillary is a Socialist, as are most Democrats who mistakenly believe they can redirect wealth from say, military budgets (as in the Golden era of her Husband "Slick Willie")to pay for all nature of welfare and other social handouts. The sole purpose of which, is to effectively trade votes of their poor and minority imports for entitlements from the National Treasury.
Reply
4 Replies
- 80%
  moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 6 months ago
  
  How many wealthy people and coporations are receiving welfare? Subsidies, tax beaks, grants, government buy outs of surpluses- all welfare for the wealthy! Are these not government handouts Souzie? The government should help the wealthy stay wealthy and let the needy fend for themselves-some people have lost all sense of human dignity.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 75%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 6 months ago
    
    That is exactly what was intended with the phrase to provide for the general welfare.....John Winthrop and the Massachusetts Bay Colony based upon the notion of the general welfare, is properly dated from the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. Winthrop sought a republic in which the earth would be improved for the benefit of its citizens.
    ``The whole earth is the Lord's garden & he hath given it to the sons of men, with a general condition, Gen: 1.28. Increase and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, which was again renewed to Noah. The end is double, moral and natural, that man might enjoy the fruits of the earth and God might have his due glory from the creature. Why then should we stand here striving for places of habitation ... and in the meantime suffer a whole Continent, as fruitful and convenient for the use of man, to lie waste without any improvement.'
    
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 50%
      KingOfTruth1 year, 6 months ago
      
      Presaging Alexander Hamilton's proposals of 150 years later, in 1640 the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted for subsidies for textile manufacturing, and other subsidies designed to promote manufactures. The General Court also provided for the construction of an iron mill with blast furnaces, and rolling and slitting mills. In 1647, the Saugus Iron Works was established, the first automated, integrated industrial complex in the New World.
      This is further elaborated in the ``Report on Manufactures,'' in which Hamilton declares that the general interests of Learning, of Agriculture, of Manufactures, and of Commerce, are all within the purview of the General Welfare.
      Hamilton argued that the wealth, the independence, and the security of the nation are all connected to the prosperity of manufactures. Hamilton contended that: "Every nation ought to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply."
      
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 100%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 6 months ago
        
        Hamilton argued, manufacturing is in the interest of the entire nation, and the prosperity of manufactures, and the prosperity of Agriculture are inimately connected. Hamilton proposed aggressive measures to promote domestic manufacturing, tariffs, maintenance of monopolies, prohibition of some imports, prohibition of exports of certain raw materials necessary for domestic manufacturing, pecuniary bounties and premiums, a system of regulation of standards and inspections; development of a payments system; and promotion of a system of transportation of goods. As to using public funds, he argued that there is no better purpose to which public money can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a new and useful branch of industry; no Consideration more valuable than an addition to the general stock of productive labor.
        Hamilton declared that the Federal government had the right to promote manufactures under the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8.
        
        Reply
0%
ouzie-q1 year, 6 months ago

"A failed concoction and a thinly veiled votes for cash scheme." I suggest actually offering valid platforms, plans and proposals instead of the ever popular criticisms and conjecture of todays Leftanistas.
Shillary is a Commie, and for all you Che lovers...Commies ain't cool!
Reply
1 Reply
- 100%
  moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 6 months ago
  
  right wing rhetoric doesn't hold up to fact
  Reply
0%
AnvilHead1 year, 6 months ago

They do not fear communism they fear and effective organizer for democracy.
Reply
0%
AnvilHead1 year, 6 months ago

Conservative is the new word for Whig, which was the new word for Cavalier, Ie a supporter of the crowns unquestioned authority against the people. Sometimes it's valuable to recognize how we got into this mess.
Reply
1 Reply
- 90%
  KingOfTruth1 year, 6 months ago
  
  We got into the mess because there is too much liberalism going on.....demlib socialist neo commie liberalism, that is....
  Reply