Absolutely agree. Probably most conservative Americans with degrees would cringe if we were required to defend our senior papers, masters theses or dissertations today. Heaven knows I sure would.
Those things are usually written to satisfy the ideological inclinations of the almost universally left wing faculty committees who will review them & for most people what we wrote then is in no way representative of who we are now.
So it makes the people who try to condemn her with it look to the rest of the country, at least to those folks who had to write them during their own academic careers, like they're unfairly grasping at straws b/c they have nothing better to get her on - when nothing could be further from the truth, there's plenty!
Its not that her senior thesis isn't mandatory reading for those of us who want to understand where's she's coming from (Hillary Care alone proves she, unlike us, is still very much in the thrall of socialist ideals TODAY), but any effective public strategy to minimize her support from the voters will have to come from what she's saying today & what she's done in office in the US Senate & in pseudo-office as co-president.
The exploitation of her thesis to try to cultivate sentiment against her with rank & file voters in 2007-08 carries the almost certain guarantee it will backfire.
Backfire? Feel free to send some 2007 links when you have time, then media emails of those who will report it after column verifications.
You just stated re: Hillarycare that the socialist ideals are still there... so in this case it's relevant and not a past phase.
Maybe you're right. Just like we shouldn't care about her flouncing/breaking the law re: Nixon impeachment/many scandals/FBI files... etc.. I'm sure that was then and this is now. Let's not look at the Black Panthers she used to represent, FALN or anything else... a phase maybe. Maybe we need to look at who the cream of the MSM happens to be now... ex Clinton folks or network owners who throw fundraisers for her.
The same way she came out and said to the anti-war folks a couple years ago "I've studied this for a decade, it has to be done" re: Saddam, it has an effect on what she says now.
We have to know the whole person as well as her record (which would never reach the MSM btw). Have you witnessed in print or the MSM talking head shows that she never attended one memorial/funeral after 9/11, that her hubby didn't think it important to visit WT in '93... or where all that money went from the fed for 9/11?
Oh, but we spent plenty of time addressing smears from the left re: ANG docs, gay daughters and any past real or imagined subject (small pertaining to the real danger). Worked out real nice during this last election, didn't it?
We have terrorist attacks all over the world... do you see them in the MSM? No... it's all about Iraq's death count, as if that's the only theater in the WOT (The Stan recently... only because Cheney lived). Responsible reporting. I guess the Path to 9-11 was a waste as well... why relive that? Who cares if nothing was being done, right? Who cares if she was there at the time... she wasn't president.
But I feel a moonbat twinge coming on re: her past.
I usually dig... and post new info as well;
Not now, i'll just scour for news everyday that may show Hillary's record and gives a true picture of her as senator on the hill and here in NY. I'll post the soundbites of the day by AP and the MSM from Hillary and take them as gospel, and let the polls fall where they may.
I wouldn't want to worry that 'people think' we have nothing else. s/