Here's Barbara Olson's take on Hillary's thesis, a copy of which was in her possession.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38835fe34c9e.htm
I haven't read all the articles or your link, which I've seen before, but what I heard today was that she originally didn't believe in 'big government'.
That her thesis views were anti to Dem agenda! Think I've got that right.
“But nowhere in her thesis — or in her later life — does she seem to recognize the classical liberal critique that the relentless pursuit of power is antithetical to democracy.“
But the journalist, Dedman, states an opposite conclusion, a more favorable, foresighted Hillary, even quoting from the exhibited document, hinting perhaps that this exhibited document is a rewrite which weaves solutions to critiques into a rewrite (and that’s why it is longer than the original 75 pages) in order to make the Rodham rodent more attractive and brilliant in foresight … when in actuality hindsight and strategic rewrite addressing decades of critique aims to create a new image for Hillary. But for all the creative lies and fabrications and substitutions, she remains the power crazed socialist she was in 1969.
From Dedman’s article:
In the end, she judged that Alinsky's “power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” — overriding national issues such as racial tension and segregation. Alinsky had no success in forming an effective national movement, she said, referring dismissively to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.” … Putting Alinsky's Rochester symphony threat (the fart-in) into academic language, Rodham found that the conflict approach to power is limited. “Alinsky's conclusion that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board ‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote.
Dedman goes on to write of this miraculous exhibit:
“In spite of his being featured in the Sunday New York Times," she wrote of Alinsky, "and living a comfortable, expenses-paid life, he considers himself a revolutionary. In a very important way he is. If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”
Folks, this sanitized, updated, transformed, then exhibited Thesis doesn’t sound at all like the same Thesis Barbara Olsen read for her writing of Hell To Pay. I do extensive research for writing books. I understand the process of digging and assimilating, then synthesis and exposition. I trust our precious BKO to have synthesized the truth of Hillary Rodent-rodham over this Clinton servant posting at MSNBC.
Does the following Dedman opine sound like honesty, or sycophancy? …
That doesn't mean, said the professor of political science (Alan H. Schschter of Wellesley College), that we won't see an Alinsky-Clinton attack ad. One can envision black-and-white photos of Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky, wearing remarkably similar Coke-bottle glasses, while the words scroll by: "radical ... socialist? ... exceptional charm ... sealed in the archives." … But at its heart, her mentor (Schechter) says, the Alinsky-socialist-Rodham connection is a falsehood. "My conclusion, she was already thinking in terms of practical politics, what works, what doesn't, more than on ideology," Schechter said. "She wouldn't have paid any attention to whether Alinsky was a Marxist.”