bump
FWIW, I appreciate your dedication to the HRC issue.
I look forward to each new offspring in your posts.
The work you must go through to compile, maintain, and generate new output deserves more respect than it has been getting lately.
The thesis. HRC would not have ordered it kept hidden, unless what was in it would be harmful to her career. The only way it would get released would be if it had been laundered first by a virtuoso team of analysts and consultants.
The reason it is even being revealed is because she has spies that monitor FR and that is one of the issues that has been brought up that were a threat to her.
So, to defuse that threat, they laundered, then manufactured the release through a third party. Then it looks like someone found the goods, but no gold at the end of the rainbow.
Those who critiqued what they imagined was in it, are suppose to be made to look like fools, to the public.
As you are well aware, we are dealing with a feminist lesbian socialist who did whatever it took to reel in Bill and keep him. This included tolerating and covering for his affairs, to keep his career going so she could use it in the future. She gave in and did things that a feminist lesbian would find intolerable in order to support her long term goal, so her mind is cemented to the principle that she now deserves to be the most powerful leader in the world, power being the key word.
“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.”