You wrote: “What is significant is what Hillary says or opines, not the quotes she takes from Alinsky.”
In fact the two are linked seamlessly as anyone can see when reading this document. That’s why the WaPo cals it an “Ideological Touchstone”. Hillary clearly is using Alinsky’s experience, tactics, and thought as the intellecutual point of departure from which she forms her own life plan.
But I am sure that obfuscating this is an important part of the line of defense which will be taken by Hillary’s backers — to the extent that they are actually confronted with this. 5500 page views on Free Republic isn’t quite the same as an article in NYT WSJ WaPo or a feature on FOX or CBS.
As for the GOP, what they do is up to them. It is a long way to Election Day. For all I know, the Dems will nominate Obama who is also an Alinsky acolyte. (see link:)
Great read:
“For Clinton and Obama a common ideological touchstone”
LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html
You must bear in mind that Alinsky is more than just someone whose writings she read from books. Alinsky knew her personally and was a mentor to her! The mere fact that she chose Alinsky as the topic for her thesis is significant in itself!
Obama couldn’t have been an Alinsky acolyte in the same sense that Hitlary was. That’s because Alinsky died in 1972 when Obama was just a child. On the other hand, as I pointed out, Hitlary knew Alinsky personally as an adolescent and young adult.
From the WaPo article: “In the end, Clinton gave Alinsky mixed reviews, admiring his charisma and his goal of democratic equality while questioning the usefulness and staying power of a small-bore approach based on stirring up conflict in the inner city.”