If I ran for president and someone got a hold of my college papers, I’d have a lot of explaining to do. I was a Marxist back then. Like many Marxists, I also had issues with narcissism and depression. Many of those papers are downright embarrassing now.
On the other hand, I could explain my intellectual journey away from there. The question I would ask of Hillary is “explain your intellectual journey away from this thesis. How has your thought process changed?”
If we got an answer that sounded honest, I could respect that. I still wouldn’t vote for her, but I would respect her for answering the questions
The problem is that very little that Hillary says sounds particularly honest. She seems to have a focus group stuck in her head. When she said she’d always been a Yankees fan, for example, that on its face is possible. But there would have to be a story there.
How does a girl from the Chicago suburbs become a Yankee fan? A favorite uncle from Manhattan who took her to games? She thought Mantle was cute? But she never had a story. All she had was the poll-driven claim that she was always a Yankee fan.
If someone asked her about her thesis, she’d probably have six or seven poll-driven responses. “I still believe in social justice.” “As a mother, I’ve learned that you have to compromise.” Etc. Etc. But she’d be unlikely to tell the real story of her intellectual journey (if there was one) from that thesis to her current views. Hillary will do anything to keep the real Hillary from making an appearance.
Well said. Very well said.
When you read the thesis from front to back, you will see that there is no intellectual journey away from this thesis. This truly is the “Rosetta Stone” of Hillary’s life and thought. The things she says in this thesis are echoes every day in her public pronouncements.
LINK:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006855
If we got an answer that sounded honest, I could respect that. I still wouldn’t vote for her, but I would respect her for answering the questions
BINGO! Your post nailed it!
It would be hypocritical to take as gospel anything anyone wrote in college. But this should be a great starting point for any serious questioning on how her critical-thinking skills evolved from her senior year.
The question I would ask of Hillary is “explain your intellectual journey away from this thesis. How has your thought process changed?”
If she were to answer anything other than, "It Hasn't", then she would be lying.
A lifelong Yankees fan... from the suburbs of Chicago?
Named after Edmund Hillary, but born five years before he climbed Everest?
A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy which later had its allegations proven, and no apology ever ....
And on and on....
June 2004
“WE are going to have to TAKE things away from you on behalf of the COMMON GOOD”.
February 2007
“I have proposed a plan to take those Oil Company profits and invest them into clean sources of renewable energy”.
This b!tch is a commie rat... a stalinist devotee... and scumbag socialist... and you take up for her?
LLS
I highly doubt that Mrs. Clinton was ever a fan of the Yankees. Like you, I suspect her supposed fandom is merely a product of polls.
But, for what it is worth, the biggest Yankees fan I ever met was raised in a rural area a long, long way from New York City. I remember watching a number of games with him back in the glory days of Thurman Munson.
Of course it is poll driven, as is locality.
Now when she goes to campaign in Chicago, I'm sure she'll say she's always been a Cubs fan, and would really like to see them make it to the Super Bowl.
Hell's Bells....I was a card carrying ACLU member......My, how times change when you have responsibilities and bills to pay............
I thought your post was excellent.
I might add that I think there is a third possibility. It kind of dovetails with your "focus group" explanation, but it is really more of an explanation of why Hillary never seems "real." I believe it is possible to have NO intellectual or moral aspirations other than simply seeking power. In other words, I am not sure there is a "real Hillary"(your phrase) there anymore. In the beginning, there may be a small lump of desiring to redress social inequalities, or alleviate poverty, or attack institutionalized racism, etc, but the thing that overpowers men and women in politics is the raw unslaked lust for power. In the end, it becomes the goal itself, not the mean to attain the original goal (however noble or naive those goals may have been). CS Lewis's illustration of a victrola which just emptily spins out noise while no one is at the crank anymore is a good one. The platitudes are still there (maybe, if you ask for them), but what is pushing many people is simply the thirst for power. Martin Luther said that there were three great temptations to men in life. When they are young, they crave sex. When they are middle aged, they want money. But when they are mature, they lust for power. Hillary may have an estrogen tinge to this, but I believe it fits her just as well as most of the rest of the slime in DC.
It is also why FReepers who believe in the equation that "republican = good" and "democrats = bad" are naive and actually hurtful to the cause they profess. The key to this thing is NOT to get the right people in power to save the republic. Those people do not exist. The key is to devolve power by an insistence at the grass roots level of saying "no" to the siren lure of DC, whether it be to "protect us" from the visions of a caliphate or to take care of us or whatever else. I don't see that happening, if the general tone of posts on Free Republic is any indication.