This will be my usual inelegant "fast grab, cut & paste"-- I will follow up with two more replies to get the ball rolling.

Here are some tactical points, observations, and general commentary from the top link which I believe are very helpful:

The tactics in my opinion have to include humor, making her an object

of laughing at, and cerebral. If we keep harking back to old stuff,

whitewater, fbi files, etc, I don't think it will work. I think we need

to unmask her. She has tempers, she has a tin ear and poor judgement at

times. With the right kind of pressure she will show her colors but

only if the person unmasking her does it in such a way that he or she

is not the object of vilification ala Ric Lazio.

271 posted on 12/07/2003 10:39:44 AM EST by cajungirl

But the truth is, she is a formidable candidate and it will take far

more work on our part to see her downed by defeat.
And if we really want to defeat her, along with a good book to give

out, make a number of copies of THIS and hand it out, and explain it to

all friends and neighbors on the fence in election season, 2004!!!This

is IMPORTANT.

If Hillary throws herself into the race next year, the following

paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends

who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it

please, or bookmark it for the future, because it goes right to her

very inapropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she

ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and paint a very

positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed

the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at

the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to

her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.

In the event she gets in, you and I owe it to the country to hand this

out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence in 2004,

and help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is. She will

continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the

media is quite willing to protect her and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it

will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

****** In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a

research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon

panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its

mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri

Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and

the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s

book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who

seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s plan for the future of American

families.

The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of

the “universal entitlement state” was an inevitability, and the best

thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival.

Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education

over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should

government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s

lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or

harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the

nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and

counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family

is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage

provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”

More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for

undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider

outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the

section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary

for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents

from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to

have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult

doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental

notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or

expelling disruptive students.

But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for

developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for

children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment

to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates

for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both

children and parents need canny advocates."

The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in

public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable

individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to

represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would

seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring

class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages

their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.

This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and

want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it

really time for the government to take even more control and

responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think

the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way

either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if

Hillary jumps in.

In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary

Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and

political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the

Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article

published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she

advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the

father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can

be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre.

(“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay

the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)

In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of

their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals

are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves

and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their

position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such

arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation

system.”******

This ‘It Takes a Village Idiot’, Hillary Rodham Clinton, belongs

NOWHERE remotely near the Presidency!

244 posted on 12/07/2003 10:27:40 AM EST by thesummerwind

And that solution is?
In post # 244.

I know she can be beaten, and I feel she is running. I believe she can

be stopped, if those on the election-fence really got to know her.

It will take a grassroots effort all over the country. But it CAN be

done. If each person, all over the country who really cares, takes the

TIME to influence 20 or 30 folks in their neighborhoods, at their work,

or in their families, etc., we could stop her. It just takes an effort

by all of us. It's not difficult or complicated, but it must be done,

and it will take all of us.

Let's face it, most Americans don't know Hillary at all. And, they're

not goint to be taught about her by the mainsream media! Therefore it

is up to us. The information just in post # 244 is enough to persuade

most decent Americans that she belongs nowhere near the Presidency.

I have to go now, but I'd like to talk about this later with anyone who

wishes. It's more important than nearly anything.

410 posted on 12/07/2003 11:26:03 AM EST by thesummerwind

Donate Barbara Olsen's Hell to Pay to your local library. Give it to

friends for Christmas.

227 posted on 12/07/2003 10:12:53 AM EST by Peach

a Hillary file would be great. I agree with the idea that to defeat her

we cannot make ourselves look like crackpots, woman haters, etc. We

have to unmask her and make her comments known. I think her calling

herself the affluent intelligentsia just might hurt her. But if she

loses control in public or private and the details get out,,,that would

be a good thing.

426 posted on 12/07/2003 11:33:41 AM EST by cajungirl

You are correct in your analysis and your call that we adopt a smart

strategy to defeat her.
The fact is, she is viewed more benignly by the average person than

those of us who follow her slimy trail would like to believe.

Case in point: My sister works so catches a bit of The Today Show in

the morning and then Tom Brokaw at night to get an idea of what's going

on in the world. She'll ask me for the inside scoop if some story

catches her attention and she senses there's more to it.

When HRC returned from Iraq and appeared with Katie Couric the

appearance was roundly mocked and dissected here on FR, but when I

mentioned Couric's biased approach to the questioning, my sister agreed

that Katie did appear to favor Hillary, BUT, she thought HRC was NICE

about George W. Bush! My sister is not a Clinton fan and would not vote

for her, but that was the impression she was left with.

457 posted on 12/07/2003 11:46:39 AM EST by cyncooper

Interview with Tonken's attorney. Covering the Rich pardons. Fox asks

if the money went through Tonken from Rich to Clinton. Attorney won't

comment but says he leaves it to reporters to speculate. (I found that

answer quite interesting.) Also there is talk of the big name stars,

who they won't name today, who profited from charitable fundraisers,

but names will come out next week. Also, politicians profited from

these charitable fundraisers.
Apparently stars and politicos were skimming from the money collected.

470 posted on 12/07/2003 11:51:25 AM EST by Miss Marple

I simply could not believe that when she referred to Kosovo and Bosnia

as the correct way to run a war, not one person asked her why we are

still there, despite being assured by the former administration that

the troops would be sent home in a matter of months.

Not one reporter asked her where all the mass graves were that the

former administration assured us would be found. Thus far, I believe

approx. 4,000 bodies have been found.

476 posted on 12/07/2003 11:55:13 AM EST by Peach

Hillary is viewed quite benignly. I just spoke to my Democrat brother,

who admits that he doesn't "like" Hillary but thinks she would make a

great President because he says nice guys don't always make good

presidents.
I have listened at my son's gymnastics class and at poolside in Hawaii

as people who were reading her book discussed her. They feel for her

and identify with her about "what her husband did to her." They think

she is a great woman. I am not joking. There are a LOT of people out

there who would vote for her.

Plus, Hillary has a secret. She KNOWS that the women's magazine and TV

media have primed the pump for her. Women and girls, for the past 35

years, have been forcefed this cheerleading over women's achievements

in industry and politics. Most uninformed women (and that means most

women) have learned that the right answer is to want a woman President.

Hillary's secret is that she knows she will get the votes of millions

of women just by being a woman running for President. She will.

Don't kid yourselves. She is a formidable candidate, according to MANY.

MANY.

Who thought she could WIN NEW YORK?

The only way to stop her would be serious proof of misdeeds. And she

can spin all but a video of her shooting Vince. She is already

chattering about the vast right wing conspiracy again. She's trying to

cover everything in advance. She is very shrewd. Unelectable? When you

spin right, no one is unelectable. We need to work very hard, should

she become nominated at the convention, to produce clear facts that

will awaken the unwashed masses to the real Hillary.

498 posted on 12/07/2003 12:18:50 PM EST by Yaelle

A suggestion for any conversation that includes the 'qualities' of HRC

- to those who get their info from Katy, Tom, Diane Rehm, etc (a LOT of

women!) -

HRC is a classic example of Projection - she accuses others of the very

things that SHE is doing. Usually they are things no Republican has

even thought of doing!

When a two year old child bumps into a table and says "Mommy, the table

hurt me," it is a normal two-year old thought process. When a 57 year

old politician says it, she is trying to manipulate the listener.

I think that kind of logical explanation can work with some women.

506 posted on 12/07/2003 12:26:27 PM EST by maica

My point is that Dean is not as anti-clinton as some here would like to

believe. And as far as hillary running in 04, those that think she

can't win are delusional. The sooner people wake up and realize the

danger she poses, the better off we will all be. This woman would have

everybody in the print and TV media working for her election against

the "evil" Bush. Wait until we all see the made-up scandals that will

be spread about Bush and his entire administration in the months to

come. People need to be aware and understand that these "scandals" will

be repeated as Gospel by the media. Hillary IS electable because the

media will lie for her and cover for her while they make the President

look like an untrustworthy man, a Hitler, a man that lied to the

public, took all of our liberties away, lied about casualties and

deaths, has secret ties to bin Laden, knew about 9-11 and let it

happen...I could go on and on..get ready..it's going to get a lot

uglier than it is now.

533 posted on 12/07/2003 12:44:58 PM EST by Wait4Truth

Hillary polls 43% without even being an announced candidate. Per a late

FoxNews poll, GWB is polling at 43% re-electibility. 43% to 43%. And

she can read the figures too.

2004 could be as tight a race as 2000 was. Plus, Hillary has all the

elements of the Clinton political machine, which has been working

steadily and unceasingly since 1992.

547 posted on 12/07/2003 12:57:50 PM EST by TomGuy

She doesn't HAVE to do anything. Haven't you noticed? She didn't submit

to any difficult interviews when she ran for the Senate, and no one

asked her difficult questions at the very few press opportunities she

offered. There was no criticism of this during her campaign (unlike how

the press would have skewered a Republican candidate).
I personally think the best thing is to make her "un-cool," a

yesterday's news type.

I also thnk we need to think about how to deflate Hollywood's love

affair with this couple.

567 posted on 12/07/2003 1:28:47 PM EST by Miss Marple

I work with a bunch of 'em. They get their opinions from the lamestream

media soundbites and talk shows. They actually don't differentiate

Hillary from any other politician...
...We stand alone, with Fox News, Rush, Sean, sometimes O'Reilly,

sometimes Neal Boortz, the credible conservative commentators and

journalists between the American voting public and the sheer

cataclysmic disaster that Shrillery's election would mean. THIS IS A

WAR!!! We're fighting two wars on terror -- with the enemies from

without and the enemies within...

I know that anything I say to my co-workers about this issue is shot

down with "you're just defending Bush," reactions. People are cynical,

indifferent and just mouth the latest spin from the alphabet idiots or

Yahoo headlines. They are totally spoonfed their opinions .. AND ...

they will be voting in 2004.

Prayer .. lots of it, for wisdom for President Bush and his team,

prayers for all that will boost Pres. Bush's standing with the sheeple

.. that they grasp his innate decency and integrity .. supporting the

Pubbies .. keeping the lamestream media in check with emails, faxes,

etc., emailing your state politicians. They've been able to get away

with treating their constituents' opinions like so much dirt for years

.. but that was before the power of the internet. We have power now

that has to be employed.

577 posted on 12/07/2003 1:33:57 PM EST by STARWISE

Tonken, now deep in debt and legal trouble, is being investigated by at

least six state and federal agencies, including the FBI and the IRS.

Although Vanity Fair shows pictures of him schmoozing with Hillary

and/or Bill Clinton at four gala Hollywood fund-raisers, the Clintons

-- understandably -- have distanced themselves as far away from him as

they can. Tonken's name isn't even in the index of Hillary's new book,

"Living History."

636 posted on 12/07/2003 3:29:32 PM EST by kcvl

You and I will never have the time or opportunity to point out the

numerous skeletons in her closet, and all the small details of the

various situations to enough people to make a difference. We cannot

saturate the ariwaves with ads about these things without appearing

unduly negative on the first woman to have a chance to win the

presidency.
Yes. This is why the education of the public about Hillary MUST be done

on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Neighbor to neighbor. Everyone

who knows the details MUST go out before the election and convince a

number of those on the fence of the reality of this woman. I refer you

to Post #244 for instance.

It can be done. It's really very simple, but it will take an effort by

alot of people. And, there are enough.

680 posted on 12/07/2003 5:22:39 PM EST by thesummerwind

Here are some rules for dealing with the media during the election

season (or at any other time, for that matter):
1. Believe no stories based on unatributed sources. "High Republican

officials," "members of the administration," or "officials" are NOT to

be believed. For all we know the reporter made the whole thing up.

2. Pay attention to the fact that liberal press outlets, like the New

York Times, are actively attempting to divide Republicans. Stories that

push hot buttons for the right (especially if they contain unattributed

sources) should be looked at as Tokyo Rose-type propognda.

3. Do not let the leftists make a single issue the make or break item

for support of the president. We will see plenty of stories about how

"the Christian right is disappointed in Bush because...." Ignore these

stories.

4. Interviews with "men on the street" should be taken with a grain of

salt. The media picks people who will say what they want. Some

attention-seekers know this and conduct themselves accordingly. Quotes

from these people are suspect.

5. Watch out for slanted descriptions in sories. Often, the media will

choose negative descriptions for a benign event.

It is up to us to pay attention and refute the spin!

656 posted on 12/07/2003 4:29:41 PM EST by Miss Marple

Finally, here are some links from our friend doug from upland-- some old stories, some newer ones:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850133/posts

THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON: Episode #30 - Billy Dale, Get the H*ll Out of Here Right Now!
dfu | 2-23-03 | dfu

#1 - FJB
#2 - Children in Hospital
#3 - She Throws Coffee in Marine's Face
#4 - Dissing Health Care Execs Who Offered Solution
#5 - Hillary, the Commies, and the Black Panthers
#6 - Defiling the White House Christmas Tree
#7 - Hillary Calls the Police Murderers
#8 - How Did She Get Her Name?
#9 - Sister Frigidaire
#10 - Troopers and Secret Service as Servants
#11 - Beep, Beep, Get Out of My #$%&@&$ Way
#12 - Hillary Lied to Zeifman, Rigged Nixon Impeachment Protocols
#13 - It Takes a Village To Stiff a Waitress
#14 - Rape, Part 1
#15 - Rape, Part 2
#16 - Rape, Part 3
#17 - Hillary Doesn't Really Have a Goon Squad, Does She?
#18 - Algore Learns Lesson on Inauguration Day 1993
#19 - Strom Thurmond Meets the Hillary Express

#21 - Why Cops and Firemen Hate Hillary
#22 - The Wind Up, Here Comes the Pitch
#23 - Psssssst…Hey, Can You Watch My Husband?
#24 - Witches Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Race-Baiting Stones
#25 - Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue (Healthcare)
#26 - Madison Dies, Hillary Lies, What a Surprise (Part 1)
#27 - Madison Dies, Hillary Lies, What a Surprise
#28 - Semper Fido
#29 - Filegate; Who Hired Craig Livingstone?

Thanks for the effort....batten down the hatches!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, backhoe:

You are the BOMB with this compilations!

******NEW PING LIST: Hillary Clinton Research Ping List: Freepmail me if you want ON.******

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932434/posts

All Hillary, all the time...
various links | 06-20-03 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Will you explain how we add to this list? (Unless, of course, you'd like to be the guardian of this one, too......LOL.)

Thank you both- it's just a start, and I hope others will chime in.

Howlin, I'll pass your comment along to my wife and see if that gets me out of doing the dishes in the sink... ( ~groan!~ )

How is your bird doing?

I have told you before,You are our Encyclopedia,the go to guy.You ARE da Bomb!

You are FABULOUS!

I want on your Hillary ping list!

It's "our" ping list, kiddo. I'm not doing this one alone......LOL.

I'll collect the names though!

Excellent! Thanks.

Just got back from our party and surprise! You have really started working.

I need to change out of high heels, have a cup of tea, and pretend I didn't have two vodka martinis and THEN perhaps my brain will start to compute.

Thank you for what I believe will be an important source of information for us all as Her Shrillness begins to campaign "her way".

Please put me on any special "Hillary" ping list you may develop,

thanks Prairie

btt

Okay. I'm back in my comfey sweats and out of that dreaded cocktail heel outfit.

Brain is barely functioning; forgive me.

If you'll tell me a good time to communicate tomorrow after 8:00 a.m. I'll make sure I'm available.

I think I remember how to use a ping list; used to keep the list for the Malvo sniper shootings in Washington.

Are we permitted to link to Amazon? Would like to link and encourage people to gift others with Barbara Olsen's Hell to Pay book.

That's all my alcohol riddled brain can come up with tonight. LOL

Will you explain how we add to this list? (Unless, of course, you'd like to be the guardian of this one, too......

Oh duh! I meant to explain how to make fast links on the other post, and getting busy with this one, forgot.

( And no, other than keeping an eye out for disruptors or DU types, I'd rather not be the keeper- feel free to add anything relevant, anyone, anytime! )

To create those links you see above- and, this works with any webpage or site, not just Free Republic...

1- keep your browser open on the page you wish to link, open Outlook Express, and "create new mail." ( One caveat- OE has to have a tab punched which enables that new mail to show a toolbar on its bottom with "edit, source, preview" showing. You may have to poke around the upper toolbar, but somewhere among its choices is a tab that switches on the bottom 3-tab bar in new mail.

2- hilite, copy and paste the URL in your browser "address" box over to the new mail, go back and hilite, copy & paste the title, and any other info you want. Do this as many times as you like.

3- when ready to post, punching the "source" tab in the email reveals the html inside it- simply copy & paste that to where you need it.

This usually works with pictures, too- it can be quirky, so always preview with graphics, tables, and the like.

Please put me on any "Hillary" ping list you create. Thanks