2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary has served as president once before
President, that is, of the Wellesley College Young Republicans Club.
That was after she worked as a Goldwater Girl and during and before she interned for the House Republican Committee and for Nelson Rockefeller's campaign.
In contrast, no known history whatsoever of Bernie ever having any formal connection to the GOP.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)Elizabeth Warner used to be a Republican.
I would say most progressives do not consider that past resume' item to be disqualifying for a very blue Senate seat in Massachusetts.
The Democratic primary has been a success already -- a month before the first votes are cast -- because our three candidates are idea-driven and career-accomplished voices. This makes it very difficult for the Republicans to succeed, because victory on the GOP side means constant self-inflicted wounds. To win the GOP nomination, Republican candidates must be petty, narrow-minded, cold-hearted, anti-woman, anti-Science, and anti-Government, and, not least, they have to trot Jesus and God out every five minutes to assuage the fundies.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)But she never served any role within the GOP nor campaigned for any Republican.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)are making, but I still feel that both of these high-profile women, feeling more drawn to a wider circle and a more inclusive political construct, turned toward the Democratic Party -- the Democratic Party of perhaps the midwest and New England factions as opposed to the faction that sanctioned George Wallace so long in states like Alabama.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)I was 13 and did so because my Dad did.
The original post here is an example of how petty and desperate some people are getting in their attempts to smear Clinton.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)there are 7 siblings. The older five are Republicans; the younger two Democrats.
My parents thought Nixon was a sniveling mediocrity and they were drawn to the more vigorous and articulate John Kennedy. I didn't know any details because I was too young, but it was discussed at length in later years.
Of the 7 siblings, one of the Democratic sisters became chair of her county's Democratic organization. The oldest brother became chair of his county's Republican organization. they disagreed sharply on any issue you could name.
But they gave my generation of cousins the splendid gift of being the two closest siblings of the 7. They spoke respectfully to each other and demonstrated a genuine fondness.
What a good present to give to a teenager.
elleng
(130,895 posts)even tho 'my' candidate is the 'pure' Democratic candidate. I'm old enough to recognize that people grow and evolve; that's what LIFE is about.
I support candidates whose positions and plans and policies are consistent with mine, and who have the experience that will serve them/him/well in implementing our true liberal and progressive policies, and those policies and plans are GOOD.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)as a whole become more vigorously committed to its progressive platform.
The Republican cheat in elections. In states where they control the state legislatures, they gerrymander to ensconce Republican representatives.
If we are far more vigorous on the issues voters care about, it seems as if that's an effective antidote to some of the GOP cheating.
elleng
(130,895 posts)There was a good post today about how the Dem party has NOT done such. (madfloridian's op, maybe.)
Repugs control most state legislatures (I think it's a majority,) they've worked at it diligently, and Dems have miserably failed, reducing Howard Dean, who might have brought the party around, to a 'has been,' and now 'adopting' and 'turning' him. VERY sad. (WORSE than sad.) Without the states and localities, we're hopeless.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)ground, but it's not going to be easy.
I thought Howard Dean was a terrific chair. Would love to see him re-hired for that post.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)saltpoint
(50,986 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)I'm sure that if she makes it to the nomination she will abandon all pretence and run even further to the right.
Didn't trust her when she was First Lady, when she was a Senator and when she was Sec of State.
And despite her occasional inching toward a progressive platform, she's a big booster for corporations.
She's a chameleon - put her amongst working people, she becomes one. Put her amongst the fat cats, she espouses their values (which are her own in fact).
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Just because Bill did it, don't mean Hillary will, not!
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I don't like her Republican background but it was a long time ago, and she was raised by Republicans IIRC. Most of us either follow our parents' ideology or break out of it in early adulthood, so the latter could have been the case for Hillary.
But she advocates for many RW positions currently, or at least positions I think only the RW should suppport. And many "centrist" positions that benefit wealth and power rather than the 99%ers. That's extremely important to me.
The Warren comparison, as pointed out by someone else here, isn't all that relevant, Hillary was active in Republican campaigns and offices, whereas Elizabeth just voted Republican some of the time but as far as I know didn't work for them, big difference. Even that bugs me a lilttle about Warren, but her contemporary actions are impeccable and strongly held, which is far more important to me than her voting history of 20 or 30 years ago. I'd support Warren in a heartbeat, love Bernie though.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It's that when someone has fluctuated so dramatically so often, it's hard to believe that she even believes what she says.
It's like a friend I had who joined the young republicans in college. Probably not incidentally, she also joined a very exclusive, snobby sorority.
Then graduated and decided to become and environmental lawyer. Of course, it was not cool to be a republican among that crowd. So, while in law school, she started to identify as a Democrat.
Then, she married a very wealthy super liberal Democrat, but doesn't really walk the walk. Because, you should here her similarly positioned friends talk!
I think she and Hillary are very similar. They probably have some sincere beliefs of some kind, but all of these changes (and the apparent associations with external forces) make the proclamations seem completely superficial.
I think that what she and my friend profess to believe has more to do with external influences and personal gain, than a careful evaluation of facts and thoughtful deliberations.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)defending the civil rights of African Americans.
He was arrested while demonstrating for desegregated public schools in Chicago. (No big deal, says Sanders: You can go outside and get arrested, too! he jokes. Its not that hard if you put your mind to it.) He once walked around Chicago putting up fliers protesting police brutality. After half an hour, he realized a police car was following him, taking down every paper hed up, one by one. Are these yours? he remembers the officer telling him, holding up the stack of the fliers.
...
http://time.com/3896500/bernie-sanders-vermont-campaign-radical/
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...who gave his, "I have a dream" speech.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I knew he was arrested for all the right reasons i.e. civil rights, so googled it ... read first paragraph "It was the late 1950s, and Sanders was still a teenager, running to be class president at James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York."
and then posted. Bernie got his start in late 50s, but it took him a few hears to get arrested for all the right reasons.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)for no other purpose but to use the Democrats' political machine to run his presidential bid. Now he's suing the Democratic National Committee in federal court.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)In policy position, action, and mentality, he is far more a "Democrat" than Hillary Clinton ever was.
And any lawsuit against DINO Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be welcomed by all Democrats nationwide.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)First of all, Bernie filed a federal lawsuit against the DNC, not Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I think it's great you;re supporting Bernie. Every DEM candidate is 1000 times better than any Goper candidate.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Much as I dislike John Kasich and what he has done in Ohio, I would not support that statement. I also do not necessarily believe supporting third way democrats with warring tendency is necessary better than republicans who would fight not support such ideas. So 100 is a bit of a stretch. I think many people on here are concerned about a lot of right wing lite positions Hillary is taking now and that she may become much more right wing after she takes office due to her donors.
And by the way, Bernie fans are not supporting Bernie, we are supporting his ideals, especially his call to bring democracy and end rule by the oligarchy. Everything Bernie says is consistent with strong progressive values we support and Hillary is not. We may or may not vote for her. The third way and centrist took over our party after an embarrassing loss , maybe it would be better if third way and hillary loses so we can restore the democrats to support of the people rather than catering to large donors. But that is an individual decision. Are we content to let the continued erosion of our country , its environment, its the people,s financial security, their physical health, their climate. The donors to Hillary present these consequences if she listens to them as she has shown she would as a senator from New York. Politics and our choice should be better analyzed that rallying cries of any democrat is 100 times better than any republican, we have to consider both short and long term consequences. Otherwise we risk being stuck in a quagmire of continuous movement to the right regardless of pre-election rhetoric.
I probably would vote for for Hillary if she is nominated too but I plan to think long and hard about it, and I certainly will not be happy to be forced into voting for the least of two evils.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)seems somewhat sane when compared to The Rest of the Klown Kar Kandidates.
That is nowhere near sane. The ONLY near-sane Republican to campaign for the Presidency in recent years was Jon Huntsman in 2012.
Huntsman didn't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination (and didn't). Neither does Kasich.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)What kind of a Democrat choses one of the neocon founders, Robert Kagan as a close foreign-policy adviser?
It's disgusting.
Bernie is more of a Democrat that Hillary could ever hope to be.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Because it wasn't Democratic enough?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's 100% valid cause for suit.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bernie has always been proud of the fact that he wasn't a liberal democrat......until 2015 when it fit his purpose!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hell, I registered as a dem for the first time this year, just to make 100% certain I could vote for him.
Party should never come before principle, and it's morally bankrupt to promote such a view.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The OP needs to be flushed.
pwhtckll
(72 posts)Northern Republicans in the 1960s (like those at Wellesley College in Massachusetts) are more similar to today's Democrats than they are to today's Republicans.
Once Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968 began the Southern Strategy to convert the southern segregationists from Democrats to Republicans, everything changed.
Northern Republicans didn't leave their party, the party left them.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)In Oregon we had a GOP governor in 1970 who bank-rolled a world class rock festival to avoid
riots in the streets of Portland, i.e. Vortex
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vortex_i/#.VoeCLISlfR0
pwhtckll
(72 posts)We can only hope that the right-wing fringe will self-destruct (hopefully soon!) and the sane Republicans (like your governor in the 1970s) will take over their party...if it is not too late.
I may disagree with their conservativism, but at least the moderate Republicans are willing to talk and compromise, and they don't have the knee-jerk reaction that everything they don't like is treason and heresy.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... there is no known history whatsoever of Bernie ever being a Democrat.
Given the esteem in which Elizabeth Warren is held by BS supporters, it seems rather ludicrous to bring up HRC's short-lived dalliance with the Republican Party.
OPs like this are from hunger - and it shows.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)only to have her supporters accuse a life-long champion of civil rights and progressive
values as "not being a true Democrat".
If Hillary was now half the progressive that Sanders is, and always has been, I would not
even be posting this now, but would be one of her supporters.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)If Bernie is a "true Democrat", why didn't he join the Party and lead it, instead of demeaning it for years?
If BS is representative of the "true Democrat", surely other Democrats would have welcomed him with open arms and followed his lead - what with him being what the Party really stands for and all.
BS is a Democrat-of-convenience. He declared himself a Democrat when he had no other choice, in order to further his own political ambitions. That's simply the fact of the matter.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)i.e. for abandoning it's FDR roots in favor of a corporatist 3rd Way agenda under the so-caled
"leadership" of President Bill Clinton, who championed NAFTA, the War on Drugs, and mass
incarceration of African Americans.
Bernie has caucused with the Democrats for decades, has been appointed to key House and Senate
positions of influence by the Democrats, and is now drawing millions of new registered Democrats
into the Big Tent, so-called, many of whom will probably vote for Hillary in the GE, if she manages to
trash Sanders for his trouble enough and to use the DNC to rig the primaries enough to "win" the
nomination.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... all the more reason why Bernie would have been embraced by the "true Democrats" he allegedly represents.
So why so late to the Party - which, according to you, the principles of which he so perfectly exemplifies?
BS is now drawing millions of new registered Democrats into the Big Tent? Really? Do you have a link to the evidence of that - or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
And yes, of course, BS's defeat in the primaries will be because HRC will use the DNC to "rig" the primaries. BS's loss couldn't possibly be due to more Democrats supporting HRC than him.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)helping to prosecute Richard Nixon?
And why should she denounce work for the liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller? The parties were very different in the 60's than they are today. Both included both liberals, moderates, and conservatives, though on the whole the Republican party was more conservative. But Rockefeller wasn't one of them.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)Shall we sit in a circle and do "self-criticism" before being sent off to the re-education camps?
Hillary, a Democrat her ENTIRE ADULT LIFE, unlike some others we might mention, has been a champion of civil rights, progressive values, and women's rights the entire time. Could that be why the great Civil Rights icon Congressman John Lewis has endorsed her?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)or the lack of consistency.
Bernie's been consistently aligned for his entire adult life with traditional Democratic FDR values, re:
supporting policies that benefit the poor as well as lower & middle-class working people. He has
never varied or strayed from these roots for his entire decades long political career.
Hillary's roots are different, and it still shows, tending to be more aligned with the privileged and upper
class types. But then she poses as a "progressive", so wobbles back and forth whichever way the wind
is blowing at the time.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)"
Why should she "denounce" her father?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=968427
I'm pretty sure most of us have family members of a different political POV. Hell I have a brother who's
a Duck Dynasty fan, and a sister who's a Hillary supporter. But having honest disagreements with
them is not "denouncing" them, it's being sensible adults who simply disagree.
Any 'denouncing' needs to be about ideology or public policies, not person attacks. I'm sure you
understand the difference between these, don't you?
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)So, booya for you!
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... is not a label one affixes to one's self - it is to BE a Democrat.
Thinking that HRC supporters believe more in labels than in progressive ideals is rather - well, let's just call it "politically naive".
BTW, when it comes to "believing more in labels", you might take note of how often BSers label anyone who disagrees with them as Third Wayers, centrists, conservaDems, DINOs, etc. That re-gifted Label-Maker seems to be getting an awful lot of use by a certain contingent here.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)"BTW, when it comes to "believing more in labels", you might take note of how often BSers label anyone who disagrees with them as Third Wayers, centrists, conservaDems, DINOs, etc. That re-gifted Label-Maker seems to be getting an awful lot of use by a certain contingent here. "
The sad truth is those forces are what is running the party these days, and us "BSers" dont like it one bit. We don't want the Democratic Party to be bought and paid for by big money interests, we expect better than that for our support.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Apparently your idea of "being a Democrat" is much different than mine. But, that's fine. We all have to be true to ourselves.
I'm thinking Bernard Sanders will have the last laugh.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... is being a member of the Party, and actively participating in it.
Standing on the outside looking in, demeaning the Party for decades, and then declaring one's self a Democrat when politically convenient is not my idea of "being a Democrat".
So yes, I guess our ideas of being a Democrat are very different. My idea is that becoming a member of the Party ONLY when politically expedient to do so doesn't make you a Democrat by any stretch.
"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." - Bernie Sanders
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)That homophobic clerk in Kentucky was an active, involved democrat. How much good did her party affiliation do? Not much!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)That's why I would rather refer to myself as a progressive, rather than a democrat.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)...and major donors and national recognition in the media. The Capital-D Democratic Party has an agenda and a platform, most of which I agree with.
They pretty much play politics to win, not to just make a point.
Small-d democrats who are too pure to join in are not playing to win, and they won't.
Small-d democracy is a great idea; someone should try it. Small-r republicanism, also a great idea, also should be tried sometime.
Capital-R Republican is also a major national party. As it happens, I discovered during the Nixon administration that there is nothing about them I want in national office. Not their platform, not their agenda, not the toxic people they cater to. Nothing.
The GOP doesn't just play politics to win, they play it as a blood sport. There is a streak of evil that runs through that party. They've made their point.
So fine, all you folks who are small-d democrats and too good for the Party. Don't play to win. Don't show up, do whatever you want. You have a pure-as-the-driven-snow candidate -- who, as it happens, joined the Capital D-Democratic Party when he realized he would need all those things a national party has to offer.
Spare me.
It's Party first because of that Party's policies.
In the real world, we have two parties. Each represents certain policies. We like some, tolerate some, abhor some and love some. But there is strength in numbers and in union - so we stand with the party that most closely represents our individual values together.
If you want a Party that reflects your every opinion, every attitude, every whim, and satisfies your every demand, you might want to start your own Party of One.
If you feel the Democratic Party is not upholding the policies you find to be important, you have choices. You can leave and find another party more to your liking, or you can get involved and foment the change you think necessary within the Party structure itself. But remember that takes commitment and hard work, and knowing that in the end, you still may not ever get what you personally want - because opinions other than your own may prevail as the majority opinion. That's what the Big Tent is all about. It's not about you - it's about everyone.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Ha ha! I am MILLIONS strong!
"If you feel the Democratic Party is not upholding the policies you find to be important, you have choices."
The only choice this election cycle is to vote for Bernie Sanders. He is the only candidate that truly supports the values I always assumed most Democrats agreed with. And the primaries will prove me right.
Please, have a good day!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Not all that much different from the brainwashed teabag crowd. I always assumed they were smarter than that. Very sad.
Seems like the only people voting with their heads instead of just their hearts are Bernie people. Extremely sad.
Bernie may be the last bastion against fascism we have left in America.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)And Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal Republican, in an era when the parties contained liberals and conservatives.
Why can't you support your candidate without spreading false insinuations about his opponent?
And as for your last allegation, yes,, she was raised in a Republican family, and she didn't instantly become a Democrat the second she got to Wellesley. By her senior year her mentor, and the subject of her thesis, was Saul Alinksky, the Socialist.
Unlike Bernie, who was born to Socialist parents, she had to reason her way to becoming a Democrat.
Good for her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I seem to remember her getting tossed off the nixon prosecution team for ethics problems
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Thanks for the info it was a long time back and the haziness of the times made my memory cloudy
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)It was a long time ago
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)when they try throwing old crap. So I guess it's good that she's already getting slurred. We're having to bone up on the facts.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)NNadir
(33,516 posts)It's puerile to the point of boredom.
Actually, nobody is going to save this country from itself; the Republicans are insane and the Democrats, if we garner any insight from the level of discourse we see here, are intellectually incapable of advancing much beyond simplistic mud slinging.
I'm not going to vote in the primaries - this for the first time in my life - because frankly, there is very little hope for our country or the world; stupidity is clearly the only winner in all of this and their just isn't any point to participating anymore.
Neither Saint Sanders nor Saint Clinton will be capable of doing anything positive for anyone, because clearly even the people who should be at least nominally on their side are all mindless automatons who live and die by insipid sound bites.
It's awful, just awful.
Happy New Year.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)NNadir
(33,516 posts)...sort of nonsense. That scientifically illiterate antinuke would be right at home here though. According to him Al Gore was a neofascist, which is reminiscent of the rhetoric of the OP. The result was hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq while Ralphie boy turned his attention to the more exigent issue of the officiating of playoff games in the NBA.
Ralph Nader's focus while "Same as Gore" Bush prepared to blast Iraq
That's what this kind of insipid commentary gets. If our so called progressives want to know how that all happened they might start by looking in a mirror.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)When the parties were differentiated from each other by other issues, and there were "liberal Republicans" in Congress.
Now the RW has captured the GOP, and moderate Republicans are vanishing.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)By the time she could vote in a Presidential election when she was 21 would be Nov of 1968.
From the link you posted: Rodham attended the ( AUGUST)1968 Republican National Convention in Miami. However, she was upset by how Richard Nixon's campaign portrayed Rockefeller and by what she perceived as the convention's "veiled" racist messages, and left the Republican Party for good.
By Nov. of 1968, she was already a Democrat.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Bernie said he never voted in any election at all until he was on a ballot. He was eligible to vote in 62, but his first run was in '72, I think, so nothing until then. Not for LBJ or McGovern. So '72 would be when he started voting against Dems and for himself.
cali
(114,904 posts)riversedge
(70,205 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)NBachers
(17,108 posts)Your flat-tire accusation has lost it's tread, and it's worn down to the belt. But you might be able to patch it up and get a few more miles out of it.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)I especially adore the pics of her hugging Henry Kissinger and her attending Donald Trumps wedding. Just precious, aren't they?
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
madokie
(51,076 posts)I just don't like her today. Hillary is in the pockets of big money and to me that SUCKS big time.The problems with our government can be lain at the feet of big moneyed interest and thats the last thing we need to continue on the path of.
I don't see much difference between her and the republi'CONs. Simple as that. She will say and or do whatever it takes to win, the hell with being honest with us.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She's a corporatist warhawk and she would serve her Wall St. masters at the expense of the taxpayers. She is a flawed, ideologically bankrupt candidate in the here and now.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hanging in her office.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... if true, it would likely be an explosive issue that could harm her in the general election. Glad to know it's not true.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan. The former had absolute control over access to President Wilson during his recovery from stroke. Nancy's power was more informal, but definitely real--particularly as President Reagan's Alzheimer's disease progressed.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)...how republicans were attracted to his campaign and were willing to switch parties - even funnier considering how many Sanders supporters came to his defense.
the facts:
As the nation boiled over Vietnam, civil rights and the slayings of two charismatic leaders, Ms. Rodham was completing a sweeping intellectual, political and stylistic shift. She came to Wellesley as an 18-year-old Republican, a copy of Barry Goldwaters right-wing treatise, The Conscience of a Conservative, on the shelf of her freshman dorm room. She would leave as an antiwar Democrat whose public rebuke of a Republican senator in a graduation speech won her notice in Life magazine as a voice for her generation.
read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=0
Clintons Thesis on Leftist Icon Reveals Roots
As a former first lady aiming to become Americas first female president, Hillary Clinton has a biography heavy with male influences, including Hugh Rodham, the stern father who raised her as a Republican; Don Jones, the Methodist youth minister who introduced her to the civil rights movement, and former president Bill Clinton, her political and personal partner for more than three decades.
But perhaps more than anyone, it was Alan Schechter, a political science professor who mentored Clinton during her student years at Wellesley College, who had a ringside seat to her intellectual and political transformation amid the turbulent 1960s. A self-described FDR progressive raised in Brooklyn by the secular children of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Schechter, 71, met Clinton in his capacity as an adviser to the student government and went on to become a beloved professor who wrote her a glowing recommendation to Yale Law School. As her thesis adviser, Schechter steered Clinton to focus her project on Saul Alinsky, the irascible labor and civil rights activist who pioneered the practice of community organizing with his Depression-era campaign to improve conditions in the Chicago slum made notorious by writer Upton Sinclair.
Her approach was instrumental, pragmatic, how do you get from point A to point B, said Schechter, who recently discussed with the Forward his most famous pupil and her 1969 senior project. She wasnt studying Alinsky because of her interest in Alinsky and not even, I think, because of her interest in community organizing as such. It was much more that he had a particular approach to poverty.
With a title taken from a T.S. Eliot poem, Clintons thesis, There Is Only the Fight : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, takes a pragmatic approach to the issue of poverty alleviation. Her question is how best to help poor people in urban areas, and her approach is empirical rather than normative. The paper often takes a no-nonsense tone, as when Clinton sounds a skeptical note about the usefulness of psychodramatics in politics, or reminds her readers that discussing Alinsky apart from his actions is like discussing current theories of international relations without mentioning Vietnam.
read more: http://forward.com/news/12202/clinton-s-thesis-on-leftist-icon-reveals-roots-00926/
An undated photograph of Hillary Rodham, center, during her days as a student at Wellesley College, from 1965 to 1969.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)I'm just scratching my head over why any so-called Democrat would do likewise.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)Crickets.
Good grief, when you "discover" that, you really have nothing.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Oh my god, this is so weak.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)So I see you are still up to your half-truth hatchet jobs.
At least you are consistent.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'm sure it was something awful.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)who demonstrate better cognitive reasoning ability than your post demonstrates.