“There Is Only the Fight”: Hillary’s college thesis now publicly available

posted at 12:37 pm on February 7, 2007 by Allahpundit

The Republican Spectacular has quotes, including a stirring, carefully selected passage or two about social revolution. If you believe Hillary’s planning to nationalize America’s oil industry, you’ll find them hugely significant. If you don’t, you’ll find it as significant as Barack Obama’s divinely inspired jack-o-lantern technique. Bear in mind that it was written in 1969, the same year Dennis Hopper made “Easy Rider”; thirty-five years later, he voted for Bush. People change.

Meanwhile, I’ll tell you again like I told you the other day — this Giuliani thing’s a bubble, baby.

giuliani002.png

giuliani.png


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

May your prognostications be as faulty as your Photoshops were hilarious.

Il Padrino on February 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM

….this Giuliani thing’s a bubble, baby.

It won’t be unless a real conservative enters the race. Other than Newt, who has more baggage than Hillary and can’t win, I’ll be damned if I know who it could possibly be.

BacaDog on February 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM

AP
Bear in mind that it was written in 1969, the same year Dennis Hopper made “Easy Rider”; thirty-five years later, he voted for Bush. People change.

When you produce proof tht Hillary voted for Bush I will consider your proposition that she has changed.

LakeRuins on February 7, 2007 at 12:53 PM

a REAL conservative. one who’ll nuke the kkabbah and mine the border. we need a real conservative who will round up every border-jumper, march them out to the desert and force them to dig their own graves. and HE’ll toss the anchor babies in to fill. a REAL conservative who will take a firm stand against poop sex. the kind of guy who’s so not-gay he wears a clip-on tie with his flannel shirt. a REAL conservative who is christian, because christianty and conservatism are the same thing.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM

When you produce proof tht Hillary voted for Bush I will consider your proposition that she has changed.
LakeRuins

Anything Hillary did before took her senate seat will be chalked up by her and the MSM as youthful indescretion.She will say she has changed.She has not changed other than to be wiser on how to fool,connive,and mislead the public in her endeavor for socialist rule.

spazzmomma on February 7, 2007 at 1:12 PM

When you produce proof tht Hillary voted for Bush I will consider your proposition that she has changed.
LakeRuins

Anything Hillary did before took her senate seat will be chalked up by her and the MSM as youthful indiscretion.She will say she has changed.She has not changed other than to be wiser on how to fool,connive,and mislead the public in her endeavor for socialist rule.

spazzmomma on February 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM

“…society had to be reorganized in a top-down model” – which society?

A woman scorned, with European-style socialistic idealism, that personality, and that much power –

“You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” – perfect campaign song, for the wrong drivers, which many will not understand.

Entelechy on February 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM

jummy,

Congrats – weirdest AND dumbest post… EVAH!

major john on February 7, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Viva la revolución! Viva la heroica resistencia! Viva Hillary!

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Bear in mind that it was written in 1969, the same year Dennis Hopper made “Easy Rider”; thirty-five years later, he voted for Bush. People change.

Of course, in the interim (1994 to be precise) she spearheaded an effort to nationalize health care. I haven’t read her paper, but I’m pretty sure she still wants government to have a much more active role in many facets of our daily lives than I would prefer.

thirteen28 on February 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Jummy, I really hope you are being sarcastic, because what you describe isn’t conservatism and while one can be both Christian and politically conservative (I am), the two are most definitely not the same thing.
Actually, on re-reading your post, I find your characterization offensive as well as inaccurate.

Lancer on February 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Heh, RedSquare put her announcement webcast and put it through the Libonics decipher machine here. Too funny.

Alden Pyle on February 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM

When I authored The Pantsuit Moves Left this morning I had no idea the thesis was out there.

Now I need some eye bleach after seeing that picture from the pre-pantsuit era.

JammieWearingFool on February 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Nothing has changed with Ms. Rodham. In the interim, Dennis Hopper got clean. Once his mind was clear, he voted for Bush. Not a big surprise.

MCPO Airdale on February 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM

a REAL conservative. one who’ll nuke the kkabbah and mine the border. we need a real conservative who will round up every border-jumper, march them out to the desert and force them to dig their own graves. and HE’ll toss the anchor babies in to fill. a REAL conservative who will take a firm stand against poop sex. the kind of guy who’s so not-gay he wears a clip-on tie with his flannel shirt. a REAL conservative who is christian, because christianty and conservatism are the same thing.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Isn’t calling for the nuking of Mecca a banning offense, Allah, sarcastic or no?

PRCalDude on February 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM

What jummy did is just another in a long history of pathetic stunts by Kos Kadets. They will come over to conservative sites, make posts like that, run back over to their liberal sites and publish links to it normally with the wide eyed OMG look what they are saying to protray conservatives as rabid animals.
The difference is they know in most cases their comments will remain up on conservative sites whereas try something like that on a liberal site and you will see “Freedom of Speech” only applies to third world dictatoors who wish to smear our country or congress critters who compare our service member to stormtroopers.

LakeRuins on February 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM

TED HAGGARD FOR PRES!

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM

What jummy did is just another in a long history of pathetic stunts by Kos Kadets. They will come over to conservative sites, make posts like that, run back over to their liberal sites and publish links to it normally with the wide eyed OMG look what they are saying to protray conservatives as rabid animals.
The difference is they know in most cases their comments will remain up on conservative sites whereas try something like that on a liberal site and you will see “Freedom of Speech” only applies to third world dictatoors who wish to smear our country or congress critters who compare our service member to stormtroopers.

LakeRuins on February 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM

no. its something entirely different called “sarchasm”. somethings i should point out, lake ruins: i’ve never seen you post here, but i’m well enough known as a conservative poster here. i’m probably more active civicly as a republican than thee. so, while i appreciate the vigilance there, i’m afraid you’ve missed the point.

and if you’re not losing your mind with anger and dissapointment as a group of snake-handlers and vulgar natavists strangle the party like an octopus, then you’re part of the problem.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Jummy, I really hope you are being sarcastic, because what you describe isn’t conservatism and while one can be both Christian and politically conservative (I am), the two are most definitely not the same thing.
Actually, on re-reading your post, I find your characterization offensive as well as inaccurate.

Lancer on February 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

maybe i paint them in broad strokes as well, but by the same standards i critisize the left, no, it wasn’t innacurate. there is a LOT of irrationalism and racism in the anti-immigration movement. the fact that we’re even talking about romney’s particular brand of christianity as a deal-breaker is prima facie evidence that the snake-handlers have stolen this party and must be removed. i rarely see in the comments here solutions to the mess in iraq more sophisticated than “it’s time to take the gloves off”. we may as well make an acronym of it.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:57 PM

and if you’re not losing your mind with anger and dissapointment as a group of snake-handlers and vulgar natavists strangle the party like an octopus, then you’re part of the problem.

Vulgar nativists? Anyone who is distressed at the prospect of a future that holds a lower standard of living is a “vulgar nativist?” Anyone who is sick and tired of the lack of protection of our borders is a “vulgar nativist?”

You’re exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party these days. I’m tired of people like you who demand that we all support the non-conservative, out-of-touch, Democrat-Lite version of the Republican Party that thinks its entitled to conservative votes no matter how far astray it wanders. Republican politicians had better get some principles or get used to not getting many votes.

tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 2:03 PM

in any case, i know how to satisfy the snake-handler-cons — TED HAGGARD FOR PRES! he can make sure all the babies get born and everyone says their prayers. and all that other stuff, well, if you’re a good citizen, you’re “in” but not “of” it anyway.

then we can call off the primaries. we wouldn’t want to threaten “the base.”

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM

there is a LOT of irrationalism and racism in the anti-immigration movement.

When you have some actual solutions to the enormous problems presented by Hispanic immigration, rather than ceaseless insults for people opposed to immigration, then you can rightfully accuse others of irrationalism. Until then, it is your brand of politically correct, head-in-the-sand irrationalism that is ruining this country.

tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM

You’re exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party these days. I’m tired of people like you who demand that we all support the non-conservative, out-of-touch, Democrat-Lite version of the Republican Party…”

of the aboove quote, i’m imagining all of the references to “conservative” and “republican” replaced with “democrat” and “liberal,” and that i’m reading the passage at crooks and liars or similar. you know who the poster is talking about? lieberman. and the poster sees him as a “lite” version of liberalism from the perspective of being the sort of “true” liberal who thinks the planes which hit the wtc towers were remote controlled from aipac’s new york office.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Ok, I hate to say this, but does Hillary look insanely hot in that college picture, or what?

Golden Boy on February 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM

jummy, I’ve never handled snakes, don’t like them, and those who have been working with Haggard recommend he not even return to public ministry, much less run for president.

Your scorn is setting fire to a straw man.

INC on February 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM

She has not changed other than to be wiser on how to fool,connive,and mislead the public in her endeavor for socialist rule.

spazzmomma on February 7, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I absolutely and totally agree. Hillary’s never done anything to indicate any kind of philosophical change in her thinking.

I have been wanting to read Hillary’s thesis ever since I first heard about it years ago. I eagerly await the appearance of its contents on the web.

INC on February 7, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I am or was or something, leading in favor of Rudy. Now again, I am kind of undecided, yet. Things are constantly changing my views.

I saw Rudy’s picture on the front page of the NY Post yesterday morning. I thought to myself “Oh No, this isn’t good”. The man already is blowing his candidacy. Heck I am no prude, nor not to say anything is wrong with that photo for anyone else, but if you are running for President. You want to pose like the American Gothic painting (I am exagerating), you do not want to look like you have had sex in weeks, not going to do it, when the cameras leave and on the Oval Office Couch for a quicky. We talked about Bill Clinton, now Rudy. Hillary, give me the impression she hasn’t had sex in years nor kissed a man in a long time either (not going to speculate the woman subsitute ;)

I am just afraid he is too NY and maybe there is a sleeze impression there? Has the NY attitude or the way he comes across, I don’t know how that goes with the rest of the USA. The Bernard Kerik incident. Who else knows what. Business dealings, etc? I don’t condemn legal business dealings and making a buck. Still, when running for office, it is the impression of how you made that buck. Not, selling consulting services to some sleezy ruler of a country or something.

All in all it is impression that counts. The negatives may be ok for someone not wanting to be Prez, but heck, if you running for Prez, you want to be almost modern Pope-like.

StuLongIsland on February 7, 2007 at 2:24 PM

When you have some actual solutions to the enormous problems presented by Hispanic immigration, rather than ceaseless insults for people opposed to immigration, then you can rightfully accuse others of irrationalism. Until then, it is your brand of politically correct, head-in-the-sand irrationalism that is ruining this country.

tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM

dude, there were people in these comments who were promoting the idea that it would be appropriate to assainate legislators if the “wrong” legislation passed. because it’s an “invasion”.

it’s not an “invasion”. it’s workers fleeing crappy keynesian/mercantilist economies to work in an economicly rational environment.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 2:24 PM

“(people) who have been working with Haggard recommend he not even return to public ministry, much less run for president.”

my point of view is vidicated by the fact that you had a serious rebuttal to that.

it’s as if i told you to cram it up you ass and you proceeded with a straight face to tell me precisely whether it would fit or not based on personal research.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM

No, that’s not why I wrote that. I wrote it simply to indicate that any public profile of Haggard is not on my agenda nor anyone else’s.

INC on February 7, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Besides the stress of illegal immigration on infrastructure, there is the matter of crime and terrorism. If anyone hasn’t seen this, you may be interested in reading this report that came out last fall before the elections, A Line In The Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border. It’s a large PDF document of a report prepared by the majority staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations, Michael T. McCaul, Chairman.

It has some 146 footnotes and details illegal immigrants, smuggling, drugs, crime, cartels, and terrorists.

Here’s a quote:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.

Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.

U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country…

INC on February 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Anything Hillary did before took her senate seat will be chalked up by her and the MSM as youthful indiscretion.She will say she has changed.She has not changed other than to be wiser on how to fool,connive,and mislead the public in her endeavor for socialist rule.

Oh please. That rubs both ways; 1969–wasn’t this about the same time W was beginning his long affair with Jack?

honora on February 7, 2007 at 3:03 PM

because christianty and conservatism are the same thing.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM

And we’re off!!!!!!

honora on February 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM

jummy the chump.

right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

jummy the chump.

right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

brilliant. you win.

LOOK OUT! A BOMB!

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Jummy

Why is it that you feel qualified to be the arbiter of what conservatism/Republicanism is or isn’t?

Defense Guy on February 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

i’m not the one taking that position. don’t you know? “God is the one who chooses our rulers.”

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM

brilliant. you win.

LOOK OUT! A BOMB!

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

That’s obviously not a bomb. It has no lite brites on it.

Savage on February 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Ignore jummy, it’s off its meds. You can tell by the “I don’t give a damn about capitalizing letters” mentality, the crazy snake-handler comments spewed all over the threads, and the obsession with Ted Haggard.

It’s a disease…just take the medicine-you wouldn’t forgo asthma medication just to prove a point would you?

NTWR on February 7, 2007 at 4:08 PM

jummy = lefty troll….or is not very smart and loves to make hugley over blown rationalizations.

Which is it?

InstantNemesis on February 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM

which part is “overblown” InstantNemesis?

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 4:38 PM

lets start on comment 1:

a REAL conservative. one who’ll nuke the kkabbah and mine the border. we need a real conservative who will round up every border-jumper, march them out to the desert and force them to dig their own graves. and HE’ll toss the anchor babies in to fill. a REAL conservative who will take a firm stand against poop sex. the kind of guy who’s so not-gay he wears a clip-on tie with his flannel shirt. a REAL conservative who is christian, because christianty and conservatism are the same thing.

No real explaination needed there…you overblow it yourself.

Comment 2:

TED HAGGARD FOR PRES

Stupid Humor…no laughed…crickets. Get the point. lets continue…

Comment 3:

and if you’re not losing your mind with anger and dissapointment as a group of snake-handlers and vulgar natavists strangle the party like an octopus, then you’re part of the problem.

The snake handlers are very small part of the country. And the vulgar nativists…a reference to the whole country or just hollyweird?

Comment 4:

maybe i paint them in broad strokes as well

‘nough said…by you

I oculd go on but the fact that hardly anyone agree with oyu on this site and you refusal to answer the question from my previous post says to me: You are a left troll. So brin g your rediculous arguments and over blown rationlizations…no one will agree with you here. As most conservatives, we are civilized bunch. And finally no god does not choose our leaders. God provided the us with the ability of free will. Something not even he can control. We would be robots if that was the case.

So jummy = lefty troll or s not very smart and loves to make hugley over blown rationalizations.

Which is it?

InstantNemesis on February 7, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Ein Kampf?

- The Cat

MirCat on February 7, 2007 at 5:04 PM

jummy,
After i thought about it…the fact that you asked me which part you wrote was overblown answers it for me.

So if your not a troll then you are…nvm i dont like to ridicule people in a real or a virtual public forum. Its very unconservative.

Have a good day.

“A man with books who does not read them has no advantage over an illiterate man” – Samuel Clemens(paraphrased)

InstantNemesis on February 7, 2007 at 5:15 PM

first of, you keep using the word “rationalizations” in a context in which it makes no sense. i think you mean “charictarizations.”

second, you’ve posted on this site, maybe, a dozen times. so when you have some kind of judgement as to who is a loyal poster, who is who they say they are and who is not, sit on it. i didn’t answer that suggestion of yours because i don’t honor your judgement.

instead i challenged you to demonstrate what was “overblown” about my characterizations
you bolded the part where i mock the violent and militaristic speech used in discussing the immigration issue here.

here is a quote from a frequent poster…

If the traitors allowing this slo-mo invasion were shot and their bodies piled on up along the border, that would make a goddamned good start to the ‘fence’.
Just a thought.
profitsbeard on January 5, 2007 at 1:31 AM

since you’re not here enough to know what you’re talking about, you may have missed the hal turner fiasco. hal turner is a neonazi who called for the assasination of u.s. legislatoirs if the voted up on the amnesty bill. i spent a very frustrating night trying to dissuade a number of frequent, long-term posters from endorsing his call.

i’m only barely joking about ted haggard or about satisfying the base. i’ll repeat what i said before: the fact that we’re discussing the idea that romney’s preference of one variety of christianity over another is a dealbreaker is prima facie evidence that SNAKE-HANDLING THEOCRATS – not people who happen to be christian apart from their public identity – presume excessive controll over the conservative movement and republican party. i’m not laughing either. it’s a despicable shame, and it must be reversed.

then you said something about…

And the vulgar nativists…a reference to the whole country or just hollyweird?

please open a dictionary.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 5:23 PM

What people do or say in a gallop poll usually has very little to do with what the do in the voting booth. When Guilliani get’s more air time, people will truly start to remember why they looked to him for comfort and leadership during 9-11-2001 which was more than our own president.

Egfrow on February 7, 2007 at 5:29 PM

since you’re not here enough to know what you’re talking about, you may have missed the hal turner fiasco. hal turner is a neonazi who called for the assasination of u.s. legislatoirs if the voted up on the amnesty bill. i spent a very frustrating night trying to dissuade a number of frequent, long-term posters from endorsing his call.

maybe its the neo-nazi’s who have placed a stranglehold on the GOP. Not the snake charmers.

Even if i don’t post enough i read/view this blog enough to know that ever since they opened the register a few months ago the whole tone of the comments section has changed and more often than not there is one commenter who seems to not belong.

….hmmmm

I looked at the dictionary…just as i thought there is no definition for vulgar nativists.

InstantNemesis on February 7, 2007 at 5:32 PM

I looked at the dictionary…just as i thought there is no definition for vulgar nativists

!?!?!?!?!

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 5:36 PM

maybe its the neo-nazi’s who have placed a stranglehold on the GOP. Not the snake charmers.

?!

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 5:39 PM

AllahPundit told me when he gave me access to HotAir that calling for the nuking of Mecca would get me banned. Jummy’s done just that. I guess Allah wasn’t serious.

PRCalDude on February 7, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Hey Jummy,

I understood your first post as you intended it, critical hyperbole aimed at the “extreme far right”. That didn’t make it interesting, funny, or useful. You’ve virtually highjacked the thread defending yourself since. Learn when enough’s enough and let it go.

On topic, I wonder that Shrillary didn’t title her thesis, “There is Only the Struggle”.

Freelancer on February 7, 2007 at 8:44 PM

grow up. i’ve done no such thing.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 8:46 PM

You’ve virtually highjacked the thread defending yourself since. Learn when enough’s enough and let it go.

Freelancer on February 7, 2007 at 8:44 PM

i’m done.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Uhhhh, can I make a comment about Hillary instead of jimmy?

Hillary scares the sh+t out me; jimmy not so much

And don’t give me any of that “it was 1969″ crap. I was in America by then and many, many people–young people–were living normal and decent lives, and did not want to nationalize the oil companies or introduce Britsh-style NHS medical care.

Dim bulbs out there like to characterize whole decades as this or that–this is the “everyone was doing_____” school of thought For Dummies. Ain’t true: More young men were in Vietnam in August 1969 than were at Woodstock

Hillary was a crazy-lefty before her time, and still is.

Crazy and dangerous in 1969, and crazy and dangerous now

Janos Hunyadi on February 7, 2007 at 9:00 PM

Where did my comment go? Pundit, I hold you personally responsible.

Janos Hunyadi on February 7, 2007 at 9:01 PM

this Giuliani thing’s a bubble, baby.
It won’t be unless a real conservative enters the race. Other than Newt, who has more baggage than Hillary and can’t win, I’ll be damned if I know who it could possibly be.

BacaDog on February 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Get with the program!
Fred Thompson FTW!

TBinSTL on February 7, 2007 at 9:02 PM

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.

I’m pretty sure Eugene Debs was a big socialist.

Socialism = democracy???

What a bonehead.

PaisleyCow on February 8, 2007 at 4:45 AM

Get with the program!
Fred Thompson FTW!

A look at Senator Thompson’s voting record.

Closer to a Reagan conservative than any of the “front-runners”. During his time in the Senate I don’t know of a single word impugning his integrity or suggesting any skeletons. Sure would be nice to have someone in the Oval Office with a less tarnished (stained?) past.

Freelancer on February 8, 2007 at 12:39 PM

If Giuliani wins the primary or God-Forbid the election, Ronald Reagan’s party will disappear into obscurity.

That goes double for McPain.

I am afraid for this nation when, the best Republicans can offer is a morally bankrupt “good leader”. Giuliani has the morals and political leanings of Bill Clinton and the rank-n-file republicans are fawning over him. I’d rather lose and stand for something then win and comprimise.

God help us all.

robman27 on February 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Reagan started out his adult life as a Democrat. As he learned how deep the socialist influence on that party was, he left. I believe that the leadership and political core of today’s Republican party has more of a big-government, socialist bent than did that Democrat party Reagan ran away from.

Certainly the vast majority of citizens who identify as Republicans are not so, and retain the values of personal responsibility and self-reliance that Reagan preached. Either a large enough body of party members takes a stand against further leftward shifts, or it’s time to do as Reagan did and find another place to call political home.

Freelancer on February 8, 2007 at 6:01 PM