In 1965 Hillary was a Young Republican...

Hillary Rodham in 1965, when she was president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans, shown here with the cover page of her senior thesis from 1969 on radical organizer Saul D. Alinsky.

Neocons take radical leftist ideas and merge them with machivellian rightist ideas. That is why they are not just "republicans" or"democrats".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neo-conservative foreign policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the "new left" of the 1960s, fears over a return to US isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbors in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but their key principles have remained the same.
They begin with the basic foreign policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, that neo-cons share with most US practitioners: that "the condition of man ... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone." Or, as Machiavelli, another favorite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote, "Men are more ready for evil than for good."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH13Aa01.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/407395/ShowThread.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/cracking-the-hillary-code_b_20966.html

didn't you get the memo?

:rofl:

anyone else you want to call out for what they were up to 40 years ago?

for some republicans in the past. I guess people aren't allowed to change and grow and develop.

I think H. Clinton (and her squeeze) are more repuglican than democrat. if words still have meaning. which they don't. but that's the rub.

It is the Democrats who keep nominating them.

Do you really think this is relevant?

Think we're stupid?

Don't answer that; I know that's what you think.

The point, since I apparently have to spell it out, is that many people have lived entire lives since this event took place. In 42 years, some people are born, go to school, go to college, have kids, send the kids to school, and have grandkids.

I guess that none of those experiences affect who we are or who we become.

Come on, people. Do you really believe that something that occurred 42 years ago is relevant?

Just a few years ago, Dennis Kucinich was anti-choice. Is that relevant? Should we be holding that against him?

Some people change. But some don't.

Kyl/Lieberman.

If you intentionally ignore 90% of her record.

And research Clinton's overall voting record before glibly and ignorantly calling her 'a republican'.

One can't make blanket statements about a candidate if one becomes informed.

A live bat!

...that one made me laugh.

Damn, I'm glad it wasn't a dead bat.

Or a rabid one.

I can just see it...tomorrow, there will be a post (on the Greatest Page, of course): "OMG, Hillary has rabies from biting the head off of A DEAD BAT in 1965!"

RABIES, RABIES!! OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!

/OK, perhaps that was a *little* over the top....

Edit: Hmm...I might have to start a thread.

From the shrinking of the government....err...no.

From her advocation of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy...errr.....wait...no.

Hmmmmmm was she an anti-communist and I missed it.

:shrug:

Errr, yes, they shrank the government. And errr, yes, they ran on cutting taxes and tax credits to incentivize people to spend money in certain areas which would grow the economy. As it relates to the internet, that worked. As it relates to shrinking the government, not so much. As it will relate to boosting health industry profits in the future, I shudder to think. I suppose the next bubble will be a nursing home bubble, since Carlyle has already invested. They have to think of a sexy name for it though, investing in death isn't that appealing.

President Clinton signed a welfare reform act in 1996 He Pushed through welfare to work and welfare reforms that screwed poor people AGAIN.."Reforms"Which made life impossible for mothers on welfare to get work.Such a "progressive"thing to do huh? Neocons dressed up as donkeys are still NEOCONS.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/autumn2002/features/welfare.html
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/mercury.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0807-07.htm

What are Hillary's veiws on welfare? Thats where the con comes out...

This is WHY I HATE Hillary!

The Clinton "welfare reform" law mandates a five-year cumulative lifetime cap on the benefits. You are off the rolls forever. The "safety net" that Eleanor Roosevelt and her husband worked so hard to get into law has been torn apart by William Jefferson Clinton—to the applause of his wife. "We are sentencing to death children, we are sentencing to death people with mental retardation, we are sentencing to death the mentally ill.
http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/01/996857-hillary-and-the-death-penalty-the-clinton-welfare-reform-law-?threadId=156777&cmt=1069745


It was bad enough that the Bush Administration co-opted the Children's Defense Fund slogan "Leave No Child Behind." Then the most famous former board member of CDF, Hillary Rodham Clinton, apparently decided to leave children behind in her rush to the political center, endorsing a bill that contained some of the worst elements of the Bush welfare reform plan
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/conniff
FUck Hillary.She is a Neocon!

They didn't believe in expansive social programs, but at the same time, they weren't in favor of running up massive amounts of debt and sinking the US dollar either. Deficit spending was something Goldwater Repubs condemned back then, but LBJ was more than willing to engage in his war in Southeast Asia. Many senior Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle were or still are registered Democrats. They may be left wing on economic issues and could care less about social issues, but their primary area of focus is on foreign policy: That is where they diverged from the New Left of the 1960s. They favored heavy confrontation and incursion, while the New Left was inherently more isolationist or conciliatory as far as international relations.

They were so incensed with the New Left that they became Repub supporters on foreign policy.

come a long way since then?

Kidding, KIDDING! :-)

Now that's a comment that's perfect match for the OP.

Not officially with the capital letters, but I was very misguided (brainwashed) and conservative in my teens and early college years.

Like Senator Clinton, I grew up.

I registered "R" to vote in the 1972 election, then quickly switched to "I" and remained so until 1992 when I registered "D" to vote for Paul Tsongas in the primary. Been "D" ever since... I kinda like it here! :)

In 1965 I was a toddler ...I'm not anymore...

Your point?

It's bad when people change their minds?

Hm.

their approach and plan is for our country's future. nt

Hillary supports the centerpiece of the PNAC? War with Iran Iraq..terra?
Why does she Dance around playing moderate?

hell she is in a death spiral with AIPAC and the PNAC! No fucking thank you! :scared:

She will end this stupid war Bush started that is bleeding our country dry. Debt drowning the government like a baby in a bathtub.Why?
Kuchinich has got the guts to say he will not only end the war but get us OUT of Gatt and Nafta.

She answers to the same corrupt corporate power base and the same fundie ideologues we have been at odds with for decades. How she has kept her cover this long it quite remarkable. It is there in all of its tainted glory now for anyone who cares to read beyond the scripted press releases and headlines.

It Is Maddening! :(

where they are now, you'll know what you need to know. You proved my point, in a roundabout way :7

No matter what the comparison between HRC and Bush, there's not a lot of difference between their respective supporters.

Strong women? I am one I am so masculine I have transitioned halfway,to a man.Really.
I have seen how people vcan mix left and right politics in a bad way.Neocons adopt some leftist ideas and they warp the rest.
Any PROGRESSIVE dem can tell hillary isn't the real deal.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4415/

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/index.php

People change.

But hillary doesn't get poverty. Most of the candidates don't give a shit about poverty issues.
And her Universal health care it isn't.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

http://www.unknownnews.org/070920-fd-20-MarinadiPisa.html#thisisaninterview

And what do you make of THIS???
http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advising_Hillary_Clinton__top_Democrats.html

:eyes:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463&type=category&category=67&go.x=12&go.y=12

She is my last choice for the nomination, but some of the smears around here are just silly.

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

For another example of HRC's and Moynihan's revising the history concerning Eleanor Roosevelt, there is Hillary's strong support of her husband's "welfare reform" law.

As Senator Paul Wellstone has said on the Senate floor: "Over two-thirds of a million low-income persons lost Medicaid coverage and became uninsured due to welfare reform. Sixty-two percent were children. Moreover, the number of people who lose health coverage due to welfare reform is certain to grow rather substantially in the years ahead. In every state there is a drop-dead certain date when families are going to be eliminated from all assistance." (Emphasis added.)

The Clinton "welfare reform" law mandates a five-year cumulative lifetime cap on the benefits. You are off the rolls forever. The "safety net" that Eleanor Roosevelt and her husband worked so hard to get into law has been torn apart by William Jefferson Clinton—to the applause of his wife.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0011,hentoff,13268,6.html
Apparently Hillary HATES the poor and disabled just like her hubby and the rest of the richies.

I believe that the welfare reform law was never about ending poverty. It was, rather, a salve for politically manipulated public anger at welfare recipients.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/
welfare/new.law.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm#13
Clinton also said..Father a rock-ribbed Republican but ran for office as Dem. (Jun 2007)

"I believe that the welfare reform law was never about ending poverty. It was, rather, a salve for politically manipulated public anger at welfare recipients."

Just like this 'universal health insurance' thing will get people off her back about health care. A salve for the conscience,nothing more.

He even served in the Reagan administration.

and not a knee-jerk one.

eom

n/t

....girls were not even allowed to wear pants in school.

Cripes....move along already, in was 1965...Bobby Kennedy was still alive.

What are Hillary's views on welfare and the mentally ill or disabled?? Thats where the con comes out...

This is WHY I HATE Hillary!

The Clinton "welfare reform" law mandates a five-year cumulative lifetime cap on the benefits. You are off the rolls forever. The "safety net" that Eleanor Roosevelt and her husband worked so hard to get into law has been torn apart by William Jefferson Clinton—to the applause of his wife. "We are sentencing to death children, we are sentencing to death people with mental retardation, we are sentencing to death the mentally ill.
http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/01/996857-hillary-and-the-death-penalty-the-clinton-welfare-reform-law-?threadId=156777&cmt=1069745


It was bad enough that the Bush Administration co-opted the Children's Defense Fund slogan "Leave No Child Behind." Then the most famous former board member of CDF, Hillary Rodham Clinton, apparently decided to leave children behind in her rush to the political center, endorsing a bill that contained some of the worst elements of the Bush welfare reform plan
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/conniff
WHY does she vote in ways that screw disabled people like me? WHY?
FUck Hillary She's no friend of the poor.She is a fucking poor hating,disabled abandoning,Neocon!

But I'm sure someone will be here soon to set us straight in matters, eh?

Even though many people are just a hop, skip and a jump from poverty, the issue still doesn't get the attention it should.

When foreclosures are happing daily and the market is shit people can't get jobs.food costs alot,I dunno how I'll afford heating oil...Poverty isn't sexy.Besides the richies don't WANT to talk about it. They'd rather we shut up and freeze to death.But we better have insurance we pay for and a card to pprove it if we want a job according to hillarys"plan"..
Check this out..
http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advising_Hillary_Clinton__top_Democrats.html

The dynastic thread.

Thanks for the info. No wonder she comes off as classy. I like her more than ever now.

So you don't see her ugly side.

:eyes:

I'm reminded of the debate style of creationists, and sets off a visceral reaction in me.

Her health care idea has some sticky points.Like requiring proof you are paying for a health care plan to get a job.Now if you are homeless how can you PAY for health care to get the card that says you are insured to GET a job?
AP Interview: Clinton on health care

by Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Sept. 18, 2007

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.


She said she could envision a day when **"you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview **- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress

Things are different on the bottom here.And Hillary is all for classwar against people like ME..

And what do you make of this?
http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advising_Hillary_Clinton__top_Democrats.html

argument and makes your opposition to HRC look hysterical.

Also, until the details of any such healthcare plan are revealed it makes little sense to attack it. If, for example, it provides for subsidized coverage for people in poverty that is one way of addressing the problem you speak of.

It could be that her plan would be a failure, or it could be simply undesirable. We'd have to know more about it first.

I do know she has a better than decent record on aid to the disadvantaged and other issues: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=NYI&district=At%20large&issue=A0

Now looking at her actual voting record might not be quite as sensational as her being a teenage republican (prior to DECADES as a Democrat), but sometimes the more mundane approach is more revealing.

So you claim that you're contrary, and that you're basing a decision on your emotions. That has more to do with personality than critical thinking.

Adding the "Creationist" comment is the cherry on top of a manipulative communication style that employs classic psy-op techniques.

I will give you this: bringing up Senator Clinton's past allegiance is not in itself a major concern, and is not anywhere as important as where her allegiances now are placed.

We people make fallacious arguments, it indicates that they have no real argument.

It's a good sign that people are full of shit. So naturaly, I react to it.

And here's a big LOL that I am using "psy-op" techniques.

Fuck, I do it too without being aware of it. It's all culled from human interaction.

Sorry.

Interesting how the knives come out when the truth is revealed. :eyes:

?

:eyes:

Too bad.

the party. Democrats decide what a Democrat is --- all of us. Not just you.

your idea of reality and actual reality don't align.

I'm so disappointed. Her short sightedness. Why aim lower than ideal. Why let the media sway your decision making. But it was those men who screwed up this country. Let's put in a woman.

She voted for the resolution to drop bombs. She may consider doing it in Iran. She may not end the invasion in Iraq until 2013. So what the fuck is wrong with my mother? It's something that may very well divide us. And maybe I'm being to serious about it. But I care. And I don't want any more god damned war.

Some proclaim to be life-long republicans...

Shit happens...

In twenty seven years of voting I have never voted for a Rethug, not even for sheriff..

I'll give her a pass...

My hero, RFK, voted for Eisenhower....

and Gore's father. Party affiliation doesn't tell you everything, does it?

And Bush Pere had a pretty good civil rights record when he was a Houson congressperson...

:shrug:

Gore was one of only three Democratic senators from the eleven former Confederate states who did not sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing integration, the other two being Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not asked to sign) and Gore's fellow Tennesseean Estes Kefauver, who refused to sign. South Carolina Senator J. Strom Thurmond tried to get Gore to sign the Southern Manifesto, but was told "Hell no" by Gore. Gore could not, however, be regarded as an out-and-out integrationist, having voted against some major civil rights legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Gore later claimed that the 1964 vote was his biggest mistake.) He did support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He had easily won renomination in 1958 over former governor of Tennessee Jim Nance McCord, which at that point was still tantamount to election (because of the traditional weakness of the Republican party in the post-Reconstruction South); by 1964 he faced an energetic Republican challenge from Memphian Dan Kuykendall, who ran a surprisingly strong race against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore%2C_Sr

I think we can safely say it's mixed...I chimed in because in the 00 election Sean Hannity tried to make Albert Gore Sr. an enemy of civil rights when the truth was a bit more complex....

As usual. :-)

Mostly the Dixiecrats from the South however, who today would probably be Republicans.

Which just goes to show you can't paint a broad brush with 40 year old information.

I guess some would say that means I'm still a bit infantile.

Eh, I've known some Goldwater Republicans who turned Dem. Some Eisenhower Republicans who did as well.

Personally I think you're reaching. If I decide not to vote for her, it's not going to be because of what she was forty years ago, but because of what she stands for now.

Actually, I turned 14 that year, and the girls thing waited a couple more years. The rest is true. But by 1972, I was a McGovernite, and still am, proudly.

Tricks....and BS Crap...

EOM.

(preview of next post by panther...)

:crazy:

wouldn't be surprised if Goldwater today was a DLC Democrat.

lol

Big deal.

And in 1985, I was a young Republican. And? Like Senator Clinton, I am no longer either young or a Repbulican.

There are plenty of areas to question her record/history, this is not one of them. Irrelevant with a capital I.

I'm sorry, but I don't trust her!

out. :eyes:

a long time ago. :-)

No, but I wouldn't have been averse to such a position in 1985. Now? Hell no. However; Senator Clinton WAS a Young Republican President in 1965! I think that is so long ago that the Eight-track cassette tape was still in our future...

Criticize Sen. Clinton legitimately for current policies and decisions, but dredging up ancient history that is irrelevant only helps the abomination that is the current Republican Party.

But please try to get something from the last 40 years...

I'm more concerned about her current association with Burson-Marsteller.

pickles was once a Democrat and Hillary was once a repuke.