« | »

NY Times Re-Writes Hillary’s College Days

From her idolaters at the New York Times:

Hillary Rodham, center, during her days as a student at Wellesley College, from 1965 to 1969.

In Turmoil of ’68, Clinton Found a New Voice

By MARK LEIBOVICH

September 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — In September 1968, Hillary Diane Rodham, role model and student government president, was addressing Wellesley College freshmen girls — back when they were still called “girls” — about methods of protest. It was a hot topic in that overheated year of what she termed “confrontation politics from Chicago to Czechoslovakia.”

“Dynamism is a function of change,” Ms. Rodham said in her speech. “On some campuses, change is effected through nonviolent or even violent means. Although we too have had our demonstrations, change here is usually a product of discussion in the decision-making process.”

Her handwritten remarks — on file in the Wellesley archives — abound with abbreviations, crossed-out sentences and scrawled reinsertions, as if composed in a hurry. Yet Ms. Rodham’s words are neatly contained between tight margins. She took care to stay within the lines, even when they were moving so far and fast in 1968. While student leaders at some campuses went to the barricades, Ms. Rodham was attending teach-ins, leading panel discussions and joining steering committees. She preferred her “confrontation politics” cooler.

She was not an antiwar radical trying to create a mass movement,” said Ellen DuBois, who, with Ms. Rodham, was an organizer of a student strike that April. “She was very much committed to working within the political system. From a student activist perspective, there was a significant difference.” …

Her political itinerary that year resembles a frenzied travelogue of youthful contradiction. She might have been the only 20-year-old in America who worked on the antiwar presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire that winter and for the hawkish Republican congressman Melvin Laird in Washington that summer.

She attended both the Republican National Convention in Miami (bunking at the Fontainebleu Hotel, ordering room service for the first time — cereal and a daintily wrapped peach) and the Democratic donnybrook in Chicago (smelling tear gas at Grant Park, watching a toilet fly out the window of the Hilton hotel).

The day after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was slain, she joined a demonstration in Post Office Square in Boston, returning to campus wearing a black armband

Looking back, it is easy to see that ambitious political science major in the first lady, United States senator and, now, presidential candidate she would become. She campaigned meticulously in student elections, going door to door and dorm to dorm. She wrote thank-you notes to professors who helped her.

In the bustle of her excursions, she showed the zeal of an emerging political junkie. And, while outspoken and often blunt, Ms. Rodham was hardly a bomb-thrower. She was, then as now, dedicated to cerebral policy debates, government process and carefully calibrated positions

When Dr. King was killed on the balcony of a Memphis motel on April 4, 1968, Ms. Rodham was devastated. “I can’t take it anymore,” she screamed after learning the news, her friends recalled. Crying, Ms. Rodham stormed into her dormitory room and hurled her book bag against the wall. Later, she made a telephone call to a close friend, Karen Williamson, the head of the black student organization on campus, to offer sympathy

After Dr. King’s assassination provoked riots in cities and unrest on campuses, Ms. Rodham worried that protesters would shut down Wellesley (not constructive). She helped organize a two-day strike (more pragmatic) and worked closely with Wellesley’s few black students (only 6 in her class of 401) in reaching moderate, achievable change — such as recruiting more black students and hiring black professors (there had been none). Eschewing megaphones and sit-ins, she organized meetings, lectures and seminars, designed to be educational

Even so, the killing of Dr. King created “a sense of disorder that was both unsettling and catalyzing” to Ms. Rodham, recalled Mr. Schechter, the political science professor and a mentor to her. Friends observed that she was less restrained and less deferential after Dr. King’s death

Keeping a Toe in the G.O.P.

For all her leftward movement, Ms. Rodham still kept a toe in the Republican Party, working as an intern in Washington that summer. Mr. Schechter, who supervised the Wellesley internship program, sent her to work for the House Republican Conference, then headed by Mr. Laird, the Wisconsin congressman who would later become President Richard Nixon’s defense secretary. “My adviser said, ‘I’m still going to assign you to the Republicans because I want you to understand completely what your own transformation represents,” Mrs. Clinton recalled of Mr. Schechter.

“I remember her being very bright, very aggressive and not very Republican,” said Ed Feulner, who managed the summer interns in the office and now heads the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group…

At the party’s convention in Miami, she met Frank Sinatra, shared an elevator with John Wayne and decided to leave the Republican Party for good. “She was particularly furious at how she felt Rockefeller had been trashed by the Nixon people,” Mr. Schechter said.

“I’m done with this, absolutely,” Mrs. Clinton recalled thinking upon hearing Mr. Nixon’s acceptance speech. She characterized the Republicanism of her youth as one of fiscal conservatism and social moderation, and at odds with what she viewed as the intolerance of Miami.

“All of a sudden you get all these veiled messages, frankly, that were racist,” Mrs. Clinton said of the convention. “I may not have been able to explain it, but I could feel it.”

As the year was ending , Ms. Rodham was working on a 92-page honors dissertation on Saul Alinsky, the antipoverty crusader and community activist, whom she described (quoting from The Economist) as “that rare specimen, the successful radical.”

Beyond Mr. Alinsky, the treatise yields insights about its author. Gaining power, Ms. Rodham asserted, was at the core of effective activism. It “is the very essence of life, the dynamo of life,” she wrote, quoting Mr. Alinsky…

Does anyone believe even half of these claims from Hillary and her people at The Times?

She attended both the Republican National Convention in Miami (bunking at the Fontainebleu Hotel, ordering room service for the first time — cereal and a daintily wrapped peach) and the Democratic donnybrook in Chicago (smelling tear gas at Grant Park, watching a toilet fly out the window of the Hilton hotel).

Was Ms. Rodham a delegate? A reporter? If not, then how did she have the credentials to gain access to either of these conventions?

Not to mention the time or the money.

“She was not an antiwar radical trying to create a mass movement,” said Ellen DuBois, who, with Ms. Rodham, was an organizer of a student strike that April.

No, Hillary was never a radical. She was just an organizer of student “strikes” and “teach-ins.” A fine distinction, at least to the Solons at the New York Times.

Apparently organizing a “strike” is much better than shutting down the college. But is there any real difference?

Still we are told that going to demonstrations, organizing strikes and doing teach-ins is somehow far different (and far better than) “manning the barricades.” 

(Does the author of this article think that there were actual barricades around in 1968?)

Clearly, Ms. Rodham was just your typical college student, spending her time campaigning for Gene McCarthy and going to political conventions and various demonstrations.

How could Hillary be a radical, anyway? As the article points out, she “kept her toe in the Republican Party”:

She might have been the only 20-year-old in America who worked on the antiwar presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire that winter and for the hawkish Republican congressman Melvin Laird in Washington that summer.

When we read the fine print, however, we learn that Ms. Rodham was assigned an internship with the hateful Republicans so that she could “understand completely what [her] own transformation represent[ed].”

In other words, this was done to show Hillary how far she now was from the GOP’s hateful warmongering and bigoted ways.

After Dr. King’s assassination provoked riots in cities and unrest on campuses, Ms. Rodham worried that protesters would shut down Wellesley (not constructive). She helped organize a two-day strike (more pragmatic) and worked closely with Wellesley’s few black students (only 6 in her class of 401) in reaching moderate, achievable change — such as recruiting more black students and hiring black professors (there had been none). Eschewing megaphones and sit-ins, she organized meetings, lectures and seminars, designed to be educational

Yes, Ms. Rodham was oh-so-concerned about her close black friends.

So much so that she “left” the Republican Party because of the racism she perceived in the “veiled messages” delivered at its Miami convention.

Mind you, this was a mere four years after the GOP got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the furious objections of the Democrat Party. (Including Bill Clinton’s mentor J. William Fulbright, who led two filibusters against it, and Al Gore, Sr. who voted against it.)

And lest we forget Hillary denounced as “out of touch” the black liberal Republican Edward Brooke, in her world-famous valedictorian speech one year later.

Luckily, Ms. Rodham’s concerns for racial equality did not prevent her from attending a college that only admitted 6 blacks in a class of 401.

But, honestly, does anybody really believe anything in this article? Even the remaining (and increasingly rare) subscribers to the New York Times?

Still, I guess we had better get used to these kind of fables.

For, this being the official start of the campaign season, from today onward The Times will be publishing endless propaganda and outright lies to help elect their boss, “the Hill.”

Of course one may well ask how that will that be any different from what the Times has written about Hillary hitherto?

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, September 5th, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “NY Times Re-Writes Hillary’s College Days”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »