You may pine for a Democratic presidential nominee who's less centrist than Hillary Clinton -- you may, in fact, pine for an actual progressive along the lines of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders -- but the Washington Free Beacon wants you to realize that political ideologies are set in concrete in one's early twenties, and therefore Hillary Clinton's youthful correspondence with Saul Alinsky proves that she's an unreconstructed radical leftist:
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development....And after saying that about Clinton and Alinsky, Olson was killed on board American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. Coincidence? I think not.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show....
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed "the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky."
At National Review, Stanley Kurtz makes clear that the Clinton-Alinsky relationship proves that Hillary is even more of a pinko subversive than Warren. In fact, as president, Hillary seems likely to be strikingly similar to the most powerful communist subversive ever to hold the office -- Barack Obama!
... While Bill and Hillary have worked, schemed, and governed as a couple for decades, Hillary has always been to the left of Bill. As president, she would govern more like Obama than like her husband.Yes, that right: you may think that Obama has failed to advance many progressive causes, as has Hillary Clinton, but the slow or nonexistent progress just confirms their committed leftism. Their failure to advance the cause is how you know they are hard at work advancing the cause. It's unbelievably sinister.
Hillary Clinton was the Elizabeth Warren of her day, the leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary continually pressed Bill from the left during their White House years, while clashing on the inside with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and the administration's Wall Street contingent.
The difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is that Warren flouts her ideology, thrilling the base by making the leftist case as few other Democrats dare. Ever the Alinskyite, Hillary prefers to achieve leftist ends incrementally, in pragmatic guise. It's a conflict of means rather than ends, the same conflict that leads many leftists to doubt Obama's ideological credentials, when in fact the president is as much a man of the left as ever.
And Kurtz notes that this has been true throughout Hillary's career:
During her time in Arkansas, Hillary may seem to have moved to the center. The Rose law firm, after all, was ... an establishment law firm representing the most powerful economic interests in the state. With the help of Dick Morris, moreover, Hillary took on the Arkansas teachers unions from the right as she led Bill's education initiative during his final governorship. In retrospect, all of this was largely pragmatic positioning. When Hillary finally got to the White House and assumed the co-presidency, she veered sharply back to the left on a whole range of issues, especially Hillarycare.Yes -- she bashed the teachers' unions to advance the leftist cause. Is there no limit to her evil?
... Hillary has never abandoned her early leftist inclinations. She has merely done her best to suppress the evidence of her political past, from barring public access to her thesis on Alinsky during her time in the White House, to papering over the significance of her internship at Treuhaft, Walker, and Burnstein [the left-leaning Bay Area law firm where she worked in her early twenties], to pretending that she turned away from Alinsky after her undergraduate years, when in fact she brought his methods and outlook into the heart of her political work.Let's see: Hillary Clinton was a top adviser to her husband, the governor of Arkansas, for twelve years; she was America's First Lady (and a top adviser to the president) for eight years; she was a U.S. senator for eight years; and she was secretary of state for four years -- and in all that time she's been a Third Way left-centrist and a relatively hawkish Democrat. But she was just fooling us! She knew that, one day, the full flower of her evil leftist scheme to communize America would bloom, because she knew it would have to wait until she became president, even though no woman had ever attained the presidency, much less the wife of a former president, much less the wife of an impeached former president. But she knew her time would come.
Right-wingers really are so infantile that they believe everyone who disagrees with them is a comic-book supervillain.
I think here we get a sense of why right-wingers are so obsessed with Saul Alinsky: They simply can't believe that any decent American could possibly reject their ideology, or fail to worship their favorite politicians as heroes -- and yet Democrats win elections sometimes, and liberal policies maintain some level (often a significant level) of popular support. The only possible explanation must be a sinister mind control technique, one that's put into practice by clandestine operatives working from ancient lore shared among acolytes across generations.
What right-wingers are imagining in their fever dreams isn't politics -- it's a freaking Dan Brown novel.