digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at washingtonpost.com

Hillary was Republican in High School, Oh My

washingtonpost.com — Fists ***** in preparation for Maine South High School's first mock election battle are, left to right, Hillary Rodham, director of the Republican organization, Matt Bunya, Democratic director, and Ellen Press, co-director of the Democrats. From Oct. 16, 1964 student newspaper "Southwords.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AshWii, on 12/09/2007, -41/+259i was an idiot in high school too
    • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -11/+61Oh, but it didn't end in high school. She led her school's chapter of the College Republicans.
      • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -10/+23You're free to be an idiot in College as well. In fact, the majority of Americans can be used as evidence that you're pretty much free to be an idiot whenever you want to be for as long as you want to be. ;)

        I'm not a fan of Hillary personally, but I don't see what's so wrong about changing your political alignment. When one gets new information that can make them change their mind (and that information is of higher quality/more compelling than prior information), one can do two things.

        You can change your mind, as a rational person would.

        Or you can stubbornly keep to the beliefs that are no longer as compelling as they once were.

        I'd rather have a president who's in the former category. I think 7 years of Bush has been enough to make me realize that our president needs to be someone who's willing to admit when they're wrong.
        • unreg, on 12/09/2007, -2/+19I wonder how many children of the 60's are now eschewing a life full of personal possesions. How many radicals are now conservatives.

          People change as the world around them changes. I use to be very conservative, now I'm more liberal simply for the fact that I've seen more.

          • nicholai, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Hillary never really changed, she has always been a neocon and always will be.
        • tschau, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2eschewing = avoiding... I do not think this is what you meant.

          I get your point though... I think you are the exception to the rule of the way people shift with age.
        • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6Aye, exactly. The thing to remember I think is that people can change their minds. And that's a very good thing. I'd rather not have someone in power who was averse to changing his/her mind simply because he/she doesn't want to admit that they were wrong.
        • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2People change. I was just trying to call attention to the fact that she was a Republican as late as her early adulthood - maybe longer. Wehn did she change? Did she change? She ought to address this.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early ...

          So, basically, when the Republican Party leaned even further to the right, she bailed with other moderates to join the Democratic Party as a right-leaning Democrat.
          • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2Ha! Hillary as a right leaning democrat, what a hilarious image. Obviously, she experienced a dramatic change in her political opinions while in law school that not only signaled a shift in party loyalty but also a dramatic shift in the ideology she supported.
    • jacquesm, on 12/09/2007, -5/+59I think most people underestimate the shift that American politics has made in the last 40 years. At some point the republicans became the conservatives, the democrats became the 'new republicans' and a true left does not exist (or has no power).
      • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -4/+11That's very true. There was someone below who was spouting off about how they were a Democrat when he was a kid and changed to Republican as an adult because they had studied philosophy, history economics blah blah blah... If anyone had actually studied such things, they'd realize the point you just made above.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Most books are written by narcissistic little bourgeois, and make people even more stupid, or better able to justify their stupid and neurotic instincts.
          Only books written by true geniuses (not people advertised as geniuses by the powers that be's culture) can make someone really brighter.
          Guy Debord is an enemy of today's culture.
      • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2Many people argue the opposite point, that the political spectrum has shifted to the left. You used to see socialist and labor parties in this country but they don't exist anymore. The democratic party (and to a lesser extent, the republicans) have adopted many of the positions advocated by the old leftist parties. The conservative party supports a much larger and more powerful government than it has historically.
        Third parties can be seen as filling the gaps that the major parties do not cover and can indicate the leanings of the major parties. The Libertarian, Constitution and Reform parties are/were primarily conservative and the largest leftist 3rd party, the Greens, runs on an issue that has really only become important in the last 50 years with the ecological destruction caused by the world's post ww2 industrial boom.

        Anyway, just pointing out there is not a consensus as to whether the two big parties have become more conservative or liberal. If it has been more conservative over the last 40 years that primarily reflects public opinion during the cold war and if you talk 80 or 100 years it has become much more liberal.
      • synarchy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3That's a joke, right? I mean, Rudy voted for McGovern in 1972, and today he's the front runner Republican!
    • StupidLiberal, on 12/09/2007, -7/+1Apparently, not much has changed "AshWii"
    • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -3/+6yea, i dislike hillary and have a problem with many of her views too, but this is just childish mudslinging. i was a pretty big idiot in high school too. maybe i wasn't a self-proclaimed republican, but i had many poorly-formed social and political views which were generally aligned with the republican party. we should be judging candidates based on their recent history and current stances on issues, not digging up dirt from decades ago.

      there are plenty of things wrong with hillary's platform that make her a poor candidate, but this is not one of them.
      • TheGuruStud, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Except she fits in with the republicans of today in office. Looks like it says who she really is to me.
        • Bagos1, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2She completely supports this current administration, except the part of taking your money for her goals...to get more of your money for her goals.
          She will support ANYTHING to keep this run going for rich people.
          Fools.
        • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2then that should be the issue that the media and voters ought to focus on, not this meaningless tripe about her political views in high school.
  • ncurses, on 12/09/2007, -8/+30oh ok
  • atdigg, on 12/09/2007, -22/+118"A young conservative has no heart, an old liberal has no mind." Somebody talked about Hillary here...
    • lordtyros, on 12/09/2007, -8/+35I thought it was "an old liberal has no money."
    • Battleloser, on 12/09/2007, -19/+6I LOVE that, I'm going to steal it.
    • odigity, on 12/09/2007, -30/+68Agreed. I was a liberal when I was younger, because I cared. Now I'm a conservative, because I care - AND have studied philosophy, history, and economics. :)

      Note - please don't confuse "conservative" with "neocon". Ron Paul is the only actual conservative in the bunch. The rest are just fascists, just like the Democrats are just socialists. Really, we're just given the choice one form of tyrrany or another these days.
      • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -17/+27If you studied economics, history and philosophy you'd know that most Democrats would hardly be considered Socialists.
        • Ghoztt, on 12/09/2007, -10/+15Democrats as well as the Neocons may not be "considered" Socialists - but the more control you give to Government the more you lean towards Socialism. Where the individual doesn't take care of himself, but the STATE takes care of the individual. Government Healthcare, Federal Education Programs, Corporate Subsidies... this is all SOCIALISM no matter how much you want to lie to yourself.
          Those of you who think that the Governments job is to provide HEALTHCARE when you've got sick from shoving sugary, greasy, cheap food down your throat and never exercising can go run this country into the ground all you want. All the while saying "OH, and it's not socialism! SMILE!" You have no right to make me pay for your fat ass. The only right you have is to take care of yourself, eat right and exercise or suffer the ***** consequences and die.
          • yutt, on 12/10/2007, -4/+11Do you feel better after beating up that scary strawman?
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/10/2007, -4/+4No, that is not socialism. Socialism, at least in the Marxist sense, which is what most people agree to be the standard definition, is summed up as:
            "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds [or work or actions]" Socialism = meritocracy. There is absolutely no requirement that the government own anything. If a corporation were to simply distribute its stock amongst its own employees, in proportion to the hours they work/their salaries/whatever, that would pretty much count as a socialist entity.

            Healthcare can be privately owned too, and still be socialist. It just cannot be invested in by outside speculators.

            Similarly, healthcare can potentially be government owned WITHOUT it being socialist. If the government takes out bonds to pay for the healthcare it runs, or if it taxes people in ways that place undue/disproportionate burdens, or if it distributes healthcare in a favoritist or inappropriate fashion, then it would not be socialist.

            As far as the cheap greasy food goes - imagine a system where eating at McDonalds ***** up your health insurance premiums. That system could be a socialist system, without any contradiction. Remember, it is "to each according to the work you do," which can deifnitely include the work you do to maintain your own body.

            In general, socialism is pretty unrelated to what you seem to think it means, and I think you'd find that if you actually studied what socialism really is, you would not disagree with it as much as you think you do.
          • leahcim, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds [or work or actions]"

            I thought that was Communism, ya know, the step after socialism, according to Marx.

            Besides, its not a meritocracy. A Meritocracy you get to benefit from what you've earned.
          • jgzman, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6May I advise you that the government has paid subsidies to farmers in such a way to make "sugary, greasy, cheap food" MUCH less expensive than healthy stuff? If the government would take hands off, healthy food wouldn't be 3x as expensive as crap.
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2@ Leahcim, No, communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his NEEDS." Very different. Communism comes about when there is such an abundance of everything (due to advanced technology) that it doesn't matter if you work for it or not - everybody can get what they NEED anyway.

            The step in between is, as you said, socialism, which is the same, but with distribution according to work (wages), not needs.

            And what do you mean by your meritocracy comment? In a socialism you definitely benefit from what you've earned. I go work for 1 day, I get 1 day's wages, and I can spend them as I please (i.e., benefit from what I've earned.) That's not how it is now. Right now, I can work for a day, and then invest my money and make more money off of it for doing absolutely nothing, indefinitely. Right now, simply being rich begets more riches. That's not meritocracy, because you can easily be rich and get richer without having any merit whatsoever (cough cough Paris Hilton). Or even if you have merit, you can get richer without ever actually using it. And the existence of such inactive rich people also makes it more and more difficult (as they get richer) for honest wage laborers to get what they want and need without becoming capitalists (investors)
          • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Socialism implies a collectivist public policy. You can have an authoritarian regime without a socialist one (gw bush) but the tools that socialists and collectivist theorists advocate as a method to bring about their collectivist paradise require a powerful government forcing people to do what is best for the common good. hillary clinton has made this common good the foundation of her campaign.
            This 'common good' is the antithesis of individual choice, freedom and liberty.
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2@3tcp, No, none of that is correct. Socialism has absolutely no required component of collectivism OR large government authority.

            I repeat once again, socialism = "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his merit/effort/work." Do you see anything in there written about collectivism or government coercion? No, because it isn't there.

            The collectivism is a LIKELY (not required) side effect, because without wealthy investors, businesses won't usually be able to get off the ground very easily, unless lots of people band together in some way (through the government or otherwise). But theoretically, if the equipment and space and everything to start a business were cheap enough, a handful of average people could start enough businesses to get by and/or corporations would supply the country with enough to get by, and collectivism would not need to come into play.

            Government force, on the other hand, is not only not required, but is almost the opposite of socialism and communism. Socialism most likely comes about as a result of popular/proletariat revolt, and therefore the economy is run by the people. Chances are that the government will therefore be run by the people too. (A democracy) It isn't required, but a socialism that wasn't a democracy, and which did not encourage wide freedoms, would be very rare.

            By the time you get to communism, there is no government whatsoever in the first place (or a skeleton government that is basically just a military and small scale police force only). Why? Because you don't need to force anybody to be nice in a communism, because there is NO INCENTIVE to be aggressive or to revolt if you live in one. If you have everything you need being provided for you, why on earth would you need to pick any fights? You can be as selfish as you want without having to hurt anybody else. So there is no NEED for a government at all.

            You have that part totally backwards.
          • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1@smurfsahoy
            I am talking about how these theories appear in the real world and the role that they actually play in politics. Your definition of socialism is irrelevant because if you pass legislation that states that this is your intent it doesn't automatically happen.
            Your point that the people are the source of the authority to run the economy is valid but the economy is already run by the people. A planned economy would not offer the people a greater degree of input into the functions of the economy than a free market that adapts to the will of the people quickly and naturally.

            People don't invest in something just because it'd be nice if those guys had a business. It costs money to run a business and it would need to show that it will make a profit so it can justify an investment. These conditions already occur in the current system. In order to investment to occur without these incentives, government force would be required.

            In order to just make everything cheaper you neeed price controls. There would be a shortage of goods (no incentiive to make them) and people would not get what they need.
            The free market is a great system for distribution of goods because people simply allocate their money according to their needs and wants. If there are 10 milion peopel who want something l but only 400,000 have been made, how do you decide who gets them?

            You will never make it to communism because the only chance that a socialist society has of surviving is with a big and strong government to coordinate production efforts, allocation of production materials, allocation of labor and allocation of goods while punishing shirking of work responsibilities, theft, black market activities, etc.
            The flaw in your reasoning is the fact that you cannot answer the 3 questions following this quote.
            "If you have everything you need being provided for you, why on earth would you need to pick any fights?"
            Where are these things that are being provided for you coming from?
            If you have everything you need being provided for you, why on earth would you need to go and work?
            Who gets to decide what everyone needs and what makes you think that people will just be satisfied with whatever they receive?
          • joeTaco, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1whoa im tired. read some names wrong. digg me down boyos
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1I agree that socialism is certainly the weaker of the two arguments for Marx. And in reality, fine, I'll grant you that government would have to be involved (although it still isn't part of the definition). But I still do not see any really good reason why it can't work WITH government involved, or why government would have to be tyrannical. They just act as the venture capitalist of the country. The only tyrannical bit was in forcing people to work to their potential, as you said. But THAT part is easy to do without government. It's already taken care of within private industries. You don't do your job? You get fired... no government required. You haven't proven that socialism wouldn't work. Just that it needs a government involvement to a degree.

            That aside, even if socialism were completely impossible for whatever reason, that does not imply that communism will never happen. There's no reason why we can't just skip straight to communism later on if socialism didn't work out. The switch would occur when we had a high enough GDP from capitalism that, after people potentially all stop working, we can still satisfy all of their needs. Thus, I answer (for communism, not socialism), all 3 of your questions:

            Where are these things that are being provided for you coming from?
            -from the advanced technology and techniques developed over years of capitalist innovation, until the time is right. (not now)
            If you have everything you need being provided for you, why on earth would you need to go and work?
            -You don't. What's your point? If production is high enough, people don't need to work for us to still make things. It's called "robotics." Although all the same, people would still work, at least a lot of them. Life is pretty dull with 100% leisure time. Certainly artistic work, if nothing else, would be in full swing. Architecture, etc.
            Who gets to decide what everyone needs and what makes you think that people will just be satisfied with whatever they receive?
            -The general idea is that you basically take whatever you want. It's not an issue. Want vs. need is a trivial distinction here, because keep in mind that we are talking about things like food and shelter and water when we discuss Marxist needs, mostly. Not luxury sports cars or villas. Once you have enough food to keep you full, why would you NOT be satisfied? I have no incentive to grab two hamburgers every meal and just throw one away...
          • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1@smurfsahoy
            If, in a socialist society you get fired for not doing your job does the government still give you the things you need? If government doesn't provide for the unemployed at all then they're worse off in socialism than they are in our current system. If the fear of getting fired is the only motivation for doing their job, they'll only work hard enough to not get fired. I'd say they'd do maybe 15 minutes of real work in a week.

            So you wouldn't allow people to have luxury cars or big houses just because they wanted them.
            What if they were willing to work and earn them?
            Will government not allow people to have things that they work for and earn?
            Will the government then allow people to be free to do what they want when they aren't working or will free time be regulated for the sake of social justice? What if someone wants to spend their free time milling lumber and cooking bricks so that they can use them to build themselves a big house? What if they want to have a big garden with a fruit and vegetable selection far beyond what is provided by the government, wouldn't that be considered a luxury or will the government own all the trees, mud, dirt plants and seeds so it would never be possible for anyone to indulge in these activities?

            Want and need is not a trivial matter here, it is the core issue The entire reason why democracy and free market capitalism work is because everyone gets to decide for themselves what they want and what they need. Supply and demand determines the how much someone will have to give up in order to satisfy those wants. If you force everyone to have an equal amount of money to spend on their wants then you'll create a society where no one is happy because your options will be restricted by your spending money and they'll have no means of increasing it.

            Needs are things like clothes and food but if people are provided eggs they'll want chiecken, give them chicken and they'll want pork, pork and they'll want steak, etc.... What if everyone wants to have a bowl full of caviar for breakfast every day?
            You're imagining a fantasy world where everyone is satisfied with having what they need, as determined by some other third party, and technology is advanced enough to provide it no problem. This is contrary to human nature because humans are inquisitive. When we get the kind of technology to provide for everyones needs, mankind will still have questions about science and nature that have not been answered. We won't all say 'well ***** it, no reason to worry about it now that I'm getting government bologna for free'. We will continue to work to answer questions, this will produce a limited quanitty of knowledge, welath and goods that cannot be equally distributed throughout the communitty and society will look exactly how it would as a free-market democracy. The ones who work the hardest and the smartest will have the most stuff.

            Community ownership of capital would require constantly taking things from the people who work and study hard to develop them and giving them away to people who didn't have to do anything for it. There is always a natural incentive to learn and work and people naturally seek those incentives. If the government maintains a policy of stealing those incentives from the people who earned them and giving them to people who didn't, then no one will bother.
            The only way your position would work is if, alongside your assumptions that 'the robots will produce everything', 'everyone will get what they need', you throw in 'people won't care anymore about answers to their questions or what other kinds of things they can experience'.
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Answering questions from the first part:

            -In a socialist society, if you get fired, then it's just like getting fired in our current system. You get severance pay perhaps, and so forth, but if you dont get a job again quickly enough, then yes, you suffer. There may or may not be unemployment benefits, depending on what the political system (in a democracy, people's votes) decide to give in taxes for things like this. It's not really significantly different than now as far as unemployment goes. You're making this more complicated than it is. The ONLY difference is who invests in things. It has to be either the government (that doesnt mean they RUN the business. They just INVEST in it) or some egalitarian distribution among the people of another kind.
            -There is no reason why pay could not be based on how WELL you do your job in a socialist society, so long as some jobs are not inherently vastly better paying than others. In fact, how well you do your job is a pretty universally acknowledged factor for socialism. It's not okay for a basketball player to work just about as hard as me, and make 5,000 times as much. It IS okay for me to make twice as much as the lazy guy next door who works half as often and as hard as me.

            (your next paragraph is addressing issues from communism, not socialism, just pointing that out. People's needs doesn't come into play yet in socialism)
            -In a communism, you can have luxury cars. They just aren't guarunteed. You might have to go out and get a job and earn some money for things you want. The only thing you are entitled to work-free is what you need. But that isn't the limit of your life. You can choose to earn more.
            -Most of your other questions I just answered. Yes, you are allowed to work and earn more things than you need. Yes your free time is your own (why would it not be? I dont get why you even ask that). And vegetable gardens are not generally considered a "means of production" (come on...) so I think you're good there too.
            -Note also that in a communism, there isn't really a government, per say. Think of it more like there being a big hydroponics lab in the middle of town that grows more than enough food for everybody in town, and it requires little to no maintenance (or can make do with volunteer maintenance). The infrastructure is just left over mostly from socialism and capitalism, and it's cheap enough to replace that you don't need government taxes to do it. You just go get what you need. Simple as that. If the technology is stable enough (doesnt randomly stop working), nobody will have any incentive to hoard food. Everything other than basic needs could work more like it did in socialism, though.

            Rest of the post:

            Supply and demand exist in socialism, so your next paragraph is a moot point. Remember, the only difference is that there are no venture capitalists. The rest of the market economy can work just like it does now in socialism. And in communism, it can also be a market for luxury items, just not necessary items.

            The paragraph after that I also answered already. You are given free wonder bread and spam, yes (what you "need" would actually have to be nutritious foods, but that's besides the point), but you could go out and work more than is required, and get caviar now and then if you were curious. It just isn't guaranteed, that's all.

            Final paragraph - Nobody is stealing anything. People who write novels and who do research merely get paid by the hour in lieu of getting royalties, etc. This already happens for many artists. It's not like they aren't compensated... And I see no reason at all why this would stifle creative work. Most books that get written aren't ever even published, and those that are only very rarely become hit sellers. An author who writes to become rich is a pretty naive/dumb author, unless he is Michael Crighton and knows he can sell books already. The world can do without the books written by a handful of people like that (and who's to say Crighton wouldn't keep writing anyway?)
            On this last point, it helps to keep in mind Marx's historical account - the whole foundation of the theory is the idea that technology DECIDES morality, and class, and modes of production, etc. There is no fundamental/everlasting/inherent "right" to intellectual proprty ingrained in the human condition. If it were, then people would have invented the concept of intellectual property thousands of years ago. They did not. Yet all the same, art was still made...
        • smurfsahoy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Now that I thought about it more, perhaps the reason why you think people don't get to work for luxury items in their spare time is because they would then form an upper class? If that's your concern, it shouldn't be. Some guy making 40% more than me for luxuries because he works in his spare time is not in a higher class. First of all, there just aren't enough hours in the day to make THAT much extra money by volunteer working such that you could ever be obscenely more rich than somebody else. But beyond that, the concept of "class" goes far beyond relative wealth. It is about pride and humiliation and equality of opportunity, and many other things. If I have the OPTION to get up to the same salary as any of my neighbors do within a couple of months, just by simply deciding to go out and get a job (or another job), then Marx would consider that being in the same class. There is no moral baggage being held over anybody, or obstacles to success, or anything else. Not even inheritance. If you aren't allowed to invest, then passing down a little bit of extra wealth to your kids would not keep them wealthy for very long, unless they also have a strong work ethic. Thus, success requires constant maintenance, and it can never get unobtainably far out of reach of the unsuccessful, if they were to simply show a little more gumption. That counts as a classless society.
      • rolawson, on 12/09/2007, -13/+13I assume the :) is short for "Look! I managed to spout empty qualifications and underhandedly stigmatize liberalism with zero tenability in one sentence!" Sheep.
      • clark24, on 12/09/2007, -8/+11Studied? You mean you took each of the introductory classes required for most college degrees?
      • dwninjungleland, on 12/09/2007, -11/+5As i read the beginning of your comment, i thought to myself: "prolly a paulbot"
        Thanks for proving me right and upholding the stereotype.
      • smurfsahoy, on 12/09/2007, -3/+11As mentioned, democracy has nothing to do with socialism. One is an economic system, the other political. There can be democratic socialism, and there can be autocratic socialism. Or anything in between.

        Fascism and conservativism are very closely linked as well. Conservatives are simply those who don't want to change things - in the case of the US, this has historically meant upholding the constitution doggedly. Fascisms are basically authoritarian super nationalistic governments, which are invariably also conservative, because the basis for the nationalism is pretty much always the longstanding conservative roots and traditions of the country. So fascists ARE true conservatives, often more so than people like Ron Paul, since the document that Ron Paul is falling back on is much younger and newer than the sorts of ideologies that, say, Mussolini fell back on.

        Finally, I have a real job, am well to do, and I was a philosophy and psychology student and have studied all of those things as well, yet I am still very left wing. In fact, my favorite philosopher remains Karl Marx to this day. Studying philosophy, history, economics, etc. does not necessarily change your beliefs in any particular direction as a rule, because each of those fields has people who write both liberal and conservative theories. It's not like "Oh, I studied economics, and now I know that the only one truth of economics is conservative, so I am conservative." There are dozens of hugely popular economic theorists that are left wing. Marx, Nozick, FDR(or however came up with his policies), etc.
        • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2"Conservative" and "liberal" generally mean different things when applied to the modern political landscape of the United States. A "conservative" is someone who has right-wing economic policies (laissez faire free market economy, little government regulation, no welfare state, etc.), and/or "Religious Right" social policies (no gays, no abortion, no drugs, no gun-control, etc.) while "liberals" have leftist economic policies (emphasis on government control/regulation of economy, large welfare state, etc.) and liberal social policies (pro-drugs, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, etc.). This is not what those words mean, but it's how it's used. For the record, many free market laissez-faire types hate FDR's policies.
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Not really. Neocons (the modern political landscape conservatives) do not fit your description. What you described as the "modern" conservative right there is exactly what I said conservatives were in the traditional sense. And the fact that Ron Paul creates such a buzz nowadays implies that many people were never very happy about the word "conservative" being hijacked (or attempting to be hijacked) by the aforementioned neocons.

            So I stand by my assertion that the real meaning of "Conservative" both before, and in modern day America, is widely believed to simply mean the desire to maintain the status quo/uphold founding ideals. Neocons are called neocons for a reason.. It's not the same thing.
        • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3The writings of Plato, Marx, Mills, Bentham and Locke have much different implications for political and economic theory than they do for philosophy.

          Socialism is by no means an economic system. It is a collectivist political ideology that advocates heavy governmental control over the economy. It is possible for socialism and dthe democratic process to coexist with the structure of political institutions in 'democratic' countries. People can vote to select a socialist/collectivist government.
          These idelogoies depend on different and conflicting principles. Socialists looking to be elected through democracy will have to convince the voters to abandon the principles that the democratic system is built upon. Every individual has certain rights over the control of their lives that they allow the government to exercise on their behalf when they are a member of a community. These rights are unalienable and it isn't possible to take them away from the individual, so the democratic process requires that people consent to government use of these powers through the elections & referendums. Everyone is equally capable of reason and has the capacity for reason to decide what is best for themselves, everyone's vote has equal value and the government must treat everyone equally without prejudice.
          These are the assumptions on which the argument for democracy is based and the reasons why democracy is most able to create justice in society. Socialism depends on the assumptions that people are not equal, that people do not have an equal capacity for reason and that government should restrict the ability of people to exercise freedom because the government can determine what is best for people better than what they can determine what is best for themselves.

          Your statement that fascist regimes being conservative is ridiculous. Fascism and Communism are essentially the same thing, totalitarian regimes that place the interest and will of the state as superior to those of the individuals. Communism simply incorporated economic reforms that gave the government full control over the economy. Fascism is considered strictly conservative only because liberals call their totalitarianism something different and incorporate government control of the market.
      • DeadRepubs, on 12/10/2007, -1/+0I mistake conservatives for inbred loons,mainly because they are.
    • aks123, on 12/09/2007, -15/+19I'm an old liberal, and I have a mind.
      • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -13/+3@ everyone else:

        Don't tell grandpa that the Soviet Union collapsed. His heart might not take it.
        • smurfsahoy, on 12/09/2007, -2/+7The USSR was a dictatorship that very pathetically tried to look like it was socialist (sometimes. Other times, it didn't even put forth the effort. Killing millions of poor people is not socialist), but never was. And even if it had been socialist, Marx himself would have predicted that it would fail miserably, because socialism is TIME SENSITIVE, and it was clearly not time for it yet. Capitalism had not progressed anywhere near long enough to lay the necessary groundwork for socialism.

          So in every single way of slicing it, your comment is irrelevant and misguided.
          • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2I take it you've never seen "Goodbye Lenin"...
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3The character there was a woman, and if I recall correctly, was the guy's mother, not grandmother. Thus, I highly doubt he was referring to that film.

            And even if he was, a sarcastic comment from a comic/drama movie about a mostly unrelated topic is not really a clever or appropriate response to a guy who simply and innocently stated his general viewpoint.
          • whataboutdave, on 12/10/2007, -5/+2The "he" was me. And I was referring to that film.

            If you don't like unrelated comments that with unfunny references, Digg might not be for you.
      • aks123, on 12/09/2007, -5/+13It's amusing how I get dugg down simply for saying I'm a liberal.
        • IMJGalt, on 12/10/2007, -6/+5You are being dugg down for alleging that you are capable of rational thought
    • postaboy, on 12/10/2007, -4/+15“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
      -Winston Churchill
      • ordig, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9"The good die young, but Pricks live forever"
        -Lewis Black
        • rlbond86, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1"People are just bastard-covered bastards with bastard filling."
          -Dr. Perry Cox
      • MrObjectional, on 12/10/2007, -0/+5This quotation is frequently but mistakenly attributed to Churchill. It is unlikely that Churchill would subscribe to this philosophy: He was a swashbuckling soldier at 20, and a Conservative member of Parliament at 25. A couple of years later he switched to the Liberal Party (which was not liberal in the modern sense), and later went back to the Conservatives.

        The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
    • unitedstatians, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are ***** and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Scariest_Thr ...
    • Bodhinature, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1She is neither.
  • podunkcountyusa, on 12/09/2007, -35/+16She was a Goldwater girl, which begs the question..."When did Hitlery turn to the Socialist dark side?"
    • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -0/+8she stopped being a goldwater girl and republican because of the racism and pro-segregation of goldwater and the republican party.
      • IMJGalt, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2I thought Robert Byrd was the only surviving senatorial grand dragon
  • placi, on 12/09/2007, -22/+5wow she was good looking.
    • ZeRux, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3She's 60 now, of course that she looked better 40 years ago.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Buried! Reported as offensive!!!!
  • syroncoda, on 12/09/2007, -23/+17well duh she is republican in sheep's clothing. through and through. now she's "neocon" of course but you get the point. traitorous bitch all over.
    • rolawson, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6o_O
      • primordialmeme, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3He's right, she is a neocon. Bill ran a basically neoconservative agenda in his 8 years. NAFTA, WTO, Telecom Act of 1996, more drug war funding, welfare "reforms", bombing iraq throughout the 90's culminating with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for regime change by any means necessary, it was the prelude to the 2003 invasion. His wife will not be any better.
        • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Uh, no. Most people think Clinton was a centrist who did well on account of his centrist domestic policies and the relatively easy climate of the '90's. He did not by any means have an aggressive, neo-con-esque foreign policy.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Exactly! Anyone can watch documentaries about the Clintons, like the ones in emule: Mena connection about drug traffic at the Mena Arkansas airport for example. Chip Tatum also tells about it in his video: he personaly delivered drug suitcases to Bill at that little airport, which officially were supposed to be organs for organ transplants, but he opened the suitcases. Chip Tatum was CIA blackops, and was assassinated in 2000, after he revealed too much. He also tells about the relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons.
          Search all that on googlevideos/youtube as well!
          Search Vince Foster also!
    • BossKey, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4The reason Hillary's transition makes sense is because there is not much actual difference between the two parties. Hillary's father said Democrats were "one step from Communists." Well, that means Republicans are only two steps from Communists. Similarly, Republicans are only one step from fascists, and the Democrats show by their behavior that they are only two steps from being fascists themselves.

      Of course Hillary became a Democrat. Today's Democrats are like the "real Republicans" of the 20th Century, while the Republicans have shifted into the crazy Neocon party. Neither of the two major parties are actually liberal at this point. In other words, Hillary may not have moved at all. She stood her ground while the nation moved.

      And what would Hillary's Republican debt-hating father have thought of today's "borrow and spend" Republicans?? He would have been furious at the study that shows that Democrats "Tax and spend" mentality actually saves money compared to the Republicans' "Borrow and spend," in the long run.

      I am not sure I want her as President, BTW.
      • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The democrats today are much more authoritarian and socialist than they were 15 years ago. The republicans are too. Neither of these ideals are considered conservative and neither of the big parties are conservative anymore.

        I might have a heart attack if she becomes president BTW
  • MouseyTung, on 12/09/2007, -15/+144Hillary has no political affiliation, if she had any idealism it was lost long ago. Shes an opportunist. Shell promote anything a majority of the nation will agree with.
    • zKman, on 12/09/2007, -7/+16Aren't politicians /supposed/ to represent the majority interest? Take a look at Bush. He and his administration are neo-con/Christian idealists that represent 25% of the country. See how that's working out? Not a fan of Hillary, but I don't really see this as an argument against her.
      • winnch, on 12/09/2007, -3/+11Well, first let me say, I think it's ridiculous how often we tear politicians apart and assume to know what goes on inside their head. Hillary, believe it or not, is a human being. She gets the flu. She loves her daughter. She gets tired sometimes. I'll never vote for her - but remember, you don't know ***** about her as a human.
        Next. We have a representative democracy, which means we elect people, but it's up to them to decide what to do, how to lead. It's not actually true that our elected people must follow some sort of consensus of the people.
        • surasshu, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6Unless that gets them elected, of course.
        • KSUdesigner, on 12/09/2007, -1/+7No there is no requirement that they follow the majority of the people, but that is what they SHOULD be doing instead of following their own personal agendas.
      • Mothrog, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9At the time we went to war with Iraq, the use of force had over 80% approval. The majority of people also don't want gay marriage. There's a reason the founding fathers carefully guarded against strict majority rule: sometimes the majority of people are ***** stupid.
        • StupidLiberal, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6Exactly, the USA is NOT a democracy
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3The majority of people are brainwashed by powerful institutions: church, state, media,...
          You can only blame the insane powers when crazy ideas end up polluting people's minds.
          Most people would never go to war without propaganda, or without being forced by a minority of bloodthirsty people in arms.
      • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Sadly, it's not 25%.
    • LincolnA, on 12/09/2007, -2/+7Yea I ***** hate when candidates ignore political affiliations and follow the will of the people.
      ...?
      • BlackStrain, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0Well good because that never happens.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3People have the capacity to change their minds.
    • Soytaco, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Yup, that's how representative democracy is supposed to work isn't it?
    • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3"Shell promote anything a majority of the nation will agree with."
      Wrong: she will promote what the CFR has decided to put in people's minds, like the corporate media. And she will pretend to promote solutions to the needs of millions of people, but will not do anything for them, like when she pretended to care about healthcare and welfare for modest or average people.
      Anyone can watch documentaries about the Clintons, like the ones in emule: Mena connection about drug traffic at the Mena Arkansas airport for example. Chip Tatum also tells about it in his video: he personaly delivered drug suitcases to Bill at that little airport, which officially were supposed to be organs for organ transplants, but he opened the suitcases. Chip Tatum was CIA blackops, and was assassinated in 2000, after he revealed too much. He also tells about the relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons.
      Search all that on googlevideos/youtube as well!
      Search Vince Foster also!
    • phlebitis, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0Agreed. The headline should have read "Hillary was an opportunist her whole life, Oh My!"
  • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -11/+17She was a Republican for more than just high school. In college she was a leader of the College Republicans. Really, I swear. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
    • slayerab, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Really, this should go to show that we should all throw out the mainstream media junk, although the New York Times is MSM, they actually had a story talking about her letters to one of her friends in college detailing her republican stance. We should all start looking at stuff not brought to us by AP and Reuters, because that crap is always out of date.
    • 1337Einstein, on 12/09/2007, -2/+9You couldn't have made this up? It's not as if this is a terribly long stretch of the imagination.
    • polymyxin, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6In college she was 40 years younger than she is now and had yet to live the majority of her life. Is it really surprising that sometime between 1965 and now someone might have a change in their political views?
  • whatthefu, on 12/09/2007, -5/+106Conservativism was different in the 60s, just so ya know.
    • whataboutdave, on 12/09/2007, -16/+3Do tell.
      • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/09/2007, -10/+9BITCH WE DONT NEED NO TELLIN UP IN THIS HOOD!
        • mypreciousss, on 12/09/2007, -3/+10Your handle made me picture Condolezza Rice saying this.. I lol'd...
      • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -8/+7conservative republicans like strom thurman and ronald reagan opposed desegregation. thurman actually hid behind states rights to push his segregationist campaigns. politicians often hide behind states right in order to push bigoted and backwards legislation, like they are trying to do with abortion lately.
        • primordialmeme, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1It looks like user "whatthefu" has nothing...
        • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1It's very annoying. Everyone assumes states' rights are just a shield for racist and sexist policies, because people only ever bring it up when they're trying advocating those. Otherwise, when they have control of the feds, they love federal authority. No one who controls the federal government ever has the balls to support states; rights, just because that's the right thing to do. Everyone just wants power, principle be damned.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4Funny how so many people are digging him up but when someone asks him to back it up they get dugg down. Conservatism was different in the 60's, but it wasn't progressive in the least.
  • wonderchemist, on 12/09/2007, -10/+85Things change. If was asked in high school, "In 20 years (2006) which country (US or USSR) would be the one suspending habeas corpus, torturing prisoners, and starting wars of aggression?" I would of gotten it wrong.
    • inspecality, on 12/09/2007, -9/+21*would have gotten it wrong.

      "would of" doesn't even make sense if you just examine it.
      • clark24, on 12/09/2007, -9/+6Nobody cares.

        Or should I say.. Nobody would of dugg him up if they cared.
    • MaximusPryme, on 12/09/2007, -0/+12Actually no matter what your answer was you would've gotten at least half credit.
  • deadbaby, on 12/09/2007, -4/+54Not uncommon. Generally young people follow whatever political ideology is imposed on them by their parents or society. When you get older and become educated you see the world for yourself and often change your political ideas. It works both ways -- there are plenty of Republicans who started off as Democrats too.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/09/2007, -10/+4Politicians can't make as much money in a small government than in a big government, that's why opportunists always push for more government.
      • deadbaby, on 12/09/2007, -1/+7That's an interesting theory but it seems like most of the small government types are profiting from the push to privatize government services and/or profiting from the war. In which case the theory could be simplified to say ALL politicians are in it to make money but they use different public tactics to achieve their goal.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Profit is good if it's earned. The money politicians get is stolen.
      • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Regardless of if your comment is true or false, it's pretty irrelevant to what he was saying. Did you mean for this to be a response to his post?
      • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Yup. That's why we have the Republicans support big government. We have tax and spend Dems and we have tax cut and spend Reps! Neither of the 2 big parties stands for smaller government and protection of both economic AND social freedom. The Reps play to their Christian conservative base, while the Dems expand the welfare state to win the vote of sympathetic rich liberals.
    • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -1/+16Very true, and thank goodness (both ways). It disturbs me deeply when people who are in their 20's/30's who still believe in political party X because their parents do. Particularly so when that's the ONLY reason they have to believe in it.

      For example, I had an ex girlfriend who was 25 and her reason for voting for a given candidate was because "my parents told me to, and that's how I was raised."

      Congrats parents, you raised a zombie. You must be so proud.

      We stopped going out shortly after that... it's hard to take someone seriously who's willing to give up their right to determine for themselves how to vote.
      • clark24, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6I work with a few people like this. Actually some are even closer to 30.

        "My family has always been hardcore [political party of choice] and they would kill me if I voted otherwise." Pathetic.
        • bjornski, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4People use the same logic to determine their faith. And it's just as stupid.
    • Troika37, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9My mom's like that. My dad is a die-hard Democrat, and believes in his soul all of the principals and beliefs associated with the left. When I was finishing my degree after getting out of the service, my mom and I got in a discussion about political beliefs. She told me she's votes for whoever has a 'D' next to their name but believes we should build a wall on the southern border, bomb the entire middle east into a sheet of glass and remove social welfare programs. I don't get it.
      • highwebl, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3Maybe she tell everyone what they want to hear.
      • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Simple: she is either neurotic, or stupid, or schizophrenic. Or all of them. She should talk to a psychoanalyst. She is not the only one.
  • blurrie, on 12/09/2007, -6/+51who cares. being a conservative isn't bad. being a neo-con can be.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/09/2007, -7/+10And you can be a democrat neo-con too.
      • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2A neconservative Democrat?
        • RedPooh, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The modern Republican party has its basis in the Democratic party of the 60s and 70s if my political history still serves.
    • jerryudigg, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Where are the neo-libs?
  • Falldog, on 12/09/2007, -4/+53Please, someone explain to me why this matters at all?
    • winnch, on 12/09/2007, -2/+13No, no one can, because it doesn't. Ridiculous articles like this make me like Hillary.
    • LucasVB, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9Technically it doesn't. But a lot of people are shallow enough to change opinions because of ***** like this. It has worked well in the past, and it's common political tactic. People are dumb.
    • ruley, on 12/09/2007, -6/+2many of us believe that Hillary is a republican with liberal social values. This picture is reiterates this belief.
    • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Well, the submitter said they were interested in why she changed her views. But most just take it as other proof Hillary is a flip-flopper a Republican, or the victim of a character assassination.
    • ShorD143, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0the article itself isn't about Hillary's political affiliation. All it's trying to do is let people know a little bit about her past, from her relationship with her dad and her teachers, as well as the environment which she grew up in.
  • Bartboy919, on 12/09/2007, -9/+39Many forget the the republican party used to be the respectable party that Dwight D. Eisenhower was affiliated with, now its just a bunch of religious nuts.
    • patpl22391, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Ike was a centrist, he was popular, but also a do-nothing. But, nowadays, maybe nothing is the best thing they can do!
      • Bartboy919, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Do-nothing my ass, he prevented the military-industrial complex from coming into power while he was in office, and if people had actually listened to his farewell address, we may not have such a ***** up military and Foreign Policy.
    • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3It is too bad. That shift in the party was dramatic, and you have to wonder about the people that still stick with it even though that shift occurred and likely left many of them behind in terms of why they actually joined the party.
  • ropers, on 12/09/2007, -7/+2Why am I no surprised?
    • winnch, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5Because it's not interesting?
    • jacquesm, on 12/09/2007, -1/+5because you can't spell 'not' ?
    • Burrito, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Because you're stupid and only read Digg headlines for your news? She talked about this decades ago.
    • ChristianMagic, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Why are you no speak?
  • clak, on 12/09/2007, -4/+23The Republican Party became conservative during the Civil Rights Movement, particularly in 1964. That's when it was infiltrated by Christians from the South.

    But more to the point, why is it so wrong in this country to change your beliefs? We put more value in people who don't change no matter how wrong they are (like, say, George Bush) than in people who grow and change through experience.
    • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6no, it switched in 1968 under Nixon who actively courted southern whites, 1964 the GOP ran Goldwater who was a very libertarian republican.
      • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2barry goldwater also opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which boosted his standing among white southerners.
        • justinx0r, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4He supported the desegregation of the Arizona National Guard and desegregation in all levels of government. He was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he understood that you can't tell people what to do with their own property. You have the right of association, but you also have the right to not associate with whomever you choose.
          • tech42er, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1What did the CRA of 64 do? Surely it didn't force people to associate with people against their will?
    • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7exactly, the democrats were the slave owners and it was a republican president who freed them. since then, the republicans have democrats have swapped places.
  • NightVortez, on 12/09/2007, -1/+16Did the school burn down or something? What's the moral of the story?
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0That all republicans are inbred nascar loving loons.
  • silentdragoon, on 12/09/2007, -0/+19She talks about this in her autobiography...

    I really don't understand why this is at all amazing -- do you agree with every belief / thought *you* had during high school?
    • winnch, on 12/09/2007, -3/+7If you're not Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, you're evil. Didn't you know?
    • rheaume, on 12/09/2007, -5/+2Dude, it doesn't matter, whatever it takes to sink her chances and allow someone like Ron Paul to steal enough votes away from idealist nerds to allow for a full republican victory, thats what matters here.
    • EdgarVerona, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Exactly. I actually was similar in High School. I had been thoroughly wrapped up in Catholic doctrine from the day I was born, and raised with those beliefs. Toward the end of High School I started learning more about history and politics, and began to realize that my actual feelings on certain issues differed greatly from the Catholic church.

      It took a time and a lot of endurance to withstand the guilt that came with voting/believing differently from how I was raised, but in the end I think it was the right thing. (On a side note, it's rather convenient for the church that it has a deep system of guilt built-in to the religion... I don't know if others are the same way)

      Anyways, it's crucial in a democracy that people be able to think and draw conclusions for themselves.
  • exec0extreme, on 12/09/2007, -1/+20WHO CARES?
    • irsguru, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0Flip-flopper, no convictions. You should care.
  • itsJALbert, on 12/09/2007, -2/+34Nobody is allowed to change their beliefs over the course of forty years.

  • Ghoztt, on 12/09/2007, -12/+6From Republican in youth, to Socialist Hippy in College, to Democratic Socialist in old age.
    And don't give me that "OH SHE'S NOT A SOCIALIST!" double-think. "Universal Healthcare" pay-in required before you can work like Hillary wants is SOCIALISM. Especially for non-smoking, alcohol free, healthy eating, gym going people like me who would never want to pay into such a system.
    • DocOrpheus, on 12/09/2007, -5/+3"'Universal Healthcare' pay-in required before you can work like Hillary wants is SOCIALISM. Especially for non-smoking, alcohol free, healthy eating, gym going people like me who would never want to pay into such a system."

      Tell ya what. Next time your house is burning, being robbed, or you're having a heart attack, I'll ask the policeman/fireman/Paramedic to standby, 'cause I sure as hell would never want to pay into such a system! Socialism bad! Privatization good!
      • Ghoztt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5Socialism on a small scale is not what I'm against. It is required for any type of GOVERNMENT to run. But the scale that our nation is trying to take it to, and has taken it to with corporate subsidies, nationalized healthcare and nationalized education is insanity and is completely against the system of private property and free market that has brought about such great prosperity in this nation.
        And on that note, firemen, sure! Paramedics? Many cities already have them privatized!! And Police? I think gun ownership and militia's could do a FAR better job at keeping the peace, as well as save an incredible amount of money - keeping many innocent people out of the police->court + lawyers->prison scheme.
        • Syric, on 12/09/2007, -4/+3Well if you think militias and vigilantes would be better than police, we're just not speaking the same language. I'll leave you to your own opinions and go about my way.
      • userperson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Ghoztt has already been robbed, we all have.
      • ordig, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah gun ownership and militias are what they have in Iraq, seems to work for them...
    • taffyhealscrowd, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2Go ***** yourself.
  • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -3/+7so back when Barruy Goldwater was the candidate for the GOP? You means the one who was socially liberal, for small government, and was anti-war? The one who Lyndon Johnson defeated by using TV ads saying Goldwater was weak on national security and our children would be nuked of Johnson wasn't elected.

    Johnson TV ad circa 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao
    • ducinaltumus, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2Barry Goldwater in 1964 was considered too hawkish, conservative and belligerent to be President and the point of the Daisy Commercial which ran only once or twice was that he was a Warmonger who would launch a Nuclear War to destroy the Communists. In 1964, He was a Rock Ribbed Republican and Conservative and only became a liberal when he lost his mind to the ravages of age and a simple minded second wife. His metamorphosis to the left is the same as Hill Billy Road-ham: Mental Debility
    • madroneDorf, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2Barry Goldwater was definately what we could consider today as "Socially Libetarian", however he exactly wasn't anti war, he was very strongly anti-communist.
    • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3goldwater was far from anti-war. he said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." he was a neo-con.
  • bpacana, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9and... your point is?
  • rheaume, on 12/09/2007, -5/+9Yeah ***** Hillary, what we need is more of what we've had the last 7 years! Woohoo!

    USA! USA! USA!
    • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1hopefully enough of the dumbasses in the democratic party will stay home so that she doesn't even get the nomination
  • madroneDorf, on 12/09/2007, -0/+8This isn't really hidden,or news. Hilary has said that she was a "Goldwater Girl" or "Goldwater Republican" in her college days.
  • winnch, on 12/09/2007, -4/+17I was a conservative briefly. I also almost bought a Windows PC during the time Apple sucked.
    Cue the cricket chirps.
    • ordig, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1((chirp)) ((chirp)) ((chirp)) ((rib bit)) ((chirp)) ((chirp))
  • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2she was also president of college republicans at wellesley. other than that, her work in college seems quite admirable
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinto ...
    • blean1, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Now that is funny...ever heard her commencement speech? What a moron.
  • dakilla91, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2I go to Maine West...I hate Maine South
    • sharpfork, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2I graduated from Maine South- I hate you :P (I'm messing)
    • thekid42, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Warrior pride!! (MW '06)

      You're right though, Maine South does suck.
  • soot, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3Its an interesting (or not) little snippet, but not really a big deal I guess. People change, and so do parties.

    However, I do think its silly for her camp to have jumped on Senator Obama's school aspirations to be president (which were a joke) when she affiliated herself with the opposition party during that time as well.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4And Giuiliani used to be a democrat and worked with JFK.
  • blean1, on 12/09/2007, -6/+1She must've been dropped on her head afterwards. That explains a lot.
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0All republicans are dropped on thier heads,otherwise they wouldn't be repubs.
  • titaniumdecoy, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4The Democratic/Republican divide was so different way back when Hillary was in high school it makes this "news" insignificant.
  • A11YND, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6..she was hott when she was younger.
  • mattes5, on 12/09/2007, -2/+7Well you know what they say:
    "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain."
    So I guess she is heartless and brainless /shrug
  • joltjake, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Who gives a *****?
  • CannedMango, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4People who post ***** like this are just as bad as the media, they put forth arguments that sound like they mean something but when you actually look into the details, then you find things aren't so black and white.

    I'm not a Hilary supporter, I really dislike her and think she'd be a terrible president. However, what the Democrat and Republican parties has stood for has changed quite a lot over the past few decades, so people who used to be Republican may have switched to Democrat due to this. Even Michael Moore used to be a republican. I think it shows that someone is *more* open minded if they switch allegiance than if they blindly support a party their whole lives based on the *name* of the party. That scares the ***** out of me. What's even better is people who support *ideas* rather than friggin parties.
  • kaytrio, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5This is why people don't vote.
    Who gives a ***** about things like this?
  • tendonut, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2Yep, she was a republican..back when your opinions don't matter because you are too young to vote, thus cannot be a registered anything, democrat or republican.
  • ducinaltumus, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0Yes it is sad. The ravages of mental illness are terrible over time. For 40 years she hasn't be right or sane about anything.
  • JasonDJ, on 12/09/2007, -3/+1"left to right, Hillary Rodham, director of the Republican organization, Matt Bunya, Democratic director, and Ellen Press, co-director of the Democrats."

    Sorry, I just see something inherently funny about that...that the republican is on the left, and the democrat is on the right. I know it's just how the picture was taken, but it's still a lil funny.
  • dphoenix1, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Funny story... my 10th grade English teacher went to school with her, and remembers watching the Kennedy inauguration on TV at school during which Hillary burst into tears because there was going to be a "Democrat in the White House" again.
    • ISIfunded911, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Funny: Bush senior participated in the assassination plot of JFK, and later the Bushes and the Clintons became drug buddies.
      Anyone can watch documentaries about the Clintons, like the ones in emule: Mena connection about drug traffic at the Mena Arkansas airport for example. Chip Tatum also tells about it in his video: he personaly delivered drug suitcases to Bill at that little airport, which officially were supposed to be organs for organ transplants, but he opened the suitcases. Chip Tatum was CIA blackops, and was assassinated in 2000, after he revealed too much. He also tells about the relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons.
      Search all that on googlevideos/youtube as well!
      Search Vince Foster also!
      • bjornski, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2And while you're searching, remember to look up the "Franklin Cover-up" and "Iran Contra" and the influx of crack cocaine to L.A. to finance an illegal war.
    • 3tcp, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting. Also, Fidel Castro, Donald Rumsfeld and the IRA plotted the assassination attempt on Reagan. Rumsfeld and castro actually became good friends and used to drink tequila and drive around havana picking up women and chasing old people with their car.
      Reagan had ended a secret program to supply the IRA with weapons (hoover had convinced carter that commmunists had inflitrated the british government), Fidel Castro was still trying to prove that he was a bad ass and Rumsfeld just wanted to ***** people off.
      If you don't believe me then google micky o'callaghan, he was the contact between castro and the IRA who went putlic in 1987 but no one believed him because he had been arrested for arms trafficking. One week after being released from jail he was killed while waiting at a stop light behind a produce truck full of potatoes when the brakes when out in a semi behind him. It was filled with lucky charms and crushed him between the two trucks scattering potatoes, lucky charms and body parts all over the place.
      Also look up shamus mcgooken YUO HAVE BEEN WORNED!
  • delelles, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1BILL, HILLARY, SAUL, AND MORAL RELATIVISM Saul Alinsky and the Lessons He Taught Bill and Hillary: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886451/po ...
  • CrisVon, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3And Rudy Giuliani was a Democrat. What's the diff?
    http://rudygiulianiforum.com/
    • savethemooses, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1In a lot of ways, he still is.
  • diggadigga, on 12/09/2007, -7/+2Ron Paul is not listed as any of the front runners. We should complain to the Washington Post:

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_exclude ...
  • lazyfisherman, on 12/09/2007, -3/+2The NEOCON Republicans of today are very different than the Republicans of 30, 40 years ago. On some issues, they even seem to do the opposite of what their party is traditionally known for --- like expanding government spending.

    Hillary is an opportunist though. She belongs to whatever party she thinks has the best chance of getting her elected.
  • phike, on 12/09/2007, -1/+5republicans stood had difference stances than they do now.........if anything, republicans were the more liberal party when hillary was in HS
    • ducinaltumus, on 12/10/2007, -1/+0Sorry wrong planet. Goldwater was a man of the Conservative Movement who laid the ground work for Reagan.
  • lead2thehead, on 12/09/2007, -7/+0I've always regarded liberalism as something you grow out of... not into.
  • HanSolo69, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6What a ***** boring story.
  • anselm83, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2What a shocking revelation this is. God forbid anyone ever change their mind about anything.
  • tehstyles, on 12/09/2007, -4/+1Why didn't they include Ron Paul on their list of front runners???
    • isunktheship, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2do you live under a rock?
    • Totalchaos02, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Because right now he isn't one. Let's hope it stays that way!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.