Chelsea Clinton's missing college thesis

This is probably oldish news but why oh why do they persistently want to hide things?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130612

The Clintons are resisting the disclosure of a document that could help clarify the New York senator's claims that she was "instrumental" in Northern Ireland peacemaking. The document's unlikely author: Chelsea Clinton. As a Stanford University senior in 2001, the former First Daughter wrote a 150-page thesis on the subject. Her faculty adviser, Prof. Jack Rakove, has said that Chelsea spoke with her father "at some length" about the negotiations. But the Clinton camp has declined to make it public. Through Clinton aides, Chelsea has directed reporters to ask Stanford for the document. But Stanford says it doesn't have a copy in its library, and Rakove, who does have one, says that only Chelsea can give the green light. The thesis, says Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines, "was written to satisfy an academic requirement—not media curiosity

Unless everyone else's is.

Seems like a non-issue to me.

I am an academic librarian. A foundation tenet of academia is that such writing is available to the public--senior theses, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations. I am currently writing a dissertation and a very good source for my research has been a senior thesis written in 1928 about my topic.
There is more here than is being discussed.

I've never heard of undergrad work being kept by a library.

Check the World Cat database.
The university library where I work contains all senior theses, including my mother's.
These aren't little class assignments. It defeats the purpose of a thesis to try and take it out of the academic discourse.

I just checked using myself. My masters thesis and dissertation are listed, my senior thesis isn't.

Their OPAC is mysteriously down this morning, but I found this website
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/exlibris/1994/09/msg00189.html
which makes note of a "lists more than 600 doctoral dissertations, master's
theses and senior theses written by Princeton students on various
aspects of the war." This seems to indicate a collection that includes senior theses with the master's and doctoral writings.
I suspect the advisor is being less than frank about the reasons for not making this public.

The statement to which I was responding was that senior theses are available, period (via the link provided). Apparently some colleges and universities archive senior theses, others don't.

They are in the midst of a discussion, perhaps prmpted by the supposed unavailability of the Clinton thesis, to make sure that all such theses are available.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/4/6/lettersToTheEditor
At my university all senior theses are in the library, available for viewing the same as master's theses and doctoral dissertations. They are all part of the academic discourse.
Master's students can opt for a long research paper and an MS. Those papers are not kept in the library, they are kept in the individual departments. But the departments make them available to anyone who wants to view them. There is currently discussion about transferring these to the main library.

hidden? Forgive me if I am wrong, but my impression of such things when I was there was that the whole point of academia is the pursuit of knowledge? A thesis hidden seems like a very wasted effort to me.

He did testify, with other constitutional scholars, in Congress during the impeachment debate, arguing against the Clinton impeachment. However, he did so on constitutional grounds and in the context of the original meaning on the Constitution. That doesn't make him a political tool, however. He is a liberal in my view. I remember consulting his book, "Original Meanings" a few years back when I was doing grad work.

there is a lot more

A thesis is on file with the school library where the degree was awarded.

Caveat: This generally applies a thesis done for a Masters or a Doctorate and as far as I know, Chelsea has only a bachelors.

A school paper done by her daughter is not even off limits. Yet, no one is even questioning Obama's past.

Does not anyone on DU see this double standard? Or are you all so so caught up in your hate that you honestly do not see that no one is checking into Obama's background.

I am stunned at how low people are stooping to attack Clinton. STunning.

and digging to attack Clinton?

Do you not understand the difference? Obama attempted to use the fact that Clinton always wanted to be President against her as if she has some sort of evil plot to take over the world, and Clinton responded that obama has always wanted that too. Do you honestly not understand the difference?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/681624,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Obama didn't need to go back to Clinton's pre-school writings to establish Clinton's obvious interest in politics, including being a young teenaged Goldwater Girl in the 1960s, through the next 3/4s of her life to reach this race today.

....a bit of hypocrisy here? Clinton used a freaking kindergarten paper of Obama's. What the hell is the difference?

but not for little Chelsea

were up in arms over Michelle Obama papers.

Once again blinded by the right.

A copy of it can be found on the internet, along with the ever present argument that the Obamas are dangerous and uppity.

if someone wanted to cite a piece of research whether it be a masters, PhD or Batchelors it could be made available. the fact is that the Clintons are not making it available because of its content.

Unless she releases it, she will be nagged about it. Why not? It passed muster at Stanford, apparently.

yes

Until she announces she's a candidate for something she gets a pass. You stick up for your parents. No shame in that.

when you start campaigning for your parent you are fair game, end of discussion.

Hillary's the candidate...we got plenty on her. Don't waste your time on the kid. She's just supporting her Mom.

the same way her ma did.

Isn't that a tad odd?

Runs for public office I won't say anything good or bad about her. If my mom was running I'd back her up.

Did she specifically say there was "sniper fire"?

Not doubting you, I just hadn't heard it and I thought this whole thing had been covered ad nauseum by the press in the past couple of weeks...

nobody in their right mind would campaign or run for office in that case...oh wait, that is the case!

being disingenous for your mother..you will be held up to scrutiny.

Chelsea was with her mother in Tuzla during snipergate. Why didn't set her mother straight when Hillary told that fictional tale about sniper fire? Why did she go along with her mother's lies?

they are all congenital liars
but chelsea had the bad luck of having a liar gene from each side so she may not have had a choice
it could be like hemophilia
passed on through the genes til whammo

Hell we can't even post coded grades on the wall anymore.

requirements are not.

I had to get consents signed for undergraduate work to be displayed in the library. If I handed left student papers outside my office they had to be in sealed envelopes. This was a college requirement. Each college is different I suppose. And every professor has their own standards as well.

But you were not acting as a journalist. Also, you had to secure the privacy of the graded student papers you returned after grading them, because they were MARKED UP AND GRADED and thus subject to privacy laws covering that.

And no, each college is NOT different and professors aren't allowed to have their own standards for that. It's federal law.

They won't even post grades on a firewalled internet forum.

This professor in the story clearly has his own standards. if we allowed the media to rummage around in our student's papers, David Horowitz's college Klan would be digging constantly.

They're just not allowed to have looser standards if they choose.

As for this professor, he doesn't have to release the thesis if he doesn't want, but this claim by the library that it "doesn't have a copy" is nonsense. Flat-out nonsense. It has a copy.

And so what about David Horowitz? How pathetic and desperate is he anyway?

majors as an undergraduate and only two professors have them. If this were her master's thesis then they would.

He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1997 for his book Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

Rakove was among the several Constitutional scholars who testified in Congress against the impeachment of President Clinton. He also favors the "collective right" argument on the Second Amendment, in opposition to the gun lobby's "individual right" argument.

I don't know anything more about the guy's politics, but he is obviously a liberal by today's standards...

Ph D. Thesis, which demonstrate the candidate's actual capacity for academic research and publication, THOSE are available.

But undergrad theses? Not unless they are actually "published".

They told me it would be when I wrote it.

If someone wants to go dig it up later and try to use it to prove how naive and stupid I was at a younger age compared to today, and someone somehow thinks less of me today for the work I completed at age 21, well, isn't that a pity. How smallminded do they have to be?

Students know that before they turn in their work. It depends on the school.

They don't burn their students' theses and dissertations in a fire after they're graded!

lol

want the info to look it up? It's public info.

Depends upon the College or University policy.

There is no universal requirement for archiving until the doctorate level.

Of course, normally access to the college library is controlled. But if one makes a special request...

her opponent and those qualifications in part came from her participation in the Peace Talks, which are the subject of my thesis, then one would think my thesis would be subject to scrutiny to see if my mom was big in those talks. Especially when my professor says "Her faculty adviser, Prof. Jack Rakove, has said that Chelsea spoke with her father "at some length" about the negotiations." If I am close to my mom don't you think I talked to her for hours about her involvement? Oh yeah, btw, I like to go out and campaign for my mom, I made my life and my opinions public to campaign for mommy.

This whole Hillary/Obama feud is getting ridiculous!

When they try to act all concerned and even-handed.

How are the Rezkos, by the way?

I wish we could stop painting each other with silly nicknames.

Not everyone supporting Obama thinks alike, you know. Not every Obama supporter wants to read Chelsea's thesis.

and it has nothing to do with their politics.

Those of us who try to be fair to both candidates are now called out and called names for being fair. Incredible.

but at the same time, there is no justification for keeping such work off limits.

I saw a few references to it on the 'net, but it was hardly a big story.

going around basically saying she is a Black Panther.

It was a very minor story that got very minor attention.

I agree, Chelsea isn't the one running for public office.

Heck, there's plenty of stuff I've written for class over the last two years that I don't really want anyone to see.

She's not a toddler anymore, and it is her choice to be on the campaign trail. If she can't take the heat, then she should get the fuck out of the kitchen.

about the negotiations? I thought they were so close and Hillary had a part in them and everything.

...they dodged sniper fire together in Bosnia. You would think Chelsea would share her thesis with her mom, right?

:sarcasm:

all about those peace talks - hillary was such a big part of them, wasn't she?

upon request.

This is most bizarre.

There is no right to privacy when it comes to one's master's thesis or Ph.D. dissertation. That's nonsense.

And anyone who says "I wouldn't want anyone to see what I wrote back when I was 21"...well, I sure hope you didn't go for an advanced degree. People who are completing the work required for a master's or a doctorate routinely pour their hearts and souls into these documents, knowing full well that the work they do at the time, be they 21, 25, 31 or 41, will be on file in the campus library forever after.

Would I think it was absurd for any news outlet to read such materials and attempt to use them to damn or pass judgment on the author or make the author look like less in the public eye? Yes. But I also think it's absurd to attempt to argue some "right of privacy" to the author. Sheer nonsense.

Very few I know publish undergraduate works in the library.

This is an UNDERGRADUATE thesis..... she wrote
As a Stanford University senior in 2001.

Those are NOT universally available to ANY one!

and it is indeed UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ANYONE.

And I didn't even go to an Ivy League school.

Then again, I'm not the daughter of a presidential candidate, am I? I guess some people are subject to special protections.

"Um, we don't have that thesis...The campus dog ate it. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Or was it for an HONORS degree?

Michelle Obama-B.A. in Sociology with cum laude, Princeton University-Thesis: "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community"-Theme: Racial Divide-Locked away in the Princeton Library until after the GE.

Hillary Clinton-B.A. in Political Science with departmental honors, Wellesley College-Thesis: The tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky-Locked Away in the Wellesley College but is now available.

Chelsea Clinton-B.A. in History with distinction, Stanford University-Thesis: President Bill Clinton's mediation of the 1998 Belfast Agreement in Northern Ireland-It seems it is locked away in the Stanford Library.

Why not post something postive about your own candidate?

I think we should leave the children of the candidates alone.

a public spokesperson for her mom. She put herself in that position and in doing so, she subjects herself to the same scrutiny that others close to the campaign and speaking for the campaign are in.

Notice this line from the article Her faculty adviser, Prof. Jack Rakove, has said that Chelsea spoke with her father "at some length" about the negotiations. Did Chelsea speak to her mom at great lengths? Hasn't Hillary made the peace talks and her intimate involvement in same an issue when she claimed her experience in part on these talks? Does Chelsea's thesis refer to her mom's intimate involvement in these talks? That is a legitimate campaign question as it goes to the experience that hillary touts is superior to her opponent.

The "outrage" is silly - the Clintons open themselves and their daughter up to this type of scrutiny.

Isn't she older than the Bush twins that are treated with kid gloves around here?

isn't she older than monica was


:hide:

I think it is ridiculous to think that Chelsea should be protected. Any campaign aid or staff member her age is subject to scrutiny if they campaign publicly for the candidate. If folks want her left alone then she needs to get off the stump and return to her private life.

You can't put someone on a stage with a mic and then complain when people pay attention to them! lol

an adult person in her own right. They could just put up a video screen of Hillary or Bill saying all the right things. It's the same thing, she is a bobble head/talking head for the campaign.

But folks don't realize that this is a pattern with them. So Hillary flies into dangerous war zone accompanied by her only child and the only child of the president and faces sniper fire and the military and the secret service allows it because they are the clintons? Never mind the child endangerment, the potential for a catastrophic world event that scenerio presented is mind boggling.

Just imagine if it were as dangerous as she would have us believe and just imagine what would have happened if the first lady and the only child of the president had been wounded or killed. The retalitations and the shattering of world peace would have been inevitable, all out war and soldiers in harms way would have resulted.

Why is it that rational adults understand why the bush twins are not encouraged to fight (if they wanted to) or why Prince Harry was removed from Afghanistan but don't see that bringing Chelsea the child along to Bosnia is evidence that the trip wasn't considered that dangerous.

they only meant she was off limits to everyone else. :(

I'm glad someone realizes what the post was about!!!!!

Sadly, it is much more obvious that those supporting hillary prefer the double standards and love to play their candidate as "the victim". That is hardly the feminist approach to the world of politics.

I have posted it before and it is so worth posting here as Elisabeth Edwards said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQxxldBvk

:thumbsup:

seing all this victim nonsense makes me seeth. We were the 'burn your bra' generation and didn't want to be seen as the victim!

Like the nonsens "this wouldn't be happening if Hillary were a man", well yeah, it would be happening, his supporters just couldn't be crying "this is happening because he is a man". It's such a bizzaro world of double talk and standards.

she is 30 and she wrote about Northern Ireland! Why would Newsweek be interested?

in Northern Ireland Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims


:shrug:

don't you love politics!

when I see bogus threads like this, I label them as such, just so you know!

Chelsea Clinton's thesis is none of anyone's darn business, she's not running for the Presidency yet!

It is irrelevant that Chelsea is not running for office. In the instant matter, she appears to be a witness to a contested matter, to wit, whether Hillary is being truthful about her involvement in the Ireland peace process.

What you are in essence saying is the following: A witness cannot be called to the stand who is the child of a driver involved in an accident for the purpose of testifying to what knowledge he/or she has in regard to statements made by his/her parent viz the accident based on the averment that the child was not the driver of the vehicle.

We all know that the child would be called to the stand. If Hillary is being truthful, then she should be proud to allow the world to see her daughter's senior thesis and Chelsea would be proud to release it.

exactly!

When will the media and others finally run out of straws to grasp at?

Hillary has made this an issue and Chelsea accepted her role in this campaign so her thesis on the subject is "fair game".

Chelsea had quite unique access to interview both her parents about their roles in the peace-making process. Both of Chelsea's parents are historic figures.

She placed the interviews with those historic persons into a document. Historians as well as journalists are likely to want to see what was written.


I wonder if as a senior she made a claim to the copyright or let it pass to the institution. When I turned over my thesis and my dissertation I was asked to make that decision each time. For me that was no big deal, my works were pretty esoteric zoology and population ecology with limited value. I think Chelsea would know there would be tremendous interest.

to be divisive.

I can think of the intellectual curiosity side of this, but it every 2-3 days, some new and literally ridiculous thing is tossed out to the masses.

Randi Rhodes, "Bookbaggate", Obama's "Sweetiegate"...what a load fo trash...what about rel ISSUES?

We get spoonfed garbage that takes us along sidepaths, and in each case, we take th bait and run a little further.

That is why I see this as another non-issue. It is something that people dredge up to keep the masses loaded up on some self imposed hype.

I spoke to my father for hours at a time, granted he was never PotUS, but he was a wise man...just before he died, he gave me some of the greatest advice a person could ever receive, "question authority". I do that, every day.

about what Chelsea wrote concerning these peace talks? Her mother is running for president and has used her intimate involvement in the peace talks as evidence of her qualifications for the job. The professor said that Chelsea spoke to her father at great lengths about the peace talks. Did she talk to her mother, the woman running for office, as well? Does she mention her mother's involvement?

is no piqued simply because I see nothing to this. Perhaps there is something there, perhaps there was something that Trisha Nixon spoke to w/her father about Vietnam, or Robert Todd Lincoln to Abe about the CW. Int he historical context, there may be validity to this.

Here's what I see though, a media that just created a new "issue" that takes us off on another jaunt, like the tax returns did. If the paper has something of substance, fine, but I am willing to bet it is a student's paper, and the view of that student. I would also suspect it would put both elder Clinton's in a pretty positive light. In essence, there is nothing there, just as there was nothing in the Clinton's tax returns, "bookbaggate, ot anything else that is flying around as "news".

The authority I question here, is the media..."why is this an "issue"? they have taken it upon themselves to spoonfeed little innuendo's and that does nothing to alleviate the constant barrage of small items that do little more than divide people, and get away from the real problems of this nation.

Most graduate thesis are not what I would consider to be intellectually satisfying.

The interest in this thesis has to do with Hillary's "qualification" for the office she seeks (and her honesty regarding the experience she allegedly holds that makes her more qualified than her opponent).

If Hillary is to be considered a viable candidate then all the things she says, all the experiences she claims, all of her actions and deeds, now and while first lady, are subject to review and scrutiny. To think otherwise is to live in some sort of protective bubble.

Since Chelsea, an adult female who is the daughter of Hillary, stands before crowds and tells them her mother has the experience and is more qualified than the opponent, proclaims that her mother will be a better president than her father, then all that Chelsea has written regarding the experiences of her parents while Bill held office is subject to scrutiny, to include this thesis that deals specifically with an area that Hillary claims gives her the experience that makes her the better candidate.

The media has not made this an issue, Hillary has. Stop blaming them for what happens to all candidates when running for office. Vetting the candidate is the responsibility of the media, being honest and providing all things available to support the campaign positions is the position of the candidates.

The leaders in our democratic party are subject to scrutiny, I have the right to question what they say and the accuracy of their claims regarding experience, just as I have the right to question the folks that govern my nation. It is what makes this such a neat country, imho.

office...(afrer all, look what happens when we get the most unqualified person ever in the WH).

Watch this though...in 3 days, there will be something else, it is like clockwork. Reading DU gives me the opportunity to evaluate these things. Every 3 days, there is something "new" that pops up.

In this case, does anyone really think there is some "nugget" to be found in Chelsea's paper? I am willing to bet it was written in the usual banal language of such things, and I am certain that there would be nothing in there that disparages either of her parents, in fact, it might make them look like luminaries, if I were writing about something like that, I'd make my parents look like gods, just human nature.

The paper will be produced, just like the tax returns were produced, I predict there will be nothing there.

For the record, at this time I support neither candidate. They have yet to pique my interest, neither of them have discussed, at length the real problems that are afflicting this nation.

the discourse the fact that Chelsea "spoke at lengths" with her father. You see, we know that Chelsea and Hillary are close. We also know that Chelsea has said her mom will make a better president than her dad. We also know that Hillary claims her participation in the peace talks as the experience which makes her more qualified than her opponent and that others involved in the peace talks have disputed her claims. If Chelsea's thesis is rich with Bill's experiences and void of Hillary's then that is legitimate fodder for her opponents. Has Hillary lied yet again? Do we want a president that has no experience yet claims to have experience because she was married to the president? How many lies do we accept from her campaign, how many exaggerations of the facts, embellishments of realty?

And if you think dems should not be holding our candidates to such high standards then you really don't understand the process. The DU challenges are nothing compared to what the RNC has in store for whoever gets the nod.

The Hillary folks claim she is fully vetted and because of that she has a better shot in the GE. This controversy proves that is not the case.

high standards, but I also see where D's are crucifying their own for the sake of a political point or two. I'm afraid we have contingents of people who do not hold themselves to the same ethical standards they would demand of others.

As for the future and the GE, I have said for ages that this is nothing as to what is coming. this will be the most disgusting political campaign of all time. McCain has nothing, so all the R's will do is toss crap at the fan in a constant barrage that results in nothing more than trying to discredit our nominee.

An interesting thought I've put up before, but it fell like a sone...for all of the citizens that might be candidates for the office...what we have are not all that good.

but it is better than what they offer

and the funny thing is, most of them aren't too thrilled with their own candidate.

the process is truly screwed up but I haven't a clue as to how it can be fixed.

:)

And I definitely agree that what they offer is more out of the veggie bin...The R's haven't had anyone of substance since Eisenhower, but that was a long time ago, and times were very different.

McCain is w/o substance, he is absolutely nothing more than a shell.

I will vote for whomever our candidate is, but I hope we do better in the future, far too many qualified and decent D's out there, they seem to never get the chance to run.

You know, like survivor - only it would be the candidates for the nomination. One channel would get the show that had all the dem candidates and it would air say, on Monday. Another channel would be the show where the repugs compete against each other and it would be on Wednesday night.

The winner of those shows would compete against each other for several weeks and that show would be on another channel.


Realty television is the way to go. I had proposed a relative television show to track down and capture Bin Laden. The teams would fund their journeys, record their adventures and all the revenue from the commercials would be used to pay for the 25 or 50 million dollar reward for the team that actually did capture him.

That would have saved so many lives and billions of dollars. No body cared, nobody would listed to my idea. ;)

today, they are paying Pakistan to find him, but why should they? The money would dry up, no incentive. I am willing to bet they are holding bin-Laden to make sure no one else finds him and cashes out...;)

FWIW...the best way out of the ME is find bin-Laden, (or his body), declare victory and leave the entire area. take all of the $ saved and invest heavily in alternative energy sources, freeing us from imported oil and a whole nest of problems. But that makes far too much sense, so our brothers ans sisters will be kept in harms way while corporations rake in profits from their blood, sweat and sacrifice...:(

Being clear-eyed enough to see that the document actually has historic significance shouldn't hard.

Within today's political climate speculations turn on it's unknown content. Why? Because Clinton has made that historic period part of her campaign rhetoric. The document Chelsea wrote may actually provide some evidence to substantiate her mother's repeated claims. On the otherhand it may not.

The public actually doesn't know what is in the document. The public may never know until Chelsea yields it up as part of a memoir. Consequently there is nothing really being spoonfed. People can make speculative remarks till way past milking time, and it comes to naught.

Hillary Clinton created the issue of her involvement in the peace-making in Northern Ireland by using it to back-up her claim of experience. To dismiss interest in documents that test the veracity of the claim of a celebrity seems inconsistent with your dead father's advice.

and I'm willing to stake my life on the idea there will be nothing there that has any impact.

The document will be produced in due time, and I'd like to see all of those who are speculating now, to include the media, and the general population, maybe all 3% who see this as something of great import, apologize for wasting everyone's time with another non-issue.

Do I speculate there is no "smoking gun", yes i do, and I base that on the recent history of all of the "attack" pieces on our candidates. In the end, there was nothing except wasted time on an item that was/is, in the Grand Scheme of things, little more than hot air.

If I am wrong on the above speculation, and in the notion there is something in the paper that clears this all up, I shall be the first to apologize for my speculation.

I've been trying to say this, with less effect than you my friend.

This is such a non issue, and I am appalled by its pre eminence on this board, that I am mystified.

If we Democrats don't pull ourselves together and get serious about attacking McCain, we could be in serious trouble. Is this what we really want?

Come on, folks, we're DEMOCRATS here!

Eyes on the prize!!!

ears.

People can talk about what they want to, but reality says that HRC and Obama have a way to go before this is settled...and all of this is just smoke and mirrors.

The campaign should be against McCain, we should be exposing the myriad of errors and incredible missteps he has made throughout his political career.

We are being manipulated, and people haven't figured this out yet.

without any political bent getting in the way.

Theses, both undergraduate and graduate, are kept on file and available to the users of college libraries to read.

It is done in the spirit of SHARING ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE gather by a scholar and COMPILED FOR THE USE OF OTHER SCHOLARS.

For this reason, these particular documents are not kept private or subject to any right to privacy.

While it is true that this may have the unintended effect of allowing future individuals to pore over them and attempt to use them to make the author look bad, to make the parents of the author look bad, or to make the DOG of the author look bad, that is immaterial to their being public.

It's stupid to expect that an academic institution make its papers written by students off limits to inquiring journalists. However, it's equally stupid for those journalists to attempt to use those papers to make points about their authors, their authors' parents, or their authors' dogs that are patently silly.

And that's what I'm saying.

but the media should be a tad more selective in what it sees as "newsworthy".

They sent someone out to find something, they found something, and now it becomes an "issue", that is what I find so "interesting", that and the fct that these"items" pop up on cue every 3 days.

Michelle Obama was not Michelle Obama when she wrote her thesis. She was Michelle Robinson. It can be found if you follow this link.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

It, like Chelsea's thesis, was a senior undergraduate paper. It dealt with her experiences at Princeton. It had nothing to do with Obama and nothing to do with events that Obama claims makes him more qualified to be president.

Chelsea's thesis deals with a world event that Hillary has said makes her more qualified than her opponent. Hillary has campaigned on the notion that her intimate involvement in the Irish peace talks gave her the experience necessary to be a successful president. If Hillary was involved in these talks and if she garnered experience that makes her more qualified then it stands to reason that will experience and involvement will be found in Chelsea's thesis. Add to that the fact that Chelsea's professor has said that Chelsea "talked at great lengths" with her father, the man that was president at that time and who did participate in the peace talks, and you have more than enough reason to expect that this thesis be made public so that the qualifications of candidate Hillary can be accessed.

So stop with the silly games of emotion and gotcha, comparing Michelle's thesis to Chelsea's is intellectually dishonest.

One deals with emotions and experiences of the wife of the candidate before she ever knew the candidate. The other deals with the specific world event that the candidate claims makes her more qualified for the office.

Your quote "Chelsea's thesis deals with a world event that Hillary has said makes her more qualified than her opponent. Hillary has campaigned on the notion that her intimate involvement in the Irish peace talks gave her the experience necessary to be a successful president. If Hillary was involved in these talks and if she garnered experience that makes her more qualified then it stands to reason that will experience and involvement will be found in Chelsea's thesis. Add to that the fact that Chelsea's professor has said that Chelsea "talked at great lengths" with her father, the man that was president at that time and who did participate in the peace talks, and you have more than enough reason to expect that this thesis be made public so that the qualifications of candidate Hillary can be accessed."

They can't be that dense or uninformed about their candidate, can they?

I thought they were just feigning ignorance.

LOL!

Should not be on the campaign trail. All you Clinton supporters calling a grown ass woman a child is hilarious. If the press is not allowed to talk to her then she needs to sit down. Now we have this with the thesis. I think Chelsea should have her privacy and all but some of you Clinton folks were rabid over Michelle's thesis and she isn't running for anything. What did you say? She was giving speeches and campaigning for her husband well in my opinion Chelsea is fair game as well. She should not be on the campaign trail if she is not going to be open for scrutiny and once again, she is not a damn child, geesh.

Some of you are so damn biased you forget what you said three weeks ago and if you do remember it doens't even matter to some of you anymore. If it's a Clinton then the rules are totally different which is why I cannot wait for this to be over and for Clinton to be on her Merry way. The last thing we need is a Dem presidential candidate who's supporters behave like Bush supporters when it comes to scrutiny of their Queen. That type of behavior allowed King George to shit all over our civil and privacy rights. I'm not trying to see more of that.

background? Everything he says is taken at face value for Obama while they attack Clinton with the most divisive ugly things.

This is the Obama camp, I will bet behind it. It shows how dirty they are while pretending to take the high road.

...Hillary keeps getting caught in mega lies and Obama does not and that is why people are real curious about and checking on the varacity of anything and everything she says?

Face it, OK: She did this to herself with all the lies she has told.

Obama a free pass on all of his "misspeaks" is delusional. Your post shows that you have dehumanized Clinton and put Obama on a pedestal. He is ALL GOOD and she is ALL BAD. The media is spinning anything and everything, making mountains out of molehills in an attempt to get Obama the nomination.

And you people are so caught up in your hatred that you want to believe it all. Get a fucking grip.

...how in the hell could I dehumamize someone in whom I never saw human values to begin with? I have always disliked Hillary Clinton from the first time she came on the national scene. She is phony and insincere and not particularly trustworthy. The manner of her campaign IMO has correctly led to that appellation for her of "monster." She scares the hell out of me ~~ witness the bald-faced lies in regard to Tuzla. How you as a woman can support someone who brings to the table all of the qualities which smack of NOT being independent and solid in her own right, I will never understand. Maybe it is because Hillary and I are about the same age that I recognize what she truly is all about. I just know she is a lying phony and at this point in time I fucking hate her. Sorry to be so blunt, but there is no other way to phrase the absolute dislike I have for someone who has set back women's issues so dang far as has Hillary.

And...the reason I am for Obama is that he is NOT Hillary Clinton. If you paid any attention to what others posted instead of flapping your jaws all the time, you would have realized what a "mis-speak" you just made in regard to my attitude about Obama. He is far from perfert and I really do not care for some of his policies. But of the two? He by far is the better.

I am a former Edwards supporter...so STFU about what I think of Obama because as usual you have made a fool of yourself.

Check.

:bounce:

those goggles must be permanently attached. What a shame

Really people -- pick one or the other.

If she did a mountain of research (enough to populate 150 pages) about what really happened in Northern Ireland (presumably including the whos whens wheres and wherefores), then I agree -- she is the expert on the situation and the documentation could shed a lot of light on what happened.

If it supported HRC's claims, it would have already been released.

Then of course, there is Tuzla.

...a child writes a 150 WORD essay.

And if Chelsea is big enough to campaign for mommy....then Chelsea needs to realize that it was HER decision to enter into the campaign. No one dragged her in while she was screaming and kicking in opposition to being involved.

As such, it could, and would, be torn into little bits being taken completely out of context for the sake of political grandstanding and distortion. I just don't see that being helpful to the political discussion, especially since Chelsea is not the candidate. I'm fairly certain she never wrote "My mother had absolutely nothing to do with the Northern Ireland peace process" or the like in this paper. No, it is bound to be selectively quoted for one side's political purposes.

I feel the same way about selectively quoting from Michelle Obama's senior thesis.

like Stanford.

And as far as distortion goes, isn't that why we call it "public life"? Obama's offerings in kindergarten are fair game but not Clinton's adult contributions? Oh, brother.

It's a distraction and adds nothing to the conversation.

However, you are conflating a candidate here with a candidate's daughter. But that aside, I'm not sure Chelsea's paper would shed that much light on the current debate. You know and I know that the voters will not by themselves pore over Chelsea's paper if it were published and make careful, close analysis. Instead, we'd get a sentence here, a phrase there, completely yanked out and plopped down out of context to "prove" a pre-ordained outcome.

That's just crazy. We shouldn't be supporting it...

She's a surrogate on stage with a mic in her hand. That's not a conflation, that's a pretty accurate reading of her role.

I strongly do not agree to the double standard that, for example, Obama's ex pastor should be vigorously defamed for what he didn't actually say when not part of Obama's campaign while a Clinton surrogate spouting talking points is off limits.

I'm not sure what Chelsea was doing withher paper was exactly that. My guess is, but of course I don't know without readingit,that her paper was her analysis of the role of the Clinton administration in the northern Ireland peace process: background, what happened in the process, what the result was, and so forth. Personally, I'd love to read it, but I'm a political junkie myself. However, I have no doubt in my mind tho as to what mischief will be made once the repubs get thru with it. I don't trust them or the MSM when it comes to "covering" Chelsea's academic exercise.

But that is a good point "if it supported HRC's claims it would have already been released".

There are much bigger issues to address.

they hide it

DU is a funny place. It's where the Clinton horde try out their attacks on Obama. I read "Muslim,", "cocaine," "plagiarism," the faux NAFTA wink-wink story, and on and on in for months in this sad series of attacks, the Clinton camp pressing the MSM and resorting to Drudge to elevate their cheese in the public consciousness.

Lo and behold I recall a couple weeks ago AttackTeamClinton here at DU wondering out loud about Michelle's allegedly "missing thesis."

The Clintonfolk are slippery sorts. They shovel the cheese and frequently accuse Obama of precisely what they are doing. Taking into account their prior patterns of twisted behavior, I suspect there is something to the "Chelsea's missing thesis" story.

This incessant barrage of cheese coming from the Clinton camp is exhausting. In the opening scene of SNL last night the faux Clintons joked that they weren't going to stop until after the inauguration (Obama's) and even then they had no intention of being gracious. That comedic bit comes uncomfortably close to the truth of the matter. Ugh.

FREE RANDI RHODES

Can't erase THAT proven track record of cheese.

when we were trying to determine northern Ireland and Hillary

Hey, y'all can read my English papers; just send postage!

Was every other students paper from that department in that year in the Library?


not well phrased, but you get my drift...

:shrug:

this document would help clarify, as Newsweek said, that the Hillary Clinton's claims that she was "instrumental" in Northern Ireland peacemaking - so we should see it.

148 posts later and still no resoltion. People are so busily distracting from the content of the thesis by whingeing that it should be in the public's view. Obviously this article in Newsweek is striking a nerve? I did not ask for Chelsea's thesis Newsweek did.

to leave the children out of this camapign. Chelsea hasn't announced her bid to run for any office.

Did it slip my mind or did someone elses children announce a run while their Baptism was discussed for 2 weeks and the bulk of Camp Clitonistas stood extremly quiet while the bottom feeding media never let it go, not even for a second.

I don't suggest the Clinton camp was behind it. While it was thought to be working in their favor most did keep their mouth's eerily shut. Worse, much worse!

Add hypocrit to the resume.

:crazy:

Chelsea Clinton's thesis paper is not a campaign document....Sorry, I'll go find another thread to pick on....

LOL!