Although I’d say they were actually supporters of republicanism, small r.

The only constant in Clinton’s early political life was that she was very interested in politics (as opposed to, for example, me; I was not especially interested in politics).

That is not to say that you’re not correct in your assessment of her politics or her ruthlessness. It’s just that her senior college thesis is not a guide to her present state. My best guess about Hillary is that she is about as ruthless as most successful politicians, and about as principled, and that her politics are on the left side of liberal but not far far left.

Hillary writes:
“peculiarly American” tradition of democrats, from Thomas Paine through Martin Luther King.

This is a lie. MLK was a Republican. Like he’d join a party that either committed and abetted atrocities against blacks (the south) or looked the other way as others of their party did so (the north).

She’s an cold, conniving b!tch, but I don’t think she’s fundamentally disloyal (any more than Bill is).

Dude, you need to study her background a LOT more. She was an activist of the worst Ayers sort of class, but with a smarter understanding of how the system worked and what it took to undermine the system.

She did her senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky: There Is Only the Fight…’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.

She drooled at everything Alinsky said. Make no doubts about her “loyalty”. She has none to anyone but herself, the pursuit of power, and the destruction of the American model of government.

It is very plausible that LBJ got away with the assassination of JFK… There probably isn’t anything that Democrats won’t say or entertain now to advance their power and authority.

The way to do something like this isn’t to plan it and do it oneself, but to wind up one or mentally unstable people (“It’s X who’s controlling your mind, with his magic rays!”) and point them at the target, and await developments.

My inartfully expressed point wasn’t so much a prediction or anything of the sort, but rather an assertion of the likely thinking of the hard left. Whether they’d have the nerve to actually carry it out is another question.

“. . . a strategically timed, ginned up or exaggerated racially motivated assassination threat, against Obama, which can be blamed on a Tea Partier . . . .”

This actually makes more sense than any other option. Easier to plan, no need to worry about an attempt gone awry, and a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth press ready to point fingers at the Tea Party (a la the Gabby Giffords shooting) just as the Occupy movement becomes less credible and more of a millstone around Dem necks. (“See, the Tea Party isn’t credible either!”)