Novak falsely accused "Goldwater girl" Clinton of "re-inventing her past" to include MLK as influence

In his March 12 column, syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "was re-inventing her past" because Clinton's March 4 speech in Selma, Alabama, included a "claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963." Novak suggested that this conflicted with her description of herself as a "Goldwater girl" in her memoir, Living History (Simon & Schuster, June 2003). As Greg Sargent noted on his weblog The Horse's Mouth, Novak made this argument to support his assertion that the Clinton campaign is "panick[ing]" in response to Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) rising poll numbers.

In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Clinton reported both in Living History that she heard King speak when she was a teenager and that she was a Goldwater girl.

Furthermore, Novak falsely stated that Clinton was "the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs." In fact, as Clinton wrote in her memoir, she "successfully ran" for "junior class Vice President" at Maine Township High School East (Page 21). But as a senior attending Maine Township High School South -- which, she wrote, was "built to keep up with the baby boomers" -- she "ran for student government President against several boys and lost" (Page 24). Some Internet sources, such as Wikipedia, incorrectly claim that Clinton was "class president."

From Novak's March 12 column:

While Hillary Rodham Clinton came out second best to Barack Obama in their long-range oratorical duel at Selma, Ala., the real problem with her visit there a week ago concerned her March 4 speech's claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963. How, then, could she be a "Goldwater girl" in the next year's presidential election?

The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy. Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 voting rights bill was not incidental to his run for the White House but an integral element of conscious departure from Republican tradition that contributed to his disastrous performance.

Of course, no political candidate should have to explain inconsistencies of her high school days. What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.

[...]

Speaking at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young girl [age 16], I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union."

Young Hillary Rodham answered that challenge the next year as the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs. She described herself in her memoirs as "an active Young Republican" and "a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King.

[...]

While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her campaign was shaken by the first serious, public internal Democratic criticism of the Clintons since the 1992 presidential campaign. The sharp rebuke of Hollywood producer David Geffen, the erstwhile Clinton friend now backing Obama, was approved unanimously by a campaign conference call presided over by consultant Mark Penn.

Hillary Clinton's road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handler were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a teen-ager in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed.

From Living History (Pages 22-23):

My quest to reconcile my father's insistence on self-reliance and my mother's concerns about social justice was helped along by the arrival in 1961 of a Methodist youth minister named Donald Jones.

[...]

Rev. Jones stressed that a Christian life was "faith in action." I had never met anyone like him. Don called his Sunday and Thursday night Methodist Youth Fellowship sessions "the University of Life." He was eager to work with us because he hoped we would become more aware of life outside Park Ridge [Ilinois]. He sure met his goals with me. ... We visited black and Hispanic churches in Chicago's inner city for exchanges with their youth groups.

In the discussions we had sitting around church basements, I learned that, despite the obvious differences in our environments, these kids were more like me than I ever could have imagined. They also knew more about what was happening in the civil rights movement in the South. I had only vaguely heard of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, but these discussions sparked my interest.

So, when Don announced one week that he would take us to hear Dr. King speak at Orchestra Hall, I was excited. My parents gave me permission, but some of my friends' parents refused to let them go hear such a "rabble-rouser."

Dr. King's speech was entitled, "Remaining Awake Through a Revolution." Until then, I had been dimly aware of the social revolution occurring in our country, but Dr. King's words illuminated the struggle taking place and challenged our indifference: "We now stand on the border of the Promised Land of integration. The old order is passing away and a new one is coming in. We should all accept this order and learn to live together as brothers in a world society, or we shall perish together."

Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional wisdom of Park Ridge's and my father's politics. While Don Jones threw me into "liberalizing" experiences, Paul Carlson [Clinton's ninth-grade history teacher and "a very conservative Republican"] introduced me to refugees from the Soviet Union who told haunting tales of cruelty under the Communists, which reinforced my already strong anti-Communist views. Don once remarked that he and Mr. Carlson were locked in a battled for my mind and soul. Their conflict was broader than that, however, and came to a head in our church, where Paul was also a member. Paul disagreed with Don's priorities, including the University of Life curriculum, and pushed for Don's removal from the church. After numerous confrontations, Don decided to leave First Methodist after only two years for a teaching position at Drew University, where he recently retired as Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics.

In the same chapter, Clinton related how her history teacher Paul Carlson encouraged her to learn about Goldwater. Clinton highlighted what she admired about Goldwater, both as a teenager and "years later." From Living History (Page 21):

My ninth-grade history teacher, Paul Carlson, was, and still is, a dedicated educator and very conservative Republican. Mr. Carlson encouraged me to read Senator Barry Goldwater's recently published book, The Conscience of a Conservative. That inspired me to write my term paper on the American conservative movement, which I dedicated "To my parents, who have always taught me to be an individual." I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide. Years later, I admired his outspoken support of individual rights, which he considered consistent with his old-fashioned conservative principles: "Don't raise hell about the gays, the blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."

Clinton concluded that she did not see the "beliefs" of Jones and Carlson "as diametrically opposed then or now." From Living History (Page 23):

I now see the conflict between Don Jones and Paul Carlson as an early indication of the cultural, political, and religious fault lines that developed across America in the last forty years. I liked them both personally and did not see their beliefs as diametrically opposed then or now.