HILLARY ON THE COUCH: IS MISSUS CLINTON MENTALLY FIT?

HILLARY ON THE COUCH
IS MISSUS CLINTON MENTALLY FIT?

by Mia T, 01.05.07

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

utting hillary on the couch seems to be the preoccupation of every armchair shrink extant and no wonder. The clinton psyche is awash with profound and irreversible dysfunction.

But it is precisely this teeming derangement that renders such efforts futile; that is to say, the very pervasiveness of clinton dysfunction is what precludes ever making a differential diagnosis in the first place.

No matter. To categorize clinton dysfunction is almost beside the point. Anyone still sentient after 14-to-15 years of clinton exposure already knows the clintons are mentally unfit; and this is all we really need to know as they position themselves for their final assault.

We come to bury the clintons, not to cure them.

... which brings us to the rape of Juanita Broaddrick.¹

Mentally fit people do not rape. And either the clintons raped Juanita Broaddrick or they did not.²

And with all due respect to Susan Estrich, the statute of limitations here is irrelevant.³ This is not about taking away the clintons' liberty. This is about taking away their license.

"When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near." (Will Durant)

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

Nice post Mia; however, let's get into some psychological nuts and bolts here...

Here is a brief excerpt from Profile of a Sociopath, an excellent website found at http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

From the website, the traits excerpted below are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.

See for yourself if they don’t describe Hillary Rodham to a tee…

• Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them

• Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them

• Authoritarian

• Secretive

• Paranoid

• Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired

• Conventional appearance

• Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)

• Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life

• Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)

• Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim

• Incapable of real human attachment to another

• Unable to feel remorse or guilt

• Extreme narcissism and grandiose

• May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

I think that most of us can connect a Hillary news event with each one of the above bullet items. To my (untrained) eye, Hillary is a true psychopath.

If Alfred Hitchcock were still among us, he could make a darned scary movie about Hillary, and none of it would need to be fiction.

No doubt, missus clinton is a psychopath. (Note the distinction vs. sociopath)

In a nutshell and generally speaking, the clintons are obviously both:

psychopathic (exhibit myriad personality disorders associated with violence, lack of empathy and socially manipulative behavior)
psychotic (hold grandiose and paranoid delusions) Although psychosis is considered by mainstream psychiatry to be a symptom of severe mental illness, it should be distinguished from the concept of insanity, which is a legal term denoting that a person should not be criminally responsible for his actions.

The clintons are--and must be held--criminally responsible for all their betrayals, misdeeds and outrages.

Our problem is getting a government with the courage, character and selflessness to nail them.

We must purge DC of the professional pols; we must field citizen politicians of exceptional achievement and character; we must produce an electorate that is informed, an electoral system that is free of fraud. No easy task. But doable.

As a starter, we can make certain that these two miscreants never again take the White House.

The difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is somewhat blurred, at least according to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). DSM-IV lists both definitions together under the heading of Antisocial Personalities because they share some common traits. However, some professionals maintain there is a difference beyond the similarities.

Shared traits of the psychopath and sociopath include a complete disregard for the feelings and rights of others. This usually surfaces by age 15 and may be accompanied by cruelty to animals. These traits are distinct and repetitive, creating a pattern of misbehavior that goes beyond normal adolescent mischief.

Both the psychopath and sociopath fail to feel remorse or guilt. They appear to lack a conscience and are completely self-serving. They routinely disregard rules, social mores and laws, unmindful of putting themselves or others at risk.

Of the more distinguishing traits, some argue the sociopath to be less organized in his or her demeanor, nervous and easily agitated &endash; someone likely living on the fringes of society, without solid or consistent economic support. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences.

Conversely, the psychopath tends to be extremely organized, secretive and manipulative. The outer personality is often charismatic and charming, hiding the real person beneath. Though psychopaths do not feel for others, they can mimic behaviors that make them appear normal. Upon meeting, one would have more of a tendency to trust a psychopath than a sociopath.

Because of the organized personality of the psychopath, he or she might have a tendency to be better educated than the average sociopath, who probably lacks the attentive skills to excel in school. While psychopaths can fly under the radar of society, many maintaining families and steady work, a sociopath more often lacks the skills and drive for mimicking normal behavior, making "seemingly healthy" relationships and a stable home less likely. From a criminal standpoint, a sociopath's crimes are typically disorganized and spontaneous, while the psychopath's crimes are well planned out. For this reason, psychopaths are harder to catch than sociopaths, as the sociopath is more apt to leave ample evidence in his or her explosions of violence.

Hence, while similar psychological traits might fall under the antisocial personality heading, from a social and criminalist point of view, the differences between a psychopath and a sociopath may be significant.--What is the Difference Between a Psychopath and a Sociopath?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

HILLARY ON THE COUCH IS MISSUS CLINTON MENTALLY FIT?

HILLARY ON THE COUCH
IS MISSUS CLINTON MENTALLY FIT?