One endnote short of a diagnosis? Bay Buchanan suggests possible psych disorder in Sen. Clinton, but purported support missing
In her new book The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery Publishing), Republican strategist Bay Buchanan notes that she is not "a medical professional" but nonetheless asserts that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is defined by a "debilitating" "lack of confidence and self-esteem," adding that "[a]fter days of research, I was led to a fascinating field of study involving narcissistic personality style." Referring to an endnote that apparently does not exist, Buchanan purports to offer "symptoms of the related disorder." While claiming in the book that she "pass[es] no judgment as to whether this shoe fits the Lady Hillary," Buchanan reportedly does not refrain from suggesting dire consequences if her suspicion of such a disorder is accurate. In a May 14 Human Events article on the book, news producer Ericka Andersen quoted Buchanan saying, "[W]e are talking about a clinical condition that could make her [Clinton] dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander-in-Chief."
Despite the explosive assertion, Buchanan was not questioned about it in a May 14 appearance on Fox News Hannity & Colmes or in a May 16 appearance on MSNBC Live to promote her book.
In the book, Buchanan writes:
As I studied Hillary from her early years through her days as First Lady, it became more and more evident that extreme insecurity is a dominant personality trait. Not being a medical professional, I decided to look more deeply into the condition. After days of research, I was led to a fascinating field of study involving narcissistic personality style. The symptoms of the related disorder were intriguing. I have included them in an endnote. [cite 74] I pass no judgment as to whether this shoe fits the Lady Hillary.
Deep insecurity and its related symptoms, in and of itself, in no way precludes Hillary from consideration for the presidency or any other position of responsibility. It is not the insecurity that is the problem. For example, John Adams had difficulty with this condition and others and surely proved himself to be a remarkable leader. [cite 75]
So, you might ask, why raise it in the case of Hillary? Because she has allowed a chronic lack of confidence and self-esteem to define her -- rather than rise above the challenge, Hillary has been consumed by it. One simply cannot study Hillary without understanding how debilitating this trait has been to her development as a human being. That being said, it is no excuse for her behavior, rather it is an explanation.
Whether it is a pathology that makes Hillary do what she does or just good ol' God-given free will, matters little. What is important, however, is how her pattern of behavior offers a window to her heart. That is what should be on the minds of Americans should Hillary be on the ballot in November 2008. [Pages 42-43]
The list of "intriguing" symptoms Buchanan purported to include in her endnotes -- specifically endnote 74, Chapter 1 -- appears to be missing from the book entirely. Buchanan does not reference her study of "narcissistic personality style" elsewhere in the book.
Additionally, Fox and MSNBC failed to identify Buchanan as a senior adviser for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO). Buchanan's biography on the back of the book's dust jacket also fails to note her role as an adviser for Tancredo's campaign. The back cover includes a note of praise from Tancredo.
Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."
this from a woman who can't find enough words to praise the dysfunctional bush.
It is difficult to understand what she verbalizes due to her poor fitting dentures. It is also difficult for me to look at her so I can lip read, as I find her physiognamy repulsive to the point of regurgitating. Same with rbt. novak. These people are maggots on the corpse of truth and to me, anything they say is laughable and nauseating at the same time. A very strange feeling indeed! The pioty and hypocritical utterances of the right wing talking heads is getting tiring for more and more citizens. People are starting to come out of the "bush-fog" and reality is smacking them in the face. Truth seekers must step of the sharing of the truth.
I hate it when others put it better than I.
(okay, I don't but I ha to say something dramatic)
ANyway, I wish some people didn't stay in the fog. I think the question we need to start pressing is: "What will it take for you to start going against Bush and CO? What do they have to do, how far do they have to go to earn your distrust? Because they have everyone elses..."
Give me feedback here, I think this is a possible approach we haven't tried yet. No trolls are to respond.
I have cloned Dr. Mengle and he is working feaverishly on a RETROactive birth control pill. Your monetary donations appreciated, so send me All of your money and I will send you the T-shirt which is more than you will get from baby bush & Co..
I asked this of a Vice President at my work. Bush's numbers were in free-fall after some particularly egregious revelation, and I said, "So, do you still support Bush?" He said, "Yes." I said, "What would it take for you to stop supporting him? Would he have to strangle someone with his bare hands in front of your face?" He replied that he (a Mormon) would continue to support Bush because of the issue of abortion.
Also, John Dean (former White House counsel to Nixon) has written articles and a book about authoritarian personalities, who are usually conservative. Authoritarian personalities will *never* stop supporting their leader. Interestingly, authoritarians account for about 30% of the populace, which is about the percentage that is still staunchly supporting Bush.
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0670037745
(The Publisher's Weekly review on Amazon is not good, but read the reader's comments.)
That's highly intersting. Need to remember that. We should keep trying it, though, it is the best anti-argument I see...
I'm not a doctor but I saw one once........
a a psychologist who studied psychpathology and its attendant etiology for 16 years, one would never mak adiagnosis of a personality sisorder without many hours of direct psychtherapy and assessment tools. however, one can easily tate that " someone stdying the fascinating fieldof study of narcisstic personality and then in fact attempting to diagnose someone with the disorder is in fact a narciisstic personality. while i do not personnally know the senator but have read several of her works and seen her on numerous occasions, she has none of the dsm Iv diagnostic criteria of a narcisstic persolality.
buchanan in her abjext ignorance, states that senator clinton wouldbe dangerously ill suited to serve as president is he had this condition. if she had known abything about this fiels, she would hae realized that there are two distinct constructs , personality styly and persolity disorder. and while impossible to diagnose, i would categorically state that a narcisstic persomality style would in fact , lend itself quite well to serving as president. as the ld saying goes a little knowledge in a little person is a big catastrophe
This does not seem to stop liberal publications like Newsweek from psychoanalyzing George Bush from afar....Sharon Begley is doing the exact same thing in this week's issue.
Too bad your comments are entirely without merit.
Here's the link to the Newsweek story. People who have a valid point to make include a link to the proof. People who are deceitfully trying to claim something supports them but it really doesn't don't include a link. Please note that I included a link and you did not!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18629197/site/newsweek/
Sharon Begley quoted notable professionals in the field. Her most memorable comment, to me, is when she says that either Bush is lying to us or he's in a state of denial. How true.
"I do think there is denial on Bush's part in his running of the war," says Kerry Sulkowicz, clinical professor of psychiatry at New York University Medical Center. "He seems unmoved by the extent of the evidence that things are far worse than he believes. The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well."
Sharon Begley tells us the pitfalls and caveats about making guesses about someone's personality flaws long distance, but she does explain how it's plausible to make guesses given expertise and long-term examination of the person's history.
"But while it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial. When he was 7, his baby sister died of leukemia. Bush, while certainly not denying her death, tried to cheer up his grieving mother, saying everything would be OK. Also, those who abuse alcohol, as Bush has admitted doing, typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon. "It's how they control their addiction," says Sulkowicz. "It reflects an inability or refusal to see shades of gray."
Read the whole article to understand how misleading the previous poster was!
"In their new book, "Mistakes Were Made," psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson argue that self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you're competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Similarly, if a political leader believes himself competent and wise, and a decision has disastrous consequences, the only way to reconcile self-image with failure is to deny the failure. As Tavris and Aronson write, a president who believes "he has the truth becomes impervious to self-correction." He blinds himself to information that might make him doubt his decision. There are exceptions, however. When the Bay of Pigs proved to be a fiasco, JFK said responsibility was "mine and mine alone." No denial there."
So Sulkowitz didn't actually spend hours and hours with Bush studying his personality, he is just sitting on the sidelines offering his opinion. Opinions are like doctors I guess, everyone has one.
He is not offering up his own opinion, but the opinions of others who are well versed in the field of psychology/psychiatry. You know, a person that does it for a living. The difference being that Bay Buchanan, to our best knowledge, does not have a medical degree in either of those professions, and she doesn't know what she's talking about.
The Newsweek article actually uses real experts in the field to look at what might be happening with Bush. Now if Bay wanted to bring in someone who had said degrees, I might listen a little closer, but since she is just offering up her own uninformed opinion, it is more easily discounted.
"The difference being that Bay Buchanan, to our best knowledge, does not have a medical degree in either of those professions, and she doesn't know what she's talking about."
-----
Let's be fair here. She may not have done "weeks of research," but she has spent her entire life around a classic example of "narcissistic personality disorder," her brother Pat.
Maybe she does have some experience with the subject, even if she doesn't know what she is talking about.
This is the same smear that they try to use against Al Gore. They claim his "opinions" on global warming are just as valid or invalid as the "opinions" of Glenn Beck.
But Glenn Beck doesn't have the consensus of the scientific community behind his uninformed opinions. Al Gore, on the other hand, has not been talking about his "opinions" at all, but has simply been relaying the factual information given to him by reputable scientists! It's unfair and biased to give the same weight to both "opinions".
It would be unfair to compare Bay Buchanan's amateurish evaluation with the Newsweek article.
It would be totally unfair. It would also be grasping at straws. That's why the rightwingers on this board do it, because their positions don't stand up to scrutiny! If you cannot "win" fairly, you cheat!
We see this cheating all the time. The Justice Dept cannot stack the organization with ideologues fairly, so they created an unfair assessment process that protected Bushies and fired people who didn't work for the Bushies. That's clearly not the way the Justice Dept is supposed to work, but they cheated and are making it that way. There are hundreds of examples of this from the rightwing. Their philosophy is often unsupportable with facts, so they cheat. That's why Media Matters is here - to point out that cheating by misinforming and deceiving.
Newsweek is a liberal magazine? What sort of political folks do you hang out with? The Klan?
Heh. Well put.
You know, it's funny, I've been told that the fact that some view Hillary as almost conservative is scary. On the other hand, I've seen the following people, groups, or institutions diagnosed as liberal: Newsweek, The Scientific American, The New York Times, myself (true, but not more so than half of all Americans and most Germans/Euros), Facts (by Stephen Colbert, also true), and many others I don't remember.
I don't personally believe that she's right-leaning. I do think, though, that she has adopted her husband's successful strategy of pandering to the middle to get elected. And that's resulted in some unfortunate choices and votes.
Speaking as a philosoper/historian/martial artist with a mild interest in narcassistic disorders, Hillary is sociopathic. Her entire career is her case study, 7 years so far of observations. She kills without remorse, shows no empathy to the poor and downtrodden and uses people as objects to pave her way to higher positions. She's got all the signs and we've had the time to watch her.
Also, those who can use the term narcissist are not necessilary narcissistic themselves. Super-ego moderating ego can allow confidence in abilities without resort to severe narcissism. It's what I call "the edge of arrogance". To be in harmony with that edge is Alpha.
"Speaking as a philosoper/historian/martial artist with a mild interest in narcassistic disorders, Hillary is sociopathic."
-----
So, you're saying your medical qualifications to comment on Hillary's mental state are just as lacking as Bay Buchanan's, and therefore your opinion is just as easily dismissable.
None of the unverifiable "qualifications" you have attributed to yourself in any way give you standing to do anything other than opine.
Try again when you have proof.
Of anything. You're 0 for the century, so far.
Speaking as a piano player/motorist/weekend drag queen with a mild interest in spaghetti, I can lend my professional credentials to confirm everything you just said.
That's good enough for me.
Why quibble over credentials when the subject shows all the symptoms? It's etiher by the definition or not and we have 7 years of recorded instances of putting her benefit above the lives and well-beings of others. She crossed the line of anti-social into sociopath when she voted to KILL people. She fits the textbook criteria. You don't need a doctorate to see that. Sociopathy is VERY common in the political/corporate elite. Has been for millenia.
Corporations have not existed for milennia, and politics are not all that old either (perhaps thee and a half millenia). Either way, voting for a war is not the same as killing people, and would you please stop putting her on a level with the neocons? If politicians do that, it's not exactly sociopathic since they think they have a reason.
I am not a Dr. but I used to watch Dr Kildare. I think this has a great deal do do with cash-flow. bay b. will get PAID for the specious diagnosis. Her books will sell to a demographic characterized by a religious-superstitious outlook of reality ingrained in their unconscious minds by these very people that write this FAR RIGHT propaganda, which also regurgitate the right wing talking points on TV. These talking heads intellectually prostitute themselves to make money. "I will say it on TV and then you can read about it in my book" Pure propaganda like cheney and the link between Husein and the Al-qaida in Iraq. I know what I am talking about as I used to watch Ben Casey too.
While I accept your description of the psychological symptoms discussed in this article critisizing Bay Buchanan's lack of credentials to make blanket statements about Hillary Clinton's mental state, it seems that 16 years of study in psychology would have included at least one class on how to spell and write coherently. Take your time when you write something here; it will make your statements much more credible.
The Founding Fathers had atrocious spelling.
I'm not a right-wing smear machine...
But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Beat me to it!
And I save a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to GEICO.
:-)
Bay Buchanan is "a senior advisor for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo"!! Well, that and the fact that she was raised by the same family that produced Pat Buchanan tells us all we need to know about her sanity and mental well being...or lack thereof.
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure Bay Buchanan is an idiot. I don't have any proof to back up this assertion.....well, except for the book she wrote.
Well I’m no doctor, but I believe that I have seen many Machiavellian traits in every member of the George W. Bush administration.
If there ever was an administratin that fit the description of a Kakistocracy, it is the baby bush administration. It is sort of like the SS (Nazis) toward in the second half of WW2. If Elmer Fud had been available instead of making a movie, he would have been the republicans choice instead of bush back in 2000. bush could eat a deepfried cow brain sandwich and it would double his IQ.
I had not heard of narcissistic personality style before this. I have studied narcissisitic personality disorder though. If Bay DID know anything about NPD, she would know it's extremely difficult to diagnose. I would be more inclined to say a person such as Bill O'Reilly suffers NPD. But I would certainly not make a diagnosis even so. She's full of it, Nothing new there of course.
Bays revealing book for the most is the gospel re: Rodhams psychosis with a vid in her fist she called doctor Frist and from that they made their diagnosis
(sorry. I had to try once, but promise to never do it again).
Yikes. Might make more sense in form:
Wonderful!
The test for severe narcissistic disorders is very simple. Just one question needs be asked....has or does the the subject in question kill people not in self-defence? If the answer is "Yes", they are anti-social or beyond. It's very simple logic and a question of numbers ...murderers are insane, mass murderers immeasurably so.
Gosh, psychotherapy is easy.
And, in Redking's case, incompetently so.
It's elementary, my dear Crimson2. Narcissistic disorders are very common. It's probably the one form of mental illness we're the most familiar with. Questions of conscience. A severe narcissist has no conscience. Hence, look for those commiting foul acts with no remorse and you find *ta-da!* severe narcissism. The worse the act, the worst the disorder. DC is swarming with them.
i think i've got it now. if the answer to the question about whether they have ever murdered anyone is no, they are not narcissistic. who knew?
i've had a few days off, and watching a little of the phil spector trial on court tv. now he is narcissistic.
Wow, your arguments get worse and fall apart more with every post. Why do you keep rambling on about H. Clinton killing someone? I notice you do nothing more than say that. No specifics or proof of any sort to back it up. Are you talking about that one ridiculous accusation (with no merit) the Rethugs were trying to float years ago. Who was it...Vince Foster I think?? Anyway, even if she was as involved as the righty lame a**es try to claim, she wasn't the person doing the killing and therefore it doesn't even support your idiotic rambling. I don't understand how you can be any sort of a decent "philosopher" when you have demonstrated an absolute lack of understanding of...well everything I've seen you post about.
She's consistently voted for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the funding of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Every vote for those things kills someone. Simple logic.
Wow, are you over the edge, Red?
ps: I still defy you to vote for Kucinich if he does get chosen, as you claim he won't.
I would vote for Kucinich if he was nominated. I just don't see the DLC-run Dem machine allowing that to happen. Kucinich threatens the gravy train.
When I scrolled down to your comment an image of baby bush flashed next to it on my screen. I called Dell and they are going to send me a new one then send somebody by to pick up this one. Something about an exorcism on it or something like that. Are they going to have to do that to the White House in early 09? I just say the bill o. sideshow and he had his coolaid IV drip feed cranked way up. I heard he smokes his own poop. Can someone research that?
There is a good reason for her not being on too many tv shows anymore and I would submit it is because she is an idiot who could not get elected to anything. It is a classic case of the phone rang and she was dumb enough to answer it. Tancredo must be either a super nice man or a complete buffoon to have hired such a personality as " senior advisor ".
We've been hearing Trancy's one issue fits all problem rant for years in CO. (the same state that brings you Dobson and that Musgrave person). Classic scape goating. "If only everyone was as nearly perfect as my anglo hyper krishun self, wages would go up, taxes down and as a bonus we'd get better service at McDonalds" . I guess Bay has no problem getting her mind around a guy who does not believe in evolution and thinks the biggest threat to this country is that thin slice of the population that has a dark complexion and floats all the concrete.
actually, all the publishing companies listed are closer to "vanity" publishing companies, than they are to real publishing companies. certainly, no real publishing company would waste time or paper printing anything by ms. buchanan.
a real publisher would require facts to support ms. buchanan's assertions. i suspect this will be the next 7 cent special on amazon.
Amazon will donate them Mogadeshu for toilet paper I am sure. She should open a diet center as when I saw her I wasn't hungry for at least 36 hours. That woman neutralizes testosterone and strains the forces holding the fabric of the space-time continuum together. If I had to choose between her and a Comoto dragon to date, Id be shopping for a rhinestone collar and leash for my new reptile girl friend and I am not talking about baaaay b. She is proof the least tallented amonst us can get on TV. I am writting a new book. "The RAPTURE. When the religious right were the ones left behind
Remember, you shouldn't use someone's looks against them...
You are right. A physically beautiful person can become ugly if what comes out of their mouth is vile. bay b. says some awlful things about a lot of good people so she can make her money. A not so physically attractive person (in the classical sense) that is loving, kind, generous, etc. (mother Theressa) becomes beautiful. If bay looked like Sharron Stone and said the things she says, to me she would be ugly. paris hilton is ugly to me. I did not start this fight. I don't attack good people even if they say bad things out of ignorance. bay. b. says these things from a cold calculated position in order to harm people. Sorry I offended you, but bay. b. should be euthanized. Evil is Character assasination for cash and self advancement. bay. b. is EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't worry, I'm not offended, but It's necessary to remember that liberals try not to do stuff like that because it's only fair in case like bay, and fair is defined by the beholder so it's not objective. I am, however, going to disagree on euthanizing anyone actually able to talk or stuff. I know they look braindead, act like braindead, think like braindead and actually are braindead. But as long as they can move on their own...
can't we just make an exception this one time? Please, pretty please with surgar on top. Iam just venting. I don't want anybody to just up a die. (now that falwell is gone). Just goofing around entertaining myself and hopefully another or two. Life would be a little more boring without right wing scallywags.
Dudes, off topic, yesterday was my birthday and MMFA is one of the aspects that makes life worth living. Tommy, Doris, HBL, among others, keep on keeping on. You are all (even Tommy) fighting the good fight.
"We are all terminal cases." John Irving
MickD
Happy yet-another-one, man. Here's to a great year ahead!
Big shock that a book bashing a Clinton is now out for all to read.
My only suprise is that it came out so early in the race for 08'. (Although not a real shocker)
Has anyone tried to follow the money that Bay received? (My money would be on The Heritage Foundation or some other group tied to them).....
I wonder how long until some useless right-wing (i.e; corporate) crap about Edwards or Obama comes out?
When will they (corporate slime) learn that "facts" are mandatory when writing a book and that the majority of "We the People" are not so stupid as to fall for much of this garbage!
"Has anyone tried to follow the money that Bay received?"
-----
Regnery Publishing. See "Mellon-Scaife, Richard."
Regnery Publishing is the sister organization of Human Events, a classic biased conservative organization. They publish books by Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.
They are also associated with American Spectator, another biased conservative organization. Why cannot these organizations simply stay true to their philosophy without being deceitful and dishonest about both their own positions and the positions of their opposition?
An editor at Regnery was Ben Domenech. Remember him? He was the guy who over his few years as an adult plagiarized a bunch of stuff, and then denied it until he was forced to admit it. He was a founder of Red State, and they vociferously defended him there even when it was clear that he was guilty as sin! He was the guy who was hired as a "conservative" blogger for the Washington Post, supposedly because they needed the counterpoint for their liberal bias, even though they didn't have a "liberal" blogger on staff!
Let's bet on how long it will take for each democratic candidate to get a book written about them by some right-wing idiot.
I'm so glad she put "days of research" into her book. It grants a certain gravitas that a book representing only hours of research lacks.
That is so true :)
Poor Repug syncophant Bay Buchanan has actually written her OWN autobiography when it comes to psychosis and neurosis. Fixated on Hillary hatred , or anything Clinton much? Why should another slam at Hillary be a surprise? When you have no facts to justify a fat paycheck from the right wingers, make something stupid up.
bay b. is really ann coulter in a beauty suit. I lost my glasses sometime back and I can't locate them with this white cane. (they told me it was white)
Bay Bucanan and her brother Pat are prime examples of what happens when cousins marry......
The funny thing is that narcissism is common among politicians, a quality they share with media types. Bill Clinton is a classic narcissist. So is Rudy Giuliani. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is someone who was for a long time, willing to stand in the shadows, to put someone else's ambitions ahead of her own. Not classic narcissist behavior.
Or was she just using him for her own ambitions, a relationship of two sociopathic psyches manipulating one another for mutual gain. Not uncommon.
This has to be one of the most exhaustively written uses of "The Cavuto" that I have ever seen.
Ahh...the Cavuto, old but still good. LMAO every time. It was posted on these very forums, back when I was just a wee noob-poster, with but a U-Boat reference in my handle. My handle hasn't changed, but many other things have. It seems like it was only this december, which I believe it was.
Things that have changed (in no particular order):
1: Imus is gone, weee.
2. Savagerocks is no longer here, at least with that name.
3. Indecision 2008 is on.
4. As a result of "1." the troglodites are now afraid of, paying attention to and attacking MMFA frequently.
5. Donald Rumsfeld is gone.
6. Gonzales is in big doodoo. (He's also a big Dodo ;-))
7. Retired generals have become outspoken critics of Bush.
8. I started following the liberal intelligentia more closely, including Salon, Al Franken, and Keith Olberman.
9. Al Gore won an oskar, but is not running for President.
10. I got a signed disk set of Johnathan Coulton's Thing a Week, which probably means nothing to any of you, but tons to me. Here some videos using some of his songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoeMaCEIUGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oS7Gt8J2KU[link to www.youtube.com] color="#810081">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjcH2UmK1uo[link to www.youtube.com]
And here the whole collection: v=E4TfDs9veis[link to www.jonathancoulton.com] world is in an upward trend. Kudos to most of the regular posters for being a great community, although soem tend to go waay off the deep end sometimes.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I just can't believe this until I hear it from Bill O'Reilly's body language expert.
yo redking guy, i'm the psychologist guy, who spent 16 years earning a doctorate and various internships,which i feel at least give me the scholarship to make an informed opinion and would never go beyond that as an ethical consideration. you on the other hand claim to be a philosopher, historian and martial artist. i dare say as so many repub synchophants just by saying it makes it so. for instance does an m.b.a. and one term as governor qualify your president to govern, while elected ,its obvious he lacks the requisite skills to effectively govern. your boys limbaugh and hannity, the avowed experts who between them have less than 90 college credits yet feel justified to criticize those opposed to their restrictive ideaologies. meyers ,a supreme court justice? , i think not. a justice dept with 150 graduates of regent university law school, an institution with virtually no academic criteria to enter, an administation replete with chickenhawks who feel qualified to initiate and manage a lost war. your opinions are just that and they are not remotely learned ones. as to your claim of being a martial artist, i hold a black belt in several martial arts , but what does that have to do with the price of eggs or potatoes. hey , i just rememberd i shot a gun once, maybe i could be a soldier, i also clipped my cats claws once, maybe i could be a vet. there called credentials bozo and you like the majority of this administration don't have a clue
I'm a Green, man. I hate both the Dems and the Repubs. They're all psycho corporate greed-nazis in little business uniforms out to wipe out millions of lives for billions of dollars while making us slaves in the process. I'm not with the administration, I'm in opposition to both party machines.
Taking seriously the four paragraphs excerpted from the book, they are completely worthless and suspect as a 'diagnosis' of anything, for the obvious and 'as plain as the nose on your face' fact, that not a single example of behavior or a single quotation of speech is cited, of the person being supposedly 'diagnosed'.
Again, not a single example of behavior or speech is cited, in the four paragraphs.
Put another way, were those four paragraphs truly a 'diagnosis' of anything, they'd have to include the symptoms (or even a single sympton) of whatever 'malady' it is being 'diagnosed'.
Not one single symptom is cited, nor even alluded to, making the supposed 'diagnosis', as I said, worthless and suspect.
Were any of you to be 'diagnosed' as having any emotional problem or personality disorder, you would certainly expect that 'diagnosis' to be based upon something you had done, or based upon something you had said...
(for what else is there upon which we make any judgement whatsoever about a person's state of mind, outside of the things we know them to do or say?)
...you would certainly expect that 'diagnosis' to be based on 'symptoms'.
What thing has the person supposedly being 'diagnosed' in the above four paragraphs, what thing is cited they have done or said, to support the 'diagnosis'?
Nothing... not a single thing is cited, that the person has done or said, that could ever warrant a 'dignosis' of anything, be it an emotional problem or personality disorder or whatever.
Not even a political opinion, or even any kind of political activity, is cited, upon which at least you could dispute (not 'diagnose') the person, as having politics (not an emotional problem or personality disorder) that you disagree with...
Which of course, were such political opinions and/or political activities cited, then we'd have a basis upon which to say, that the writer of the four paragraphs disagrees with Mrs. Clinton's political opinions and/or political activities... which is all we can say anyway...
The writer of the four paragraphs disagrees with Mrs. Clinton's political opinions and/or political activities.
In addition we can say, the writer's 'diagnosis' is completely worthless and suspect, for not including a single example of behavior or a single quotation of speech, of the person being supposedly 'diagnosed'.
Also, I had just assumed (from the context) that the non-existent footnote #74 would have cited the clinical, or common, symptoms of whatever supposed 'disorder' it is being cited.
Or would the non-existent footnote #74 have cited the symptoms, not of the 'disorder', but of the patient?
Alas, we can not know, as the danged writer and the danged editor and the danged publisher and the cursed proof-reader, have all conspired to keep us in the dark on this matter...
It's a danged and cursed 'vast right wing conspiracy' I say, this missing footnote #74 is.
There is a standard text with criteria for such a Diagnosis. DSM-IV. My older version lists 9 characteristics with 5 being sufficient. Without specifics it is impossible to evaluate this claim. If you read the criteria it seems to me to describe many prominent republicans and in a sense the republican party itself much better than democrats. Rush Limbaugh shows more of these traits than Hillary Clinton does. The only trait even hinted at from the article might be reacting to criticism with humiliation. Seems a real stretch. Normally feelings of inferiority are the opposite of a Narcissist. But classic traits like lack of empathy for others, sense of entitlement, grandiose sense of own importance seem to be Limbaugh. Narcissist can often be charming talkers. It might be more accurate and funnier to accuse Hillary and democrats of some other personality disorder for which there are more criteria met.
I'm no big fan of Hillary Clinton, but you know how I would handle Bay's little smear campaign, HEAD ON. I would advise Clinton to challenge Bay to either a debate, or round table discussion. I mean I'm sick and tired, of these sleazy, cheap shots by right wingers, good gawd Lou Dobbs just "congratulated" Buchananan, on her new book makes you wanna puke.
Greg Palast, writes terrific fact based books and can't get on any of the cable shows, these right wing so called pundits need to be called out, and all of their smear merchants .
Problem is that you can't have an honest debate with someone so clearly willing to lie.
It frightens me that these radical rightwingers will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. I am terrified that once again the US will find itself lead by one of these hypocrites. They believe that everything they do is justified as long as they get their way. Lying, smearing, sneaking all the while invoking their so-called claim on God. It does not surprise me that this woman would spread this lie. Because when you get right down to it those who are gullible enough to swallow this crap will receive this as the undisputed truth.
"I'm not a psychiatrist, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!" Baye Buchannan
She is obviously a member of the Charles Krauthammer school of psychobabble. Smear people who disagree with you as being emotionally unbalanced. Krauty loves to do it with Al Gore.
Actually it must drive folks like Bay Buchanan nuts thatPresident and Mrs. Clinton did what her own church says is the right thing to do and that is to work out your problems. Anyone who assumes Mrs. Clinton has psychological problems is nuts themselves. After all the hate filled rhetoric against the Clinton's, that they have survived and seem very much in love must just drive the far right nuts. My idea of fairness just says that the Clintons, both of them, are doing just fine and that Mrs. Clinton is a paragon of forgiveness and kindness.. I know that drives folks like Bay crazy but it is still a fact. All this hate filled trashing of the Clintons is the reason I am an EXrepublican. These days, very few in the party like Jacob Javits and Bob Dole.
Bay and her brother are the creepiest act going. They appear better educated, more articulate and have a veneer of sophistication that BO, Coulter, et al. do not, but they are perhaps more seriously fascistic than those who are merely amoral scammer-clowns after easy money. Their whole history is one of poison, and I believe they are in deadly earnest. Pray they never achieve any real influence in our government!
Oh dear it's too late, just look at Rep Musgrave from suburban CO, like to hate sin, hug bush and attack like a toxic waste dump guard dog anyone in her way.