Criticizing Media Matters, Human Events writer affirmed Buchanan's purported "non-medical diagnosis" of Clinton
In a May 18 article responding to a May 16 Media Matters for America item on Republican strategist Bay Buchanan's suggestion in her new book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery Publishing), that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) may suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, Human Events news producer Ericka Andersen claimed that the omission of an endnote in which Buchanan purported to offer the symptoms of the disorder "was the only basis for Media Matters' hit job on Buchanan's non-medical diagnosis."
In fact, Media Matters went beyond the absence of an endnote to note that in the book, Buchanan -- even as she acknowledged that she is not a "medical professional" -- charged that Clinton suffers from a "debilitating" insecurity, which Buchanan further suggested might in fact be a personality disorder that Buchanan reportedly said "could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander-in-Chief." What Andersen referred to as Buchanan's "non-medical diagnosis" undermines the purported authority of the book to, as the dust jacket claims, "penetrate[] to her [Clinton's] core as no author has ever done." Media outlets hosting Buchanan to promote her book without challenging her claims about Clinton lend credibility to a book that contains as one of its major contentions -- that Clinton suffers from a "debilitating" insecurity that might actually be symptomatic of an even more serious personality disorder -- an allegation made by someone possessing no qualifications and offering no authority to support it.
Additionally, Andersen claimed that "based solely on this endnote's omission," Media Matters "began a campaign to boycott Buchanan and the publicity of her book." Andersen then excerpted a portion of an email sent by Media Matters' Director of Media Relations Karl Frisch to television and radio shows on which Buchanan was scheduled to appear to discuss her book that said, "I'm sure you'll agree that any discussion with Buchanan on the contents of her book should include pointed questions about her unsubstantiated conclusions and the lack of proper citation." The email contained no language encouraging the media to "boycott Buchanan" or her book.
Frisch's email, in its entirety, said:
Since [name of television show] will be hosting Bay Buchanan on [date of scheduled appearance] to discuss her new book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery Publishing), I wanted to bring this item Media Matters for America released yesterday to your attention. As you will see Buchanan notes in her book 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 in her book, 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 Anderson [sic] 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."
I'm sure you'll agree that any discussion with Buchanan on the contents of her book should include pointed questions about her unsubstantiated conclusions and the lack of proper citation. It should also be noted that Buchanan is a senior advisor to the presidential campaign of Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO). If you have any questions or need more information I am available at your convenience.
The email then provided a copy of Media Matters' original item.
Andersen printed what she said was Buchanan's missing endnote in her May 18 article -- which cited the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSMIV) and listed the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder -- and wrote, "I'm no more a psychiatrist than Buchanan is, but I can read: It's pretty clear from the DSMIV that Hillary (and probably her husband as well) qualify as textbook narcissists."
As Media Matters previously noted, Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."
i totally agree with mmfa. it's more than appropriate for her to be asked her qualifications to make this "diagnosis". other than political hack, there doesn't seem to be any basis for her expertise in this area.
Here is what we know: 1) There was poor scholarship done on the part of Bay when she neglects to include the relevant endnote. 2) There was poor scholarship and hubris when Bay attempted a diagnosis without a) having the needed skills to make said diagnosis and b) never having done the needed interviews (i.e., the research). MMFA points out the idiotic claim by Bay and notes the sloppy scholarship of leaving out the endnote. I would not read Bay's book, my time is too valuable and I doubt her book was peer-reviewed.
She was going at it again on the Blitzkrieg show about Hillary Clinton's purported narcissims continually interrupting Mr Press. The odd thing here is she is supposed to be Tancredo's senior adviser and never said anything about the senator until the end. If i was mr tancredo, she'd be fired immediatelly for not staying on track. She is a dorf.
Correction- congressman tancredo. ooops on my part
Amazing how the power of the internet catches these frauds so quickly these days. We know it's working when ever they feel the need to mention MMFA, especially the outrageous adjectives "far left loons" being my favorite.
Also, can someone do several weeks of research and then sue for plagirizing and using the phrase "Extreme makeover" ? Surely the production co that has spent millions to build that brand image will not appreciate Bay piggy backing on the name recognition. Outright theft of intellectual property if you ask me. Hey, wait a minute , who blames any economic set back here on the Chinese stealing intellectual property? her baby brother right?
Wow.. a prominent right wing politician that might be anti-social. What do you think the chances are? Can anyone name any other right-wing politicians who suffer from severe narcissistic disorder?
Hey - if hubby Bill indeed "(and probably her husband as well) qualify as textbook narcissists" I am now inclined to vote for Hillary after all; he didn't work out too badly in the end, and compared to dumb-as-dumb-can-be crooked evil (Bungle), she begins to look one heck of a bargain with such a minor handicap. [You'll have to find the appropriate brackets and singulars/plurals to edit that hybrid first sentence yourself. You, of course are welcome to borrow any you need from my stockpile, here: [[[]]](s)(s) ] I apologize for assigning this much work, but somehow I am not, today, at least, capable of editing that work.
What bothers me about these pundits is that their relationships are so incestuous and that no attempt is ever made to untangle them by the MSM. Buchanan is a noted partisan, worked under Reagan, is the sister of that noted middle of the road figure Pat Buchanan, works for Tancredo. All of this is important for the viewer to know when she is held out as an "expert". The fact that her book is very partisan, that she is making medical claims that she came to the conclusion of after no experience and "days" of research. This is essential info to impart to the viewing audience.
What I want to know is how to get one of these "Republican (or Democratic) Strategist" gigs. It must be quite lucrative and seems to be a wide open field given the number of people who claim the title. Who's doing the hiring?
How come all right-wing women look like Cruella Deville?
I guess if you can read a medical book, you are qualified to practice medicine? And make diagnoses on patients you haven't actually seen? If it's that easy, then why would anyone waste tens of thousands of dollars and 4 years going to medical school?
Plato
Good point Plato...
Maybe we should ask Bill Frist?
When I saw the original MMFA item, that cited buchanan's 'diagnosis', and it's suspicious lack of noting any 'symptoms' in that 'diagnosis' (for it's suspiciously non-existent foot-note #74), I had wondered:
Would the missing foor-note have given us the 'not-so-important' clinical, or common, 'symptoms' of whatever disorder was being described (clinical or common symptoms, as in those you find described in a text book)...
Or would the missing foot-note have given us the all-important 'symptons' exhibited by the 'patient' (the symptoms you actually observe, in the person you're observing; specifically, the things you know them to have done, or said).
And so from this item I find out, that the missing foot-note #74 would have listed the first... would have listed something you'd have read from a text book.
But the things that people who might suffer from an emotional problem or personality disorder... the things they do or say are not found in reading a text book, but are found in observing those persons, and noting the actual things they do or say.
You see the distinction here? Don't tell me what you read in a book, instead tell me what the person has done or said, that leads you to believe they have a problem.
Because I know of no other way to judge a person's state of mind (or in fact to judge them at all), outside of observing and noting the things they do and say.
And so still we're missing those symptons... still we fail to get (as best I can see) from buchanan, any number of or even a single thing, that Mrs. Clinton has done or said, to warrant thinking she has a problem of some kind as is described by buchanan, in her 'diagnosis'.
For if anyone were to allege the same about you, you would certainly expect them to tell you, what it was that you had done or said, that led them to believe such a thing...
...and that their citation of something that they found in a book, is no citation of your own observed behavior.
You see the distinction here?
The missing foot-note #74, apparently being something found in a book, we continue to go without even a single citation, of anything Mrs. Clinton is known to have done or said, that would warrant us to believe she had an emotional problem or personality disorder.
[And simply disagreeing with a person's political activities and opinions, is no 'diagnosis' of any problem or disorder... or else we would have every Democrat thinking every Republican to be 'crazy', and vice versa...
Vice versa? Isn't that what we're getting a dose of in the "media" right now, Republican hacks claiming all Democrats are 'crazy'?
Yup... and buchanan's just another one of those hacks, singing that 'sore loser' song, I guess.]
"after days of research..." this quote just cracks me up! WOW.... 'days'... endless and exhaustive research done here.
Great job by Media Matters...
God Bless Media Matters for America.
Taking back America: One dirty, stinkin', filthy conservative at a time!
It is very silly for a non professional to make wild statements like that. I have much more experience as a nurse who worked in the Mental Health field for years, so I would have just as much right to assume Ms. Buchanan suffered for feelings of grandeur with probably more basis in fact than she had to make the statement about Mrs. Clinton. Oh I know, she MUST toe the party line with her brother. Now I get it. The only thing, no one is going to listen this time. They did these dirty tricks before but I can tell you many Republicans like myself simply cannot take the vitriol from this group of far right folks who seem insanely jealous of Mrs. Clinton. To Mrs. Clinton, I say, "You go girl. Just ignore these hateful folks."
Yeah Mari,
Mrs. Buchanan is obviously suffering from "Crap Mouth." This is fairly an epidemic in the Con community.
The telltale sign is the dribble down her chin every time she opens her mouth.
Of course Bay is not a medical professional and has no standing to attempt to pass medical judgments she is totally unqualified to render. TV networks who knowingly permit her to do such are clearly assisting in a slander as MSNBC did today on Tucker, and should be subject to legal remedies.
But it is worse than that, I directed a state psychology board for many years and had Bay become a licensed psychologist and diagnosed a public figure on tv without having that person as a patient, the board would have undoubtedly disciplined Bay. Without a patient relationship (which of course must be kept confidential in the real world), even a licensed psych professional's opinion of a public figure is simply Grade A BS. Its a morally and professionally indefensible act for a professional, but Bay Buchanan isn't a medical professional she only plays one on TV!
I have disciplined psychologists for analagous actions, should not TV have some standards, indeed sanctions, for its pundits who pretend to be medical professionals?
Tonyjoe from Baltimore
In response to your perhaps rhetorical question (Should not TV have some standards . . . ?) it may be worth noting that TV, like much of the "main stream" media is already in the pockets of corporate America. It should not surprise us that the continued merging of media organizations has not been the more intelligent discourse, nor a wider spectrum of different perspectives and certainly not in anything approaching even the most elementary notion of truth. It should suprise noone that the kind of (pardon the expression) crap spewed by Bay Buchanan (and her ilk, e.g., Ann Coulter) finds support in "the media," especially TV. They (Bay and Ann et. al.) seem to be cogs in a propaganda machine which essentially supports an ideology to which we can in good conscience apply the label "corporate fascism." Of course, Bay and her crowd have been passing themselves off as Christians and have been supoorted by and large by "fundamentalists" claiming to be deeply steeped in "family values." When the Buchanans, the Coulters, the Hannity's, the O'Reillys, the Limbaughs, the Becks et. al. can't argue the merits of "the free market" which is clearly weighted to favor capital at the expense of labor, it goes after people who have the unmitigated gall to exhibit some semblance of conscience!! Hence her attack on Hilary and the support she's getting from TV to market her bile.
Very well said.
It continually amazes me that someone who calls themselves a Christian would engage in such a baseless personal attack such as Buchanan has here. I call myself a Christian and am greatly saddened when such writings as this occur. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with things someone does or believes, and diagnosing a mental disorder. But people such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and now Bay Buchanan (among others) have severely crossed this line.
As Christians, we are called upon to speak the truth in love, and this failure to do so will elicit harsh reaction from those who are atheistic, agnostic, or of other faiths. Who can blame them? I certainly don't.
That's what happens when God is assigned a political party by man.
As for the corporate media, it's hard to distinguish the problem. The media gives the public what they want to hear. While there could be a political reason for covering Monica Lewinsky more heavily than the Comey NSA testimony, Lewinsky was a simple sex scandal and the NSA a complicated criminal matter. It doesn't matter which is more important. Ken Starr fell flat with Whitewater and the public could have cared less if the Clinton's were guilty or not. But he knew sex would resonate with the public and gave the G-O-P something to demagogue, and a simple, Jerry Springer-like story the media could cover and hope for big ratings.
Plus, they can pay stupid, fluffy reporters a lot less money to cover simple issues than they can pay intelligent, probing journalists to cover complicated and substantive issues.
You can tell the Republicans are very worried about Hillary because there are now three books by the radical right like Bay Buchanan out and blasting Hillary. The hate speech from the far right about Hillary is just going to escalate as we get closer to the election.
I saw Bay on MSNBC the other morning as she sped through her anti-Hillary talking points, and her rapid, staccato delivery and agitated focus on the slippery diagnosis she was trying to hang on Clinton are enough for even the casual reader to project onto Buchanan her own psychological short circuiting. Most obvious is that she seemed like a sales person who's trained themselves not to blink while they pitch a product they don't believe in; her high-velocity as she asserted the lazy association of Hillary Clinton to a clinical disorder seemed, to me, not a medical professional, that Buchanan had distanced herself from the glaring absurdity of her shoddy practice and just maintained a bad idea in the interest of her beloved GOP. She appears, from observation, to be an idealogue, a true believer, someone who will say anything to advance a nasty agenda. If the facts don't fit her theory, too bad for the facts. This, if anything, suggests a disorder, and while I'm not saying that Bay Buchanan is mentally ill, I will assert that her analysis, such as it is, cannot be trusted.
Yeah, umm, that sounds frickin' radical--you managed to scare me. I know that's what you feel like doing on many days, but if you do it, you;re just as much of a Nazi as they are. Oh, by the way: When the Nazis executed someone they billed their relatives for the hanging, prosecution, defense attorney (that's right, the state assigned one), and a few other things.
Actually, dirtbag, I got the idea from the movie "Red Corner", as it's what the Chinese do when they execute someone. Now, call me a Nazi all you like, but the simple FACT is, my anger is RIGHTEOUS. My anger is based on their ACTIONS, not on their race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or any other arbitrary and pathetic criteria. Repuglikkkunts in this nation have CONSISTENTLY supported this heinous traitor they call their leader, who has committed more crimes than I can count on all my appendages. Support of a traitor MAKES YOU A TRAITOR. Now, again, call me whatever you like, I prefer to call myself a TRUE PATRIOT who doesn't like corruption and evil.
And don't get me wrong. Democrats aren't saints. In fact, I'd venture to say about 50-60% of them are just as evil as Repuglikkkunts based on their OWN apathy towards the evil that has infested this nation. But when it comes to Repuglikkkunts, that percentage is nearly 100%. If you're queasy about killing scum, then I suggest you go cry to your mommy about it, and stop whining at me...lol
I thought *I* was the only poster here to ever suggest such radical measures to deal with this infestation of evil! However, even *I*, nutz-left as I am, dithered about waiving my previously consistent opposition to capital punishment. And though I did insist on seizure of all assets (RICO) of those (convicted) members of the administration, their (convicted) allies in the present and past Congress, and many of their (convicted) messengers in the Corporate Media, never did I envision acting on merely my proclamation of their self-evident guilt. Due process seems appropriate, even though tedious, for actions of such import as those you (and I) propose.
Perhaps I am merely envious of your certainty - for if one is to swing the sword (even a verbal sword) one needs such certainty?
Certainty is what got us into this! Too trusting in what others said. We need to have doubt. Capital punishment and agressive behavior are based on either overconfidence or fear. Both of these lead to the dark side, folks.
Lead to the "Dark Side"? You've obviously taken those Star Wars marathons you're watching FAR TOO SERIOUSLY...LOL
George Lucas may be a great film-maker, but as a philosopher, he's got nothing but cookie-cutter hogwash psychobabble...lol
I mean, come on. "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to (GASP), the DARK SIDE!"...LOL
Okay, fess up.
You're really a rightwinger trying to make liberals look loony, right?
All you've done is make yourself look loony.
K - It wasn't your certainty that I envied - although perhaps I should - in that you seem equally certain that such certainty is not a boon. This illustrates perfectly my plight with capital punishment: for every instinctive reach for the most extreme punishment for these poisonous impersonators of sentient beings, for every urge to inflict upon them the full and studied measure of the damage they have done to our collective soul, I am hindered by the very restraints which they have most consciously violated - the essence of the society which they seek to destroy.
So it would seem that though I denounce them, proclaim them guilty of the most greivous crimes, question even their placement in the same phylum as Homo Sapiens, I am forced to wish for a God in whom I place no faith, to see the most heinous of those crimes fully repaid; for I cannot in this world visit upon them the measures necessary to attain justice. [If ever there were an argument for a vengeful God, these would be the prime exhibits, ahead, due to their hypocrisy, even of Pol Pot, Hitler, et alia. I might warrant a placement closer to the fire than would be comfortable, but could always console myself by observing their torments.]
The easiest, and BEST solution to the problem of these scum would be to round EVERY single one of them up, try them, convict them, MERCILESSLY torture them so they have an idea of how it feels before they die, and then put a bullet in their head for TREASON. We could then confiscate all their assets to pay off our national debt, and bill any living relatives they have for the cost of the bullet. America's problems SOLVED, and JUSTICE SERVED.
This does not seem radical. This is crazy. This is way over the top, and totally inappropriate.
If people have done wrong, they should be fairly punished for those wrongs. It's never right to torture people, and that you would think it is not only acceptable but the best solution makes your options unacceptable to most reasonable people. Even Solon, who advocates war crimes tribunals for Bush et al would not advocate what you are saying!
It would not be the easiest or the best solution. Justice would not be served by such behavior!
Well, neocons? Is no one going to jump to Bay's defense?
I'm waiting to be told that Hillary is clearly nuts and Buchanan ia only saying what everyone knows. Or, better yet, she speaks for god! Yeah, that's a good one, lets go with that...
It doesn't matter if Hillary is nuts or not. She is unelectable.
All Bay would have to do is find one doctor or academic to back up her claim and she can right another article. It's all irrelevant.
I can't WAIT to hear the drivel coming out of the mouths of idiots like you when Hillary IS elected.
Not only IS she ELECTABLE, she is going to be elected in a landslide. Oh, and her running mate? Barack "HUSSEIN" Obama. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you jerkwad...lol
Hillary may get elected, but she certainly has an uphill battle with her negatives. Many people wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. I like her, so don't try to paint me with a "Hillary hater" paintbrush either. I am, however, a realist. It's really hard to get elected when over 50% of the American public dislikes you.
According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.
Gallup, which had Hillary's favorability rating up as high as 58% in February, now shows that only 45% of American voters rate her positively, while 52% have negative opinions of her. This is a huge shift. In the fourteen years that Gallup has been polling Hillary, there have only been two recorded polls with worse ratings for her - the March, 2001 poll where her favorability was 44% and a January, 1996 survey when she scored only 43% favorable.
And unfortunately, it's hack jobs like Buchanan...
Ed Klein, then media hacks like Chris Matthews et al that robotically advance the G-O-P talking points that libel and slander Hillary.
The talking heads can't even speak the truth about her position on issues.
Profile of the Sociopathhttp://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.) This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths. * Glibness and Superficial Charm * Manipulative and Cunning * They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. Appear charming, yet see their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. * Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." * Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt * Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims.
* Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
* Incapacity for Love * Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. * Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress.
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature * Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. * Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. * Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Other Related Qualities: 1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them 2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them 3. Authoritarian 4. Secretive 5. Paranoid 6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired 7. Conventional appearance 8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s) 9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life 10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love) 11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim 12. Incapable of real human attachment to another 13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt 14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose 15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Profile of the Sociopathhttp://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.) This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths. * Glibness and Superficial Charm * Manipulative and Cunning * They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering.
* Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." * Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices
* Shallow Emotions * Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. * Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. * * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Other Related Qualities: 1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them 2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them 3. Authoritarian 4. Secretive 5. Paranoid 6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated. 7. Conventional appearance 8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s) 9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life 10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation. 11. Ultimate goal is creation of a willing victim 12. Incapable of real human attachment to another 13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt 14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose 15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
You just described the majority of DC politicians and the biggest corporate CEO's. They live in a world of total manipulation, everyone on everyone else. They kill for money. They poison, they steal. They tax then ignore. They put the money into killing. Serial killers in suits. They fit the profile real good.
Professionals in the field of diagnosing people with personality disorders will tell you that it is totally irresponsible and against their ethics to diagnose people like Bay Buchanan did.
Skilled professionals won't do it.
How can it possibly be acceptable for Bay Buchanan to do it?
Oh my, now we have two unqualified people reading a list of symptoms and making a leap in diagnosis. First of all, to even have any insight to either of the Clintons, one needs some objectivity and surely even a dorf knows these two had no objectivity. Secondly, they make a leap in their evaluation by even suggesting a propable diagnosis. It surely shows they lack any perspective or training. This sort of inference can only be made by a professional and one that is highly trained, after prolonged interviews and even wiyh my experiece in the mental health field, I have seen we still often get it wrong.
So look, folks, this is a hatchet job. Pure and simple. Please tell me if anyone thinks either of these people cares one wit about Mrs. Clinton enough to know what is going on with her. Nope, I know enough to know this is a hatchet job. They can rant all they want about Mrs. Clinton and what is known, but they showed themselves when they threw in this stupid even half-hearted diagnosis.
The Buchanans are anti-unrestrained corporate globalism. Coulter is pro-unrestrained corporate globalism.
When someone lumps all members of a group together as all the same in every way it does not point to that group as being fascists as much as it points to the person demonstrating those beliefs as being a fascist, where the issues and how they affect people do not really matter, only the power of their chosen party over others does.
As Media Matters founder David Brock pointed out, there is a right wing noise machine. "it" does not care about the truth; it is definitely out to get Hillary.
I wish I would have saved the mailing I got shortly after Bill Clinton was elected the first time. The letter pleading for donations to save us all from the Clintons because they were for abortions and gays. And the letter included an "anecdote" about a sweet little old lady who in a receiving line at the White house, pleaded with Hillary to save all those unborn babies. The little old lady reports that Hillary's face went dark and she hissed that God wants us to kill babies.(!)
Now even then (I was not paying too much attention to politics) I was rather amazed that someone would try to pass off a story like that. In my innocence, I thought that only a few weak minded zealots would really believe that Hillary would hiss at a little old lady in a receiving line.
However, because of literally thousands of ridiculous "anecdotes" like that one, there are people who are convinced that she is evil. or cold-hearted. etc.
Bay Buchanan is just the latest itteration of this noise machine in action.
The symptoms include: a feeling of superiority and self importance; a sense of entitlement; fantasies of unlimited success, fame, or power; belief that he or she is special or superior in some way and can only be understood by, or should associate with others who are like them; use of others to achieve own ends; lack of empathy; seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration; behaves arrogantly and haughty, "above the law."
Okay....
Do we know that Hillary has a feeling of superiority and self importance? How do we know this? Did she tell Ms Buchanan?
How about a sense of entitlement? She sures fails in this - she put Bill first for decades!
Or fantasies of unlimited success, fame, or power? She has been very successful - she doesn't need fantasies about it. She has a great amount of fame too - she's not delusional. She's a very influential Senator, and in a country of 300 million, she's one of only 100 Senators!
Or a belief that he or she is special or superior in some way and can only be understood by, or should associate with others who are like them? How does this fit her?
How about her being all about the use of others to achieve own ends? Do we know she acts this way, or is this the assumption of her critics?
Who says she has a lack of empathy? Who says she seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration, or behaves arrogantly and haughty, "above the law"?
Should Buchanan be a source of reliable info on Hillary? I believe the reason that she didn't publish the end note was because it totally disproves her allegation!