Frau Hil­lary C.: A case study that would tax Dr. Freud

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - BY CHARLES HURT

It has for­ever been per­fectly fair game in pru­dent po­lit­i­cal dis­course to de­mand that politi­cians seek­ing higher of­fice re­veal in­for­ma­tion about their phys­i­cal fit­ness. Ev­ery­one re­mem­bers when Democrats and the press tried mak­ing an is­sue out of Ron­ald Rea­gan’s ad­vanced age and health in 1984.

“I will not make age an is­sue of this cam­paign,” Rea­gan re­sponded with charm­ing in­dig­na­tion dur­ing the pres­i­den­tial de­bate. “I am not go­ing to ex­ploit for po­lit­i­cal pur­poses my op­po­nent’s youth and in­ex­pe­ri­ence.”

Wal­ter Mon­dale, who would go on to lose 49 states to Rea­gan, had no op­tion but to laugh along with the rest of the world at the in­stant im­mo­la­tion of his cam­paign.

Three decades on and bil­lions of dol­lars spent draw­ing men­tal health is­sues out of the shame­ful shad­ows and into the day­light of po­lite pub­lic dis­course, it seems only just and fit­ting that Amer­i­can vot­ers be equally in­formed about the men­tal fit­ness of our politi­cians seek­ing higher of­fice.

And what head doc­tor worth his weight in cig­a­rettes and Zoloft wouldn’t just love get for­mer first lady Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton on the couch?

To be sure, she would be one tough nut to crack. This is a woman who makes Lady Mac­beth seem weak and unimag­i­na­tive. By com­par­i­son, Blanche DeBois is laid back and easy­go­ing.

Think of all the is­sues you could ex­plore!

Hil­lary Clin­ton’s hus­band and the fa­ther of her child — a man who is also the most pow­er­ful man in the world — sodom­izes a lowly in­tern who is just a few years older than their daugh­ter. So, ac­cord­ing to in­ti­mate friend Diane Blair, Mrs. Clin­ton ac­cuses the in­tern of be­ing a “nar­cis­sis­tic loony toon.”

That is what pro­fes­sion­als call “trans­fer­ence.”

And then there’s this: “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sen­si­tive enough, not free enough of her own con­cerns and strug­gles to re­al­ize the price he was pay­ing,” Blair wrote of Mrs. Clin­ton. This is called be­ing an “en­abler.” More specif­i­cally, an “en­abler” of a dirty, ly­ing horn­dog hus­band who cut a dis­grace­ful fig­ure both for the young, pas­sion­ate in­tern work­ing for him and for his own daugh­ter.

Even Tammy Wynette with her mouth full of home-baked cook­ies could tell you that.

Now, know­ing the ex­tent of men­tal tor­ture Mrs. Clin­ton was suf­fer­ing while in the White House ex­plains some of her er­ratic be­hav­ior and chronic pub­lic dis­sem­bling ever since.

She shows clear signs of para­noia, dat­ing back to her fran­tic wheez­ings over the “vast right-wing con­spir­acy” she said was haunt­ing the White House. She didn’t say this specif­i­cally, but her be­ing on fa­mil­iar terms with the ghost of Eleanor Roo­sevelt would make it in­ter­est­ing to ask her whether these ap­pari­tions in­cluded ghosts of Ron­ald Rea­gan or maybe Theodore Roo­sevelt.

This para­noia and imag­ined cor­re­spon­dence with the para­nor­mal reached a fevered pitch dur­ing her 2008 cam­paign for the Demo­cratic nom­i­na­tion for pres­i­dent when she re­called how she per­ilously came un­der sniper fire land­ing in Bos­nia dur­ing her hus­band’s sec­ond term. Her han­dlers be­grudg­ingly ac­knowl­edged Mrs. Clin­ton’s psy­cho-wack­ery only when con­fronted with pic­tures show­ing her ac­tu­ally ac­cept­ing flow­ers from a lit­tle girl on the tar­mac.

This con­di­tion eas­ily bleeds into delu­sions of grandeur such as when she aired a tele­vi­sion ad dur­ing that same cam­paign an­nounc­ing that she alone was qual­i­fied to an­swer the White House “red phone” at 3 a.m. bring­ing news of a press­ing na­tional se­cu­rity dis­as­ter.

Of course it is still de­bat­able which one of the two can­di­dates left in the race at that time is more of an in­ter­na­tional laugh­ing­stock, but the ter­ror­ist at­tack in Beng­hazi proved that Mrs. Clin­ton cer­tainly wasn’t up to the task.

Af­ter months of dodg­ing, eva­sions and doc­tors’ vis­its, Mrs. Clin­ton fi­nally lashed out in pub­lic about the at­tack. “What dif­fer­ence at this point does it make!” she bel­lowed at her in­ter­locu­tors.

Well, the fam­i­lies of the four Amer­i­cans, in­clud­ing the U.S. am­bas­sador to Libya, would like clear an­swers and clo­sure. They would like to know why Mrs. Clin­ton and the White House were far more in­ter­ested in im­me­di­ately cov­er­ing up their han­dling of the at­tack than pro­tect­ing Amer­i­can property and per­son­nel in the first place.

This in­abil­ity to re­late to the pain felt by those around her is a fre­quent sign of vary­ing de­grees of psy­chosis.

In any event it was an awk­ward MRI mo­ment that should have got­ten the for­mer first lady checked into a rub­ber room for fur­ther eval­u­a­tion.

And, if she re­ally wants to be pres­i­dent, the Amer­i­can people have a right to know what the re­sults of that MRI showed.

Charles Hurt can be reached at and on Twit­ter @charleshurt.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.