Letters to the Editor
-
RE: How that Freud would have a field day.
Your quick psychoanalysis of HRC is spot on in many respects. However, I seem to find it interesting that you seem to feel her malady(s) are without disastrous consequences. In fact, there is such a double standard with regard to Hillary. She's granted leeway no male would ever be allowed, and for good reason.
Let's start with her meltdown at Saturday's debate to prove both points. (Yes, prove that Hillary has psychologically unbalanced traits. And I leave to a clinical diagnosis proper to determine what they manifest in sum total.) Her outburst was simply an expression of cluelessness regarding her true standing as a Democrat. She not only bristled at Edwards' hint that she was status quo, and, therefore, using the Democratic Party as a guise to be a divisive force... But Hillary, through her tone, and its prolonged nature, clearly showed her to be clinging to a view of her relationship toward others that didn't fit any facts.
News Flash: Americans don't have slots granted without merit. Hillary, however, clearly believes she is the only one due the Presidency...of all things. Such a perception is worlds away from getting people to agree through a fair political process that she should be elected.
That this escaped news coverage says much. Clearly Hillary became unraveled not on Monday with tears. But with anger in public. My prescription is a simple one...No Nuclear Codes for HRC.
Those emotions fed into Monday, in fact. The questioner asked, "How do you manage to put on makeup in the morning? For a woman isn't it much harder." Later Hillary would detail to CNN's John Roberts that the woman's question showing concern for her, as opposed to Hillary having to work out someone else's problem became tears. The facts of the matter are that she was triggered into an event that she constantly struggles with. Her persona is a complicated affair she can't successfully triangulate, obviously.
She revealed depression, and, then, tears.
Hillary is an unsatisfied and angry human being.
All these defenders better become aware of that: and do so sooner, rather than later. Calling the debate from NH confirmation of her being mistreated is the wrong conclusion to draw. Would you want the task of casting votes against Hillary in a way that would have ended a career she never "fulfilled?"
Eventually, she will be seen as unfit for the Presidency.
Paglia believes she needs to campaign to survive and will "spew" attacks. That's a pretty benign statement about motivations that keep alive a form of extremely toxic discourse.
Satisfied ultimately perhaps by doing a little bit more than just wagging the dog.
-
jpetty
Thanks for the Molly Ivins quote about Paglia. Ivins summed her up perfectly.
-
Are you trying to give me nightmares
Ya know. I just came back from the Obama rally in Jersey City. It was awesome! People were lined up forever, and the crowd was inspirational.
The whole time.... Nobody talked about Clinton. When someone did start getting very anti-clinton, people were pretty quick to remind them that when the day is over we all need each other and the party will unite.
Then I come back home, still high on Obama, and I'm back into the nightmare world of op-eds. I have no idea what any of this was about, but I do know one thing........
This killed my Obama buzz.
-
Why the insults?
Why all these insults from CP and the letter writers? I find it amazing that we can't have a rational discussion. The only thing insults achieve is to show one can't be bothered, or simply can't, submit a rebuttal argument.
I share the frustrations of many LWs with CP's writing, especially when CP goes from making very logical, well-built argument – check her response to the army vet on chemical weapons - to psycho-babble. I find that as soon as CP turns personal she loses all rationality. It's so and so thinks this way, believes that way, I can't stop wondering if she is Clinton's shrink or have some telepathic ability.
it's too bad because CP can be very good when she sticks to facts. She drives everyone mad when she doesn't. Maybe "she thinks" it's the only way to sustain public interest in her columns (as Coulter does). Better hate than nothing at all. Too bad, because compared to Coulter she has interesting and objective arguments to make. Anyway, enough psycho-babbling.
-
Why the insults? Well that's how feminism works!
Modern Salon style Feminism doesn't accept dialog free of insults. Instead it uses a requires a strict thought and message control which is enforced by speech policing, shaming, insulting, and finally, by casting you out as an anti-feminist.
What is happening here is that Camille Paglia has stepped over the line and so she is being socialized, she is being brought down. If she doesn't toe the line, she will be excommunicated.
I hope this helps you understand the vital role that insults are playing in this discussion.
If not, you're undoubtedly a fascist child molester.
-
I actually read this month's column...
because it mentioned Zepplin, sad to say. Boy, what cheap marketing will do.
Reading Camille is really sad. The Molly Ivans quote is a winner. Camille is sad because she is so intelligent, yet...why all the cheap shots? Why go with hearsay about this and that. Why go with the story about Hillary concerning the military and secret service? I could never understand this. Is it because it gets a laugh? Is it because cosmetic odd behavior? It is similar to Russert bringing up UFOs in a presidential debate, the relevancy is gone and turns the discussion into a pot smoked attic muttering contest. This is what takes people to a much lower level. Molly, happy to say, was always above this level of lower than low discourse. But Molly and others are gone. Now we are blessed with what is left over - the Camilles, the Malkins, the Limbaughs, and the rest of the crap filled air we breathe. We're left with babbling idiots instead of straight shooters who add light to discussion.
This is sad.
-
Ramble on
On Clinton: Why disparage Machiavelli?
"Our military presence everywhere is provocative and, in the long run, counterproductive."
Not if you understand the imperial doctrine of military footprint that dominates our foreign policy for the last 50 years. We want to establish bases in every country of the world and we want to leave them there permanently. We use them to redefine and expand our actual borders. China doesn't have to invade Florida for us to rally a national defense, they simply have to cross the 38th parallel. The base's purpose is to secure "American interests" overseas which in turn secures our economic might internationally. If you look at the Iraq adventure from that perspective, you will see we have achieved our goals there. The insurgency was necessary, because if peace and democracy immediately broke out, we'd have been asked to leave 3 months after the invasion. Ever wonder why we didn't secure the armories when we first invaded? Kinda hard to have an insurgency with no weapons. Ever wonder why our supposed enemy in Iraq is always shifting? First the Republican Guard, then the Sunni insurgents, then the Mahdi army, then Al Qaida, now..? Can you imagine the luck of invading and occupying a country with 5 disparate unorganized factions all vying for power? A colonialist's wet dream. Better keep the garrisons, for security sake.
Once you look at our foreign policy from the 'military footprint' view, and the 'American interests' view...it all makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying I agree with our methods, I am just suggesting that things are not as counter productive to the will of those in charge, as one would think.
Lastly, I gotta a whole lotta love for your contrary writings Camille. If you don't challenge the status quo of thought around here... the song remains the same. Keep up the good work. Being disliked by so many is proof of your worth.