The Freudian Slip: Is Hillary a Sociopath?
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don’t propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies.
Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn’t need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v. set or the presidency– can’t suffer the paience it takes to craft a careful lie. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your head in disbelief. Lies that end up on “Meet the Press.”
What me worry Hillary. By the time she’s busted, the lie has done its work. Confronted, she’s cool as a sociopath:”So, I made a mistake.” Or the devil made me do it. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she’s got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary’s lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she’s got CIC and foreign policy cred claim she
- “landed under sniper fire” in Bosnia.
- “helped bring peace to Ireland”
- “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo”
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources prove all three claims false “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Further, Hillary has taken the lion’s share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch, with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim honestly: “…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No–Teddy does, but she does’nt.”
It is clear from HRC’s First Lady records, recently released by The National Archives and President Clinton’s Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC waved the pom-poms for NAFTA with gusto. Ironically, on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary raised doubts about Obama’s NAFTA stance with a timely but premature AP report. She succeeded in shifting the contest’s outcome. Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday’s news until the clock ran out. Though no longer news, Canadian sources, strangely, now point to Clinton as the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary’s experience does give her the edge when it comes to manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what’s headlines one day is yesterday’s onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she’d have to do damage control on it one day. But like Scarlett O’hara, she’d think about it tomorrow. I’m talking about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let’s not mince words. I’m talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
Hillary voted for war in 2002 with her eye on the prize. Within days of the 9/11 attack of WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she’d have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
