Hillary's Psychic Reality
During the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton gave the following gloss on her Bosnia fairytale: "I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb... On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case ...on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past... So I will either try to get more sleep...or have somebody who is there as a reminder to me. "
Huh?
Ordinarily, saying things that aren't in keeping with what one knows to be the case is called "lying". And what's dumb got to do with it? No one ever accused Hillary of being dumb. And dumb couldn't explain her Bosnia remarks anyhow.
Yet bizarrely enough, the press didn't seem to notice or comment on the utter absurdity of her remarks. Either they were accepted as some kind of apology or they were relegated to the ever-expanding swamp of campaign "gaffes" and "silliness."
In any case, the Bosnia story has now been overshadowed -- most recently by the lunatic performances of Reverend Wright. But whether or not Reverend Wright is a nut-job is not remotely the same order of question as whether snipers were shooting at Hillary Clinton. Everyone senses this, even if they can't articulate it.
It is truly unsettling to watch someone lie so effortlessly and with such seeming sincerity. To recap: Hillary, sporting a big festive shamrock scarf, looked straight at the audience and in a remarkably relaxed way recalled an incident where she had landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. She described a situation so dangerous that the greeting ceremony at the airport had to be canceled and claimed that she'd run to her vehicle with her head down in order to make a quick getaway. She even had an accompanying hand gesture conveying her dramatic dash for dear life.
There were no obvious tells that Hillary was bluffing. She chuckled a little as she described her narrow escape -- a curious affect given the gravity of the situation, but people do react in different ways to trauma. Overall, it was a pretty smooth performance. If there were any pangs of conscience they were not visible.
As political lies go, it was an outlier. Hillary didn't impulsively lie because she was caught off-guard. She didn't lie because the truth would be damaging to her political career or painful to her family. She didn't lie to win over a political base. She didn't lie to distance herself from an event that suggested some improper conduct or an unsavory person that could tarnish her reputation. She didn't lie because she was promoting behavior in the public sphere that she was not abiding by in her personal life. She didn't lie to cover up a mistake that had been made.
Hillary's lie was different. She lied with no need to do so. And she made the story up out of whole cloth. It wasn't as if one bullet was fired at her and she exaggerated the incident. There was no sniper fire - never, ever. It was the sort of lie a child might tell playing make-believe. In an article in Huffington Post, Nora Ephron confessed that she'd "lost hours trying to figure out why" Hillary told such "a big lie".
But let's say she was motivated by political gain. Some have suggested the story was meant to embellish her foreign policy experience. But dodging sniper fire doesn't really speak to foreign policy expertise; it speaks more to issues of character like bravery and patriotism. Maybe it was supposed to suggest that Hillary could be a better match for John McCain because she too had put herself in harms' way for her country.
Of course, as a political calculation, this would have been crazy. Considering the probability of getting caught, the risks of telling this lie far outweighed any conceivable political gain. As New York Times columnist Frank Rich pointed out her story had "been publicly debunked by journalists and eyewitnesses" for months. "Why would so smart a candidate play political Russian roulette with virtually all the bullet chambers loaded?"
Wouldn't it have entered her mind that if she was found out it would be seen as an insult to anyone who'd seen real action? One GOP ad with grainy footage of McCain limping home from Vietnam contrasted with Hillary's cheerful tale of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, and the race would be over.
Hillary may have gambled that her audience wanted to believe her. Or she may have figured the story was so tall that the public would never dream she'd made it up. Whatever her thought process, Hillary appeared unfazed by the possibility of detection. Guilt, fear of humiliation, or any other negative repercussions did not appear to inhibit her. Apparently, there was no little voice in her head, helping her to distinguish between right and wrong. Christopher Hitchens concluded that Hillary may be "someone who lies without conscience or reflection".
When Hillary's lie was exposed, she attempted to diminish it. She said she "misspoke" because of sleep deprivation. Then she said she "misspoke" because, after all, she spouts "millions of words a day". But Hillary couldn't have "misspoke" She'd repeated the story on several occasions. Perhaps she was saying that she continually "misspoke". But if she continually "misspoke", surely Chelsea, who had accompanied her to Bosnia, would have pointed this out. (Psst, Mom, nobody was shooting at us).
Maybe there was nothing Hillary could say, but a little remorse would have been nice. Instead she seemed irritated: "So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human which you know for some people is a revelation". In other words, we were to blame for holding her to too high a standard of truth.
When it became apparent that people weren't willing to dismiss Hillary's Bosnia "misstatement" so quickly, she attempted to make light of it. Appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, she joked: "I was so worried I wasn't going to make it [here]. I was pinned down by sniper fire at a Burbank airport." She referred to the Bosnia flap as "a mismatch of words and actions", and since, after all, she'd got it right in her book, she'd "obviously had a lapse".
The Hillary camp must have realized the story wasn't completely dead, because Bill Clinton brought it up again. In a bizarrely misguided attempt to minimize its impact he revived the story in a version of his own : "There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary one time late at night when she was exhausted misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995... You woulda thought, you know that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night too".
Of course, it wasn't one time. It wasn't late at night. She wasn't exhausted because she said it three different times. And she didn't apologize immediately (or even close to immediately). It also begged the question: If Hillary could be gaga at 11:00 pm, what would she be like when the phone rings at 3:00 am?
When President Clinton's story backfired, Hillary's campaign tried to paint Bill as the storyteller and his wife as the authority. At a rally in Indiana, Bill said: "Hillary called me and said, 'You don't remember this. You weren't there, let me handle it'''. Now let me get this straight: Hillary was there, so Hillary ought to know, except it turned out that Hillary didn't know, so Bill makes up a story to explain the story that Hillary made up even though she was there.
There are two possibilities: Hillary may be a pathological liar. Or, more persuasive to me, Hillary believed what she was saying and her description of her Bosnia trip was a true representation of her psychic reality and not external reality. In her internal world, Hillary may feel as though she's always being shot at by sniper fire and that she's heroically managed to stay alive.
This theory makes sense of Hillary's recklessness. It didn't feel reckless to Hillary to repeat this lie over and over again, and she paid no heed to those who contradicted her, because in her mind, she was telling the truth. Only when confronted with undeniable evidence of external reality -- actual footage from her Bosnia trip - did she admit (possibly to herself as well as the public) that her version of events was not true.
It also explains Hillary's reaction when exposed. She was angry because she was forced to abandon her psychic reality for external reality. For her, this was tantamount to giving up the truth in exchange for mere facts. When she said "It proves I'm human which you know for some people is a revelation", she may well have been reminding herself.
While most of her explanations have made no sense, when Hillary told Leno that she'd had "a lapse", she was right on. She'd had an actual lapse in mental functioning. Fantasy took over from reality. Reporters and pundits were already starting to question whether Hillary believed her own story. Hitchens wondered whether "she was subject to an illusory past". Melinda Henneberger, writing in Slate, said, she could only conclude that Hillary must have believed the lie because she could not imagine any other reason why "any presidential candidate would knowingly cook up such a doozy of a drama about dodging a sniper's bullets in Bosnia -- given that she was accompanied on this trip by a planeload of reporters". Henneberger concluded that this was more disturbing than if she had lied and "ought to be a deal breaker".
This may explain why Hillary's explanation in the Pennsylvania debate was so bizarre: "I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb." She wanted to shift her problem into the domain of IQ rather than raising a question about her psychic functioning. If people began to question her grasp of reality, she'd be history.
The sensed of a shared reality is fundamental to the functioning of the world. In the same way that delusions and hallucinations are so disturbing, or that contradicting a child's perceptions is so traumatic, so Hillary's story constituted a jarring attack on our sense of common reality.
In the course of Hillary's campaign, a number of features have repeatedly emerged that are also elements of her Bosnia tale. 1) Hillary is both hero and victim; 2) facts are of no consequence; 3) And there are no witnesses or observers to the facts. This last point is always startling. For example, Hillary's explanation of her vote on the war made Nora Ephron wonder if Hillary thought we "weren't alive at the time."
On the tarmac in Bosnia, Hillary is the victim for being shot at and the hero for braving a war zone. And she's apparently having a negative hallucination that nobody else was there. The irony, of course, is that when the Bosnia story was discovered, it reinforced Hillary's psychic reality: Once again she felt she was being sniped at (this time by journalists). And that she had to heroically fight on and escape this near-death experience. Which it now seems she has.
For those who think Hillary won't go all the way to the convention in Denver, think again. Hillary sees herself as the victim in this primary campaign -- blaming the press, or the Democratic rules of proportional representation, or the caucus system, or whatever else she comes up with between now and August. She considers herself a heroic fighter for the good of the country; she ignores all the merely factual evidence that she is losing by every measure; and she imagines that nobody is there to notice.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So much psychology behind her current demeanor-- like the little girl who feels she has to get straight A's to please daddy. These little girls grow up, lose their daddies, but need to say things (not necessarily do things) to please others into voting for them-- toward the ultimate daddy-pleasing prize.....
Thank you for tackling this puzzling issue, Ellen.
Many of us do not have the credentials to analyze Hillary, but we intuitively see she is a dangerous, untrustworthy person. Could you explain why her nonsense works with some people? I know the adages like you can fool some of the people all of the time, and Barnum's theory of suckers. I also know Hillary's most vehement support is from the undereducated. This doesn't explain the phenomena, however.
I find it perplexing that people could possibly fall prey to such transparent ongoing deception. Lack of education does not mean you have no sense of right or wrong. Even in the face of evidence, some people, even in comments to this post, try to defend the indefensible. They will pick on a detail like the shamrock scarf or question the number of non-existent bullets were at issue, or declare you--and everyone else who is rude enough to notice the truth--a liar. Why is this the case? What is going on?
I have to believe there are some intelligent, honest, well-intentioned supporters of Hillary. I do not have evidence to back that assertion, but it is my working theory. Wouldn't you guess the cognitive dissonance of what they see is true and what they hear from her is creating an unbearable burden? Wouldn't it be eating them up right now?
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts--this is a genuinely important issue that merits broader attention and discussion.
YY2H8 (btw, I LOVE your moniker), I agree completely. Hillary's tactics seem so transparent and obvious. I am so disappointed that so many people seem to be hypnotized by her. and can't see through the deception.
I, like you, have been trying like hell to understand how otherwise seemingly intelligent people, can't seem to see through her bravado. To me she looks quasi-hysterical, and her emphasis is clearly mean-spirited and divisive. It's just baffling that any rational person, Dem or Repub could take her seriously.
Ellen, if you could write a "sequel" column explaining why some voters are attracted to Hillary Clinton that would be great. I was turned off early, by her mean-spiritedness and her eagerness to do anything to get elected. Her sneering condescension towards Obama has also offended me greatly. But many people don't feel this way. I tend to think HIllary is attracting the same people who gravitated towards Bush back in 2004-people who are easy to manipulate and can be convinced that this Jeremiah Wright nonsense could affect Obama's leadership capabilities. I think a lot of these people don't see beneath the surface and may not read many books. If anyone else has other helpful insights, feel free to share them.
YY2H8 - I find it perplexing
For what its worth, I agree with Ms. Ladowskys's analysis, although I would not rule out "pathological lying" as an explanation Of Clinton's untruths.
I would suggest that some HRC supporters have a difficult time seeing Clinton's faults in the light of fact because they are so emotionally invested in their own version of who she is and their NEED for her to be that person. When confronted with facts, they must then defend their own mental constructions (delusions) or face the loss of their fantasies about her. In other words, Truth that contradicts their emotionally laden fantasies is felt as an attack of their own ego needs and must be rejected in any way possible.
People who state facts contrary to HRC supporter's fantasies are perceived as assaulting the supporter's very self and they must "fight back" by impugning the truthsayer. They must "shoot the messenger", as it were..
For some HRC supporters , it may be what is known as "parallel process" - Clinton's narcissism ignites their own narcissism.
None of this is all that uncommon in our society today - one noted for its high levels of clinical narcissism And it has nothing to do with intelligence or education, Rather it speaks to personality development.
I am NOT implying that all,/even most of Clinton's supporters have these issues. But it is one explanation for those that react so vehemently and viciously to facts that put the lie to Clinton's "misstatements".
EXCELLENT analysis that was basically a snap shot of my thoughts. My blood pressure has been rising by the day and I hope, for the sake of my own emotional health, that she and Bill go away forever. I can take it until August, but if she prevails, Australia sounds like a great place to live.
That was a joy to read.
The blatant truth combined with such in-depth & thoughtful analysis is wonderful when it comes along. It's too bad we can't get that from mainstream media.
Thanks!
I agree. Fantastic post. So many things disqualify her. This is up there. She lies. She doesn't have to, yet she can't help it.
At best she believed Bush about the war. That speaks volumes.
At worst she, voted for the war to look hard come election time.
Truth is she did not read what she had to before making the most important vote of her life. She was too big, or too lazy, or too sleepy for the supposed facts at the time.
One thing is for sure, she loves pandering to the low information voters.
As someone with more than a passing interesting (and a little education and history of employment) in the psychologi
Well said.
Which brings up the question for me, as to why some people are so drawn to her tactics of character assasination, deception and slash-and-burn "only-I-de
Is it no longer possible for many people to discern when someone is speaking honestly and truthfully, and someone else is spreading lies and deception?
It's depressing to think about it.
I commented on a blog last night about how I thought there was something different about Hillary's demeanor, especially the look in her eyes. There is also something about the posture of her mouth when she made those comments on St. Patrick's Day. She didn't seem to be looking directly at her audience. Her lips seemed to be especially tight. I have also noticed at some of her debates that she doesn't seem to make direct eye contact with her audience and nods her head after saying things, as if trying to convince the listeners to buy into her statements. She also laughs off questions that she doesn't want to answer. Her recent comments about "obliterate Iran" and the gas tax misjudgement have me even more concerned. What a lot of people perceive as toughness could well be something else. Here we have a husband and wife team who have gotten by with not just white lies, but big whoppers! Instead of dismissing a candidate by associations, take a look at what these two people-Bill and Hillary- are actually saying themselves. I think the writer of this article and most of the comments are on to something. Is this type of personality good for our country, considering our current reputation in this world? Voters in the remaining primaries/caucuses and the superdelegates need to think about this!
In her Wellesley senior thesis, that was sealed by the Clinton White House in the 1990s, Hillary wrote that “democracy is still a radical idea in a world where we often confuse images with realities, words with actions.” She's been confusing words with actions her whole life.
ROFLMAO
Liar liar pants on fire.
Gotta love it.
My fellow Americans.
:-)
This piece should have been written a long time ago. Now let's see if it spreads beyond the HuffPo.
I don't know what journalists learn in journalism school, but they clearly don't learn about character pathology; they seem totally incapable of recognizing it when it is in front of them. Instead, the frighteningly revealing Bosnia story has gotten lumped in with the flag pin, "bitter", Ayers etc. as peripheral things which those of us who are really focused on the "issues" shouldn't care about.
We should have learned from Bush that there IS no more important issue than the workings of a candidate's mind.
I think Hillary knows something about the some American voters in PA. She knows that it's better to be a liar with no remore than a black kid with a funny name ...
Hillary thinks Americans are stupid. In general, we have been. We have allowed politicians to lie to us. We have accepted that as a part of "what they do".
This acceptance is crap. We would not allow our children to lie without being punished..
If anyone on your job was caught lying and consistently lying what do you think would happen ? They would be fired..
Hillary and McCain are banking on our continuing to be dumb. Continuing to accept her bizarre behavior. Her ruthless tactics. If she treat her party's own that way, what do you think her foreign policy will look like ? Obliterate another country ? Get us into "rebuilding another Iraq?.....
We need to send a message to ALL politicians. We are angry, bitter, and pissed at how we are treated. Lying, deciet, and failing to act on our behalf will NOT be tolerated.
Do it at you own peril. We WILL IMPEACH you, vote you out of office, or recall you...... You do not perform then we shall replace you......I
Have a nice day HRC and Bill.
Well put, thank you. I'm just old enough to be furious when politicians lie, even about little things....
More fantasy unrevealed--
Has anyone else noticed that Hillary Clinton owns stock in both ExxonMobil and BP Amoco or is it just me who notices this huge conflict of interest?
I guess pumping the public at the pump is far more of a photo op than asking her such an obvious little detail.
Just check out her presidential financial disclosure. http://www
ExxonMobil---page 23
BPAmoco--page 20
Meanwhile, we are no closer to the release of those donors who contributed to Clinton Foundation and God knows what's hidden in the Clinton 2007 "EXTENDED" tax return.
This could explain her vote for war. So despicable. Thx for the info.
The troubling thing about the Bosnia story is that, if Hillary is POTUS, would she lie about something that could have huge ramifications for the American people, like Iran? We sat and watched Bush/Cheney lie about WMD's; do we dare risk having a president who lies not even out of political expediency but just for 'the heck of it'?
Are you kidding? Of course she would!
Here's the Republican campaign commercial:
Close up, Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Ms
Cut to Hillary Clinton: "We ran from the plane with our heads down under sniper fire. Now that's what happened."
Voice Over: What will be their next Big Lie?
End of campaign. End of story.
I mostly agree with your analysis of HIllary's mindset but I also think it's part of something larger. You can see it in the McCain camp as well. Everyone has seen over the past eight years you can tell outrageous and provable lies and get away with it. Day after day after day. Finally, it starts to register "No one cares what the truth is. Just make it up." It's a political dream. Somewhere deep inside her Hillary knows the political reality of her campaign. Were she winning I doubt she would have ever told such a story. But when hard pressed, she could not resist tapping into the public apathy towards the truth. Just turn on the TV, you can see it everywhere now - politicians, pundits and propagandists are reveling in it. I can't help but feel this is the exact same experience as during the decline of the Roman empire.
I don't know about the Roman empire, but certainly that was a tenet of the Nazis.
Welcome to the Clinton DOPE SHOW...It kind of doesn't matter. Her self loathing supporters are like ferrel children so used to the prison f*****g they have been getting for the past 12 years from the Republican party. That they can't stomach when someone like Obama speaks to them like an adult.
FOLLOW THE SHINEY LIGHT....
what voting machines are usee in NC?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
