Are they really getting as desperate as they seem to be? Or is this a head fake?
Bill's interview with Charlie Rose smacks of desperation, that's for sure -- he couldn't be affecting all that agita, could he? But don't forget: he is the best method actor in politics. He could be playing up his real anxiety. Why? To lower expectations, obviously, and to fire up the troops -- especially the determined women they are counting on, not merely to vote, but to lean on others, twist arms, cajole their friends. The powers that be at The Des Moines Register led the way and if the Clintons are worried it might just be to their advantage to emphasize the worry. These caucus settings are tailor-made for the face-to-face social emotional persuasion tactics Hillaryites excel at. It's going to get very personal.
On the other hand, Hillary looks very drawn and Bill may really be losing it. He has been so much caressed at so many luxurious power gatherings for so many years -- he is used to adoration and he feels entitled to it. Plus, if he is, as I suspect, unconsciously wishing (as in Freud) for Hillary to lose, then he is perfectly set up psychologically to do her damage unintentionally while appearing to be doing everything he can to support her.
I mean, really, is that an unheard of dynamic in long-term family relationships? Don't bother with Freud if you don't want to -- how about Eugene O'Neill?
And what's with this statement that Bush Sr will support Hillary? These 2 families have done so much to divide this country and yet they seem to be routing for each other. Dubya has already said nice things about Hillary. Maybe in 8 years the Clintons will endorse Jeb, and eventually Chelsea will get the nod from the Bushes. Scary.
Hillary was unable to define her opponents as planned, because what she didn't expect was an electorate tuned in to the issues so early on. Democrats especially have been counting the days for this election, and they have fire in their bellies. Hillary has found it difficult to match that fire, often coming across as tired, old, out of step and as out of place as her brand of politics.
The Clintons also underestimated the public's heartfelt desire for a new direction in Washington. A new direction beyond policy, but in name as well. There is a firm belief that there is capable leadership in America beyond the names of Bush and Clinton. After being lied into a war, watching New Orleans drown, torture debated, science diminished, and corruption at every turn, the status quo of a neocon foreign policy and the serving of corporate interests will no longer be tolerated.
Nevertheless, the choice isn't between a Clinton and a Bush-or-Dole. Obama, in addition to being more "likeable" (what in the world is it that all these Democrats find 'likeable' about a smirking, entitled preppie like W? I guess if the MSM repeat something often enough -- like that the Repugs are the Party of fiscal responsibility -- people can just become hypnotized by it.)
I must admit it never occurred to me, reading a transcript of the Charlie Rose appearance, that Clinton (like his lip-biting pose of giving a hoot about 'your pain'). It's an angle worth considering.
Forget the Freud and the O'Neill. They were great geniuses but once you try to psychoanalyze the 'unconscious' mind of candidates, as distinct from veiled or underground agenda, you are diving into quicksand.
Obama in 08 -- The most electable, the best president, of all the possibles.
Could Bill be unconsciously underminding Hillary, it sure does seem so with this recent relevation.
"Hillary Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate for seven years. Before that, she spent eight years as first lady - and she did more than pick out the drapes. Mrs. C had a role in many Clinton initiatives, including as chair of her husband's failed health-care reform task force.
Still, her most valuable political skill was to neutralize her husband's "bimbo eruptions." In 1992, she appeared with her husband on "60 Minutes" as he admitted to straying in his marriage, but denied having an affair with singer Gennifer Flowers - a false denial, it turns out. In 1998, Hillary Clinton blamed the Monica Lewinsky story on a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Somehow those 15 years have expanded like dog years into "35 years fighting for what I believe in." That is, Clinton's political years include her 15 years as a corporate lawyer, her three years as a law school professor, as well as her tenure as first lady of Arkansas."
I think it's finally hit home, biased polls aside, that their campaign is on the rocks and that the base doesn't trust her.
Ten years ago Hillary could have gotten away with voting the way she has and running the kind of campaign she's run. These days, though, things have Changed. Thanks to the 'net, we're able to watch a lot more closely and pick the liars out from those who actually have our best interests as a nation and a people at heart.
I have to say the Freudian ideology is an interesting one. I've wondered about their recent strategy against Obama. It seemed very desperate and not confident as a true warrior's strategy should and would be. I had to wonder who the hell they had on their strategist team? Your Freudian mention would totally make sense! Ha! Keep it comin'!!!!!
It is sad to see democrats resort to smear and fear.
Pick Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards if that's the case. They all have more record of creating change than someone who talks about change, but has no record of it. Idiots.
One tiny spelling correction,
Agita is spelled Acida.