How Desperate Are Bill and Hillary, Really?

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?

Comments

[oogabooga]

Clinton haters go away please.

[LeeFromVA]

I could be wrong, but I don't see any way the Clintons can turn this thing around. I now see Bill in a whole new light. I was a big supporter of him, but I never realized how devicive he is. It didn't bother me when he did it against the Republicans because they deserved it. But Barack Obama is such a genuine person that it bothers me to see him put through the same crap.

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.

[Kane]

The Clinton's are guilty of believing their own press clippings. They thought all that Hillary would have to do is to show up and Team Clinton would do the rest by whatever means necessary to ensure an overwhelming victory. If the campaign had a little slip, they were confident that Bill could come to the rescue, Mark Penn could throw some mud, or a media pal could do a hatchet job.

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.

[cloudy]

Well, I DID vote for that "sleaze bag" in both 92 and 96 -- and think that the country (tho not me) is better off than it would have been under daddy Bush or ???Dole. Is Bob Dole the kind of 'honest person' you want to entrust the presidency to? He was a DRAG on the Ford/Dole ticket in 76.

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.

[DudeE]

by the way, why is every Hillary hating goon obsessed with these fictional character analyses...

"...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..."

And you know this all from seeing them on TV.

[VSamuels]

Mr. Zengotita, the one thing which is quite strange for Bill Clinton to be saying, is him implying that the father of the most derided political figure in the last 30 years, would be on the fore-front of the Hillary Clinton administration. While I can't read Bill's mind, this would seem to send the wrong signal to democrats who are seeking a break from the Bush-Clinton hand on foreign policy.

Could Bill be unconsciously underminding Hillary, it sure does seem so with this recent relevation.

[MPeter]

Here is what someone who knowns Hillary's experience wrote:
"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."

[m4rk0]

So glad that I didn't vote for that sleaze bag back in '92 or '96.

[Susanholmes]

The answer is: Extremely!

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.

[eaglecapri]

I also saw the Charlie Rose interview and it reeked of manipulation! I loved, loved, loved seeing Bubba getting red, agitated and annoyed when Rose challenged him on Obama!

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'!!!!!

[scooperss]

hillary and bill don't have each other. Their whole life has been power, so yeah, they're desperate.

[BudP]

Mark Penn said in an interview on Scarborough (12/4/07) that the Clinton campaign didn't want the primaries to be "a referendum on Hillary". Isn't that the most damning thing a supporter can say about his candidate? We are now seeing all these "accidental" slurs against Barack Obama because HRC is unlikable and has no real record of experience.

It is sad to see democrats resort to smear and fear.

[RAMHaiti]

Obama reminds me of George W Bush. Kind of guy you want to have a beer, smoke a joint with. Isn't that what the electorate was looking for in 2000?? You guys still looking for that? Doesn't work!!

[Countess]

The driving force behind the Clinton's quest for power is the power to reward and punish. They are without scruples and would smear their own flesh and blood in order to get elected. Mrs. Clinton's record speaks for itself and the racist and religious smears of her cronies against Obama are no accidents.

[bbln]

wake up folks - the economy sucks, housing foreclosure is up, people are dying in Iraq, people around the world hate the U.S. and your reason for voting for Obama is because you hate Bill and Hillary so much, you'd rather lose the General Elections to the Republicans who will cream Obama because Karl Rove will be back behind the red curtain again? This is a world turned upside down - one commentator above was right, if you ever demonstrated this same open hatred to the Bush Administration through active protests, we'd be in a different place. All of us need to own up to our complicity (and the same rabid foaming at the mouth Democrat eat Democrat, media-driven anger towards Gore during this same moment in time in 1999).

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.