That being said, I can't believe how disgusted I've become with the pundits and the coverage of the primary. It was as if we watched two different debates. They talked about it as if it is a boxing match that never produced a knockout. No blood! How boring! But the consensus seemed consistent with past coverage, the press has chosen sides and clearly it is Barak Obama's. They can barely control their glee while projecting the imminent strike when Hillary receives the fatal blow and finally goes down for the count. I wouldn't be surprised if the pundits become depressed when their fantasy is finally realized.
I keep promising my analytic take on why Hillary rouses a reaction from many that is overblown and distorted. This is main gist of it: Lets think first about the main criticisms you hear that are directed mostly toward attributes of her personality that some find offensive. She's described as cold, corrupt, not authentic, withdrawn, guarded, aloof, and inaccessible. Personally, I can understand how she developed qualities that can be experienced as cold and untrustworthy. She has been through one heck of a ringer and handled it in such a way that produced an overdeveloped stoicism, a mask of protection so to speak. As I said in my last blog, the way she handled the attacks and the hate mongers is one of the things that I admire her for. However, the attributes described above, if ascribed to a mother, or a primary care giver, spells trouble. This would likely incite rage in the rejected and abandoned child whose needs are not only unmet but also invalidated leaving a child feeling a host of probable feelings such as loss, loneliness, badness and distress. All of these terrible feelings will come to roost someday as rage. A mother who does not love well, likely inspires rage and rage can inspire homicidal fantasies on the part of the child. Can this perhaps be why some can't wait to see Hillary metaphorically get trounced. Unless of course this rage is turned against the self as often happens with mortal rage. Some of us may know what happens next, depression. The irony is that in this day and age people in the corporate sphere are expected to be tough as nails. For a man these attributes may not cause so much trouble. I think they play better for men. Men had typically been more aloof and tough (?) when it came to child rearing. Women were typically far more involved in the intimate goings on of the little child and therefore yielded more opportunities to fail the child than men.
This is probably all terribly reductionist and over simplistic of me. As most Analytic scholars know, there are many factors that contribute to behavior but I still stand by this explanation. I believe it has it's merits as a part of the phenomena, one part of the puzzle. There are a couple other ideas I have on Hillary. As always, stay tuned!
