Posted on 07/28/2007 11:42:02 AM PDT by Raebie
WASHINGTON, July 28 — They were high school friends from Park Ridge, Ill., both high achievers headed East to college. John Peavoy was a bookish film buff bound for Princeton, Hillary Rodham a driven, civic-minded Republican going off to Wellesley. They were not especially close, but they found each other smart and “interesting” and said they would try to keep in touch.
Which they did, prodigiously, exchanging dozens of letters between the late summer of 1965 and the spring of 1969. Ms. Rodham’s 30 dispatches are by turns angst-ridden and prosaic, glib and brooding, anguished and ebullient — a rare unfiltered look into the head and heart of a future first lady and would-be president. Their private expressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the ever-disciplined political persona she presents to the public now.
“Since Xmas vacation, I’ve gone through three and a half metamorphoses and am beginning to feel as though there is a smorgasbord of personalities spread before me,” Ms. Rodham wrote to Mr. Peavoy in April 1967. “So far, I’ve used alienated academic, involved pseudo-hippie, educational and social reformer and one-half of withdrawn simplicity.”
Befitting college students of any era, the letters are also self-absorbed and revelatory, missives from an unformed and vulnerable striver who had, in her own words, “not yet reconciled myself to the fate of not being the star.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
” Yep, she suffered from malignant narcissism back then as well. Some things never change.”
Agree
This reminded me of the pseudo intellectuals of the time who waxed on about irrelevant things, while the rest of the country was busy sorting reality from the BS of the 60’s
“I don’t condone her actions,” Ms. Rodham declares, “but I’ll defend to expulsion her right to do as she pleases — an improvement on Voltaire.”
LOL.
A definination of Hillary:
Otto Kernberg described malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. Some also may find an absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity). Pollock wrote: “The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism.”[1] Kernberg claimed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, which saw as ranging from the Cleckley’s antisocial character (today’s psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end.[2]
Kernberg wrote that malignant narcissism can be differentiated from psychopathy because of the malignant narcissists’ capacity to internalize “both aggressive and idealized superego precursors, leading to the idealization of the aggressive, sadistic features of the pathological grandiose self of these patients.”[3] According to Kernberg, the psychopaths’ paranoid stance against external influences makes them unwilling to internalize even the values of the “aggressor”, while malignant narcissists “have the capacity to admire powerful people, and can depend on sadistic and powerful but reliable parental images.” Malignant narcissists, in contrast to psychopaths, are also said to be capable of developing “some identification with other powerful idealized figures as part of a cohesive ‘gang’ ... which permits at least some loyalty and good object relations to be internalized.”
Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.[4][5]Ú
“This keen professor has introduced me to Marxism...it really opened my eyes. Now I see how we can have a perfect society by adopting socialism and having smart people like me take care of the masses.”
I think this was her way of saying that she was sort of outing herself.
I believe that almost everyone can see her for what she is. What is frightening and disheartening is that so many people don’t care. There is no doubt as to the character of her husband, and yet he is still popular. I suspect that a big part of Hillary’s appeal is to have him back in the White House. It seems that the values of the past have been abandoned. I am looking forward to next year when Hillary and Fred Thompson are presented side-by-side in a debate. The results of the election will then reveal what the collective character of this nation has become. I’m hoping that it is not as bad as I think.
The last paragraph says it all. 40 years later and she is still stealing furniture!
Is this proof she has a heart?
How did he get away with giving these to the Times? The physical letters belong to him, but not the content; that belongs to the writer of the letters.
These are signs of mental illness.
Come to think of it, so is the “smorgasbord of personalities.” No real wholeness and confident sense of who she is. Trying different selves on for size.
It’s a setup. Hillary had to have given permission. What an outrage.
Her neediness and willingness to be a doormat explains why he innately knew she would make the perfect political wife for him, but her dourness and imperiousness are lust killers.
Not to mention the cankles.
For her many failings, I must admit that she is a good writer or the author is a good editor.
Where did you get that idea?
And she picked that one???
Clearly well edited fiction, but it should collect geriatric granola heads by the bucket fulls. I expect a reprint in AARP. Oral readings should go well at the wine and weed parties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.