Only you are resonsible for the interesting concepts in your mind, because the point of my comment was something entirely different. To wit: : People without a license shouldn't take their psychological diagnoses of other people too seriously..
Evem sme people with a license get carried away- to regions beyond the pale.

I'm always interested in novel ideas, however.
Maybe you could do a post on dream analysis, an endlessly fascinating subject.
(I'm serious).

Hmm. A submissive president. Now that's an interesting concept.

Hillary made her own decisions. Nobody, without personal knoledge has legitimate grounds to butt in. BTW, the uncoerced choice to be submissive is also a personal decision, not to be defined by someone else's .notion of what feminists should do.

These exersises in amateur psychology remind me of a college assignment I once had to do: psychoanalyze all the characters in a play or book in Freudian terms and then repeat the exercise in Jungian terms. At least we all understood it was just an academic excercis about fictional characters, not a therapy session for real individuals.

That said, my school exercise was interesting, as was this post and enybody's comments.
Just don't confuse someone's take on the subject for some ultimate truth.

DLS- when you have a shelf full of bona fides, then you can talk.

Perspective, people, has three points at least for three dimensions.

* Whines on cue about being treated differently because she is a woman.

This is the aspect of Hillary's campaign that's most relevant to the issue of feminism and it's a telling one. Is there any doubt that Obama would not get away with using his race in a similar manner?

=====
DLS,
You could, at the very least, excerpt and link to the commentary you want to spotlight. Posting such lengthy quotes is in bad taste.

Feminism doesn't require NOW-idiocy-surpassing blind-PC conformity to angry, anti-US-and-US-interests MoveOn.org extremist positions on Iraq, Iran, or Bush.

Thank you so much for hijacking the comments thread with observations and links that don't have squat to do with my post, which incidentally did not contain “facts” but rather opinions.

Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
By KARL ROVE

“Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899654405739…

…

NO KNOCKOUT; OBAMA WILL WIN ON POINTS

By DICK MORRIS

Sports metaphors are trite and too male-oriented, but sometimes they are so apt they are unavoidable.

The Clinton-Obama contest is like a 15-round heavyweight title bout in boxing.

Hillary went for an early knockout. All previous Democratic races since 1960 have been decided that way, with one candidate winning decisive primaries, forcing his opponents to withdraw. But Obama beat her to the punch in Iowa, survived a loss in New Hampshire, and countered her sweep of New York, New Jersey and California on Super Tuesday by winning a large number of smaller states, largely by out-organizing Hillary in caucus states. While most traditional candidates are forced out if they lose key states because their money dries up, Obama’s ingenious use of Internet funding provided him with an ample financial base even as he fell behind Hillary in the delegate count.

But Hillary, in spending all her resources on an early Super Tuesday knockout, was too depleted to do well in the middle rounds — the February caucus and primary states. Her focus on an early knockout led her to neglect organizing in these states, and her insistence on spending every dime she had in pursuit of an early win left her financially incapable of competing in these February contests. Obama won round after round on points, sweeping 11 states in a row and establishing a solid lead in elected delegates.

Obama piled up such a lead in points in the middle rounds that Hillary has been forced to go for a knockout in the final rounds. Knowing that Obama has more delegates, she has to win decisively in the late primaries to have a chance at persuading the superdelegates to flip and abandon the voters’ choice. But, so far, the proportional representation rules and Obama’s daunting financial advantage have denied her the elusive knockout. Obama can’t knock her out, but he doesn’t need to. Remember, he’s ahead on points.

Hillary won in Pennsylvania for two key reasons:

1. Pennsylvania only permits Democrats to vote in its primary. Hillary has always won among Democrats. It is among independents, the swing voters in November, that Obama has manifested his greatest strength.

2. Pennsylvania is the second oldest state in the nation after Florida. But while the elderly moved to Florida, Pennsylvania acquired its status by having its young people move out. The result is a demographically atypical electorate.

Both Indiana and North Carolina, the next two states, allow independents to vote in Democratic primaries, and North Carolina has a decidedly young population (it is here that the Pennsylvanian youths moved!). Obama should win both of these states, North Carolina by a lot, Indiana by a little, and their combined effect should wipe out most of the gains Hillary got from her Pennsylvania win.

By the time the voting ends on June 3, Obama will still lead Hillary among elected delegates by 100 to 150 delegates.

At that point, the Gang of Four — Gore, Edwards, Pelosi and Dean — will probably call on the superdelegates to make commitments in the next 10 days so that the race can draw to a close and the party can have its nominee. Shortly thereafter, Obama will be able to claim that he is above 2,025, the threshold for victory. And the ref will be raising his arm in triumph.

The facts don't matter, that's why, only the goals or ends here.

Under other circumstances, I would respect Hillary's decision to remain mute about this scandal.

But for better or worse (and I vehemently opposed the whole impeachment circus), this was a seminal (no pun intended) event in the Clinton co-presidency and modern American political history. On this basis alone Hillary cannot be given a free pass.

* Would kill millions more by nuking Iran.

If saying that she would nuke Iran (which wasn't what she said but close enough) if they nuked Israel is what you mean then you should say so instead of this horrible distortion, make her less of a feminist I don't see how. Is there a rule that to be a feminist you must be a pacifist or abandon our allies?

* Has men in most all of her key campaign staff positions.

I don't know this is true but did she overlook some incredible talented and experienced women? Or should she hire people wiyh much less experience and skill to prove a point to you?

* Uses campaign tactics that Lucrezia Borgia would approve of.

So? This is a blow to her feminist creds how? Women should be different somehow? The must act a certain way? Sound a little Stereotypical in what a “proper” Feminist should be.

By the way why throw out opinions like facts? Why distort the facts so much they are no longer recognizable? Isn't that what you have bashed others for doing?

* Not merely put up with but defended a spouse who was a serial philanderer.
This is a very personal decision. I don't have a very good opinion of Hillary, so my own suspicion is that she stayed for purely practical purposes, to retain power. However, her staying or leaving is entirely her business, and neither would make her more or less feminist in my eyes, since she clearly wouldn't do either out of a submissive impulse. Hillary doesn't have a submissive bone in her body.

* Is running for president because of that husband and not despite him.
True, but not a point against her as a feminist particularly. Yes I appreciate that it's best to be a “self-made” woman, but the fact is that plenty of politicians make it solely because they have spouses, siblings or parents (hi George!) already inside. I consider dynasties a bad thing, and as a young person damn tired of only remembering Bush's and Clinton's, but consider her path a coincidence, in that she'd have tried the same thing if Bill was her brother.

* Whines on cue about being treated differently because she is a woman.
True and the one point I really do agree with in terms of points against her feminism. What kind of tough as nails lady implies unfair treatment every time she doesn't get her way? Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher doing that? Angela Merkel? Hell, Condoleezza Rice?

The ladies at NOW are insane. In the same condemnation you mention of Ted Kennedy, they accuse him of “psychologically raping” all women in America because of his support of Obama (I'm so not joking).

As a woman I would be pleased to see a female president, but I don't want it for it's own sake. I want to see a day when the very best candidate, the one who is clearly a cut above the rest, also happens to be female. Clinton is not that candidate, unfortunately.