{"id":69537,"date":"2007-12-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-24T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/12\/24\/psychanalyse-de-billary-ou-de-maureen-dowd\/"},"modified":"2007-12-24T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-24T00:00:00","slug":"psychanalyse-de-billary-ou-de-maureen-dowd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/12\/24\/psychanalyse-de-billary-ou-de-maureen-dowd\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychanalyse de Billary, \u2013 ou de Maureen Dowd?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Maureen Dowd est la p\u00e9tulante columnist<\/em> du New York Times<\/em>, qui n’a pas sa langue dans sa poche, avec un peu de venin s’il le faut, lib\u00e9rale \u00e0 tous crins, anti-Bush, jubilatoire et mauvaise comme une teigne. Une commentatrice comme il en faudrait beaucoup dans ces temps de conformisme amorphe, accusatrice, bien inform\u00e9e, perspicace, parfois d’une mauvaise foi \u00e0 tout casser et ainsi de suite. Il faut la lire, en prendre le miel, souvent d’une qualit\u00e9 rare, et se garder du fiel qui ne fait pas de cadeau. Par cons\u00e9quent, personnalit\u00e9 attachante, avec ses qualit\u00e9s et par bonheur ses d\u00e9fauts.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa derni\u00e8re de Dowd, dans le NYT du 23 d\u00e9cembre<\/a>, est \u00e0 savourer sur un divan de psychanalyste. Maureen a travaill\u00e9 avec les Clinton en 1992 et en 1996 et en garde, semble-t-il, un souvenir doux-amer. Elle s’appuie sur cette exp\u00e9rience pour l\u00e2cher une bord\u00e9e de jugements \u00e0 consonance psychanalytique contre Bill Clinton entr\u00e9 avec tonitruance dans la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle de sa femme, est-il le sauveur aimant ou le saboteur jaloux des ambitions de sa femme? et, par d\u00e9faut, bord\u00e9e \u00e9galement contre Hillary, que Maureen soup\u00e7onne in fine<\/em> de succomber une fois de plus au charme pervers de son \u00e9poux infid\u00e8le et \u00e9gocentrique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDowd constate que la campagne d’Hillary est devenue la campagne de Billary<\/a>. Elle ne dit pas que l’intervention de Bill, avec perspective de participation massive au gouvernement d’Hillary en cas de victoire, va sauver ou couler la campagne d’Hillary, elle dit que cette intervention change compl\u00e8tement la proposition politique d’Hillary. L’ego de Bill est absolument d\u00e9vastateur (\u00abOnce it was about Hillary, but now, of course, it’s about Bill.<\/em> [] Hillary advisers noted that when Bill was asked by a supporter in South Carolina what his wife’s No. 1 priority would be, he replied: C’est moi! The first thing she intends to do is to send me … he began. <\/em>[] While making a speech in Iowa, The Associated Press’s Ron Fournier reported, Bill used the word I 94 times in 10 minutes, while mentioning Hillary just seven times. At a London fund-raiser, one Hillaryite said, it took him nearly half an hour to mention her.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAlors, que veut Bill?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abCertainly Bill wants to repay Hill for those traumatic times when he had to hide behind her skirt. And certainly he feels that his legacy is tied to her. He suggests to Matt Bai in today’s Times Magazine that she can be F.D.R. to his Teddy Roosevelt, getting through the ideas that fell flat the first time.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIs Bill torn between resentment of being second fiddle and gratification that Hillary can be first banana only with his help? Their relationship has always been a co-dependence between his charm and her discipline. But what if, as some of her advisers suggest, she turned out to be a tougher leader, quicker to grasp foreign policy, less skittish about using military power and more inspirational abroad? What if she were to use his mistakes as a reverse blueprint, like W. did with his dad?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhen Bill gets slit-eyed, red-faced and finger-wagging in defense of her, is he really defending himself, ego in full bloom, against aspersions that Obama and Edwards cast on Clintonian politics?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbMaybe the Boy Who Can’t Help Himself is simply engaging in his usual patterns of humiliating Hillary and lighting an exploding cigar when things are going well.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThey’re not Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, who had jealousy as the lifeblood of their marriage, said one writer who has studied the pair. The lifeblood of their marriage is crisis, coming to each other’s rescue.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEt Hillary, que veut-elle? Est-elle, elle la dure par excellence, la victime de son cannibale de mari? Est-elle celle qui ne sait rien lui refuser, toujours tenue \u00e0 lui par un amour qui n’en finit pas de finir?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIt’s hard to feel sorry for Hillary because the very logic of her campaign leads right to Bill. When she speaks of her experience, she is referring not to the Senate but to the White House, thereby making her campaign a plebiscite on the ’90s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRunning this way, she is essentially asking people to like her if they liked him. Whether she knows it or not, this is a coattails strategy. It’s almost as if she’s offering herself to Clinton supporters as the solution to the problem of the 22nd Amendment.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Le 22\u00e8me amendement de la Constitution est l’amendement qui interdit \u00e0 un pr\u00e9sident d’assurer plus de deux mandats, ce qui interdit en principe \u00e0 Bill Clinton de se repr\u00e9senter. Mais une ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 subsiste. L’amendement ne dit pas si l’interdiction porte seulement sur plus de deux mandats cons\u00e9cutifs ou sur plus de deux mandats en tout.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDowd a-t-elle raison? Avec GW, nous avons eu un psychodrame implicite, entre le fils (GW, pr\u00e9sident des USA n\u00b0 43), voulant prendre sa revanche sur son p\u00e8re (George Bush, pr\u00e9sident des USA n\u00b0 41); avec Hillary, si elle est \u00e9lue, allons-nous avoir une nouvelle tragi-com\u00e9die psychanalytique entre les pr\u00e9sidents des USA n\u00b0 42 et 44, 42 estimant que c’est lui qui a fait \u00e9lire 44 et qu’il est finalement aussi bien 44 que la vraie 44? Dowd conclut: \u00abIf voting for Obama is a roll of the dice, as Bill suggests, voting for Billary is a sure bet: an endless soap opera.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’accord, il y a un probl\u00e8me, avec une situation effectivement extraordinaire que nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> \u00e9voqu\u00e9e, en cas d’\u00e9lection d’Hillary, de la probabilit\u00e9 d’un Bill interf\u00e9rant constamment dans la politique de son \u00e9pouse. Notre avis est aussi qu’il doit y avoir un probl\u00e8me de Dowd vis-\u00e0-vis du couple Clinton, qui m\u00e9riterait \u00e9galement un s\u00e9jour sur le divan du psychanalyse. Mais l’un n’emp\u00eache pas l’autre, au contraire, et voil\u00e0 comment le commentaire met dans la politique un peu des passions humaines, un peu d’une trag\u00e9die racinienne travestie en t\u00e9l\u00e9-r\u00e9alit\u00e9 \u00e0 l’am\u00e9ricaine.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAu fait et pour rappel, il s’agit de pourvoir, en pleine crise du monde, au poste de l’homme (de la femme) le (la) plus puissant(e) du monde. Ainsi va le monde. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 24 d\u00e9cembre 2007 \u00e0 13H15<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maureen Dowd est la p\u00e9tulante columnist du New York Times, qui n’a pas sa langue dans sa poche, avec un peu de venin s’il le faut, lib\u00e9rale \u00e0 tous crins, anti-Bush, jubilatoire et mauvaise comme une teigne. Une commentatrice comme il en faudrait beaucoup dans ces temps de conformisme amorphe, accusatrice, bien inform\u00e9e, perspicace, parfois… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[7104,934,4117,3278],"class_list":["post-69537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-billary","tag-clinton","tag-dowd","tag-hillary"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69537\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}