Recalling Hillary’s seance

This Washington Post story about a journalism dispute between Bob Woodward and ghost writer Barbara Feinman Todd is of little interest qua dispute. However, it pertains to a remarkable story about which I had forgotten — Hillary Clinton’s imaginary conversations, during her time as First Lady, with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

As far as I can tell, the matter was not raised or noted by the mainstream media during the 2016 presidential campaign. I didn’t mention it either, but would have had I remembered it.

If there were evidence of Donald Trump communing with the dead, even if twenty years ago or more, the mainstream media very likely would have been aired the story. It would have been touted as evidence of Trump’s weirdness.

Clinton’s seance, which her defenders call a “psychological exercise,” is evidence of her weirdness. According to Woodward, Hillary’s ghost writer, the aforementioned Feinman Todd, told him she found the seance, which she witnessed, troubling. She must have, or else it’s unlikely she would have violated her contractual obligation of confidentiality by disclosing the seance — a violation that probably explains why Clinton did not credit her with having contributed to It Takes a Village, which she ghost wrote.

The mainstream media portrayed the 2016 election as a contest between an unstable egomaniac and a tested, even-keeled leader. I take no position here on whether the two candidates fit these descriptions in 2016.

But the fact that the pressure Hillary Clinton experienced as First Lady (not President) caused her to commune with the dead is strong evidence that she was badly rattled during her husband’s presidency. This has some bearing on her present ability to handle intense pressure, and surely would have been viewed as such if Trump had done the communing.

Yet, the mainstream media declined to bring Hillary’s seance to the voters’ attention last year.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.