I'm still recovering what's left of my sanity from the shock of the last few days, which can best be described as an aggravation of my post traumatic Clinton stress disorder.

Let me try to explain what I have tried to explain before. I have a serious, serious problem with putting the Clintons back in the White House. It clouds my sense of objectivity, and probably impedes my ability to blog. This is why I find myself psychologically incapable of doing what Ann Althouse is doing, which she explained in a post declaring neutrality:

....Nothing is more boring than a blogger's endorsement, and I'm not interested in reading any blogger's day to day spin in favor one candidate or another. I would rather take a vow not to vote in November and to keep track of my pro and con posts and go out of my way to keep the tallies even than to turn into a blogger like that.

So I'm taking a vow of neutrality, but it won't be dull beige neutrality. I think partisanship is too tedious to read. This is going to be cruel neutrality.

Normally this wouldn't be a big deal. Had Bill Clinton and his wife had the simple decency to behave as other presidents and first ladies have, I'd probably do nothing more than manage an occasional sneering look back at Clinton nostalgia. The stained dress, purloined files, missing furniture, etc. It might even supply humor. But even that would hardly be objective or neutral.

However, the idea of returning them back to the White House fills me with horror that goes beyond mere politics. I'm no more capable of being neutral about that than I am capable of being neutral about things like governmental attempts to take away my guns or the various governmental campaigns to ban my dogs, or force me to mutilate them. To say that I disagree with such things is putting it mildly, as I disagree vehemently. However, I try to discuss them by at least attempting to be objective. Part of that involves disclosing what I think, and that includes disclosing how I feel. I'm just trying to be honest here. If I'm not objective enough, or if it's boring, my apologies to all.

It may well be that I am suffering from some sort of mental illness. Whether to call it "Hillaryphobia" I don't know. "Clintonphobia" is more like it, as I view them as inseparable people. FWIW, I think they suffer from Comegalomania. I know I complain a lot about Hillary's screeching voice, but to tell the truth, just about every time Bill puts on his angry satyr face and throws another tantrum, I have the same reaction. I've had Clinton fatigue for years, but to see them alive again and playing their same old dirty tricks, appalls, disgusts and annoys me as few things can.

To give you an idea of how neurotic I am, even an article about the effects of cell phones on the brain made me think about the Clintons.

Listening on a cell phone, even with a headset and free hands, can make a driver as dangerous as a drunken one, a new study suggests.

Researchers have previously explored this territory, but Carnegie Mellon University scientists tried a new tack: They looked at the brain.

They used brain imaging to show that listening to a cell phone significantly reduces the brain activity that occurs during undistracted driving. This drop in brain function increases driving mistakes - such as weaving out of the lane or hitting a berm on the shoulder of the road.

"You know the old TV commercial of an egg frying that said, 'This is your brain on drugs,'?" Just said. "Well, this is your brain on cell phone."

Anyway, the one on the left purports to be your brain on a cell phone, while the one on the right shows a "normal" brain. (The red highlights the parietal lobes.)

Such simplistic evidence is sure to lead to much agitation for more legislation. I wouldn't be surprised to see groups like MADD demanding a cell phone ban.

Fortunately, the writeup does note a rather huge problem with the study. Lots of things can and do cause driver distraction.

It could be argued that the simulation didn't accurately mimic real driving because the subjects had no pedals, and used a computer mouse to control the steering of their virtual car. The study's implications, Just and his coauthors wrote, obviously go far beyond cell phones.

"If listening to sentences degrades driving performance, then probably a number of other common driver activities also cause degradation, including . . . tuning or listening to a radio, eating and drinking, monitoring children or pets, or even conversing with a passenger."

The article mentioned "listening to a radio." Hearing the voices of the gloating, scheming Clintons as they climb to power again is to me very disturbing. Whether it's as disturbing as it would be to receive a call notifying me of an IRS tax audit, or a call from a doctor informing me of bad lab test results is not the point. To me these things are unpleasant distractions, and whether they involve a cell phone is not the point.

To return to my point, when I saw those two MRI scans, my immediate reaction was not "this is your brain on cell phone!" It was "this is your brain on Hillary!"

Fortunately, I am not alone. Even some Democrats (and I mean real Democrats, not the "DINO" variety am about to become so I can vote against the Clintons) are discussing and trying to come to terms with their Clintonphobia. (Or should that be "Clinton Derangement Syndrome"?)

In today's Inquirer, a piece ostensibly for Democrats titled "A party's pre-voting therapy" explored that issue:

Discussions at kitchen tables in America are becoming therapy sessions. And Hillary Rodham Clinton has become an American Rorschach test: What you see in Clinton has a lot more to do with you than with her. It has to do with your lived experiences, your deepest uncovered fears, your buried resentments, your dashed hopes, your angers and your aspirations.

....Hillary-bashing has become a perverse acceptable national pastime. That she is making history by being the first serious Democratic woman to run for president doesn't get her any slack. Instead, there is a malevolent overreaction, which usually finds expression as male qualities misapplied: she's too cold; she's too calculating; she's too ambitious; she'll say and do anything to get ahead. Men with similar traits are described as forces to be reckoned with; they compete to win; they are a worthy foe. With Clinton, these qualities inspire fear and loathing.

Anyway, the above psychological analysis was written for Democrats, so much of it is lost on me. I am not a Democrat, although I was when I first voted for the Clintons. This is horrible, painful stuff, and I've tried to explain why neutrality is impossible for me -- even as a goal.

Objectivity is another matter, though. While it's very tough to be objective all the time or maintain strict objectivity, I do believe in objectivity as a goal. While it is doubtful that I'll ever acheive it in the case of the Clintons, I think approaching objectivity must begin with disclosure of bias. I am deeply, deeply biased against the Clintons, and if I didn't admit it, I might as well just stop writing this blog. This is not to say that I don't allow for the logical possibility that I might be wrong, and that the Clintons might not be wonderful, morally upright people and the salvation of this country. A lot of things I don't agree with or believe in might be right; I never forget, for example, that according to many religious views I am headed for hell.

So, I might be wrong. But that doesn't mean I don't have my thoughts and my strong feelings about the things I might be wrong about, and this blog to express them.

Hell, I'd even be willing to submit to a brain scan. I think it would reveal that I'm driven to distraction by my Clintonphobia, but I don't think I'm suffering alone. Maybe if some scientists did comparative MRI imaging of all anti-Clinton bloggers I might learn that I'm not as sick as I think.

Bad as it is, things could be worse.

At least I'm not blogging about Hillary from behind the wheel.

MORE: While I'd like to leave no stone unturned in my ongoing quest towards a stated goal of objectivity, I lack the technology to provide readers with an accurate MRI of my brain on Hillary. Still, I'm old enough to remember what my brain looked like on drugs, and I think the argument can be made that in my case Hillary has an effect similar to the effect we were once warned that drugs had, but with one important difference. There's no high with Hillary. Just the opposite.

With that in mind, in the interest of continuing objectivity, this is the best I could do to depict my brain on Hillary:

MORE: Commenter Socrates admits to being Clintonphobic and not only offers a full discussion of why, but suggests a 12 step approach:

Hi, I'm Socrates* and I'm a Clintophopic.
<Hi, Socrates!>

Hey why not?

1. We admitted we were powerless over the Clintons--that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

etc.

"God, grant me the Serenity to accept the Clintonistas I cannot change, the Courage to change the Clintonistas I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference."