FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2026
"Clinically insane," anchor says: Is it possible that the sitting president is "clinically insane?"
The question arose last evening on MS NOW's The Last Word. After his opening monologue, Lawrence O'Donnell began to introduce his first guest.
For the record, we admire the fact that O'Donnell cares—that he seems take these things personally.
O'Donnell's 17-minute monologue had concerned the all new-and-improved "Lake America." As he introduced his initial guest, here's part of what he said:
O'DONNELL (8/27/26): Leading off our discussion tonight is Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
Congressman Rankin, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
We were going to run a little clip of video...of Donald Trump saying he might rename the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, thereby giving historians all the more they might need to declare him clinically insane, as I'm sure history will.
Let's go [instead] to the real breaking news of the night, which is the federal judge in Boston—
At this point, Raskin interrupted with a joke. Let's consider what O'Donnell had said.
O'Donnell's monologue had concerned the latest foolishness from the president—his obliteration of The Lake Formerly Known as Ontario, with a (joking?) threat to rename two oceans thrown in.
O'Donnell had referred to the president's "madness" throughout his monologue. Now he said he felt sure that that historians will say that the president was "clinically insane" during his time in the White House.
We respect O'Donnell for the disgust he routinely directs at the president. He isn't going through the motions. It's plain that he actually cares about the danger we seem to be in.
That said, in what sense can a person say that the president is "clinically insane?" Ironically, because "insanity" and "insane" aren't clinical / medical terms, the dramatic assessment, "clinically insane," isn't a clinical term either!
"Clinically insane" isn't a clinical term! Instead, it serves as a lusty insult, but the term doesn't tell us much. Had he been a bit less angry, O'Donnell might have settled for some such assessment as this:
In the future, historians will likely agree that the sitting president was [some version of] "mentally ill" during his term in office.
Or was O'Donnell thinking of some form of cognitive decline, resulting in a serious cognitive shortfall? Could that really be what he meant?
He could be thinking of either or both! With apologies for the constant repetition, here's how one medically trained observer put it earlier this year:
UNNAMED CNN ANCHOR (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?
MEDICALLY TRAINED OBSERVER: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.
But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.
The unnamed observer alleged "obvious cognitive declines," but she also referred to "serious psychiatric disorders." Which was O'Donnell thinking about when he posited a future assessment of "clinical insanity?"
Viewers of The Last Word weren't given the slightest idea. In his anger, we doubt that O'Donnell had given this matter much thought.
Full disclosure:
Our American journalism is very primitive, even when performed by our Harvard grads. Within our current culture, it's hard for us modern Americans to understand that fact.
O'Donnell was angry about Trump's latest nonsense, as he frequently is. But in his anger, he behaved in the way Professor Brabender once insightfully described:
Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.
Would it make any difference if O'Donnell had interviewed a medical specialist instead of the ubiquitous Raskin? If he had managed to formulate searching questions for that medical specialist, who would of course have to be careful to ignore his or her political inclinations?
Would it be helpful to take that route in future interviews? For example, to interview the unnamed observer who appeared on CNN, asking her to detail the problems as she perceives them?
In a best-seller she published in 2020, that observer said the sitting president had suffered the misfortune of being born to a father who was a "sociopath." In passing, she said that children of "sociopaths" are more likely to be "sociopaths" themselves.
Would it be instructive for the public to see Lawrence O'Donnell, or someone else, interview that unnamed author about such claims or such facts? Of one thing you can be fully certain—no one is going to do that! That observer made the claims we've reposted on CNN and was never seen there again.
"After that, we start to hit?" We'll close today with thoughts about a pair of famous, highly regarded persons. We'll let Dolly Parton go first:
I will not abandon one person, Dolly Parton is said to have said. Had she been forced to discuss the recent conduct of President Trump, what might she have said?
The second famous person is a famous fictional person. As we noted the other day, when the Brando character begins to inquire about her values—when he possibly begins to challenge her sincerity—this is what she says:
TERRY MALLOY: The way those sisters used to whack me, I don't know what. They thought they were gonna beat an education into me, but I foxed 'em.
EDIE DOYLE: Maybe they just didn't know how to handle you.
TERRY: How would you have done it?
EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness?
The Brando character laughs it off. But the moral greatness of On the Waterfront involves the extremely rare undercard, in which the male character sees that "the girl" is a better person than he is and decides that he wants to learn to be more like her.
We're not suggesting that treating the president with patience or kindness would change whatever is destined to come. But could it help in any possible way if we were willing to pity the child who had the misfortune to be born to the "sociopath" father? The child whose behavior was already so bad by seventh grade that he could no longer continue in his local private school, where his father sat on the board?
Had his own "sociopathy" already begun to present at that point? Would it be instructive or helpful in any way to ask that author about that point?
It's too late to avoid the danger lodged in our flailing nation's current situation. That said, would it help if, just this once, we refused to use the language of mental illness as a way to issue a stinging insult—as a way to "hit?"
By the way, is a mental illness really an illness? Have you ever seen a journalist ask?
