Hillary Clinton's "Love and Kindness"

I wouldn’t either, if they’re on active duty.

But I’m sure plenty of agents have retired since the Clintons were in the White House or Hillary’s last campaign for president and I don’t see any reason why they’d feel compelled to remain silent in the face of defamatory statements made about Hillary Clinton, if she was in fact nice and pleasant and respectful toward them in their interactions with her.

You’d think if that was the case many of them would be coming to her defense, even if only to dispute the allegation that Hillary-duty was considered a form of punishment and the worse assignment they could get (i.e., the last one - as it was last example I quoted), yet none seem willing to do so.

I don’t think Clinton is anymore calculating than the next politician. But I do think she is trying to inject a personal held belief about Love and Kindness.

I’ve always felt there has been a sort of insidious systemic smear of her ever since she wasn’t going to be “Tammy Wynette, standing by her man baking cookies in the kitchen” That line drew the ire of a helluva lot of women and men back in the nineties when Bill first ran for President. Here was this brilliant legal mind trying to grapple with the wifely duties of “first lady” and also be a voice for those without a voice is one of those age old questions career women have had to face for decades. Then after a a huge battle royale for the nomination in 2008, Clinton was again faced with a career choice that if she took it would go a long way to not only secure the country, but heal the wounds within the party itself. It was more than a grand gesture, to offer and accept the job, it was a unification of the party. The party faithful know this and are loyal to her. That’s why she has over 400 endorsements from Congress.

All of this fighting and uniting obviously made Clinton a better candidate this time around. And a more introspective person. When Anderson Cooper asked her about her integrity, the question that seems to come up all the time like a Karl Rove dog whistle, I really loved what she had to say because I really never heard it from her before but it was relatable and powerful :

I thought the allegation was that she’d said it to a Secret Service agent, and not directly to Kessler himself?

I’d absolutely not expect that, and I’d be surprised if the agency didn’t have some sort of mechanism to prevent it or punish retired agents who go public with gossip about their charges. For a security detail to work, the person being protected needs to trust the discretion of their security personnel. That can’t happen if there’s a real chance that a retired agent will write a tell-all. If a politician has to worry about that, then they’re going to at least occasionally act in ways that subvert their own security protocols, so there’s no danger of an agent seeing them cheat on a spouse, or kick a puppy, or say what they really think of that foreign head of state - and then later tell the entire world about it.

I have it on good authority that Trump once laid his cloak over a mud puddle to prevent a lady from getting her feet wet, and Hillary ordered her coachman to swerve the landau across their path and splash them both.

The attacks on Clinton mirror her attempts to defend herself. Its like what the GOP calls Obama, he’s either super calculatingly evil, or incompetent. There need not be one narrative to stick to. If Clinton is being too strong, call her cold and callous. If she defends herself, call her weak and soft. It will go on and on, she will be accused of being too much of whatever she is, and not enough of whatever she isn’t, and vice versa, then repeat

As a younger voter, I’ve found it slightly disconcerting because there are a lot of people, here and in real life who characterize Hillary as cold and robotic and I’ve consistently thought her attitude at debates and forums was very warm and human.

Is it possible some of these comments are based on her history of serving in government and the private sector and not campaign performances?

You know, there’s a saying about some guy who was kind to dogs.

My sister’s company has published a memoir by former White House Chef John Moeller, who cooked for the Clintons personally, and put together massive state dinners. I’ve met him twice and we’ve talked about various things. In those conversations and in the book, he never hinted at any behavior of the sort described above.

My mother served with her on a foundation board in the 1980s and liked her a lot back then. But my mother is very left wing and has joined the Bernhead camp at this point and feels that Hillary has become compromised somehow since she knew her.

You’re pivoting to the “electability” claim again, a claim supported by no polls.

The point is that her own party is cracking up, despite the best efforts of her and Sanders to maintain a civil alliance. And that is due to her deficiencies, her track record. Not only is she a deeply compromised politician who would embarrass the party if elected, let alone if she were nominated to lose to Trump. She was a bad SecState.

She’s not the “love and kindness” candidate, she’s a reckless hawk who evokes the foreign policy mistakes of LBJ/Nixon, when she would do better to follow their domestic agenda. Puff pieces are just propaganda, that’s what I am mocking.

I don’t think it’s out of line to throw a little cold water on this ridiculous thread.

When comments make substantive allegations, I try to evaluate the evaluations as well as I can. But I think there is a narrative about Hillary that even the left buys into that appears, at least to me, to be rather unsubstantiated. Everyone just knows.

Do you see any reason they might instead stay anonymous rather than take the money and appear on Fox?

That happens when you’re getting things done. It’s how it works.

What narrative, and why do you think it’s unsubstantiated? You mentioned that she’s portrayed as cold and robotic, which I suppose has happened on occasion, but I find the more dominant opinion is that she’s narcissistic, calculating, and unprincipled. The cold part may translate into that, but I don’t see the robotic. Narcissistic is pretty much a given for any politician, but she seems to many like a person who wants everything to be about her, if her ideas are criticized it’s always because she is a victim and not because they are bad ideas. She is seen as calculating because is a political animal who works the system to her advantage and uses excuses for her missteps instead of earning her way into office. And she is seen as unprincipled as a result, people believe she cares more about becoming president than any of the causes she claims to stand for.

Now those are broad statements, opinions vary along a spectrum, but I think that she has been unsuccessful in any of the fights she claims to have been having for the sake of the people and yet still manages to keep herself in positions of power. So I don’t think that’s an undeserved narrative even if it’s not the entire story.

That’s not the only way it happens though. And if getting things done is just for her personal benefit it’s not much of a defense.

Speeches and demonstrations, not so much.

What specifically are you referring to?

The perfect example, the Iraq war vote. I suppose you could chalk it up to incompetence but I think she was afraid she’d never get elected president if she voted against it. If a politician compromises to get things done for the people that’s can be a good thing, when they do it just to benefit themselves it ain’t.

I went back and looked at the article again and you are correct. My mistake.

Well, in the article I saw, Kessler names Jeff Crane as a former Secret Service agent who spoke out against Hillary, so we know that in at least one case an agent did not feel prohibited from speaking out against her for the record. Kessler relates the other comments I posted without attribution, but I doubt an established reporter and author such as he would be making up such accusations out of whole cloth. It looks like several agents were willing to comment off the record, and given that not revealing sources is a time honored standard for reportage I’m not as willing to discount their observations about Hillary as is Measure for Measure.

You don’t have to tell me. I take more seriously her impression from the 1980s than the one she is getting now listening to her hard left friends and reading The Nation and so on.

Imma going to take her vote at face value. She voted with congress and foreign policy minds like Joe Biden to go to war if Hans Blix found WMDs.

The Bush Administration who promised they would wait for the results, more than likely got wind that when it was taking too long, would probably be negative on the weapons, so they trashed the UN and went in without weapons inspection results, and the rest, is history.