Should Clinton Be Basking in Kissinger’s Praise? Her team thinks so.

[cali]

Bernie Sanders's campaign has a different take.

<snip>
It would seem fair to assume that if she considers praise from Kissinger to be “flattering,” she therefore values his judgment. I put this thesis to Clinton’s chief strategist, Joel Benenson, a “surrogate” operating in the post-debate “spin room” session. “People generally believe that Henry Kissinger was a good secretary of state,” Benenson said. “I think he’s respected. I think he’s been an honest spokesman for issues around the world. He was a diplomat. You know, the world is not as hyper-partisan as the media likes to make it.”

Benenson’s comment speaks to the mindset of America’s political elite, for whom Kissinger is foremost a guardian of the prevailing foreign policy consensus; his approval confers a certain legitimacy, and inclusion in said consensus. Thus, the significance of Kissinger’s well-documented responsibility for atrocities in Cambodia, East Timor, Chile, and elsewhere is subordinate to his reputation as a statesman unbound by partisan loyalties. (Republican presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz and Chris Christie also have pilgrimaged to seek Kissinger’s counsel.)

I asked Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire whether Clinton’s claim to the “progressive” label was at odds with her Kissinger remark. “Oh, come on,” Shaheen, a Hillary supporter, said. “She was making the point that someone who has been a secretary of state in the past, who has a nationwide recognition, who is from the other party—so you would assume they would tend to be more critical—is pointing at her skill at managing the Department of State. So I think that’s just fine.” John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, said, “Here’s a guy who’s certainly knowledgeable about what it takes to manage the State Department. He did it, and I think that he’s a credible source on that.”

For Benenson, Shaheen, Podesta, and others in the Clinton orbit, Kissinger’s supposed managerial expertise is worthy of praise even if that expertise was deployed for atrocious ends. Kissinger’s “credibility,” as Podesta put it, is untarnished by his complicity in upwards of four million deaths, according to an estimate by historian Greg Grandin. If there were ever a quintessential insight into elite pathologies, the widespread Kissinger adulation would be a prime contender.

<Snip>

https://newrepublic.com/article/129325/hillary-clinton-basking-henry-kissingers-praise

[HooptieWagon]

1. I guess she's trying to lock down the oligarch vote.

I'm 59, and I'd say that nobody 55 or older has a fond memory of Kissinger. The bastard should have been hung, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, and his entrails cast into the sea...in that order. I'm guessing she's panicking and grasping at straws...I hope she keeps it up.

[cali]

2. I find the democratic embrace of Kissinger both shocking and disgusting

[HooptieWagon]

3. Amen. I am stunned.

Dementia?

[cali]

4. Honestly, I can't think of a reason that makes sense.

That's chilling.

[amborin]

5. she's apparently banking on low info voters

[Eric J in MN]

6. Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam War for political reasons.

That isn't literally a crime and so he can't be prosecuted for it, but at least Kissinger should be shunned for it.

[cali]

9. That is only one on a long list.

[HooptieWagon]

10. It's a very long list. Nt

[Gregorian]

7. They're just looking at things all wrong.

Money versus morals. The end justifies the means. That is precisely what put us in the trouble we're in today.

[mhatrw]

8. realpolitiking