A deadly serious question.
Hillary Clinton has recently and repeatedly praised former SoS Henry Kissinger in public and in print, calling him, in a review of Kissinger's latest book "a defender of human rights."
Link:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order
"Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels."
Clinton also approvingly quotes a passage in Kissinger's book about “respecting national sovereignty” and “adopting participatory and democratic systems of governance.”
quoted from Washinton Post book review at http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/09/05/hillary_clinton_henry_kissinger_pals.html
Seriously, she thinks Kissinger has any respect, or even tolerance, for democracy? The man who said of a democratically elected government in Chile: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryakis143264.html#p8A7zWAYRmOOr8xq.99
---------
"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.
National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,"
Reference: http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm
"Many historians have likened Kissinger to a “war criminal or global mobster.” He has been responsible for millions of deaths and has earned a Nobel Peace Prize. It seems only the mass murderer’s these day get the “Nobel peace prize”. He has a spot of amnesty and chair on Bilderbergs Club Of Rome circle.
Dr. Henry Kissinger was a Nelson Rockefeller’s protege. He began his career under the “old money global elite” by recruiting Nazi scientists and “SS” officials to America through a secret Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC) project that evolved into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) infamous “Project Paperclip.”
* * *
Kissinger’s involvement in directing massacres in Vietnam, Bangladesh and Timor, as well as assassinations in Chile, Cyprus, and Washington, D.C., Hitchens concludes subsequently Dr. Henry Kissinger should be prosecuted “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”
Source: http://therundownlive.com/kissinger-death-mastermind-mass-murder/
See generally, Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001),
see also http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html
Kissinger was also a key player in sabotaging Lyndon Johnson's late-1968 attempt to end the Vietnam War.
In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger---then Johnson’s advisor on Vietnam peace talks---secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.
According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”
Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”
“I know,” was Dirksen’s feeble reply.
Source: http://freepress.org/article/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
I am not necessarily attributing Kissinger's policies to HRC, though they sh68 re a hawkish, pro-plutocrat approach to foreign policy, but why in the name of all that is holy would anyone in their right mind want to place a dear friend of one of the 20th century's greatest monsters and war criminals, whom she has repeatedly and publicly says she admires, in the White House?
She could have written or said some platitudinous nothingness about her predecessor as SoS the way politicians all do, but she did not. She did the exact opposite. She went out of her way to pralse, even lionize, a man with the blood of millions of innocent Vietnamese, Timorese, Chileans, Bangladeshis, Argentinians and Cambodians and countless others on his hands. A man who has called for the passive extermination of millions more in the developing world. This not only shows less than stellar judgment and character, rather it shows a complete LACK of anything resembling judgment or character. To cozy up to and openly admire and praise, a creature whose foreign policy was an unbroken tapestry of mass murder, torture, assassination and saturation bombing of civilians is morally inexcusable in every way.
The company you voluntarily choose to keep speaks volumes about the kind of person you really are.
And that is without even mentioning her joined-at-the-hip ties to Lloyd Blankfein's Goldman Sachs, a criminal enterprise the profitability, power and immunity from investigation, much less prosecution, of which would have left Al Capone and Lucky Luciano shaking their heads in abject envy.
Why does anyone want a person with close friends like these in the Oval Office?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Better to get cooking tips from Hannibal Lecter. 
It's just some folks.
