If I Didn't Like Hillary Before . . . [UPDATED]

. . . a conversation with a friend this morning finished her off in my estimation.

He lives near a number of retired Secret Service agents and other Feds who get together for brunch regularly, and he has been invited because one of them, who goes back so far he accompanied Nixon to China, is a good friend.  At one point an e-mail was circulating about Hillary's rudeness to her Secret Service detail, and he, being Web-savvy, was withholding credulity.  He asked these guys about it.

All true.  They said she was the worst First Lady they'd ever had to deal with, bar none.  Arrogant, arbitrary, high-handed.  She wouldn't let them talk to Chelsea, for example.  Guard her, but don't talk to her.

This sonofabitch is right about this kind of thing: 

My rule of thumb is that it's okay to bitch upward, understandable to bitch horizontally (depending on circumstances,) and unacceptable to bitch downward. Bitching at people three rungs down the ladder from you is bullying.  By my -- perhaps self-serving -- moral standard, it's kind of okay to be a prick, but contemptible to be a bully.

How you treat those down the ladder, especially those who serve you, is as intimately revealing of true character as anything on earth.  And on this one, of the three, I'm pretty sure Obama wins hands down.

UPDATE:  Here's a fine piece of pro-Clinton political rhetoric.  (H/T:  reader_iam.)  Read it and tell me what you think.  Then I'll tell you what I think.

Comments

[Ron]

This piece ignores the genuine distinction between Hillary's view on the Iraq War and that of most Dems. Just on this alone, Hillary would get a lot of abuse.

I wonder, though, if there is something to the arguments against all forms of "Southerness." There may be something to this, and it may very well be intertwined with racism such that it hard to disentangle the two. Educated elites may form their own "tribe" that in the end hurts them more than they realize.

[wj]

I disagree with a lot of the linked post. But I have to agree on one point: those on the left who villify Clinton supporters for their choice probably do think they are in a battle to reclaim their party from the Clinton moderates.

Of course, they are wrong on any number of points. Not least, I suspect that they are reading Obama as much further left than he actually is. Witness his willingness to learn from his previous gas tax mistake. (You can't be willing to learn and be a good extremist!)

If they were so minded, they might learn something from watching the Republican Party in California. Really, really strong on restricting itself to ideologicaly pure candidates. Almost totally unable to win a state-wide office. (Arnold was an accident, due solely to the fact that it was an open ballot where he didn't have to get thru a Republican primary first.)

[Callimachus]

Heh. She sent the same link to me -- only you were good enough to hat-tip her for it. My reaction.

[reader_iam]

Well, I sent the link to both of you in the same e-mail, because I was interested in both of your reactions and because it was efficient.

[amba]

Well, here's what I think, in the form of what I wrote back to reader (shortcut -- recycling):

Wow, a lot of that is frickin' brilliant. If only it were said by someone who was more dispassionate and not a rabid Hillary supporter. I don't think the Clintons are "adored" by the nation, most of the moralistic finger-waving I've seen has been done by Bill, and Hillary does not share Bill's tenuous claim to be "just folks" (which has worn thinner and thinner after Oxford, Fulbright, governorship, and $109 million in speaking fees). It's also perpetuating the split it claims to decry: "Redneck!" "Elitist!" Still, there's a lot of truth to it. Thanks!

[karen]

I rreally love Reader's site- very nice and, of course- very well written.

Other than that- i'm just thankful i'm not into that kind of political game. Lord, what a mess, eh?

[RW Rogers]

If it makes any difference to you, Obama is said to be especially well-liked by his Secret Service detail. No word on Michelle Obama, though.

[amba]

I couldn't imagine him being mean to underlings, partly because he isn't old enough, or enough used to being important and catered to, to be that arrogant. The other two have been in the bubble called Washington so long they don't remember they're ordinary mortals.

[reader_iam]

Karen--so nice of you, but it's not my site, it's Callimachus'. I did guest-blog there for about 1-1/2 years, but haven't for many months. I have had a hard time making my blogger-name, in typepad and elsewhere, indicate my non-blogger status (previous stuff keeps getting remembered). Don't know if that's what caused you to make the connection. (Also, I had a blog before that, and have experienced similar issues, but more rarely, and especially more than two years out, now.)

Please, no one should take this comment as a disavowal of Callimachus or my time at Done With Mirrors, because that's so not the truth. My intent is purely clarification, precision and current accuracy, and no more.

Karen, again, thank you (as I'm sure Cal would). My clarification is only that.

[reader_iam]

All that said, I would, of course, encourage everyone to read Cal's site regularly, as I would that they read Amba's.

As I do, and have done so, in both cases, for a very, very long time, in blogosphere terms.

[amba]

Blog years! Like dog years.

[Ron]

Here's the most pro-Hillary I will get. What if everything about Obama has not come out yet? Wouldn't a GOP strategist hoard the really damning stuff for the general election? Hillary is "the devil we know," used to slinging the mud with the best of them, and ready for anything the GOP may throw at her. But what if it gets really ugly on the Obama side? This whole tiff with Hillary will seem like weak tea by comparison, if there is more ambiguous or just unpleasant material to be used as grist for the McCain mill.

[karen]

I don't know how i made the connection, Reader_iam. I must have seen your name there? It really is beautifully done.