Not every Hillary Clinton endorsement ends up on this page. That is largely because they have come in a deluge that is difficult to keep up with. Republican endorsements, of course, are spotlighted here as are many high profile Democratic ones.
Today’s endorsement from Michael J. Morrell, who has defended Hillary against Republican attacks in his book, deserves notice and circulation for several reasons. First of all, he is not affiliated with any political party. Secondly, he has worked with Hillary and seen her in action on critical decisions and security matters. Most importantly, his experience and specialization give him a unique perspective on both Hillary and Donald J. Trump as the latter plays out his campaign.
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
The Brexit vote, if it demonstrated nothing else, showed the world that there are no do-overs at the ballot box. Americans can elect an inflated, self-absorbed, ignorant loud-mouth with no apparent native curiosity who is easily manipulated by our arch-adversary. Or we can elect the woman who, when she visited Russia in 2010 was not originally scheduled to meet with Putin, wrangled a face-to-face, and for her efforts managed to get some concessions from him on the Iran sanctions. Even I, the die-hard, had my doubts that she would manage that. I have never doubted her since. It is a simple choice. We can choose Putin’s Puppy Dog or the woman who knows how to corral and rope Putin and keep him on a leash.
Morrell pretty much validated my puppy dog analogy.