I think I disagree. Who are we to "be kind?" Who are we to think that the emotional distress we may cause is not worth the value of truth? Who are we to blind another person from reality?
There is quite a lot of social stability wrapped up in kindness. Saying truth should be paramount is nice for one who believes that truth has a higher moral value than kindness, however, it is not very practical given human behavior, psychology, and identity. Truth however is rarely subtle when contrasted with kindeness in a situation where one would naturally contrast them. It is also the rare person who would rather hear something true, which in the case of a kindeness contrast also implies unkind, about themselves than the kind lie.
One must remember the cognitive and cultural frame of the question asked. In the majority of cases where one would contrast truth and kindness the contrast is set up rhetorically, much like the standard greeting "how are you today?". Although the answer "fine" may be a bald faced lie, it is the expected response to the rhetorical question, rendering it not a lie because of the context of the cutlural fram and expectations of the conversation.
The same can be argued of a majority of situations where kindeness and truth can be contrasted in a conversation. The conversational norm is rhetorical, even when prefaced by, "tell me the truth". By setting the kindness/truth contrast up in a conversation one is automatically pulling a common rhetorical conversation schema/frame and it would take some real doing to alter that frame. the expected answer to a question that sets this frame up should be either outright kindness or at the very least a very softened version of the truth.
For an interesting analysis of the lie in standard conversation read
"The Definition of lie: an examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype", Eve E. Sweetser (pp. 43-67)