Let's talk about Hillary's fitness to be Commander in Chief.

Through her "3 a.m. call" ad and other statements, Hillary has been claiming that she is better suited to be Commander in Chief than Obama.

To the contrary, I say that her actions and reactions in this campaign show that she is not capable of handling that role.

Here's my argument in a nutshell. Hillary's campaign has been all over the place, as in very inconsistent. Her actions and reactions have often been over the top. The job of President involves far greater challenges and difficulties than a political campaign. Hillary's actions and reactions in this campaign indicate that she will not handle those increased challenges well.

A Commander in Chief needs to remain calm under pressure. A Commander in Chief has to avoid being inconsistent. A Commander in Chief cannot react rashly. A Commander in Chief should not be arrogant or act out of arrogance.

Hillary Clinton should not be a Commander in Chief.

I have documented Hillary's arrogance in detail. Here are just a few highlights:

• Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics (August 15, 2007): "This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee."
• Hillary shows her tender, emotional side--and still shows her arrogance. (December 7, 2008): "She just had to point out that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She just had to point out that she is the only one who could possibly be qualified to do the job from day one. She just had to wonder out loud why is it that everyone else cannot see what is--in her mind--so blatantly obvious: that she is right and everyone else is wrong?"
• Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary (February 24, 2008): "See, if you want change but do not vote for Hillary, then--according to Hillary--you do not represent the electorate. In other words, Hillary thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and irrelevant. That is arrogance...Penn was in effect saying that all the people who voted for and will vote for Obama are 'insignificant.' In other words, all those people are not as important or as smart as Hillary and those who voted for her. That is arrogance...In other words, if you don't vote for Hillary, she considers you to be irrelevant. And that is arrogance."

Hillary has been horribly inconsistent in this campaign. She began by basing her entire campaign on her "day one/experience" claim. Then, once Obama's message of change started becoming popular, Hillary started saying she was an agent for change. And since then she has been swinging from one extreme to another. In Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 3: observations from someone who worked for Ann) (March 1, 2008), I included a quote from Glenn Smith that encapsulates this inconsistency:

I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.

And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.

Let's take a closer look at the events mentioned by Smith. The first event was the debate on February 21 in Austin, where Hillary closed with a very civil speech in which she said she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama."





She followed that up two days later with her tirade against what she claimed as Obama's use of Karl Rove tactics.






By the way, here was Obama's response:





Notice how he was calm and direct and to the point?

And then the next day Hillary openly mocked not just Obama's message of hope, but also anyone who dares to believe in that message. Her tone was patently dismissive and arrogant.






Although this next video is not a response to any of these Hillary "moments," it is relevant to this post. In Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 1--Karl Rove would be proud.), I quoted the transcript of Obama's initial response to the ad at a press conference. Here is the video:






Notice again how calm, direct, and also strong Obama is in his response.

Now ask yourself which kind of person you want as Commander in Chief. The one who is calm under fire and quick to respond, or the one who is arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary?

And if you are about to choose Hillary (the arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary one), keep in mind that her actions and reactions shown herein are in a mere political campaign. How do you think she is going to react when the circumstances are far more serious and real? I tell you right now I do not think this country can or should take the risk to find out.

Hillary does not have the character or personality to be a Commander in Chief.