Commander in Chief
The commander in chief opted for digital holiday greetings, video conferencing with military members around the globe from the Oval Office.
A racist president isn't only morally abhorrent, he's measurably ineffective.
Anyone watching last night's MSNBC "Commander In Chief" presidential forum must have felt pretty perplexed on the conduct of host Matt Lauer.
This is why I support Hillary Clinton.
As Americans, when it comes to foreign policy, we should all be worried by the potential of a 'Trump Foreign Policy Doctrine' becoming a reality.
In serving as Commander in Chief, the President's character, actions, and words are pivotal to military morale and victory. Donald Trump would be no Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief. But what about Clinton?
Clinton's biggest problem in this case is her foreign policy record. Most Americans don't want to intervene more overseas, but Clinton is not most Americans. She is the Democratic neoconservative, a veritable war queen, who backed every major conflict fought by the U.S. over the last quarter century.
Perhaps our memories are too short. We need to return to that moment in Ames, Iowa. When you disrespect veterans who made the greatest sacrifices for our country, you are unfit to serve as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
We have more than enough evidence that Trump is a carnival barker, an extreme narcissist, a demagogue, and a hothead. We need no further proof that he has continually made profoundly racist and misogynist comments, as well as many other crude, stupid, and offensive statements.
The Commander-In-Chief issue is up for grabs. One reason for the uncertainty is that character is more important than policy. It's less about bombing Syria, or Iran and more about what kind of human being do you want to make the decision. Loud mouths, bullies and weaklings need not apply.