Senator Clinton wants to be the Commander in Chief of our economy. I wonder if it would be worth while for someone to point out to her that the President’s role as Commander in Chief – of anything – is limited to the armed forces. That power is Constitutionally granted.

Is she really saying she thinks a President should have the same authority over the economy as over the armed forces? To run the economy the way that a President is empowered to run the military will require much more power over the economy than the Constitution presently gives the President, which is no power. (In fact, it will require more power over the economy than the Constitution presently grants to the President over the armed forces.)

I used to think she was a socialist. I was wrong: she’s a communist.

I suppose she probably wants to be Commander in Chief of Education, the New York Stock Exchange, the Federal Reserve and anything else which has economic implications.