Hillary shares a disturbing character trait with the current president. That is, she displays an unquenchable desire for ever higher office and position despite having no idea or even interest in what she should do once she acquires it. Like Obama, her stunning failures or, at best, lack of success at anything she has put her hand to except angling for position is no deterrent to thinking she should rise even higher.
The big difference between Obama and her is that Obama was a good actor, pretending to be charming and personable. Hillary doesn’t even bother because she can’t pull it off. She comes off as putting on a phony face as a formality to get this campaigning drudgery behind her and get on with the coronation.
I have yet to hear her articulate what motivates her, what drives her to think she should be the POTUS other than “it’s time.” Nor, for that matter, can any of her supporters. Imagine if, in 1940, Dwight Eisenhower wanted to be Commanding general of the ETO and campaigned for the position, despite having failed at every leadership position on the way. Imagine the fiasco that would have ensued had he been granted the position on the basis of “it’s my turn. and then showed utter lack of competence or interest in it once he achieved it, because his next goal was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I grieve for our culture that produces immoral narcissists who seek power for its own sake, to satisfy their own sense of greatness, futilely compensating for an innate hollowness that can only be filled by God. Most of the “electable” candidates in our political landscape today are the exact opposite of the character our founders hoped we would seek in our leaders, while the few who do display it are branded “extreme” and “on the fringe,” deemed “unelectable” simply because they think leaders ought to have principle, and government ought to live within its means and mind it’s own constitutionally limited business.