CNN contributor calls out "Commander-in-Chief" misuse

Quote:
[Regarding Rudolf Giuliani's speech endorsing John McCain]: [Giuliani said] something that is really pretty outrageous... He said he thought McCain should be commander-in-chief of the United States. The president is not commander-in-chief of the United States. He's commander-in-chief of the military. And... That is an example of, you know, Giuliani's kind of militaristic, authoritarian approach that I think is just not right. And, you know, the pres -- that's not what the president does.

Reason for Nomination:
I am glad to hear someone finally challenge the oft-repeated right-wing frame of the President as "The Commander-in-Chief" (or "Our Commander-in-Chief"). The open-ended use of the phrase evokes a frame that presents the President as the Boss of America and all Americans, and legitimizes the view of a dictatorial President with appropriately limitless powers.

The Constitution names the President as the "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". The phrase "military commander-in-chief" is therefore the only one that is accurate. It also happens to evoke a progressive frame: one in which an elected official's limited powers include responsibility for a dangerous and old-fashioned but necessary branch of government.

I wish more journalists like Toobin would call out conservatives who use this half-truth to sell their adoration of a Strong-Man-in-Charge view of leadership.