Clinton_Hillary_2016

Like most pragmatic conservatives, I have been dreading a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run. She, and her supporters, would slaughter her opponent with the most slanderous accusations and political ads since, well, since President Obama took the crown for Most Negative Campaigner during the 2012 elections. Clinton has had the highest favorability rating among all other potential 2016 candidates, and has been more popular in Obama’s second term than even Obama was this past Election Day.

Since the second election of Obama, it has been “Hillary’s turn” in Democrats’ eyes. Their illusions about Obama have been, if not shattered, cracked. They want a redo. Clinton will be the savior that Obama failed to be. Instead of learning from Obama that liberalism doesn’t work, leftists feel that Obama just didn’t do it right. But liberal voters have been born again and found the faith that Clinton will do what Obama could not.

I no longer fear, but actually hope, that Clinton does have the gall to run in 2016. To the extent that the press and the President currently talk about Benghazi at all, it is only to dismiss it as nothing more than a conspiracy to corrupt the legacy of our benevolent leader. They have not reported the simple fact that Hillary Clinton’s signature is scrawled on the denial of a request for security that she told Congress she never received, which denial resulted in four American diplomats’ death.

The media doesn’t report this because they don’t have to. But during the campaign heat of 2016, whoever Clinton’s opponent is will surely talk about Benghazi during the presidential debates, which are watched by tens of millions of Americans, who right now probably think that “Ben Gauzy” is some crazy Republican congressman whom Democrats like to make fun of. Once they hear the truth and the details, the idea of a President Clinton will be unpalatable.

Benghazi was a topic only briefly touched upon in only one of the presidential debates between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney last year. Romney dropped the ball on that one a bit, but, in his defense, the details of Benghazi were still shamefully unclear at that time. Moreover, Clinton’s lies were not proven, as they are now. In 2016, the media will be unable to keep Benghazi from the public, who will be devouring the debates in which Benghazi will be a persistent topic.