Democrats have a deep bench
For Democrats, why not? Most news outlets are reporting on Hillary Clinton’s “epic performance”* Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. With the help of cynically ultra – Democratic committee members, Mrs. Clinton is said to have battered her hapless GOP oversight committee attackers into submission and is now cruising happily toward the nomination and likely presidency in 2016.
While there are some who do not feel Hillary was left unscathed by the Benghazi ordeal, the media is determined to make those “outliers” appear to be the ignorant villains in this episode.
What does all this mean?
If Hillary Clinton, a proven liar, incompetent in every position or project she’s ever undertaken, can be a favorite of Democrat voters and likely favored to win a presidential contest, what limits are there? One can justifiably wonder if there is anyone on the planet, however scheming, dishonest, unattractive, or ruthless, as long as they have a “D” for a political party designation before their name, would not be an eagerly acceptable president to a Democratic majority?
What if, heaven forbid, Hillary Clinton suffered a serious, disabling health issue some time in the weeks or months leading up to the Democrat nomination?
Is there anyone the party would not accept as its alternative candidate? We’ve already seen that if Hillary, for whatever reason, were not able to run, other Democratic figures like the buffoonish Joe Biden or the clownish Bernie Sanders would be warmly embraced by the party faithful and the typically low information Democrat voter.
So, if worse came to worse for the various more likely Democratic alternative candidates, does anyone think that a ticket as unlikely and darkly comical as, say, an arguably demented Debbie Wasserman Schultz and an impeached federal judge, Alcee Hastings*, often reelected to Congress by a typical Democratic electorate, would not be acceptable to Democrat voters?
Think again folks.
And by the way: What Hillary Did After Finishing First Round of Benghazi Hearings Shows How Seriously She’s Taking It
DLH
* Hastings has been elected and reelected to Congress since !993. In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate, in two hours of roll calls, voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment. It convicted Hastings of eight of the 11 articles. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed.[4]
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[5] (Wikipedia)
