As a political observer I ask myself why Hillary Clinton is the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party for 2016.  From what I’ve gathered:

1. She’s Hillary
2. She’s a woman
3. It’s her turn

And still, I ask myself why.

In 2008 a young, little-known Senator from Illinois took the Democratic Party and political universe be storm.  Barack Obama was a dynamic candidate with a murky enough past and a brilliant political future ahead of him.  To say he charmed the pants off of the Democrat establishment would be an understatement.  Mr. Obama promised nothing more or less than “hope and change.”  How could anyone not like that?  He was the liberal Messiah that would lead his people to the Promised Land.

Fast-forward eight years and the nation and the world are littered with the shattered pieces of the promise that was Mr. Obama’s political future.  Obamacare has become the poster child for government incompetence and overreach.  “The most transparent administration in history” has become an Orwellian blunt instrument wielded against those who would oppose the descent into the liberal Utopia Mr. Obama envisions for us.  “His people” led to the Promised Land was the liberal political class, not black Americans.  They were left on the other side of the river.  Mr. Obama’s promised land is not for them.

His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waged a one-woman war on the Freedom of Information Act and as of this writing, well may win it.  If this is transparency, Richard Nixon must be spinning in his grave. You have to co-opt the media to get away with this stuff.

I guess picking a President with an unknown record is kind of like drafting an NFL quarterback in the first round, more art than science (and a good measure of dumb luck never hurts.)

But this is hindsight.  In 2008 one could almost justify the willful blindness exercised by the Democrat establishment to propel their dynamic young candidate to the White House; his questionable associations – The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, his shady business dealings with the likes of Tony Rezko.  He was from Chicago after all and this is just the way things are there… right?

In 2008 Obama was a candidate with his future ahead of him.  In 2016 Hillary Clinton is a candidate with a very checkered past and no small amount of failure behind her.  Yet the Democrats continue to “circle the wagons” to defend her.  And yet again, I ask myself, why?

Stock·holm syn·drome

noun

noun: Stockholm syndrome

1. feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.

After all the Clintons have put Democrats (and the nation) through over the years one would expect a level of just being tired of it all from the party faithful and a willingness, even an eagerness, to put it all behind them and move on.  Yet they continue to “circle the wagons” and mobilize their friendly media allies to peddle the fiction that Hillary Clinton is a dedicated and accomplished public servant. 

That the Clintons have taken the practice of monetizing “public service” from an art to a science over the past quarter century is of no consequence whatsoever to them.  Whoever said God’s work shouldn’t pay well?  As the old saying goes; the Clintons went to Washington to do good and ended up doing quite well, thank you very much.

Or just maybe it’s that those who expend untold energy and emotion defending Mrs. Clinton are no less corrupt and soulless than she is.