House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently said she prays that former First Lady Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016. Pelosi added that a President Hillary Clinton would be wonderful for the country and the world.
Is Pelosi delusional? Maybe. Maybe not.
Clinton certainly has some things going for her.
For example, she's smart, like a fox. In politics, that can be important, especially if your opponent is a liberal-to-moderate Republican.
She also has been lucky no, make that incredibly lucky.
And then there's her gender. Many would like to see a woman break through the glass ceiling at the White House.
She also would benefit from being married to former President Bill Clinton. He's a professional politician and exceedingly popular in some quarters despite significant character flaws.
Last but not least, Ms. Clinton would have the support of most of the mainstream media, including the ladies of "The View."
All that said, the road to the White House wouldn't be a walk in the rose garden.
A major problem: She doesn't seem very likable. Just the opposite, in fact. And her attempts at taking control come out all wrong. Example: Her hissy fit - "What difference does it make" - during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Benghazi.
She also has some exceedingly heavy baggage that gets heavier by the day,
Back in the mid-90s, when the New York Times was a newspaper, it exposed the Whitewater real estate development scandal. Both Clintons were among the principals, and the story had a number of interesting elements, including a suspicious death, missing and misplaced records, conflicting stories and reluctant witnesses.
The independent counsel eventually found that the evidence "was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." Not exactly a ringing exoneration, but they were off the hook.
Now we have the Benghazi mess.
Four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed in an attack on the U.S. Special Mission the night of Sept. 11 and the morning of Sept. 12, 2012.
So far, the attack has been studied by two panels - the House Republican Conference, and the Accountability Review Board (ARB), which was convened by Ms. Clinton. The ARB, itself, is under investigation now. One issue: The board did not interview the secretary of state... Ms. Clinton.
The attack also has been the focus of two congressional hearings - one by the Senate Armed Services Committee in February and one by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this past Wednesday.
Wednesday's hearing was especially important, because it starred three "whistleblowers" who put the lie to statements by Ms. Clinton and others in the Obama administration.
The issues are numerous: Why wasn't the Benghazi compound more secure? Why weren't U.S. forces sent to rescue the ambassador and the others? Why did the administration lie about the nature of the attack? What did Ms. Clinton and President Obama do/not do and know/not know before, during and after the attack?
It's been eight months, and the questions mount. That suggests a Democrat cover-up and the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into Ms. Clinton's veracity once again.
At this point, some perspective on scandals and cover-ups would be instructive.
Remember Watergate back in the '70s? It started with a third-rate burglary and evolved into a cover-up that forced President Richard Nixon from office. Now we have Benghazi. It started with the killing of four Americans, and the cover-up started immediately. The conclusion is not in sight.
How do the scandals compare? It would be fair to suggest that Benghazi makes Watergate look like a school-boy prank.
Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the Oversight Committee, closed Wednesday's hearing by saying the investigation into Benghazi is not over.
Let's hope so. And with any luck, the country and the world will be spared a President Hillary Clinton in 2016, Nancy Pelosi's prayers notwithstanding.