We should know by now that stuff like track record and achievement are no longer even ancillary to the matter of choosing a president. They're now completely irrelevant. The election of Obama established that, and his re-election cemented it. Democrats don't expect Obama to get results. They expect him to protect their hold on power.
So if you had asked someone why Obama would be a good president in terms of ability to govern, the response will be a blank stare. What do you mean? The job of a presidential candidate is not to govern. It's to get elected, and then to get re-elected. And this is why it doesn't matter to these fine folks at the DNC that Hillary Clinton has never accomplished anything either:
The funniest thing about this is that they seem to understand on a certain level that they need to try to defend her as accomplished. That's where you get nonsense like how "well-traveled" she is, or the totally meaningless rot about "how well she represented America".
The truth is that most of these folks probably don't even know what the Secretary of State does, let alone have the ability to assess whether she did it well. I would like to have heard the guy ask them to name her major accomplishments during eight years in the U.S. Senate, since that would surely have elicted the same blank stares and baseless yammering about how she "exercised leadership" or whatever.
Hillary's supporters don't back her because they think she's ever done anything to demonstrate she would be a good president. They back her because they think she can win, and that means thousands of federal jobs that bring control of lots of money stay in Democrat hands. It really doesn't matter how the nation fares as long as the members of the political class who reside on the left side of the aisle make out OK.
Coming up with a rationale to sell Hillary's candidacy to the general public is theoretically trickier. But if people are only paying attention as much as they were when they decided to elect and re-elect Obama, maybe it won't be that hard after all.
"She's been everywhere."
"She's traveled so much."
"She's ready."
"She's such a fixture."
"She's tough."
"She's smart."
OK. Stop. How can you possibly offer a rejoinder to a case like this?
Hillary's presumptive candidacy is actually the most audacious test yet of the proposition that the Republican Party is completely inept, and that is a proposition that history would suggest is sadly unlikely to fail.
