As usual, Dan McLaughlin knows what he’s talking about:
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) May 5, 2014
The Streisand Effect, of course, refers to the practice “whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.” In this particular case, the information that the Democrats are trying to hide – desperately trying to hide – is that presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was not actually a good Secretary of State. She was, in fact, a disaster, to the point where people died.
Died. At the highest levels, in fact: an American Ambassador was murdered on her watch, and the White House obfuscated the almost-literal Hell out of it until after the 2012 elections. Hillary Clinton should have resigned as an apology. Instead, she infamously asked what difference it made, and that has set the tone on this issue ever since.
And the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to hear this, partially because it makes the Obama administration look horrifically evil, and partially because if it isn’t Hillary Clinton it’s going to be Joe Biden in 2016, and partially because people don’t like to think of themselves as villains. So they’re screaming; problem is, there’s a limit to how often you can scream and mock and dismiss something as being irrelevant before people start thinking that you’re protesting too much, particularly if the press isn’t playing along. And enough of them are not this time to make the strategy a little too obvious.
So I don’t actually expect the Democrats to boycott the special investigation into Benghazi, largely because if they did there would be nobody there on the other side to explain how President Obama and Secretary Clinton got four men killed when it didn’t have to happen. Admittedly, those Democrats wouldn’t have any real option open except to squirm, but that still looks better than hiding in the corner.