William A. Jacobsen connects some dots:
The election of 2012 was tainted by All the President’s Concealers.
[ADDENDUM: John Hinderaker at Powerline muses on some related issues. I'm with Hinderaker on this; although we'll never really know, I don't think it would have mattered, because---well, what he says:
To an extraordinary degree, the 2012 electorate seemed uninterested in the Obama administration’s failures. If voters didn’t care about the economy or about $16 trillion in debt, why would they have cared about Benghazi or the IRS? But the cumulative effect of multiple, mutually reinforcing scandals is hard to predict. It is easy to understand why, last fall, the Obama administration didn’t want to take any chances. They went into full cover-up mode, and carried off their multiple cover-ups successfully. Without doubt, that effort helped to bring about the president’s re-election.
The analogy to 1972 is obvious. Richard Nixon managed to keep the lid on Watergate long enough to enjoy one of the most sweeping electoral victories in American history. After the election, however, his cover-up unraveled; it consumed, and eventually destroyed, his second term. Whether the same will happen to Obama remains to be seen, but already it is clear that scandal will be a major part of the Obama legacy.
As far as that last sentence goes---whether "scandal will be a major part of the Obama legacy"---it depends who wins. The winners get to write history, don't they?]
[ADDENDUM II: Andrew McCarthy is on the mark, as usual, in pointing out a part of the Benghazi story that has thus far been ignored. I don't think I've ever seen an article by McCarthy that wasn't well worth reading, and this one is no exception.]