On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday. Romney draws the obvious inference from the reporting of the Uranium One story and how it ties into the Clinton e-mail scandal…
One of the defenses the Clinton camp is offering about the Uranium One sale to the Russian atomic energy agency is that it wasn’t just Hillary Clinton signing off on the sale – most of the key principals in the Obama administration, like Eric Holder, Hilda Solis and Tim Geithner, had to sign off as well.
Which doesn’t particularly tamp this problem down. It isn’t like the Obama camp is going to mildly roll over and let Hillary throw them under the bus, particularly when there is an inevitable Congressional investigation of the sale coming.
The comeback from the Obama camp is going to focus on the fact that the Clinton Foundation took more than $2 million in undisclosed contributions from one of the principals in the Uranium One deal, and they’ll inevitably say they were bamboozled by Clinton and didn’t know of her personal stake in paying off those bribes. Barack Obama and his gang are not going to fall on the sword for Hillary Clinton.
Most of what they’ll say are lies, of course. Obama’s foreign policy record would indicate he doesn’t have a problem allowing hostile powers to have an ownership interest in national security assets. And Obama certainly shouldn’t skate on this disaster. But if the media has to serve up a scalp on Uranium One, which one of the two between Obama and Clinton do you think they’ll choose?
The guess here is Obama will get the break and Clinton, who is already under the kind of microscope on the foundation payoffs that Obama probably should have been back in 2008, will be sacrificed. After all, it is early enough in the 2016 cycle for the media to latch onto a different Democrat candidate and build him or her up as a savior coming out of nowhere.
At this point it might be a good time to refer to today’s American Spectator column…
It’s not possible to run someone this tainted for president and win, regardless of how much she might be able to collect from the Democrats’ donors. If it were, that would indicate the country was so far gone to the Democrats that anyone that party nominates could get elected. That’s a contention that isn’t supported by the current conditions, in which Republicans dominate state legislatures, governor’s mansions, and Congressional districts across the country.
But even if that were actually the case it’s an argument against sticking with Hillary. If the Democrats are in position to win presidential elections consistently barring a major foul-up, then the smart play is to run someone anodyne and safe rather than to test their current demographic advantage.
But who is that anodyne, generic Democrat for whom they can shelve the ethically challenged, marble-mouthed former First Lady? There is the problem, and there is the dilemma the Democrats find themselves in as Schweizer’s shot reverberates through the countryside.
The fact is, the Democrats are very much like the mediocre NFL team laden with overpaid, declining veteran players whose guaranteed contracts gobble up salary cap space and prevent a needed roster overhaul. The only way such a team can be rebuilt is to eat the “dead money,” bring in a slew of cheap young players, and make the best of what’s likely to be a rough patch for a couple of seasons until the salary cap problems are past. When the leadership of the Democratic Party is found in the Hillary Clintons, Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis, Joe Bidens, John Kerrys, and Al Gores of the world, and the Democrats’ bench has been badly depleted in the last few election cycles, there are no young stars on the way up.