Clinton's troubles net winners and losers: Column
Hillary-vs.-Jeb snooze fest shows signs of opening up into a free-for-all in both parties.
It was a bad week for Hillary Clinton. So bad, in fact, that The Washington Postdeclared she had "the worst week in Washington." From TheNew York Times, there were reports of shady uranium deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kazakhstan. From The Post, it was reporting on how the Clintons' foundation seems more like a personal piggy bank. And from Politico, it was a report that "Clinton struggles to contain media barrage on foreign cash." (If you haven't kept up, here's a bullet-point summary of the key bits). And the book that led to all these stories isn't even out yet.
The responses from Clintonworld have been unconvincing — my favorite was when their supporters denied that a meeting between Bill Clinton and shadowy Kazakh nuclear officials had taken place, only to have a The Times reporter produce photo evidence. But, hey, the Clintons have survived even more concrete evidence of scandal — remember Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress? — so why should this time be any different?
Well, one big difference is that three major news organizations — The Times,The Post and Fox News — are all working on the story. If it were just Fox, the Clintons might be able to spin it as a product of, in Hillary's famous phrase, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." But that's unlikely to fly this time. Even the liberal group Common Cause has called for an audit of the Clinton Foundation's finances.
Even so, don't count the Clintons out yet. Even if these scandals ultimately kill Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential candidacy, she'll be inclined to keep it staggering along as long as possible. So long as it looks as if she might be president, the money will keep coming in, and many people will be afraid to challenge her. As soon as her candidacy falls off the table, so will the money, and the influence.
But who benefits from Clinton's troubles now, and who suffers? A few thoughts:
First, this is a shot in the arm for her potential Democratic challengers, who have labored in obscurity. Probably the biggest beneficiary is former Virginia senator James Webb, whose military background and more centrist views could help bring in the white working-class voters that the Democrats are realizing they have alienated during the Obama era. Also helped is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, though her close resemblance to Clinton (another northeastern Ivy League white woman) and her own strong corporate ties (Warren made money advising asbestos companies how not to pay claims, and is worth many millions) might hurt. Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley also gets a boost, though he's the probably the longest shot of the three.
On the other hand, Clinton's candidacy is well-established, heavily financed (though that's part of the problem, I guess) and endowed with high name recognition, '90s nostalgia and her husband's formidable political skills. Losing that is a sore blow to the Democratic Party's 2016 hopes.
On the Republican side, Clinton's travails both hurt and help. By making the political establishment look corrupt, they especially help the anti-establishment candidates such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. By damaging a Democratic front-runner, they might help Republican establishment favorite Jeb Bush. But given the closeness of the Bush and Clinton families in recent years — you'll see that video of Jeb Bush presenting Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal, on the eve of the Benghazi anniversary, a lot during the GOP primaries — if the whole Bill-and-Hillary dynasty looks corrupt, the Bush dynasty could be tarnished by association. And, in fact, the corruption associated with the Clintons might make voters more skittish about political dynasties in general.
Among the biggest losers, of course, are the people who donated to candidate Clinton in the hopes of winning favorable treatment from her presidency. Those investments are looking shakier. Even if she does somehow find her way to the White House, her actions will get that much more scrutiny from those who suspect that influence-peddling might have been involved — which, it seems, is now pretty much everybody.
On the other hand, the biggest winners probably include America's political reporters and pundits, as what a few months ago was looking like a Hillary-vs.-Jeb snooze fest shows signs of opening up into a free-for-all in both parties. For that, we owe the Clintons a hearty "thank you." Clintonworld has never lacked for cronyism and shady deals, but it also has always delivered first-class entertainment. This time around, it seems, is no different.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.