SUMMING IT UP – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  IBD sums up the Democratic dilemma involving Hillary Clinton superbly.  This is what it's about:

With each day, new revelations call into question Hillary Clinton's behavior during her tenure as secretary of state and after. It's time for her to suspend her campaign and start answering questions.

When even the left-wing media notice a leading Democrat's apparent ethical lapses, she has a real problem. And so does the Democratic Party, which as of now has all its bets for 2016 placed on Hillary Clinton, who, Peter Schweizer's upcoming book "Clinton Cash" suggests, may have engaged in corrupt behavior in office.

The latest revelation is a potential bombshell: That while Clinton was secretary of state, a federal committee approved the $610 million sale of Wyoming-based uranium mines to Russia's state atomic energy agency, Rosatom, as it tried to corner the market for the radioactive mineral.

Clinton's State Department was one of those that approved the deal. That's not illegal, but there's a conflict: The chairman of Uranium One, the Canadian company that sold the uranium mines to Russia, was Ian Telfer, who gave $2.4 million to the Clinton Foundation.

That's not all. The New York Times notes that a Russian investment bank that was behind the deal paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

It also should be noted that the Wyoming mine is no small operation, and that Rosatom makes nuclear weapons, among other things. So national security is at stake.

Nor is this the only whiff of potential scandal emanating from the Clinton Foundation.

COMMENT:  The standard Clinton game is to work through a scandal with denials and testimonials from friends, hoping that the passage of time will make most people forget.  It's worked before.  But the presidency is different, and I'm not sure it will work now. 

Besides, enthusiasm for Hillary is very limited.  True, she'd be the first woman president, but that's not quite as electrifying on the left as the first black president.  And she is not considered a true, fanatical "progressive." 

For the Dems the question is, "If not her...who?"

April 24,  2015