Obama Comes to Clinton’s Rescue: Reflections on What Defines a Good President in Today’s American Politics
In an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, President Obama said that he won’t try to influence the Attorney General or the FBI, who must decide if Hillary Clinton broke the law by having “top secret” documents on her private email server, when she was Secretary of the State. But, then he did exactly that when as the Attorney General’s boss and as President, he suggested in that same interview that there was no “intent” on the part of Clinton to break the law, and that it was only “carelessness”, which is really a legal advice relayed to those who must make the determination of her culpability, through an interview, since as a lawyer, he knows that “intent” is key and that that can give the AG or the FBI a way to not press charges against her and explain their decision by saying that there was no “intent” to break the law and that it was a case of negligence, although not egregious enough to fit “criminal negligence”. In other words, he influenced their decision, while at the same time, denying that he does. Obviously, he knows what he’s doing.
And, so did Clinton know what she was doing when she decided to set up her own private email server for official Department correspondence, which, unlike her private emails, are supposed to be the property of the Department and available to inquiring journalists. Of course, there was “intent” since she deliberately did it to shield herself from future scrutiny and criticisms as Secretary of the State, knowing she was going to run for president and that some emails might not make her look so good. She also knew that that was against the rules of the Department. As the private owner of those emails, she could refuse to make them public, just as she’s refusing to release the transcripts of the “private” speeches she gave to big Wall Street banks, for which she was paid $200,000 to $300,000, per speech.
So, there clearly was “intent”, and the setting up of the private server, which would lack the security protocols of the Department, was not done “carelessly”, as in stumbling and “carelessly” tripping and accidentally setting up a private server for all her emails, both official and personal. “Carelessness is hardly the right word here, but that’s what Obama is suggesting to be used, while denying he influences their decision.
The downside to Obama’s remote messaging, expressing his preference to not charge Clinton, is that when they do heed his advice and decide not to indict her, they will come under criticism as having been unduly influenced by the President. But, that apparently would be okay since it would discredit them, not the President, for having taken his words as a hint. As Wall Street Journal correctly observed and pointed out, he can say he didn’t tell them what to do and he would be right. He can say he was just answering a question he was asked. Of course, he could have refrained from making a comment about it since there were ongoing investigations. As a lawyer, himself, he must know that. Instead, he cleverly chose to make his feelings about it known through an interview with a reporter. As WSJ observed, that’s pretty shrewd of someone who “chooses his words carefully”.
But, even if it ends up discrediting him, it still doesn’t matter because Obama himself isn’t the point. Nor is his credibility or legacy, or lack thereof, a concern. He was hired to do a job, just like the rest of his Administration. The point is to serve those who put him in office, and who now couldn’t care less about the reputation of a servant about to leave office. Does the ruling class really shed any tears for George W. Bush who’s stuck with the label of a president who waged the wrong war? What matters to them now is who will replace the current president as their servant. Obama tried to help with that, too, as he always does. He never forgot during these 7 and a half years who he was working for and that defines in American politics what a good president is. What is clear is that much to the delight of the Democrats, the ruling billionaires don’t want Trump or Cruz.
But, Clinton has her issues, too. She may be as good as Obama for them, but she must first be elected and that’s not so easy for someone who looks and sounds and smells so much like a typical two-taced, lying, sleazy politician, who lies like she breaths, and what’s more, it usually shows. To be sure, Clinton is no Obama or even Slick Willy, who lie just as much and are just as evil sociopaths, who will do anything for their billionaire masters, including assassinating entire families every Tuesday. It’s just that they can lie and still look like they care! And, the emails issue isn’t helping her, either. The more she has to talk about it, the more she has to lie. So, enter Obama to lie for her because he’s good at it.
But, I don’t think it was a mistake for her to hide her emails from prying eyes, while in the position of Secretary of State. She was right to be worried that her emails might get her in trouble. She did make decisions that turned out to be damaging to her credibility and sense of judgement, including her pressure for war on Libya, which has turned out to be a liability and which Obama now regrets, just as her vote for the Iraq war is a liability for her. In one of her emails, she proudly exclaims about Gaddafi: “we came, we saw and he died”. Although she was Secretary of the State, she acted more like a Secretary of War. She was, in fact, the Dick Cheney of the Obama Administration. Jeffery Goldberg of the Atlantic, who interviewed Obama in late January, wrote in the April issue, published in mid March, that Clinton lobbied Obama so hard for war on Syria, after getting her way on Libya, that Obama told his cabinet he would only consider proposals for war from his Secretary of Defense, from that point on!
Obama does choose his words carefully, which are basically the words of the ruling class. His coming to the aid of Clinton might have been his own decision, but it also reflects, in my view, the wish of the ruling class, which he “carefully” serves. What makes Clinton the “right” candidate, though not necessarily a “good” one, is what made Obama the right one to serve the class of billionaires; except that he was also a “good” candidate. Despite her issues, and unlike Trump or Cruz, she IS trusted by the ruling class to do what’s in their best interests. She knows how to lie, when to lie and what to lie about, and even how to get away with it – most of the time.
Obama said in his Fox News interview that he doesn’t try to influence the decision of the investigating bodies, while doing exactly that. It reminds me of what a standup comedian once said of some car dealerships. He said they’re so good at lying that they can say something that’s both true and false, at the same time, about the same thing, and in the same sentence, like “you won’t be turned down for bad credit, if you qualify”!