President Obama’s election to the highest office in the land serves as a sad commentary on the cursory and superficial nature of the American voter today. A modicum of scrutiny upon Obama’s 2008 presidential platforms would have revealed a shocking lack of an outline for his presidency. Like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, his platform was long on promises and short on illustrating how one might practically implement these policies.
Even more shocking was the disregard he held then (as he does now) for the constitutional constraints upon the office he sought.
So, when POLITICO caught-up with the soon-to-be-retiring president for an interview, it was natural that they would draw comparisons to the current presidential race. A softball puff piece, POLITICO’s interview allowed Obama to reminisce nostalgically about his days in Iowa and his days on the campaign trail where he promised “hope and change,” but explained little else about how he would actually govern.
During the interview, the president discussed in guarded terms the Democratic race and his chosen successor to carry on his disastrous policies, Hillary Clinton.
“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”
Tacitly admitting that the American voter has not gotten any smarter since he was able to successfully dupe them into electing him, Obama opined,
“My bet is that the candidate who can project hope still is the candidate who the American people, over the long term, will gravitate towards.”
Of course, after eight years of “hope and change,” what Americans need now more than ever is not silly promises of intangible and vague concepts- they need jobs, increased economic stability, a constitutionally-minded president and a leader willing to take radical Islam seriously.
All of the Democratic candidates fail on these fronts.
The most-laughable point of the interview came when asked about the supposed scrutiny of Hillary Clinton. When asked if Clinton faced “unfair scrutiny,” Obama decidedly shot-back “yes” and noted that he sometimes regret being so hard on her during his 2008 run when he went head-to-head with Clinton for the nomination.
In truth, Clinton has received the most-kind and gentle media scrutiny of any public official- save for, of course, Barack Obama. Her complicity in transmitting national security secrets across an unsecured server, alone, should not only preclude her from holding office, it should land her in handcuffs.
When we couple her email scandal with her shocking conduct that helped enable the Benghazi terrorist attack, her lack of response to the attack in progress and her continued lying and obfuscation in the aftermath, it seems clear that not only has there not been enough scrutiny of her, but that she should rot in Leavenworth for decades, if not longer.
Few could get away with the level of criminal behavior in which Hillary Clinton has engaged and only Barack Obama would have the shocking audacity to paint her as a victim of unfair scrutiny.