Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 126: Obama blames Hillary for wrecking his legacy. Is he wrong?

Biden and Obama
“Don’t take it personally.”

How many times have we all heard the request, usually accompanying some bit of unfortunate or insulting news that could impact lives in destructive ways. Being told that someone else said something nasty about you is perhaps worse than hearing it from them first-hand -- at least then you have a chance to respond face-to-face or shoot them… a dirty look.

But what about politicians? Seems like swamp creatures should be the last ones to take anything personally, since one, the hurlers of insults at them are too numerous to accurately account for, and two, most of the time critics have enormous personal bugaboos of their own. If you don’t believe it, just gaze at the dynamic duo of House Democrats Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff, two committee heads who simply refuse to accept the obvious conclusions of the Mueller report (Trump didn’t collude with Russia, which makes it practically impossible that he obstructed justice despite rather odd behavior) and let dead dogs rest.

Then there’s former President Obama, a man whose legacy dwindles by the day. Even now Obama occasionally makes headlines for something he says (like 2020 Democrats are forming a “circular firing squad”), but more often for his whiny pathetic complaints about today’s political situation. Obama did it again last week while looking back at the 2016 election.

John Gage reported at The Washington Examiner, “Former President Barack Obama was unhappy with Hillary Clinton and her failed ‘soulless campaign’ in 2016, saying he saw her loss as a ‘personal insult.’ The new details come from a recently released update to New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker’s book Obama: The Call of History

“Obama found himself shocked by the election results, thinking before Nov. 8 there was ‘no way Americans would turn on him’ and ‘[h]is legacy, he felt, was in safe hands.’ The book details that Obama could not believe Americans had ‘decided to replace him with a buffoonish showman whose calling cards had been repeated bankruptcies, serial marriages and racist dog whistles.’

“Obama allegedly told his speechwriter Ben Rhodes after meeting Donald Trump that the future president ‘peddles in bullshit.’”

Takes one to know one. Anyone who paid attention to the 2008 campaign and then suffered through eight years of Obama’s airy “Hope and Change” pipedream recognizes foul smelling bovine excrement when they hear it. To this day Obama and his closest advisors (Joe Biden included) insist theirs was a squeaky-clean presidency free of scandal (they must’ve forgotten or ignored events like Fast & Furious, the travesty of dead Americans in Benghazi (which they knowingly and falsely attributed to a video) and the IRS fiasco perpetrated by Lois Lerner and other Obama jackboots).

Not to mention Obama’s worst days may still be ahead when the Inspector General’s report is released, which will almost certainly implicate members of his inner circle in “FISA-gate” and other misdeeds concerning the 2016 election. If Democrats weren’t cold sweat terrified of what’s yet to come, why would they act the way they did last week when interrogating Attorney General William Barr about his handling of the Mueller report?

One wonders whether Obama will “take it personally” when he witnesses his former yes-men and women led away in handcuffs, the cops dipping the back of the accused’s head before gently placing him or her in the rear of a police vehicle for the short ride to jail. Or will the powers that be stage dramatic pre-dawn raids on the likes of James Comey, Sally Yates and John Brennan just the way they did for Paul Manafort and Roger Stone?

Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.” -- Englishman John Donne wrote the famous words in the 17th century, but they’re particularly relevant today for politicians like Obama who don’t have a clue what their real legacies look like to the American people. No doubt Obama is still beloved by his most devoted followers, but what positive thing did his administration accomplish in two terms to satiate everyone else?

Beyond that, why would Obama blame Hillary Clinton (and the American public) for killing his legacy? Obama did plenty to sabotage his reputation on his own, running a highly ideological White House that didn’t offer a coherent, unifying message. Even those closest to him couldn’t tell what Obama really stood for other than being dedicated to stoking racial tensions and doing his best to pit groups against one another -- and to blame Republicans for everything that was off-kilter. Chaos was his governing philosophy.

Take the same-sex marriage issue. For his entire political career Obama claimed he favored traditional marriage, until the winds of change -- and poll numbers -- indicated it was time to re-orient his self-described deeply held personal beliefs. As if anyone would wake up one morning and believe two men or two women could legally wed and that law enforcement should arrest those who disagree with the notion. Or that he could legalize millions of illegal aliens with the stroke of a pen just because he deemed it the right thing to do, the Constitution be damned.

And who will ever forget the White House being decked out in rainbow colored lights after the Supreme Court “discovered” a right to marry for homosexuals? Was Hillary responsible for that too, Barack?

The media frequently hits President Donald Trump for his truth-stretched statements but never applied the same measuring stick to Obama. Obama avoided using the word “terrorism” to describe attacks perpetrated by Islamists and said the police “acted stupidly” before knowing the facts of a case, but none of it made a difference to the liberally compromised citizens of Obama-land.

Hillary Clinton did run a horrible campaign in 2016, but it could also be argued she had no other choice but to try and distance herself from Obama and his failings. Hillary was saddled with defending the deeply unpopular (among the productive class, at least) Obamacare law and propping up a foreign policy that weakened the country immeasurably and left overseas enemies emboldened to challenge American resolve and authority.

Clinton did a ton of damage to herself -- who else would’ve been dumb enough to label a quarter of the country’s voters “deplorables”? -- but she was merely furthering the sorry race and fear-based legacy of Barack Obama. There wasn’t much to go on there, certainly no economic policy accomplishments. What else was she supposed to do?

If anything, maybe Hillary’s the one to “take it personally” because Obama was so hollow and incompetent. How’s that for turning the tables?

If any of the 2020 Democrats beat Trump next year things could easily go back to the way they were under Obama. Not everyone associated with the candidates is wild about the new hard-left direction of the Democrat Party. Caitlin Yilek reported at The Washington Examiner, “The brother of Pete Buttigieg’s husband said he does not support their marriage.

“Rhyan Glezman, a pastor of a Christian church in Michigan, told the Washington Post he was not surprised when his brother Chasten came out.

“’I want the best for him,’ Glezman said. ‘I just don’t support the gay lifestyle.’”

Will Democrats take Chasten’s brother’s views personally? Or will they be okay with someone holding honest religious convictions contrary to their beliefs?

Most people couldn’t care less about whom someone lives with behind closed doors, it’s only when self-interested individuals (like Pete Buttigieg and all Democrats) force their values on everyone else. Rhyan Glezman is probably receiving tons of hate mail and death threats for revealing his personal opinions. Will Democrat leaders like Obama come out in support of Rhyan’s freedom of conscience?

No way. Pete Buttigieg is almost entirely basing his candidacy on his sexual orientation and it seems to be working. Why else would anyone seriously consider elevating a thirty-something year-old mayor of a medium sized city to the presidency of the United States? Is there something “Mayor Pete” knows about effective governing that Donald Trump doesn’t?

Then again, Democrats chose a forty-something year-old community organizer for their presidential nominee in 2008. Obama lucked out by facing the politically hapless John McCain in the general election -- and the rest is history.

Barack Obama shouldn’t be griping about his legacy -- those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss didn’t tarnish his reputation beyond what he’d already done to himself through eight years of arrogant malfeasance. 2020 Democrats seemingly haven’t grasped the lesson.

Share this