RUSH: The Politico… It might even be in their magazine (you know, they have a magazine) or just their regular website or wherever it is. It’s all the same thing. It’s The Politico. And they have a piece that is designed to distance Hillary from Obama. As her presidential campaign revs up and we get ever closer to Election Day, the Drive-By Media knows that no matter what they’ve done for Obama and no matter how far out of the way they have to look in order to ignore reporting the truth of the dismal failure his presidency has been, they still have to distance Hillary from that, and Hillary has to distance herself from that.
So The Politico dutifully follows through with a piece today that gently begins the process of trying to convince people that Hillary is not Obama and has never really been Obama and is not quite that close to Obama and here’s why. It is a story by Michael Crowley, and it’s basically a story on Obama’s idealism crashing into the reality of the Arab Spring and how old hands — experienced politicos like Hillary — were hardheaded pragmatists about the whole thing. Their heads were always in the right place while Obama was out there screwing up and screwing around.
The whole point of the piece is to portray Obama as swept away, naive with idealism and enthusiasm for what can be done, without recognizing the realities of the world and the hard aspects there are to change and so forth. And the 30-somethings on his staff, they were the same way: Idealistic and naive and thought that all they had to do was talk about something and it would become different, it would change. But old hands like Mrs. Clinton, who’d been around since the days of Cruella De Vil, knew quite instinctively that that’s not how things happen.
And Mrs. Clinton patiently bided her time, and, in loyal way, supported this band of naive idealists to the extent she thought possible without damaging her own reputation. They have to do this because Hillary’s out there saying she was side by side with Obama on all of these things. She’s even claiming that Obama’s gun control deal that he did this week, she inspired. It was her deal. She wanted him to go do it; he did it. She’s trying to take credit for that.
So while Hillary is trying to capitalize on whatever love there is remaining for Obama, her agents in the media are trying to tell people how she’s not that close. And it’s kind of funny. There’s a summary paragraph. I’m just gonna give you… You know, I’m one of these people capable of reading between the lines. And I… Because of intelligence guided by experience, I can see the stitches on the fastball, see the stitches on the curveball, see the stitches on the change-up, stitches on the screwball, see stitches on the slider and the sinker.
And this piece is full of ’em. And here is essentially… This is hilarious. This is what this piece essentially tries to say, because there’s this inconvenient fact that Hillary was side by side with Obama throughout the whole debacle of the Arab Spring and all of this:o Libya, the Middle East. Where things went wrong, the story says — in Libya, Benghazi, Egypt, IRS, Fast and Furious, you name it — was because Obama was sound on policy. But he left too much of the execution of all this to the young, inexperienced, naive idealists on his staff. The 30-somethings.
Oh, yeah! I mean, Obama, he knew it up and down. He was right at, but he’s so busy, he had delegate a lot of it. He was sound on the policy, he was clear on it, but he left a lot of the execution of it these young idealists. From the outside it might have looked like Hillary was with them, encouraging all these young idealists as they stumbled around making mistake after mistake. But in reality — in reality, says The Politico — Hillary was the pragmatist. She was the adult in the room.
She was the pushing back, urging Obama and the young idealists to temper all of their progressive idealism and their utopian instincts. She was urging them to step back and to get a grounding, a solid grounding and understanding of the facts on the ground. And in fact this is why she traveled so much, you see! Yes, Hillary had to take to the skies and rack up all these miles, because she was traveling from outpost to outpost reining in these young 30ish idealists that Obama had delegated all of these policy matters to — and they were off the charts.
I mean, their intentions were great, and they were following Dear Leader’s instructions. But they were such, such idealists — they were so distant and far from reality — that Mrs. Clinton had to go in and be the adult, the Nurse Ratched, the mother superior. She had to go in and keep ’em grounded, tell ’em what was possible, what wasn’t possible. Mrs. Clinton had to go in and confront them with the fact that their idealism had no place — and only Mrs. Clinton on Obama’s staff was capable of doing this!
And that’s why she flew all those miles. So The Politico says, essentially: Elect Hillary, and you’re gonna get all of this wonderful Obama commitment to our values and our change and our transformation. But this time, with Hillary in office, it’ll be combined with experience and real-world understanding of how to advance our values in a steady, permanent way. So the bottom line is, Obama was right on the money policy-wise, but he delegated to all these young people with their naive enthusiasm.
And they were botching it up. They were making mistake after mistake after mistake. It wasn’t Obama. He just delegated. He was off doing other pressing things and trusted the young people. It fell to Hillary to travel around the world and straighten out all of these messes, and she did. And now we can rest confident that, with Hillary in office, those messes will not reoccur. We got a pragmatist. We’ve got an adult. We’ve got a person who solved all these problems who’s now running for office — and in such way, you can see how she was not side by side with Obama.
She was at a safe distance. That’s a flailing attempt. It is hilariously — I mean, everything in it is just one stretch after another. In fact, one of the best lines in the whole piece — the author is Michael Crowley — he contends that the Regime was upset because throughout Obama’s presidency and even the last two years of Bush preceding Obama, Freedom House’s Freedom Index show that freedom was declining throughout the world every year, and The Politico writer says that Obama was worried about this. He didn’t like the fact that freedom was being lost all over his world during his presidency. That’s not what he was about. Obama is about expanding freedom and liberality. I know, I know, I know, but this is what the contention of the story is.
So here is what The Politico wrote about this. “Most recently Freedom House found that authoritarian rulers worldwide” — i.e, dictators — “increasingly flout democratic values, argue for the superiority of what amounts to one-party rule, and seek to throw off the constraints of fundamental diplomatic principles.” This supposedly worried Obama greatly because his presidency was going to promote freedom and love and unity and all of these wonderful things. The world was gonna love us once again and cast aside their weapons. They were gonna stand together, and all these old arguments were gonna fade away as the presence of Barack Hussein Obama was going to bring newfound love all over the world.
And in fact, as his presidency settled in, freedom was lost, liberty was lost, dictators gained power and hold over their populations, and we are led to believe in The Politico story that this terribly upset Obama. How could something like that upset him? Tell me that this doesn’t describe Obama. Tell me this doesn’t describe the way he governs. Authoritarian rulers worldwide increasingly flout democratic values, argue for the superiority of what amounts to be one party rule, and seek to throw off the constraints of fundamental diplomatic principles. If that doesn’t describe Obama to a T, I don’t know what does.
Throw in your executive actions, throw in the way Obamacare happened, throw in all the waivers of Obamacare, throw in all of the exclusively applied areas or nonapplied areas. Throw in Solyndra, throw in all of the green energy bribes and extortion that was going on. Throw in Obama’s categorizing the Republicans as his enemies, not wanting to cooperate with them in any way, shape, manner, or form unless they totally cave on what they believe in. Throwing off the constraints of fundamental diplomatic principles, my way or the highway, Barack Hussein.
This is exactly the way Obama governs. And this story tries to make it look like that’s what the rest of the world was doing, and Obama was profoundly disappointed by it, because his presidency and his administration supposedly stood for the promotion of liberty and freedom all over the world. That’s what, I mean, about the story being a crock from beginning to end. But this is how propagandists work. It’s a combination to establish Obama’s legacy but then distance Hillary from it, because there are some things in there, yeah, yeah, we wish didn’t happen, but we can’t have Hillary associated with those.
So this is just the first of many of these kind of articles that are going to appear and the first of many segments like this on cable news where the glaring weaknesses of the Regime will be owned up to and admitted. But then a panel of Hillary experts will explain why she had nothing to do with it. In fact, how Mrs. Clinton was doing everything she could to fix all of these problems, as the adult in the room, and that’s one of the reasons why she had to travel so many miles as secretary of state and go to so many places.
This is why she needed her own private e-mail server because all these young idealists over here, State Department and elsewhere, they were off on their own thing and they were just too young and idealist. Mrs. Clinton, she had to have a sole, lone outpost where she wasn’t impacted by any of this. She had to maintain her outpost to pragmatism and reality. And all of this is gonna be used to justify everything Hillary did and then end up promoting it.
So as this stuff starts to happen, just keep a sharp eye, and remember that you have been told now how the table is being set so that when this stuff happens you’ll be able to look at it, laugh at it, and explain to others why it’s all BS.
RUSH: Now, this Politico piece, I want you people to understand what a favor I did you. This is 113 paragraphs long. It’s 6,000 words. And I’ll tell you what else this Politico story is. It’s the Limbaugh Theorem on display. It’s the Limbaugh Theorem. Obama’s not to blame for anything that has gone wrong in the Middle East or Fast and Furious, you name it, it’s the young idealists on his staff, the 30-something true believers. These enthusiasts and naivete at a young age believing in utopia. Yeah, yeah, yeah, these are the people responsible for it.
Obama can’t be blamed for the screw ups. And Hillary had to go in and fix everything, like Libya, Benghazi? I mean, this is the attempt that the story is making. I want to know what mess did Hillary Clinton straighten out. Russia? Egypt? Libya? Can they name one? They can’t. They want you to believe that Obama and Hillary, the Regime had fixed all these messes, everything’s hunky-dory here. The messes were not created by Obama. They were created by his young staff. He had nothing to do with it. He was watching it like all of the rest of us, and then Mrs. Clinton was dispatched to go in there and fix.
So it’s a multifaceted piece. It’s a variation on the Limbaugh Theorem. It’s an attempt to distance Hillary from Obama and distance Obama from his own policy, pure and simple. And now you don’t have to read 6,000 words and wade through it all and translate it.