Since Obama was re-elected, much has been written about Bill Clinton rescuing his presidency. One commentator submitted that ‘Obama owes Clinton, Big Time.’ It’s true that Clinton delivered a whale of a speech at the Democratic National Convention [held in Charlotte, NC from September 4-6 2012">, passionately and eloquently making the case for a second term. The speech appealed to a wide swath of the electorate: from laypersons to intellectuals, well-off voters to working class voters, straight voters to gay voters, and young to old voters. There was something for everyone. If his address had been a movie, it would have been rated G.

Some have reasoned that Clinton’s speech jump-started Obama’s re-election campaign, and in the process seamlessly handed over to his Democratic successor what political pundits have long dubbed Clinton Democrats. Analysts claim that Clinton Democrats have anguished over an America that has become increasingly right-wing since the 2000 election of George W. Bush, prompting some to wash their hands of the Party, preferring instead to self-identify as Independents. Clinton’s treatise supposedly brought Clinton Democrats back into the fold. Prior to his remarks, it was reported that some Clinton Democrats were reticent about the prospect of backing Obama a second time, because his first term left them wanting. At the Convention, however, the erudite, yet folksy Clinton convinced his loyalists to throw the full weight of their support behind Obama.

Despite Clinton’s foibles, he is still widely considered the Democratic Party’s shrewdest operator and the face of the franchise (to use a sports metaphor). Clinton’s name is frequently cited as one of the most admired Americans of the last half century. Not many American presidents have a huge statue of their likeness erected in a foreign country as does he, in the capital city of Pristina; for his role in bringing an end to the war in Kosovo years ago. Clinton’s importance in the American body politic is not in question. It should be understood though, that his willingness to help Obama secure a second term was not entirely altruistic. It is widely known that Clinton and Obama are not friends, more like acquaintances. Any potential friendship between the two was negated in 2008 when Obama bested Hillary in the South Carolina presidential primary. Said Clinton, ‘even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina’; and if that wasn’t enough, Clinton referred to Obama’s candidacy as a ‘fairy tale’ (implying that whites would never elect him president). Once elected, however, Obama did what many in his position would not have done; tap the rival Hillary for the plum job of Secretary of State.

Clinton’s campaign assistance was in the main driven by two factors. First, the idea of handing the White House over to the Republicans was too repulsive to bear. Second, despite her protestations to the contrary, Hillary intends to make a run at the presidency in four years. By now many are aware of Hillary’s decision to step down as Secretary of State. Her willingness to vacate this highly coveted post suggests she is thinking ahead to the 2016 presidential election. Not true, say those close to her; ‘she vowed to step away regardless of the outcome of the presidential election’. No argument there, but one could make the case that Hillary hedged her bets.

Stepping down was a win-win. If Obama is re-elected Hillary can step aside, ride the wave of his popularity and use the next four years to muster her own presidential campaign, something that would have been made impossible while serving as Secretary of State. Had Obama lost, the likelihood that Mitt Romney would have retained Hillary is nil, hence by announcing her intention to step down early on, Hillary’s move was both preemptive and genius. Few party stalwarts, media personnel or donors would have taken seriously the presidential candidacy of a former Secretary of State who was ousted by the opposing party.

By stepping down Hillary also reserves the right to distance herself from the Obama Administration, if doing so in the future, proves politically expedient. Simply put, if Obama’s second term is anything but a success, she will surely run independent of his administration; taking special care to keep any and everything Obama related as far away from her campaign as possible. Romney did the same with Bush and Gore with Clinton, but for different reasons.

Was Clinton helpful to Obama? Yes. The idea, however, that Obama owes Bill, and owes him ‘big time,’ is Malarkey. Clinton’s role in the Obama campaign was not one of benevolence, but one based on Realpolitik. Moreover, Clinton’s assistance was the least he could offer Obama, given how well the President has positioned Hillary for 2016. The notion that Obama owes Bill, and owes him ‘big time’, raises the following question: does every Black success story require a White savior?

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

* Dr. Judson L. Jeffries is Professor of African American and African Studies as well as Director of the African American and African Studies Community Extension Center at The Ohio State University.