If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.
In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.
What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote? Politicians don't hold personal responsibility for the fallout of their policies, so it is just rhetoric intended to neutralize your negative opinions of them.
Just what you suspect it does: nothing.