When I re-read Sen. Obama's speech the other day, I was struck by a particular passage that has generally escaped media attention. Referencing the anger that lingers in the African-American community, Barack Obama stated: "That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change."
I was particularly struck by the passage because, although I don't think it was meant to relate to the Clinton's either directly or indirectly, it seemed to so effortlessly describe one of the largest obstacles that I have always held regarding both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
That is, that they have both fallen prey to the legitimate anger that they harbor over the attacks they have consistently incurred throughout their political lives. The anger clouds their judgment, has them seeing "vast right wing conspiracies" behind every damaging revelation, and precludes both of them from examining their own complicity in the attacks against them. I think the lingering bitterness allows both Clinton's to all too readily adopt tactics with which they have been repeatedly bludgeoned.
This is an incredibly tricky road to navigate. Not just because any examination of the Clintons' complicity in the personal attacks they have endured might seem to alleviate the blame for the despicable tactics used against them; but also, because it has a 'blame the victim' mentality with which I am generally uncomfortable [and even using the term "victim" for that matter].
Oddly, I think that one of the things that the Republican Party has expertly exploited over the past thirty years is the vague sense of a lack of accountability in American society. The disconnect between actions and consequences. In fact, Barack Obama referenced just such a notion in his much parsed discussion of Reagan with the Reno Gazette. During this interview with the Gazette editorial board, Obama, channeling Reagan, stated: "I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling."
Accountability seems to be a re-occurring theme in Sen. Obama's campaign. And, frankly, it's a smart political maneuver. I think one manner in which the Democratic Party failed to tap into the anxiety's of many Americans was in the manner that they felt that their government was disconnected from their own lives. In their own lives, their actions had consequences for which they were held accountable. Their perception of government, was that there was a complete disconnect between individual actions and government assistance. Whether real or imagined, it was there. And the Republican Party filled the void by becoming the supposed accountability party; the party that would hold people's feet to the fire. To be "tough on crime" by ensuring that wrongdoers were punished. This list could probably be endless.
All of which leads back to the Clinton's. Why? Because I believe there has always been a vague sense that both Bill and Hillary Clinton operate outside the rules that apply to everyone else. That regardless of what actions they took during their eight years in the White House, that there was never any accountability for their actions. That there were never any consequences [of the course the opposite could be argued--impeachment, anyone?]. Regardless, I think the perception was there that the Clintons' were away to get away with murder [some wack-jobs believe that literally, of course].
I'm sure it's maddening to anyone following this campaign to hear Sen. Clinton state that the results in Michigan were fair and the delegates should be seated after telling NPR a few months prior that the results were "not going to count for anything."
Or to have Sen. Clinton not release her tax returns after badgering Rick Lazio in her 2000 senate campaign [and calling his refusal "frankly disturbing"] for doing the same thing.
Or claiming to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and stating that: "there was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." Yikes! A statement that is not only completely devoid of truth, but actually, easily refutable.
Or claiming that her vote in 2003 was a vote for diplomacy and not an authorization for war.
The fact is, both Clintons' have always seemed to be able to say things totally unconnected from reality. Not just that, but to do so with impunity. And every time someone has attempted to hold them accountable for their actions, they somehow manage to escape the consequences of their actions. And let's face it, this drives some people up a freakin' wall, which only frustrates their opponents, makes them overplay their hands and allows the Clintons' to cloth themselves as victims.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are complicit in their condition. And that condition is the endless object of Republican Party attacks. Everyone out there that is "against" them is not a "Clinton hater."