On holding the Clintons "accountable"

I read something yesterday on DailyKos, my other posting spot, that left me feeling queasy. It was a warning to Bill and Hillary Clinton, saying (in the headline) "we will hold you accountable if we lose in November."

I had a number of reactions:

1. Wow. The poster is attributing a great deal of power to two people who are understandably powerful but who do not yet, so far as I know, have the power to control the thoughts and actions of many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters. Americans who choose to vote, will; those who choose not to vote, won't. Then, those who choose to vote for Barack Obama, will; those who choose to vote for John McCain, will. If a voter opposes Obama on principles or positions that are personal to that voter, is that the Clintons' fault?

2. Assuming that Obama will be the nominee, as I do, then whose responsibility will it be to (a) convince a majority of registered voters to vote on Election Day and (b) to vote for Obama's candidacy? Is it the responsibility of the Clintons, or any one or more of the Obama campaign's surrogates? Now, I separate "responsibility" from "activity." If Obama surrogates do take active roles in convincing voters to vote, and to vote for Obama, that's wonderful -- and healthy for the democratic process. But it is their "responsibility" to do? I don't use the word in its figurative sense; we would love to believe that it's the responsibility of all Americans to act in the best interests of the nation. Instead, I use the word in its most concrete sense: Is it not Obama's responsibility (through his positions, his actions, and his campaign) to convince voters to vote, and to vote for him? If so, then why attack the Clintons for whatever they might or might not do once Obama is the nominee?

3. What does "hold you accountable" mean? Is accountability about blame, or about retribution? Both are pointless: In the case of Sen. Clinton, voters outside of New York won't have the opportunity to decide her fate in any subsequent U.S. Senate races, and in the case of President Clinton, it's likely no one will ever have an opportunity to vote for or against him again. That leaves only "blame" as the instrument of accountability, and who does that serve? Even if we assume that in 2012, Hillary Clinton is a candidate for the presidency again, and even if she is the best candidate running in that year, voters will have no greater and no lesser an opportunity to support or oppose her than they had this year. Will it be rational in 2012 to "blame" Hillary Clinton for Obama's failure in 2008 to convince voters to vote, and to vote for him?

4. I read and understand the arguments made by the poster against the Clintons. I don't think anyone would claim that Hillary has been a wilting candidate, or an ineffective campaigner.

If it is true that she has won primaries, then it is true: Voters voted, their votes were counted, and there was declared a winner. Where she won, she won. Where Obama won, he won.

If it is true that she has won primaries in the states that will be battleground states in November, then that too is true; and if Obama is the nominee, then will it not be his responsibility to win those states in the general election?

If it is true that she wins the popular vote, then that too will be true, and it may have some legitimate impact on the decisions made by superdelegates. But it is the electoral vote -- not the popular vote -- that will count in the general election, and if Obama is the nominee, then will it not be Obama's responsibility to win the electoral vote in November?

So, as a candidate, Clinton has not been a bad candidate, a poor candidate, or an ineffective candidate. She has sustained a campaign -- say of it what you may -- for more than a year, and it continues to operate in the remaining contests, and it continues to collect votes. Voters have exercised their options to choose; some have chosen her, others have chosen Obama.

Is it not the role of a candidate seeking office to convince voters to vote, and to vote for his or her candidacy? And if the candidate makes mistakes, errors of judgment, questionable statements and the like, then is it not our role as voters (recognizing that mainstream media is less effective at researching and presenting news in context that it may ever have been before, and recognizing that information is more accessible to us today than ever before) to inform ourselves and include those considerations in our judgment? If that is the case, then the poster is left with a single argument: That Clinton should not be a candidate for the presidency.

To which I ask, Why not? Is the argument that her positions on major issues are flawed? Or that her policy statements do not reflect the will of voting Democrats? In fact, both Clinton and Obama have acknowledged that their positions are almost identical on most issues.

Then is the argument that her candidacy has become illegitimate because Obama is the likely nominee? That argument, too, is specious because the rules of the party -- rules that our own party freely adopted 24 years ago -- clearly indicate a threshold that neither Obama nor Clinton has reached. And, given that our superdelegates are not bound to their choice until they vote at the convention itself, it is a simple and incontrovertible fact that either Obama or Clinton can reach the threshold for nomination between now and the time of the convention.

These are, in my understanding, the circumstances under the rules. No one imposed these rules on us; we imposed them on ourselves.

That leaves the poster, then, with a single argument: That Clinton should abandon her candidacy because the poster prefers Obama. Which is fine; it is neither greater or lesser in value than the arguments offered by millions of other Democratic voters from Iowa through Kentucky who have already made their choices, or the arguments that voters in a few more places will make in the days ahead.

Which brought me to my next reaction:

5. What would the poster have the Clintons to do?

Accepting that the poster clearly desires an end to the Clinton candidacy, then what? "Holding [them] accountable" must mean something more, and the poster alludes vaguely to what the "more" may include -- "a decent show of supporting Obama" -- but there's no comprehensive definition of it.

(a) Must the Clintons endorse Obama? Sure, okay, if that's deemed necessary. But will it be sufficient merely to endorse Obama, or must the endorsement statement contain some really deep contrition for real or imagined slights? In order for the Clintons to satisfy the desires of Obama supporters to appropriately support their candidate, must Clinton not only endorse him, but apologize for her candidacy itself? Apologize for having been an impediment?

And how should we evaluate that endorsement afterward if Obama loses the general election? Indeed, how should we evaluate any endorsement that Obama has collected, if he should be defeated? Sen. Ted Kennedy and the majority of his family endorsed Obama's candidacy before the Massachusetts primary, yet Obama did not win that primary. Is Kennedy responsible for that loss, because his endorsement wasn't -- pick a word -- muscular enough? Likewise in Pennsylvania, where Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Obama's candidacy beforehand but where more voters chose Clinton. Shall we hold Casey accountable for not saying more, or saying it better, or in more places?

On the other hand, there are Bill Richardson and John Edwards, both of whom endorsed Obama after the primaries were held in New Mexico and North Carolina, respectively. Shall their endorsements be judged worthless currency if McCain defeats Obama?

And thirdly there are Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Neither has endorsed at all, although Carter has made practical observations loudly and clearly. If they stay their courses and make no endorsement, unlikely as that is, then shall they be penalized for making none?

Ultimately, endorsements are pleasant but they do not outweigh the counting of votes cast on Election Day. So

(b) Should the Clintons contribute to the Obama campaign? Sure, that's fine, and I suspect they would. But will it be enough that they merely contribute? Must they match the amount that they invested in Hillary's own campaign? Whether or not they should, it appears they cannot under federal law, but must abide instead by the limits that govern the contributions of any individual.

(c) Should the Clintons traverse the nation, either with Obama or with the coordination of his campaign? Sure, that works too, assuming that Obama wants it. But will that be enough for the Obama supporters who threaten to "hold [them] accountable"? Will there be a quota of events, in a sufficient number of cities and town, in a sufficient number of states? Then, what should they say, beyond the standard stump speech and endorsement, that will satisfy the demand for "accountability" by Obama supporters? Are tears necessary? Must Chelsea cry, too?

And finally, how shall those following Obama judge their effectiveness at "holding [the Clintons] accountable" if Obama loses to McCain in November? What will define a "win" for Obamans?

Let's say that after four years of McCain, Obama chooses to run again for his Senate seat rather than seek the presidency. And let's say that Clinton chooses to run instead, and dominates the field, and wins the nomination. Shall present-day Obamans torpedo her campaign and ensure a second McCain term? Will that be a "win"?

Let's say that Obama sits it out, Clinton runs for president and fails to secure the nomination. Will present-day Obamans then declare victory, having blocked a second Clinton bid?

And what if, between 2008 and 2012, Clinton herself announced that she's retiring at the end of her second Senate term, going back to Westchester and choosing to pursue her passions in private life, as John Edwards has? Will then the present-day Obamans hoist a "Mission Accomplished" banner?

And, in perhaps the worst scenario, assume that Clinton retires but Obama mounts a second run for the presidency -- and either wins the nomination and loses the general election in a rematch against McCain, or he fails to secure the nomination altogether. Then what? Will the present-day Obamans still lay their blame and retribution at the Clintons' feet?

All of which brought me to my final reaction last night:

6. If you support Obama, vote for him, and maybe even urge your friends and neighbors -- or the people in your calling plan, or your civic group, or your sewing circle -- to vote for him. And if he wins more votes than McCain, then good for you: Obama wins.

It may well be true that the Clintons are guilty of race-baiting, of intellectual dishonesty, of double-counting, of short-sheeting, of selling indulgences, of fundraising in Beijing, of cheating on their taxes, of hiding documents, of bearing false witness, of lying to federal prosecutors, of killing Vince Foster, of teasing Larry King, of violating the fundamentals of fashion, of perpetrating a land swindle in Arkansas, of importing narcotics from Bogota, of hiring undocumented workers, of picking their noses and of popping gum in school. Okay. So don't vote for Hillary.

But threatening to "hold accountable"? Shouldn't that have started a long time ago, like the late eighteenth century? And only threatening to "hold accountable" if our candidate loses? Should I hold Obama and Clinton both accountable because Edwards didn't get the nomination, when I thought he was the best in the field, and I voted for him? If I should, what should I do to achieve retribution? I'd be interested to hear suggestions.

Can ordinary American be trusted to weigh what they think and feel about candidates and to make the decision that satisfies our minds at the end of this process?

Yes, we can, I think.