John Adams vs Tom Jefferson = Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama

If you've been watching the John Adams chronicles on HBO, you know that the birth of the young American Republic was accompanied by enough controversy, bitterness, infighting and rage to sink the project before it ever got off the ground. If it hadn't been for the fact that democracy, rough and tough as it was, produced the right outcome.

There was enough ideological antipathy between the cousins Sam (radical) and John (prudent conservative) Adams to make one wonder how Massachusetts got its act together -- but it got its act together and led the nation to independence.

Ben Franklin and John Adams were at cross purposes in Paris, where they were courting French military support for the war against the British, to a point where it seemed France might bow out. But it didn't, because democracy, messy as it was, worked.

Some even hoped (feared) George Washington would be an American regent rather than the first president, and the presidential campaign of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 for the presidency was greeted with cries of 'traitor' and 'Jacobin, ' making today's swift-boating techniques look like child's-play.

Except that Washington became president not king, and the dour Adams and the "traitor" Jefferson followed him in the presidency.

I dwell on this melancholy side of the American founding because, despite the shenanigans and hi-jinks, maybe even because of them, the country got born, the Bill of Rights was ratified, and here we are today... well, still having at one another in the name of democracy.

So I say "pshaw!" to those who think it's time for Hillary to bow out when her prospects in Pennsylvania are excellent, or for Obama to accept the vice-presidency even though he's got a clearer road to victory than Hillary, or for Howard Dean or Al Gore to step in a declare a winner and hope the superdelegates will follow suit though there are still millions of Americans who haven't yet voted in their primaries.

Let the democratic process run its course. Is the primary season too long? Much too long! Is the contest between Obama and Clinton too hot? Much too hot, yes, but that's the point: the presidency is at stake, and it is only the ambitious who can stay the course (witness the fate of the lethargic Fred Thompson). Do you really expect Hillary to say "After you, kind sir"? or Obama to respond "You first Madam"?

Nervous Democrats fearful they will never get back to the White House want peace now, a release from the tension, move on to the 'big one' with McCain. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. And that will be just fine. Because when a winner does emerge, after Pennsylvania, or Puerto Rico, or maybe at the end of August on the last day of the Democratic Convention in Denver, Democrats will get over licking their wounds pretty quick in order to start licking their chops in anticipation of knocking off McCain. And then things will really get down and dirty -- just as they have in every election for the past 225 years.

Don't believe those 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' poll figures showing this many Clintonites won't vote for Obama and that many Obamite won't vote for Clinton. It's all just part of the dogfight, bluffing by some (elect our candidate or else!), sulking by others (my candidate loses and I'm gonna take my marbles and go home). But March is one thing, November is another.

Let democracy run its course. As Churchill said, it's the worst of all possible forms of government... except for all the other forms. Oh, and by the way -- your heard it here first -- the Hillary-Sturm and Obama-Drang notwithstanding, the Democrats WILL win -- presidency, House and Senate. For which we will all owe thanks to George Bush.

Comments

[Tejano1]

you ignore the reality of the 24/7 feeding fest which is cable news and the internet, where opinion is manufactured and consent is dissent is a product of the rumor-mill. the fact is that americans are very well-informed as to whom these candidates are, and issues are no longer being debated. rather, you have a campaign geared to rip the already-clear winner to shreds. the race is over, and i say pshaw to hillarites who want to prolong the slime that is the clinton campaign. you clinton robots just want to keep the bleeding going in the ridiculous hope that mcmonster will be able to steal the nomination with her surrogates cries of "judas" and her smearing of obama--like the idiotic claim that he wasn't a real professor at uchicago (they came out yesterday and slapped that nonsense down). meanwhile, shrillary the liar keeps on running off her mouth w/ her foolish sniper lies. ridiculous. end this b.s. now.

[vschicago]

I'm not wasting one more minute reading these articles or watching election coverage so that you media people can boost your ratings and ad revenues with all the hype. Later dudes, Gone Fishin'...

[Marsangusidaho]

It's becoming more clear each day that the Obama campaign may simply lack the stomach for a long, hard run against a tough opponent. These continuing calls for Sen. Clinton to "bow out" are embarrassing to watch, and they shame both the Obama campaign and its surrogates in Congress and state capitals, though they seem unaware of it.
Can we expect Sen. Obama to ask Sen. McCain to do likewise in the fall in the interests of "bringing people together"? Don't want to divide people, afterall, right?
Sen. Obama's "change we can believe it" seems to be in reality just more of the same old thing: weakness. The Obama campaign epitomizes the most serious disease in the Democratic Party, as evidenced most recently by the weakling majority in Congress, which is spinelessness, and the fear of the fight. But love her or hate her, no one can question Sen. Clinton's ability or willingness to take on anyone.
We need that willingness and ability in our eventual nominee to fight hard for people, regardless of how tough it gets. And if Sen. Obama doesn't feel he's up to it, as it increasingly seems is the case, then maybe it's time for him to "bow out," stop dividing the party, and get behind the woman who's ready and willing to fight the right wing for the good of regular working people.

[jstock]

Yeah, he's clearly not up to it. He's only leading and winning, but that shouldn't deter you from questioning his determination or grit. He has not called on anyone to bow out of the race, though I'm sure he looks forward to the day that HRC finally acknowleges the mathematical reality, and falls behind the People's Choice. He ran a better campaign. Don't demonize him or his supporters for it.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, because the fact that HE'S not saying any of it, in fact he's said MANY times that he's looking forward to the rest of the race! And we should hold him accountable for EVERYTHING that anyone ever says, Especially that Wright bastard!

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Thank you for your version of the conventional wisdom; it sure sounds reasonable while denying reality as firmly as any NeoCon. The Churchill quote was a nice touch even though it had absolutely no actual contextual point. Such touches are always awe-inspiring to people who are easily impressed.

Too much credence has been given for far too long now to professional theorists. Your use of "Pshaw" in commentary indicates just how outdated and out of touch your ideas are with what's actually happening on the ground in this primary. Neither Adams or Jefferson ever praised King George to the detriment of the other as the Clintons repeatedly praise Senator McCain. The founding fathers spin in their graves at your comparisons as well as your delusions of what constitutes effective and meaningful political discourse.

[longhairrepublicansurfer]

I resent the mention of Obama, Clinton, and Bush in any article where the names Adams and Jefferson appear. Obama is an immense nothing. Hillary is an immense fraud. And Bush is an immense fool. Regardless of the founding duos increasingly divergent politics, I'd take Adams OR Jefferson over any of these three vapid charlatans. At least they demonstrated conviction and principle even while wheeling and dealing. The baby-boomers just fucking suck so fucking much. What a shit generation the "Greatest Generation" raised. Or failed to raise. And subsequent generations are worse by turns.

[Ono4Hoopono]

A republican with long hair who surfs and who thinks of the founding fathers as more than just another object to be manipulated in the neocon quest for world domination can't be all bad! This is where we start to reach across the great divide to find our common ground.

We agree Hillary is no John Adams; too selfish. But I beg to differ about Obama. Listen carefully to his speech in Philadelphia, and you will hear a person of great creative and emotional intelligence that puts him in a category of leader we have not seen for some time, nor will likely see for a very long time if we blow it and end up with McCain or a McClinton. And I agree we Boomers have definitely disappointed. But you have to realize that Boomers were deeply jaded by the sixties assassinations. You were probably too young to fully grasp the impact of that. No generation is perfect, not even the "greatest." One of Obama's strengths is that he has reawakened the sense of the possible, giving Boomers a second chance and a second wind, reconnecting them with the today's youth. For your generation, the challenge will be to recognize YOUR weakness, your source of jadedness before it is too late.

'Til then, surf's up at Obama's There's a set coming in, sun coming up...lining up nicely. I'll take the left, you take the right, we'll meet on solid American soil and put this country back together.

[longhairrepublicansurfer]

For now your gracious post proves you are the better of we two. Until this cynicism subsides I'll hold my vote if for no other reason than to refrain from canceling yours out. Good luck with the upcoming election. Pax - but only when it doesn't kill us. :)

[follyeoa]

Great article- the Churchhill quote really put it all in perspective

[kestudi]

Your parallel between the Jefferson/Adams story and the current Obama/Clinton contest misses one very important difference between the two situations: Obama and Clinton do not differ substantively on any of the major issues that America faces, while Jefferson and Adams had strong disagreements about the key tenets of our democracy. And despite the hopes of some Democrats that either one of these possible presidencies (Obama's and Clinton's) will be bringing big changes to the government and to our lives, neither candidate has demonstrated the ability to "go against the grain" in any capacity, which is required of a person's character if he or she is to be a successful reformer.

[jstock]

Stop waiting for the big strong Leader to make the big changes. We the people need to get much more vocal and MAKE our representatives and senators do what we want. If they do not do what we want, or they won't stop doing what we don't want, we need to put up challengers to them in the next primary, as was done in with success most recently in Maryland. We do this, in a sustained and even semi-organized way, we'll get the changes we want. We need to build a movement, and that comes from the bottom up. Obama gets it, at least rhetorically. Hillary appears not to get it. I support Obama because I think he understands our Constitution and history better than the Clintons do. And I think he'll be better at party building, which is key to our future, as a party and as a nation.

[Ono4Hoopono]

Obama often goes "against the grain," as when he vociferously opposed the drumbeat to war when there were heavy political consequences for doing so, consequences Clinton chose to avoid which showed her lack of character and backbone. He also goes against the grain by running a highly positive campaign, and by speaking openly about issues we have kept under the rug, and he does so in a way that encourages dialogue, instead of the common "with the grain" approach, which is to try to shut people up when they bring up the difficult issues. The backbone and character Obama has shown is the stuff of great leaders, and positive reformers.

[libran38]

yeah, I guess that's why Obama never showed up to vote on the Iran resolution last fall. He has too much backbone for this sort of stuff... (well, he claims that he didn't enough notice that the vote was coming up. yeah, right?).

[TheOtherMaven]

Your analogy falls apart on one very simple and basic flaw: Adams and Jefferson *were not members of the same political party*. The current situation is actually more comparable to Aaron Burr's attempt to wrest the Presidency from Jefferson in 1800 - Burr was running for Vice-President but was in an absolute tie in electoral votes, and wouldn't agree to step back. It went to the House of Representatives and was decided by *one vote*. (And Burr's political career went *way* downhill from there, but that's another story or several.)

[sacto92]

Well said. As an avid reader of everything dealing with American history it always gets to me when people complain about how the political climate has never been worse. Anybody who knows anything about our history understands that is far from the truth. Not that it's ideal to have this much polarity in our political system, but if you know history you will feel much better about the situation. The principles on which our country were founded have always overcome political battles and individual office holders. People have a very short memory and/or little knowledge of history. Just look at all the people today who have already forgotten how bad things were during the Carter administration.

[rucognizant]

Not for me! I was a free indepndant single Mom running a small business, and able to call the shots, increasing my income every year!
Best time period in my 69 years!
Reagan ruined all that!
I crashed & burned with the '87 market crash, the '90 recession,
and the hostile financial takeover by the 40 somethings!
( ALL THE 60 something, CEO'S were replaced by 40 somethings who demanded those golden parachutes! ) Then a lot of employees were downsized laid off , in favor of the younger.
( They had been left behind in school so didn't pose as much of a threat!)

[Mr Grey]

The only problem with this rosy view is that currently we neither have a democracy or a republic in America. The Bush/Cheney form of governance has lied, stolen, and corrupted all things American. This election is critical to our future. I don't want to see bickering politicians screw things up. Our future is at stake and that is too important to leave to politics as usual.

[Nezua]

I think you are right in that many people are momentarily heated or bluffing or otherwise (even unwittingly) shamming or pretending about not voting for the other candidate. I don't say this loudly, because I don't want to discourage anyone, and I'm not about using this as some kind of lever (that would be silly, as if anyone else will vote or run or not run based on my vote!) just telling the honest truth, here and now, you and me, that I see Obama as a new type of President, one not analogous with Clinton. Thus, I will vote for him. And I will not for her, as she is not really any different to me than mccain. mccain will do same ole same ole and go to war cuz he lusts it. she will be same ole same ole and go to war because she is afraid of looking weak as a woman prez. i hope those around me understand why i could vote for one because i believe in that vote and not for the other because i dont believe in just yanking a lever for the "left" especially when the "left" is a special interest controlled, hawkish and sleazy campaign running type... but if not, that's okay too. cuz i don't vote for anyone else's understanding. it's a very philosophical and personal thing.

[bas1311]

However, when someone back then made a speech you can darn well be sure that they wrote it. There were no people lauded for their reading skills as Obama is today as if the speech he gave on race was in his own words. You use the example of Thomas Jefferson. He was a great man because he WROTE the Declaration of Independence, not just read it to people.

[HFh]

I'm having a hard time parsing your post. As I understand it, Obama wrote that speech himself.

[Stellaa]

Bravo. Now politicians are mythologized for speeches that are fabricated by PR firms and tested by pollsters.

[benfrankln]

Hubris, the greeks whisper, Benjamin. Hubris.

[Abroad]

Both Clinton and Obama have a long long long ways to go before they can be compared with Jefferson and Adams.

Both can become major contributors to America's history but they will only be able to get to work once this campaign is over.

[umen]

"the Democrats WILL win -- presidency, House and Senate. "
Not to mention the Supreme Court. Everyone who votes in November - PLEASE remember the Supreme Court!

[LeftRight]

That's the reason that I'm mad at the Hillary supporters who claim that they will vote McBush in Nov if Obama's the nom, and the Obama supporters who claim that THEY will vote McBush in Nov if Hillary's the nom!