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.