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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nope! Both of those guys were honest. Hillary is a bald faced liar.
Liked your piece! Let the contest run its course and then we will see how it turns out. That's sportsmanlike, that's democratic.
I think there are some fair points made here, but barring a miracle (or shady manuevering), there is no way that Clinton is going to carry the numbers needed in the remaining states. My understanding is that Clinton will need to win by a 30% margin in each of the remaining states, which is HIGHLY improbable. So it would seem to me that the only way for Clinton to win the nomination at this point is by way of Super Delegates. Choosing a nominee by way SD's in opposition to the will of the voters is un-democratic. Therefore if the point of the post is that we should let democracy run its course, the point made is invalid because it has. If she wins the nomination at this point, it will lead to even more questions and foment a greater lack of confidence in our democracy .
May I remind Mr. Barber that we are in the 21st Century; he is stuck in the past. There is really no comparison between Bill & Hill with the founders on our country - good try Mr. Barber. Bill & Hill are simply petty politicians caring only for themselves. They are not worthy to even tie the shoes of Obama. And Hillary bringing change? - give me a break. When she is in trouble she asks her wealthy friends to write ultimatum letters to Nancy Pelosi, and God only knows to who else. I could never in my wildest dream think that Hill & Bill would sink so low.
Mr. Barber,
This is a well written, nicely thought out post. It is also totally wrong. This "democracy" of which you speak cannot survive another 4-8 years of republican presidency. And unfortunately, the campaign that Senator Clinton is running make the possibility of another republican presidency in 2009 more likely.
If Senator Clinton were running a different campaign, then I would not have a problem with her staying in, but all that she has had for the last few months has been negativity, nothing constructive. By contrast, Senator Obama has been nothing BUT constructive.
You make me laugh. First Obama gets noticed by Oprah and subsequently endorsed. Then runs virtually uncontested to win a Senate seat. Immediately he starts prepping for a presidential run (lil secret-he hasn't even been a Senator for two whole years!) based on "judgement" versus experience. LMAO! All the while claiming he can be an agent of change. And you know what? I believe that because he's spent so little time on the national level, none actually governing anything...my, my how things could change.
My point is, with all that luck, I'd have nothing but positive things to say as well. But here is the kicker:
-Obama, likely would not be so noticed by Oprah were he not black.
-the DNC, Tom Daschle to be precise, was specifically looking for a minority to make that 2004 DNC speech
Obama can debate issues, but has little to no time in working on them
Obama can talk as an agent of change, but he has no experience whatsoever with the thing he claims he can change
Obama can give insightful speeches on race and equality, but if he were white-he'd have been taken out of the presidential race somewhere between Sen. Joe Biden and John Edwards.
...but the man is "constructive". LMAO!
My hope is that Obama will take a Jeffersonian conception of the limited power of the Executive Branch (Jefferson was unsure that the Constitution gave him the authority to buy the Louisiana Purchase, and did so only after consultation). We need a limited Executive after the rampant abuse of the power of this office by Bush (and, to be fair, his predecessors as well). Adams was a scrupulously fair conservative (defending the perpetrators of the Boston massacre). If I could believe that Hillary is similarly fair-minded, I would be much happier voting for her in the general. There are NO analogues to either of these great presidents in the Republican camp: either they left the party (Sen. Lincoln Chafee) or are in the process of leaving it (Sen. Hagel) . The Republican Party of today is exactly the kind of "junto" the generation of Adams and Jefferson spent so much time denouncing. In fact, the Republicans represent the "Loyalists" or Tories of today.
We haven't had a limited executive since FDR. Look at the history of the country, and you will see that up until Lincoln they were all increasing the power of the executive, then after his veep was impeached (Andrew Johnson) the power left for a while, until Teddy Roosevelt. Even then it wasn't a very strong position until FDR took office, and since then NO president has been a weak executive, or given up any power, and MOST have increased power. I'm not sure that we need a weak executive, we just need to GOOD one!
I agree with all of your points. The problem is that the Constitutional machinery ought to be able to hold a bad Executive in check. The only way to do this is to weaken the President's power relative to Congress. Watergate was a pivotal event you don't mention: FISA and the Special Prosecutor were countermeasures to Presidential power-grabbing. One of Cheney's personal crusades is to roll back the post-Watergate countermeasures to Presidential power, and Congress has until very lately gone along without a word of protest.
Another point is that the courts serve as a countermeasure to the other branches. In the opinion on wiretapping two years ago, the judge (her name escapes me at the moment) said that the President's power is greatest when Congress acts in concert with him, and at low ebb when Congress opposes him. That is the theory of how our government should work; the practice is very different. I would like to see the theory tried again, because it is the way our system was designed to work.
I don't believe that most Democrats want Clinton to drop out - in fact it's great that ALL of the states get to vote in the Primary season and matter. (Except for us Floridians and those from Michigan. We are the giant asterisk of this election.)
I think the point is that if the leadership of the Democrat Party want the race to be over, the Super Delegates should cast their votes and end it. If they refuse to step up and lead the country by example by putting their name and reputation next to a candidate, why should the candidate exit the race before it's over?? She has the most to lose.
I'm an Obama supporter, but a supporter of the rights of the democratic process above all else. Let them run the race FAIRLY and then see what happens.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/shawnav
The left of the Democrats finally need to get a spine like the founders and to stop all their whining, politically correct bleeding heart liberal passive aggressive behavior and start dealing with the world in a more pragmatic manner so we can get some good things done for a change.
Nicely written, but can't agree.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many try to take the framework of a past "contest" and try to superimpose it on today's battle. yes, ... the founding fathers really had at it and it got ugly. did they have utube? yes, they said some really awful things about one and other so what's the big deal? did they have 24hr media coverage and saturation bombing of media clips when it's something mildly juicy turning? "this is all nothing new people! so let it run it's course!" um,... ok,.. you realize we cannot take the framework of something that happened back in the late 1700's and think all will be fine. You realize we can't take the framework of what happened even more recently when it's between 2 republicans like Bush and McCain in 2000. Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Not the same thing yet again. We all have to realize that the Democratic party, has had it's (forgive me) nuts squashed the past two times and we have had to endure a Bush presidency as a result. Many many Democrats are disheartened at the process itself. (2000 florida supreme court intervention) and will just stay home because their vote doesn't matter anyway. This is a new time and this is something very new that I beg will end soon. These wounds need time to heal. This is nothing like the article above. My apologies to the writer.
History is always our guide to the future. Ignorance of history is our road to oblivion. There is nothing about a hard nominating battle that hurt Gore or Kerry because they werent subjected to it. Perhaps harder nominating battles would have made them better candidates. This analysis stands up to scrutiny all the way to 1968. No panic is called for. Hillary can go all the way to the convention, lose it there, and still come out gangbusters for Obama as she certainly will. Yes she will. Just watch. It may be the only way we can all come together. Any attempt to short circuit either nominee will anger their supporters and hurt our chances in the fall. My opinion.
And i respect your opinion and your delivery of your opinion. well thought out and not hostile (very unlike the atmosphere these days so thank you. My only problem with your answer was "all the way back to 1968",.. i beg to differ. 2 scenarios where convention fights ruined the chances of the eventual nominee. 1980 with Kennedy and Carter. and then 1976 with Reagan and Ford. In each case the eventual nominee was bloodied and feelings were hardened and the base was eventually weakened when stretched to that timeframe so close to the general election. My sense is that HRC's efforts to string this out, as she says all the way to the convention, are a wish for the result very much like Reagans. Ford loses and Reagan comes back to "save the party" four years later.
My fear is we can't wait four years to get to work. Four more years of this stuff and we are done.
Here, Here!!
Just as a grammatical note, it's "hear, hear," not "here, here." Wrong homonym! :-)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
