The senator from New York was remarkably talented, a political leader of the first order, a person of great influence at the highest levels of government, and destined for the party’s nomination for president of the United States. Although the senator faced stiff competition, for the four years preceding the election it was widely assumed that the New Yorker would be the candidate.
The opponent, from Illinois, was younger and less experienced. He was charismatic, tall, a spellbinding speaker and a debater of great skill. But, said the Illinoisan’s detractors, compared to his opponent he was a candidate whose resume for the highest office of the land was lacking in the depth expected of a president.
He had spent more time in the state capital than in Washington, where indeed his resume was quite thin. Although he rose to fame in the years preceding the nomination battle, political analysts, at least at the beginning, viewed his chances as unlikely.
Both were brilliant attorneys whose intellect and skills put them at the top of the legal profession. Both were involved in the greatest issues of the day, staking out their positions, and in fact, agreeing on many of them.
The election itself would be transforming, one that occurs at certain junctures in American history that ushers in a new political era for the country. Two extraordinary candidates battled it out to succeed a highly unpopular and failed president.
The gifted senator from New York, who everyone assumed had the nomination in hand, took an eight-month tour of Europe, giving the candidate from Illinois the opportunity to launch an effective campaign for his party’s nomination. We know the results: The younger, inexperienced candidate from Illinois beat out the senator from New York and ran for president.
That, of course, is the story of how, in unexpected fashion, Abraham Lincoln bested William Henry Seward in 1860 for the Republican nomination for president.
As we look back on the struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination, the parallels with the 1860 competition between Lincoln and Seward are remarkable.
As in 1860, 2008 promises to be a transforming election. Just as Seward erred, with his European tour, Clinton did not pay enough attention to the Iowa caucuses, concentrating on the Super Tuesday states, thereby giving Obama an advantage he never relinquished.
Lincoln was arguably our greatest president — and there was a dimension of Lincoln’s character that reflected his greatness and which is relevant to our contemporary circumstances.
After the election, Lincoln appointed his rival secretary of state. Though initially Seward was dismissive of Lincoln, he soon became Lincoln’s closest ally, adviser and friend. He played a critical role in Lincoln’s War Cabinet, and effectively kept England and France from recognizing the Confederacy, a development that would have been extremely damaging, and possibly even fatal, to Union prospects. Lincoln would spend many evenings relaxing at Seward’s home, to the consternation of Mary Lincoln, regaling those assembled with his stories.
What made Lincoln so unusual was that he held no grudges and did what he thought was in the nation’s best interests. He knew that he needed the support of Seward’s political constituency, as well as his seasoned skills. He also co-opted Edwin Stanton and Salmon Chase, putting them in his Cabinet, where they made major contributions to the success of the Union cause.
The Lincoln-Seward relationship even has a remarkable physical manifestation that endures until this day. In Manhattan’s Madison Square Park, there is a statue of Seward by the sculptor Randolph Rogers, dedicated in 1876. Legend has it — a legend that Rogers seemed to encourage — that to save money, he cast the head of Seward on the body of Lincoln from a statue that he had discarded.
True or not, it symbolizes the extraordinary teamwork and fusion of purpose of these two great Americans during a time of peril. This teamwork has lessons for today.
As Obama considers who will be his vice president, he should look to Lincoln as a model of leadership and reach out to Clinton to serve as his running mate. She commands a large constituency, and in fact garnered a larger popular vote during the primaries.
Clinton, like Seward, is enormously talented and experienced. This decision is not only about electoral politics, but ultimately about governance. The dangerous times we live in require putting forth the best leadership team possible to meet America’s daunting challenges. Lincoln had the courage and wisdom to reach out for the best. Obama must do the same.
Because of the results of the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton will not receive the phone call at 3:00 a.m. that there is a crisis somewhere in the world. But she should receive it by 4:00 a.m. from Obama, calling her to tell her to get over to the White House immediately, that her advice is needed.
Can Barack Obama be Lincolnesque? Does he have the breadth of vision to discard old grudges for the good of the nation, just as Lincoln retained Seward?
That’s what the next few weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention in Denver will determine. If 1860 is any guide, the relative inexperienced Illinoisan and the heavily tested New Yorker can make a formidable pair. It happened before, and it could happen again.
Rabbi Menachem Genack is from Englewood, N.J.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This article is way off base. The most effective recent Vice-Presidents were those who had not been past political opponents of the President. Since Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee there has been unprecedented campaign to force him to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I believe choosing Hillary would be big mistake especially in light of this effort to force his hand. The Clintons have their good points. While I have problems with Bill’s ethics, I think his time as President was good for the United States and while I don’t think he deserves all (or even most of) the credit for the peace and prosperity that characterized the period from 1993 to 2000, he certainly deserves some. He made what I consider to be sound policy decisions. As for Hillary, I agree with her stated positions on many issues. However, none of this means she would be a good selection for Obama as his running mate. The reasons for not choosing her are clear. Fundamentally, there are several factors for any nominee to consider when selecting a Vice-Presidential candidate. Obviously, the Presidential nominee would want to choose someone could assume the job of President but realistically, many potential Vice-Presidential nominees meet that criteria. The two more fundamental questions are 1) Does the Vice-Presidential pick increase the ticket’s chances of winning the general election and 2) Would that pick be a good fit in the future Administration? As nears as I can tell Hillary is a wash on question 1. Several polls have shown Democrats favor putting Hillary on the ticket but most of them are likely to vote for the Democratic ticket anyway. More telling are polls of all voters and the most recent I could find suggested Obama-Clinton doesn’t poll much differently than Obama by himself. On question 2, Hillary is complete flop. Vice-Presidents are supposed to be loyal to the President above all else and the Clintons have never played second fiddle to anyone, it is hard to imagine them starting now, especially to a man Hillary suggested was unprepared to be President. More than likely, the Clintons envision Hillary as Vice-President with greatly expanded powers and a portfolio for Bill as well; In effect, a tri-Presidency with Obama as the odd man out. That would be a disaster as this nation doesn’t need three chief executives. Finally, there are the Clintons themselves. It might be tempting to take Hillary’s recent warm praise of Obama at face value but the problem is, how would one know? While even the most honest politicians fib a bit, Hillary and Bill have a record of mendacity that puts them pretty low in the trust scale. If someone isn’t accustomed the getting shot at, they tend to have a pretty good memory of when they did. It is hard to see Hillary’s repeated claim about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire as anything but a brazen lie. Also, because all politicians pander, pandering itself isn’t a disqualification but the shamelessness of the Hillary is amazing. There isn’t any serious Democratic policy analyst who favored cutting the gas tax and Hillary Clinton probably didn’t either. However, this spring she came out for a cut in the gas tax after having talked about the need for alternative energy and reduction in green house gases. Lower fossil fuel prices are the quickest way to make those goals harder to achieve. It would have been one thing if she called for a second stimulus package to, among other things, help mitigate the impact of higher gas prices. At least that could have been targeted to low income folks and because the recipients could spend the money on whatever they deemed necessary, the incentive to conserve would have remained. However, Hillary just couldn’t resist demanding a cut in the gas tax that would have benefited millionaire owners of Hummers, because she saw political gain. Not only was it dishonest given what she said she believed otherwise, it showed a lack of leadership and a lack of courage that Obama commendably showed on the issue. Bill’s mendacity is well documented but perhaps he was being the honest one in this case, when he reportedly told someone Obama could kiss his behind if he expected support. All the more reason for Obama not to want a Clinton in his Administration.
There's a huge difference between appointing somebody Secretary of State and making them Vice President. The Secretary of State you can fire- the Vice President you can't. Hillary might be a pretty good Secretary of State- and conversely, Seward might have been a lousy Vice President!
A spot in Obama's cabinet - yes. VP - no. He needs to find a VP who won't add negatives. There is a significant percentage of America who would vote for Obama, but dislikes Clinton enough to stay home. I think this is a larger perecentage than those supporters of Clinton who will stay home. He also needs someone with real executive experience - A governor, for example. Clinton's claim of experience as First Lady doesn't hold water with many.
Scratching the surface, the Rabbi makes a fair comparison between the elections of 1860 and 2008. If Obama gets elected, and if Sen. Clinton accepted a Cabinet position, that would be a better comparison. Like Lincoln, Obama is a great orator but, let's be as honest as Abe, the substance of the speeches couldn't be more different. And, Seward did travel during the campaign but the events leading to Lincoln's nomination were far more complex mixed with a little luck (such as the convention being held in Lincoln's state). I agree that Lincoln's ability to, in his own words, destroy enemies by befriending them made him exceptional and he didn't carry grudges. But when it came to the Presidency, Salmon Chase, who hardly made a secret of his desire for the office, and who served in the cabinet, found out even a statesman like Lincoln drew the line. As the 1864 election drew close, Chase overstepped and ratcheted up his efforts for the Republican nomination. It was then that Lincoln took him up on his many offers of resignation.
Oh Rabbi....I was for Hillary for President because I had met her when she worked for the Rodino Committee. While others, including her boss then, might disagree, to me she showed a kindness that few of those hungry, puny and [word deleted]y young lawyers did. They thought they had me by the proverbial balls and would get me to testify to save my butt. But they were stupid-- made so by hubris. Inside I was laughing because I knew they made a bbbbiiiigggg mistake, the kind only a stupid fool or a smart but insolent fool would make. Hillary saw them gang up on me and was, well, I'd call it very kind. But in that setting kind seemed more Saint-like. I'll never forget her empathic gentility. In fact, I never did; so I was for her as President because Rove had made America mentally ill and I thought, therefore, it needs a devoted mom to stand by it and nurse it back to health. But then Bill jumped into her campaign. Now, him, I had always despised. But I heard him address the Governors' Conference in 2005 on health care, diabetes and cheap food. It motivated me to devote my retirement from health care to the study of diabetes. Since then I've been trying to apologize to him personally for misjudging him for he is brilliant. Since that day I must have seen a zigilion diabetics! Alas, you see, when getting open heart surgery, there is no escaping micro-embolization to the brain. And, since they are the tiniest and most delicate brain cells, inhibitory neurons (those that form circuits that tell you: woooowww, hold on, let's think this through a little more before we act) are the ones most injured and killed by micro-embolization. Well, Bill may no longer be out there unable to control his f----ing women, but his brain is un-hold-on-able and he ended up f---ing Hillary's campaign. Proof that she is a loyal woman of great substance, as ever before, is that she "stood by her man." I sort of fell in love with her character and concluded that women MUST be superior to men in every way. But, Bill is sort of a loose tumor on her back and no one can think of her as Vice President with, in the words of Gov. Romney: Bill running around the White House with nothing to do. So the problem is not Hillary as VP but Bill. AS for Obama....We're supposed to have a serious Zionist problem here...not a Jewish problem, as the vast majority of American Jews love this country, as Rep. Weiner's article in today's FORWARD noted, for the way that beautiful lady welcomed them, as she did me, to NY Harbor. American Jews view America as a jewel and America, by now, views its Jews as a jewel. That's why Zionism had such a hard time turning most of them on fire. Of course, after the Holocaust, Jew and gentile, all Americans wanted to bring justice to the few survivors by giving them a homeland in deference to the many massacred by the Nazis. But Ben Gurion-- WHO HAD SAID THAT IF HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HELPING A HUNDRED THOUSAND JEWS ESCAPE THE HOLOCAUST BY TAKING THEM TO ENGLAND FROM GERMANY AND TAKING FIVE THOUSAND JEWISH KIDS NOT YET IN DANGER THAT HE COULD TRAIN TO BECOME "NEW" JEWS THAT CAN LEARN TO WORK ON FARMS, HE'D HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO TROUBLE CHOOSING THE LATTER-- played on the guilt of American Jews for having kept quiet while the US denied entry to German Jewish refugees, sending them back to Hitler. By 1967, guilt turned to pride as Israel beat five Arab armies in six days. The once anti-Zionist commie neocons too sought to rub some of that sabra mensch-hood on themselves by calling for World War IV in the Mideast. And they pretended to speak for all Jews as they became power brokers in the Republican Right. Their success on the Right came from using the Leninist "polarization" tactics they had learned on the Left, now on behalf of the Republicans. So, for example, a Jew who disagrees with them is not someone with a different opinion, but a "self-hating Jew" and a goy who rejects their ideology-driven bloody "World War IV" is an "anti-Semite." It is no surprise that these immoral puny chicken-hawks were quick to rub themselves against Hillary's leg allthewhile supporting the dying amoral, aprincipled and aminded McCain. After all, to them it is power and influence that counts so they can make money, not ideology. Now that Hillary lost, they are putting money in a smear campaign claiming that Obama is a secret-Muslim and hates America. Equating "mensch-hood" with extremism, these unbalanced putzes always resort to slander because that seems manly; it doesn't matter if it's a low blow, it's a good way to win and winning makes them "mensch." That's why they got along so well with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove-- for whom "thinking outside the [law] box" gives an edge over law-abiding political ENEMIES-- not foes, but ENEMIES (that's all these he/shes ever took from Nixon....his brilliance and courage is wwaaaaaaay beyond them." So, united as the A Team in the McCain Campaign, through their ventriloquist Lieberman, the neocons are getting McCain to say that Israel is priority number #1 and whatever makes Israel bigger makes it safer and must be good for America and whomever Israel attacks is OK because Israel's enemies are America's enemies and only Israel's friends are America's friends. In fact, through their organization, JINSA, of the same neocon Jewish Americans who never served in the military, co-opting retired American generals, or corporals, whichever and whatever they can get, they hope to get Americans to view Muslims as "Islamofascists" that the US must destroy to help Israel dominate the Mideast. They wrote that up in a proposal and presented it to Netanyahu; he deemed it nuts! Alas, see in Israel deem Obama, as Krauthammer wrote this very day in the Wash Post, as the inevitable winner in November, so they are building settlements consisting of empty houses for non-existent settlers as marking "facts on the ground" in violation of their promise at Annapolis. These supporters of Bush for war expanding from Iraq-->Syria-->Iran are now spitting in Bush's face. In Jerusalem, on his last visit, they told him that he is "irrelevant." So now the leaders of Israel are desperately seeking to expand as much as possible so that the Palestinians get no state and become citizens of nowhere before Obama is sworn in; they expect American Jews to follow the neocons' command. But American Jews' allegiance is first and foremost to that lady in the harbor that welcomed their parents and/or grandparents to America. So if Israelis and necons who scream about "Islamofascist" acts like "Zionazis," they will NOT expect to get the support of American Jews because American Jews are American first, just like Finkelstien is. By denying this Jew entry into Israel and arresting him at Lod, they told American Jews: we don't care what sacrifices you made and love you have given us, do as we say or shut up and stay out! Meanwhile, the neocons get McCain to stupidly justify his "expert" version of whatever US Foreign Policy Lieberman whispers into his ear on grounds that "it's good for Israel." So, we must shed American blood and treasure in the Middle East; why? "Because it's good for Israel." This triangulation: (a) slander Obama as a secret "Islamofascist," (b) support McCain because he's willing to continue spilling blood and treasure in the Middle East because, McCain sais, "whatever is good for Israel is good for America," and (c) injure all Jews who dare to question this ideology by calling them "self hating Jews" and slander goyim who oppose it as "anti-Semites" while claiming to speak for all Jews and forming an alliance with weirdos "Christian Zionists" like End of Times Rev. Hagee......this kind of Leninist "polarization," the neocons think will bring them power, wealth and recognition by Israel, the nation of "mesh-hood," as "mensch." American Jews will reject this madness and will stand with Obama. Calling him a Muslim "schwartza" isn't going to work because the mass majority of Jews don't have a "negro problem." American Jews, after all, taught America to see beyond skin color into the the character of a man, thus repaying that lady in NY Harbor. But what I fear is that Americans-- who pay so much in blood and treasure for Mideast War-- will not distinguish the "World War IV" neocon loonies from American Jew, whom by a massive majority want peace in the Middle East. THE neocons will be seen as THE Jews. And the backlash to everything Bush did, McCain said and the neocons pushed will be blamed on their fellow Americans, the Jews. Yet, American Jews will not be puppets of whomsoever sits in power in Jerusalem; in the 2008 election and after they will stand with President Obama. So Rabbi, there's the mess: we can't get Hillary on the ticket because of Bill and we STILL face the neoconn slander of Obama and the desperate attempt of some in Israel to create "facts on the ground" at the expense of peace. Our only hope is to end all this neocon Leninist polarization so people can see the nuance in things instead of judging the few "chicken-hawks" war makers as spokesmen for American Judaism....THEY ARE NOT! So, since we won't have Mom Hillary nursing us back to health from the hate disease Rove fomented in America and the Leninist polarization virus the neocons infected us with, we would do well to seek national unification as Americans rather than servants of the ideology that "whatever is good for Israel is good for America." We must return to diversity in thinking and praise rather than decry the variety within us as a nation. It is outrageous that the loony Leninist polarizers be allowed to express their "negro problem" as that of the very Jewish Americans who guided America out of its racist heritage. For every neocon that whispers that Obama is a "schwartza secret Islamofascist who hates America" there should be a thousand American Jews who say: "judge the man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character," whether he be voter of presidential candidate. That's where Bill went wrong because he lost control and played the race card down South.....That's why Hillary can't be the VP candidate....the same reason as why she can't be the presidential candidate: because she couldn't choose between Bill and America. I admire her for her devotion but I lament losing her skill as America's mom to heal us. But now the issue is stopping the slanderous Leninist polarization because it endangers one of America's greatest assets, its Jews.
I am not a citizen of the USA so I can not vote and I consider myself an atheist but I am not mesmerised by the Rabbi. If Rabbi Menachem's story is correct,Mr Obama can make good use of reading the article.
rabbi is personalizing events. as if uncle sam cares who is the prez. each and every prez led a war ordered by the funni uncle. each and every prez, on orders from the uncle, is against medicare; for mandatory elementary schooling for obvious reasons. each is and was against free higher education. each is/was for expansion; final sol'ns for iraqis, afghanis, indigenes. each for accumualtion of wealth for individuals. thank u
Very clever piece - but why does Mr. Genack (a long-time shill for HRC in the Orthodox community) use his rabbinic title in such matters? It is an unseemly and tawdry denigration of clerical title - he seems to be using it as a prop as he makes an argument that is a last-chance bid for personal access and power in a new White House.
Either Obama or myself (Shabtai Zvi) is the messiah. In either case, niether Obama nor myself needs any assistance.