The 2008 presidential primary battle for the Democratic Party nomination was one of the more suspenseful political contests in recent memory. The back-and-forth victories between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton generated an ample amount of public interest, normally not part of the primary season.

Political analysts continually compared the ebb and flow of 2008 to the Carter/Kennedy brawl in 1980. It was also a bruising contest in which the unpopular President Carter, who was seeking his reelection, endured the wrath of Ted Kennedy and his supporters all the way through the convention.

But another comparison seemed to escape the pundits in Washington - the 1860 Republican

nomination fight. Many parallels can be drawn from the Obama/Clinton political fight when compared with the Abraham Lincoln and William Seward

smack-down 148 years ago.

Eerily reminiscent of 2008, the New York Times described the national political landscape of 1860 in a May 12 editorial: “The political condition of the country is as completely chaotic as the most zealous lover of disorder could possibly desire. At no period within twenty-five years has there been so complete a rupture of all the bonds that usually hold parties together.”

Seward, who had served as New York's 12th governor from 1839 to 1843, was elected senator of the Empire State in 1849, a seat he had still held in 1860. He was considered the odds-on favorite to win the nomination that year.

Like Hillary, Seward was hailed by the press as the early frontrunner. Journalist Isaac Bromley wrote that an election for president in 1860 that would not include Seward “would be the play without Hamlet.”

Both senators from New York also overestimated their chances for political success while underestimating their opponent from Illinois.

Similar to Hillary's nonexistent post-Feb. 5 Super Tuesday strategy, Seward decided to take a eight-month vacation to Europe during the campaign. Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn stated that it was “inevitable” that Hillary would not only be the Democratic party presidential nominee, but the 44th President of the United States in 2009. Seward's supporters called themselves the Irrepressibles

Both Seward and Clinton also had more than 30 years of political baggage strapped to their backs.

Comparisons between Obama and Lincoln go well beyond Illinois and their two years of experience in Washington, D.C. Lincoln's supporters, according to one report, were just as enthusiastic as the Obama supporters are now. When Lincoln's name was called for a vote at the party's convention by Norman Judd, it was like “all the hogs ever slaughtered in Cincinnati giving their

death squeals together,“ journalist Murat Halstead wrote.

Just as the primary battles in 2008 swung wildly between Clinton and Obama, the Republican Party's 1860 convention ballots ricocheted between Lincoln and Seward. The first ballot gave Seward 173 votes and Lincoln 102, and the second ballot had Seward with 184 and Lincoln 181. On the third ballot Lincoln received 231 1/2 while Seward fell behind with 180. Lincoln was 1 1/2 votes shy of

winning the nomination.

One witness described the convention floor as going into “a profound stillness ... the men ceased to talk and the ladies to flutter

their fans; one could distinctly hear the scratching of pencils and the ticking of telegraph instruments on the reporters tables.“

Lincoln eventually won the nomination. When the news was received by telegraph in Auburn, Theodore Dimon rushed to Seward's garden where the candidate was and gave Seward the dreadful news.

Seward hid his disappointment well and told everyone around him that Lincoln possessed “some of the qualities to make a good president.” A town cannon that was brought out to celebrate Seward's victory was quietly sent back to the park where it belonged, having never been fired.

Although Seward waxed philosophically in response to the outpouring of letters he received, privately he was rather dispirited. It took Seward a few weeks, like Clinton at the end of June of this year, before he was ready to campaign for his party rival.

When the dust settled, Seward soon realized he had been completely blind-sided by Lincoln. Seward historian Paul McDonald said that “Seward thought Lincoln was a great orator, but that was about it. He was inexperienced politically and would be easy to roll over. Senator Clinton fell into the same trap with Obama in 2008 as Seward did in 1860. She repeated almost every mistake Seward did.”

In the summer of 1999, the Clinton family spent some time vacationing in Skaneateles. During their visit to the Finger Lakes region, Bill and Hillary took a tour of Seward House in Auburn. They must not have spent much time pondering what could be drawn from Seward's loss to Lincoln in 1860.

For Clinton, her advisors and supporters, it was a crucial lesson lost. Instead of hauntingly following in Seward's footsteps, if

Hillary or her staff had maybe studied the Seward campaign of 1860, the outcome for her 2008 run could have been radically different.

But 2008, quite similar to 1860, became contest between a “triumph of a presumption of availability over preeminence in intellect and unrivaled fame - a success of the ruder qualities of manhood and the more homely attributes of popularity, over the arts of a consummate politician, and the splendor of accomplished statesmanship#8 Halstead wrote of Lincoln's victory over Seward.

Anyone who studies 19th century American history will eventually read about “Seward's Folly,” an early mocking (which was later discarded by historians) of Seward's brokered purchase of Alaska from Russia on behalf of the U.S. government on March 30, 1867.

Maybe there should be more discussion amongst political strategists about Seward's Trap, as well.

Toby Rogers is an author and journalist who has written for the New York Times, The New York Post, and the Village Voice. He is the author of “Ambushed (Trine Day Press, 2004) and The Crucifixion (Trine Day Press, 2009). He lives in Greenwich, Conn.