I enjoyed the wordplay, and I tbh I do think it's an interesting cultural artifact. Like, what's really the aim of the play, what's it really about? It's not about the actual Hamilton, nobody gave a shit about him (before the play was written, at least). It's definitely more about contemporary politics and just using the historical setting as a way to talk about them indirectly (like how The Mikado was set in Japan but really about British politics, for example).

The timing of the play (along with the... gestures wildly at it) suggests that it's about Obama, and trying to tie up loose ends about Obama's legacy. Just like Obama had to deal with intransigent Republicans stonewalling him, Hamilton has to deal with intransigent Anti-Federalists. Reading it this way, I think that while the play's whitewashing of various slavers is tasteless and deserving of criticism, it's kind of missing the point to view it just as historical revisionism, because the historical setting is just a metaphor for what it really wants to say.

Hamilton and Burr are foils, and they are both ambitious, but Hamilton's ambition is good, while Burr's ambition is bad. The distinction is established right at the start, and carries on to the end, when the conflict results in Hamilton's death. The way it's framed makes it more central to the play than any of the other conflicts, the revolution, the debates with Jefferson, the marriage and affair, none of these things are as important as the Hamilton-Burr story. Which is kind of odd, because, if the play is about contemporary politics, who is Burr supposed to represent, exactly? Some libs pointed to Trump as being a Burr-like figure, but the timing of when the play was written doesn't really line up for Burr to be based on Trump. My answer is, Burr is what people wrongly accuse Obama of being. Obama is not like Burr, he's like Hamilton, and that's the reason why Obama is good.

But what distinguishes Burr and Hamilton? Burr is someone who plays his cards close to his chest, and changes his positions based on where the winds are blowing, whereas Hamilton speaks his mind and sticks firmly to his beliefs. What are those beliefs? Uhh, I couldn't really tell you. But he worked tirelessly, night and day, writing the Federalist Papers! He wrote so many papers! What those papers were about, ehh, the play doesn't really get into it. But he worked really hard! Sure, the play (inaccurately) hints at Hamilton being opposed to slavery, but he never actually does anything about it. It's worth noting that his big jab at Jefferson is, "We know who's really doing the planting," which could be read as more about Jefferson being lazy and undeserving of his position. This also ties in with the emphasis of Hamilton being an immigrant - he didn't come from wealth, he bootstrapped his way up from nothing. He also makes the choice of sacrificing his marriage in favor of his career.

And I think this reveals what the message of the play really is: "It was his turn, actually." The criticisms of Obama that it's actually most concerned with aren't leftist criticisms about bombing weddings or right wing criticisms about being a secret Muslim from Kenya, it's liberal criticisms that he stole the election from Clinton, that he jumped ahead in line. The play reaffirms the logic of "It's her turn," but it says, Obama also worked hard and sacrificed. He wasn't like Burr who just said whatever it took to get elected and jumped ahead in line. Therefore, he had a valid claim to the presidency.

I think that message is kind of subtly hidden in the play, I only really noticed it when I took the time to type this out, and it's especially hard to spot if you forget that that internal liberal dispute was relevant. And I think that is really what it is, it's honestly not so much an argument for liberalism, liberalism is assumed, the actual point is to defend Obama from criticism from other liberals.