Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts

"Sixty-one years after its publication, White’s siren song of 'a heroic senator defeating an unscrupulous partisan' has lost none of its seductive power, Gellman believes..."

"... esteemed historians remain in its thrall and in Kennedy’s camp. Taylor Branch, Robert Dallek, David Greenberg, Jill Lepore, Fredrik Logevall — apologists and idolaters all, in the author’s view.... Nixon has always had his defenders (including, not least, Nixon himself) and Kennedy his detractors.... Gellman adds nothing here but fresh outrage.... But the white whale here is proof of a stolen election. This book does not provide it. The case it puts forward is circumstantial —

and nothing new. Much is made of 'suspicions' in Texas and 'irregularities' in Illinois as if such charges are, in themselves, dispositive. In the wake of 2020, we should know better than that. And so should a political historian of the mid-20th century: If fraud was a feature of elections in that era, so were accusations of fraud, wielded as a political cudgel. In 1948, for example, a top Republican official charged three Democratic candidates for Senate with 'serious' campaign fraud — more than a week before Election Day. Four years later, pre-emptively again, the Republican National Committee chairman called on federal prosecutors to keep tabs on big-city Democrats — who, he said, would 'stop at nothing' to 'steal' the election. None of this is to deny that Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago had a history of ballot manipulation or that votes were likely stolen in Texas. But in recent decades, rigorous studies have underscored what judges and review boards concluded in 1960: To the extent that fraud occurred, it was not enough to change the result — least of all in Texas, where Kennedy’s margin exceeded 46,000 votes."

From "Did John F. Kennedy and the Democrats Steal the 1960 Election?" (NYT), a review of Irwin F. Gellman's book "CAMPAIGN OF THE CENTURY/Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960."

White is Theodore White, who wrote the incredibly influential book "The Making of the President 1960." They made a movie of it, which you can watch on YouTube in its entirety.

If Trump is coming back, why not Hillary too? Let's relive 2016 in 2024. Wouldn't that be great?

I'm lured into this absurd clickbait at The Wall Street Journal: "Hillary Clinton’s 2024 Election Comeback/Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have become unpopular. It may be time for a change candidate" by Douglas E. Schoen and Andrew Stein.
A perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once-unfathomable scenario plausible: a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024.

Several circumstances—President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill....

So the point is, the Democrats somehow have no one. "Viable" means capable of living. The party is so bereft of life that it might dig up Hillary and run her again. That said, I remember "The New Nixon," the 1968 Nixon. She's in the same position: Lost an election, sat out the next election, and then came back and won/could win. And Nixon always seemed unappealing.

The authors of the WSJ piece never mention Nixon. Because he is so unappealing. But he's the accurate comparison if you want to argue it can be done, which they do.

In a recent MSNBC interview, Mrs. Clinton... took a veiled jab at the Biden administration and congressional Democrats in an effort to create distance: “It means nothing if we don’t have a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive.”

Did she mean to say that Biden is not sane, not sober, no stable, and not productive? 

Hillary Clinton remains ambitious, outspoken and convinced that if not for Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s intervention and Russian interference that she would have won the 2016 election—and she may be right.

It's good to be reminded of her similarity to Trump: She never accepted the results of the election. 

If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option.

"Best" = they've got nothing better.