1960--LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies

[Captain Hilts]

By David Pietrusza.

This book doesn't have much that's new, but, it underlines to me how none of these folks should have been president. JFK was unhealthy and too brash and reckless. It's interesting to see how the press completely bought into his campaign and looked out for him. LBJ and Nixon had no such luck. Neither did the US.

JFK was able to inspire loyalty in people from his brother to people who never met him in a way that LBJ and Nixon were never able to do.

For the folks here on DU it's an important read because it truly emphasizes that JFK did not run as a liberal at all. If folks wonder why Obama took a hard right after getting the nomination it is that, like JFK - and Bill Clinton - he'll say whatever he has to say to get elected. That's how the game is played. Perhaps if Al Gore had done something similar, he might have won - at least his own state. In other words, nice guys rarely finish first in these contests.

I think inadequate attention is paid to how JFK's father alienated a lot of folks in Washington. He was one of the more vile human beings this country has produced.

I was very glad to see comments quoted suggesting that if circumstances were slightly different, Eunice Kennedy would have been a more primary player in politics. She's really the last of the women that clearly had what it takes to be president, but social conventions kept her boxed out of the game. That's too bad.

This book provides some interesting comparisons to the current campaign.

The book makes some assumptions on JFK and Vietnam that the recent release of papers do not verify at all. JFK seems to have been more dove-ish on Vietnam than expected.

PS. Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't "anti-Catholic." She was anti-Vatican. Joseph Lash was not Eleanor Roosevelt's lover. I've no idea why he put that in this book. THIS guy was - no contest here: