Criterion Collection: Primary (1960) The Democratic Race For President

Source:Criterion Collection– John and Jacqueline Kennedy, perhaps in 1960.

Source:The Daily Press

“Later this month, we’re releasing The Kennedy Films of Robert Drew & Associates, a collection of landmark achievements in documentary filmmaking. The first in the set is Primary, which documents the 1960 presidential primary in Wisconsin and was shot on a camera engineered specifically by Drew and his team to allow for sync-sound recording, a feature that made the entire genre of cinema verité possible.

In one of the most famous shots in all of documentary history, Albert Maysles’s camera follows JFK into Milwaukee’s American Serb Hall (host tonight to a post-primary party for Republican candidate Ted Cruz). The scene documents the palpably intense level of adulation that Kennedy had already managed to attract, and which would carry him later that year to the highest office in the country.”

From the Criterion Collection 

How about this for a political promotion: Robert F. Kennedy goes from being a Congressional counsel and staffer in the Senate in the late 1950s, to not just running his brother’s presidential campaign in 1960 at the age for 34, but running the winning campaign that year as well.

Source:The Daily Press– John F. Kennedy’s brother Robert campaigning for his brother in 1960.

The 1960s elections especially the presidential election between Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon, were fascinating for several reasons. But it was a fascinating election season before Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon won their party’s nomination for President. The Democratic primaries had two of the strongest leaders in the Democratic Party competing with each other for the Democratic nomination, in Senator Kennedy and Senator Hubert Humphrey.

The two Senators represented different factions of the Democratic Party and even different generations of the party. Even though they were both from the same generation officially. Hubert Humphrey represented the old guard, or what I call the Old-Left of the Democratic Party, the FDR coalition of Northern Progressives and Southern Conservatives who tended to work together on economic policy and foreign policy, but were different on civil rights obviously.

Senator Humphrey came out in favor of civil rights before it became popular to use as an example. And Senator Kennedy represented what I call the Reformed-Left, people who were called New Democrats in the 1980s, the true Liberal Democrats in the party. The JFK vs HHH Democratic primaries weren’t just about who would try to lead the Democratic Party in the next four years. But who would lead the country and which faction of the Democratic Party would lead the country in the next four years.

And I believe had Jack Kennedy not of been assassinated as President in 1963 and gotten reelected in 1964, the Vietnam War doesn’t happen at least as far as how the United States was involved in it. And that he would’ve realized how big of a mistake it would’ve been for America to try to win that war at least on our own. And what’s called the New-Left that came together in the 1960s because of the Vietnam War and the Great Society, against the war, but strongly in favor of the Great Society.

I don’t believe the New Left emerges that’s become Occupy Wall Street today. Because there wouldn’t of been a need for it and the old FDR/LBJ coalition would’ve stayed in place and the Democratic Party would look different today. Had Senator Humphrey defeated Senator Kennedy in 1960 and somehow gone on to defeat Vice President Nixon in the general election. The Democratic Party would look different today as well because again I don’t believe a President Humphrey would’ve gotten the United States as involved in the Vietnam War as it did.

And the New-Left or Occupy Wall Street isn’t in existence today, because again there wouldn’t of been a need for it. But the Reformed-Left or New Democratic Coalition doesn’t emerge either, or at least not as early as it did. Perhaps Senator Kennedy runs for President in 1968 and gets elected, but a lot of New Democrats of today that came from the Baby Boom Generation that looks up to Jack Kennedy and see him as our leader, I’m not a baby boomer I’m a Gen-Xer, but Jack Kennedy is a big political hero of mine. And I’m a New Democrat as well.

The JFK-HHH primaries was really about the sole or future of the Democratic Party and where we were going as a country. And what the Democratic Party was going to look like in the future. Which is why these primaries were so important and a big reason why people were so fascinated. Because JFK was new as a national leader and spoke differently and had different ideas and a different vision. As far as where he would take the country and Democratic Party. Against HHH who represented the old guard or Old-Left in the Democratic Party that were looking to expand the New Deal.

Read Full Post »

Theodore White: The Making of The President (1963)

Source:Amazon– from Theodore H. White.

Source:The Daily Press

“In the 1960s, writer Theodore H. White changed journalism forever by putting the campaign for the White House under a microscope. The first of his bestselling series on presidential elections, The Making of the President, 1960, earned a Pulitzer Prize and became a TV documentary that won four Emmys®, including program of the year. This collection brings together three television adaptations of White’s influential books for a full, in-depth account of presidential politics during the tumultuous 1960, 1964, and 1968 elections.

Produced by Oscar® nominee David L. Wolper (Roots), these programs feature White’s insightful scripts and rare film footage that reveal the winners and losers in unguarded, behind-the-scenes moments. All the backroom deals, convention-floor drama, and campaign strategy come alive again in three historic races: Kennedy-Nixon, Johnson-Goldwater, and Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace. From preprimary jockeying to the final vote tally, these spellbinding narratives dissect the inner workings of our democracy and trace the path to power.

Journalist and author Theodore H. White served as China bureau chief for Time and as correspondent and editor for The New Republic, The Reporter, and Colliers. He won numerous writing awards, including a Pulitzer Prize and two Emmys.”

From Amazon

“David L. Wolper’s documentary film “THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1960”, narrated by Martin Gabel, gives viewers a close-up look at the inner workings of the 1960 campaign for President of the United States, a hard-fought struggle which was won (just barely) by Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy.

The film made its debut on ABC-TV on December 29, 1963, just a month after JFK’s death.

Directed by Mel Stuart, who also helmed another very fine David Wolper-produced film about President Kennedy — 1964’s “Four Days In November.”

Source:David Von Pein– from Theodore White.

From David Von Pein

The 1960 United States presidential campaign was one of the best ever, because of who ran for President. The Democratic Party nominated the best person they had in Senator John Kennedy and the Republican Party nominated the best person they had in Vice President Richard Nixon. It was literally the best vs the best. Two men that represented the now and future of their party, who were the leaders of their party. It gave American voters a clear choice in who to select to be the next President and who to be the next President early in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

The 1960 election gave people another choice as well:Do we want to continue to do what we were doing as a country, have the Federal Government stay the course and not make any big changes, or do we want to try a different path. Senator Kennedy tried and I believe was successful in making the argument that America was stagnating not moving and advancing as fast as it could. And that Vice President Nixon represented this conservative approach of not moving real fast, staying back and seeing how things develop. Where Vice President Nixon tried to make the argument that America wasn’t ready to chart a different course.

Dick Nixon didn’t want to chart a course with a somewhat young and inexperienced Senator that had never been an executive before. Thats the choice that America had for President in 1960. What Jack Kennedy represented for the country was a true vision of where he wanted to take the country and how we would get there. Making the argument that America was sitting still in the 1950s under President Eisenhower who was somewhat conservative. And that the country wasn’t advancing fast enough. And sitting still and even falling behind.

The recession of the late 1950s helped Senator Kennedy make the case that it’s time to move again. And Dick Nixon President Eisenhower’s loyal and influential Vice President represented the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Vice President Nixon I believe didn’t do much to counter this Democratic argument or defend himself. But what he did instead was try to make this campaign about Jack Kennedy’s youth and inexperience. Even though they both came to Congress the same time in 1947 to the House and were friends there. And remained friends when Nixon became Vice President in 1953 and Kennedy was elected to the Senate the same year. And Nixon was only four years older and we’re in the same generation, both men were also Irish.

One difference between Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon, was that Kennedy did offer the country a change of course, that would finish off what was created in the 1930s with the New Deal. But in a different way, focusing on health care, civil rights and tax cuts. Making the case the country was overtaxed.

I believe Nixon didn’t have what’s called the vision thing, at least in 1960. He developed that by 1968 when he was elected President. But 1960 for him was: “This is what’s been working, so let’s continue what we’ve done.”

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives: John Kerry- ‘How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake’

Source:The Film Archives– U.S. Naval Lieutenant John F. Kerry, testifying in front of Congress in 1971, about the Vietnam War.

Source:FRS FreeState

“John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician who is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. More on this topic.

He served as a United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013, and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 Presidential Election but lost to incumbent George W. Bush.

The son of an Army Air Corps veteran, Kerry was born in Aurora, Colorado. He attended boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and went on to graduate from Yale University class of 1966, where he majored in political science and became a member of the influential Skull and Bones secret society. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1966, and during 1968–1969 served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty in South Vietnam as officer-in-charge (OIC) of a Swift Boat. For that service, he was awarded combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Securing an early return to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in which he served as a nationally recognized spokesman and as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. He appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs where he deemed United States war policy in Vietnam to be the cause of “war crimes.”

From The Film Archives

It’s been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, then presidents without that previous experience, because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make.

I’ll give you a perfect example of that: when Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission: get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience, other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President: Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later.

We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation, who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you hear Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Read Full Post »