« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Nixon Sets an Example for Senator Clinton
"And I want to say that one of the great features of America is that we
have political contests, that they are very hard fought, as this one
was hard fought, and once the decision is made we unite behind the man
who is elected. I want all of you to know, I want all of you to know
... I want Senator Kennedy to know, and I want all of you to know that,
certainly, if this trend does continue, and he does become our next President, that he will have my wholehearted support and yours too."
-Richard Milhous Nixon, election night, 1960
It's a sad day when Richard Nixon outclasses you. But here it is ... Nixon's supporters are shouting "No!" and "Boo!" to the news that Kennedy has won, there are official results still to come in, and yet the most resentful and grudging American politician of his generation manages to do the right thing and giving this important civics lesson to his backers, being graceful to his Democratic rival.
It would be nice if Senator Clinton could meet at least the Nixon standard for a fellow Democrat.
Comments (13)
Ouch.
Out-classed by Nixon.
The Clinton legacy withers by the second....
June 4, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you all have become so proficient at shitting on the legacy of the Clintons, Republican style, do you have some concept of what to replace it with?
Here's a good slogan: "Democrats - not as shitty as we used to be". Build that brand, unite, unite, unite.
Bill Clinton drastically brought down crime, black poverty, the deficit, and greatly improved opportunities for blacks in society as well as leading by example. He forged friendships with high tech industry, giving the Democrats the image of being technically progressive and innovative, rather than just the party of fruit pickers and assembly lines. He is the one concrete example of success we have -i.e. not just talk - since LBJ (who redeemed JFK's legacy which would have been a lot of unfilled promises even had he lived). When people start trotting out George McGovern as a party elder we should listen to, it gets scary.
June 4, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does Bill have to do with this? He's not running for president.
June 4, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
She said "Clinton legacy". I don't think she meant Hill alone.
June 4, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it up, you folks have been giving the same goddamn speech for 4 months now, and it doesn't get fresher. I'm sure a year ago you were calling her Nixon-in-a-pantssuit as well.
June 4, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of Nixon supporters wanted him to demand a recount as it was clear there was some hanky panky at least in Chicago.
However, Nixon claimed if he did that, his political career would really be over. (At least that's what he said -- maybe he was worried that the GOP also had some improprieties that would be uncovered as well.)
So Nixon, ever the strategist, swallowed very hard and went on to run for Governor of CA (which he lost).
Never the less, Nixon could see the big picture.
The Clintons could not. They are masters in tactics but not in strategy. Had it not been for Ross Perot, GHWB would have won a 2nd term.
June 4, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. There are some interesting books on the topic (the titles of which have escaped my ever-decreasing memory, sorry, but I'm sure you could Google). The gist of them parallels your conjecture. Nixon couldn't pursue election fraud charges against JFK and (perhaps more directly) Joe Kennedy and Daley, because the Republican party had also been guilty of shenanigans in other parts of Illinois and elsewhere.
Sorry for the OT intrusion.
June 4, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon was informed that the GOP stole more votes downstate Illinois than Daley stole in Chicago. It was pure math and self-interest. A re-count would have exposed all this.
June 4, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, sorry IIOOII, you slipped in before me.
June 4, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, you can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqU7am8HCSI
June 4, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As you all have become so proficient at shitting on the legacy of the Clintons, Republican style, do you have some concept of what to replace it with?"
And yet I've never seen you not shit on Barack Obama. And if you are a Democrat, as you often seem to imply, he is now your party's "presumptive nominee." He has beat the toughest competitor any other candidate for the party's nomination has likely ever faced. He did a magnificent job, ran an incredible campaign, and spoke very graciously tonight (and other nights) about Hillary Clinton.
Try, just once, to not shit on him and his supporters. Just try. Please? Pretty please?
Oh, forget it.
June 4, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has Obama done? A voting drive, a speech that didn't matter, a lackluster Senate record where he couldn't even convene his own subcommittee on Europe, and a successful campaign. What is the legacy I'm to embrace?
And considering I'm responding in a thread comparing Hillary poorly to Nixon, why don't you tell your compadres to shut the fuck up and maybe I will as well.
June 4, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, telling me to "shut the fuck up" certainly teaches me a lesson in grace and class. And it resonates nicely with Senator Clinton's stated goal of making sure every voice is heard.
Actually, I haven't been posting Nixon comparisons for months. (And my name isn't "you folks." I don't know who you're talking to, but evidently you don't either.)
I did my best to post something positive and upbeat about Senator Clinton yesterday evening. I think that would count as pretty recent. Then her speech made me feel like a fool for having spoken on her behalf. Sorry about that. Since my only other TPM post to date is an attack on McCain, I'm not sure I'm the "you folks" you're looking for. But, hey, don't let facts get in your way.
June 4, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment