What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of the President #3
The Making of the President 1968
In The Making of the President 1968, the 3rd volume of the groundbreaking series that revolutionized American political journalism, Theodore H. White offers a compelling account of one of the most turbulent presidential campaigns in history: the 1968 election that put Richard M. Nixon in the White House. Viewing the electoral process from an insider's perspective--capturing both the vast scope & the intimate, behind-the-scenes details--White chronicles a campaign that saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. & presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, was marked by protest & violence in the streets of Chicago, & that came down to a neck-&-neck finish between the tenacious but ill-starred Hubert H. Humphrey & the most fascinating politician of the modern age: the finally, unexpectedly, victorious Richard Nixon.
544 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
57 people are currently reading
846 people want to read
About the author
Theodore H. White
34 books71 followersTheodore Harold White was an American political journalist, historian, and novelist, best known for his accounts of the 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections.
White became one of Time magazine's first foreign correspondents, serving in East Asia and later as a European correspondent. He is best known for his accounts of two presidential elections, The Making of the President, 1960 (1961, Pulitzer Prize) and The Making of the President, 1964 (1965), and for associating the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy with the legend of Camelot. His intimate style of journalism, centring on the personalities of his subjects, strongly influenced the course of political journalism and campaign coverage.
White became one of Time magazine's first foreign correspondents, serving in East Asia and later as a European correspondent. He is best known for his accounts of two presidential elections, The Making of the President, 1960 (1961, Pulitzer Prize) and The Making of the President, 1964 (1965), and for associating the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy with the legend of Camelot. His intimate style of journalism, centring on the personalities of his subjects, strongly influenced the course of political journalism and campaign coverage.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
January 22, 2015
I concur with the critique given in the appended description of the book. Unlike its author, however, I identified with what he calls the "extremists" of the left at the time and still do if by that one were to mean people like Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Benjamin Spock, Phil Ochs, Rennie Davis and Fred Hampton at that time and movements like the Greens today. There were, of course, crazy kids out there in Lincoln Park and at the Hilton in Chicago during the convention, but they were kids, not spokespersons or ideological leaders.
I myself was one of the kids, a member of the S.D.S. who'd been working hard for Eugene McCarthy since the New Hampshire primary. Having given "the Establishment" one more chance, I was in sportcoat with tie while hiding out in an abandoned building from the troop phalanxes patrolling the streets with the "crazies" and other scared kids similarly attired. We, the crazy kids opposed to the wars in Southeast Asia and against drugs, the supporters of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern and, yes, even the Vietnamese nationalists fighting "our boys"--who were, as ever, "over there" killing and maiming people--had, variously, been trying to hear Joan Baez and Phil Ochs over at the Grant Park Bandshell when the police attacked or, like me, been trying to put on a demonstration for McCarthy in front of the Hilton Hotel on Michigan Avenue before the television trucks retired for the night when, just as they had left, the police attacked.
White misses all of this--or, more properly, he regards all this as an outsider. Like today's Woodward, he was a reportorial insider to the Establishment, personally acquainted with many of the luminaries he covers, concerned about sources and their retention, careful to be polite and considerate. With that material and from that perspective, he, like Woodward, did a useful job, particularly in 1960 and '64 when the most radical grassroots movement out there consisted of those who gave Barry Goldwater his nomination and failed candidacy. The notion of active grassroots politics, of popular movements, acting upon politicians from outside of their law firms, global corporations, think-tanks and social clubs, however, was alien to him and most of the Fifth Estate and, thus, the late sixties and the seventies happened, with new media, like the communities which supported them, sprouting up everywhere and a counterculture becoming established which still exists without and, hypocritically, within our society.
Whatever. I read this book in Michigan during the summer between school terms--and demonstrations against our government's campaigns against Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala et cetera.
I myself was one of the kids, a member of the S.D.S. who'd been working hard for Eugene McCarthy since the New Hampshire primary. Having given "the Establishment" one more chance, I was in sportcoat with tie while hiding out in an abandoned building from the troop phalanxes patrolling the streets with the "crazies" and other scared kids similarly attired. We, the crazy kids opposed to the wars in Southeast Asia and against drugs, the supporters of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern and, yes, even the Vietnamese nationalists fighting "our boys"--who were, as ever, "over there" killing and maiming people--had, variously, been trying to hear Joan Baez and Phil Ochs over at the Grant Park Bandshell when the police attacked or, like me, been trying to put on a demonstration for McCarthy in front of the Hilton Hotel on Michigan Avenue before the television trucks retired for the night when, just as they had left, the police attacked.
White misses all of this--or, more properly, he regards all this as an outsider. Like today's Woodward, he was a reportorial insider to the Establishment, personally acquainted with many of the luminaries he covers, concerned about sources and their retention, careful to be polite and considerate. With that material and from that perspective, he, like Woodward, did a useful job, particularly in 1960 and '64 when the most radical grassroots movement out there consisted of those who gave Barry Goldwater his nomination and failed candidacy. The notion of active grassroots politics, of popular movements, acting upon politicians from outside of their law firms, global corporations, think-tanks and social clubs, however, was alien to him and most of the Fifth Estate and, thus, the late sixties and the seventies happened, with new media, like the communities which supported them, sprouting up everywhere and a counterculture becoming established which still exists without and, hypocritically, within our society.
Whatever. I read this book in Michigan during the summer between school terms--and demonstrations against our government's campaigns against Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala et cetera.
June 21, 2024
Fantastic account of the 1968 presidential race. White has unique access to the candidates that make his telling of the race come to life. The story is not easy to tell but really get a sense of a moment frozen in time.
January 29, 2013
Theodore White's "Making Of The President" series is legendary for its look at American Presidential elections and how they work and what it takes to become President. The book he wrote about the 1960 election won the Pulitzer for non fiction. The 1968 election however provided so much more drama and tension than any election since perhaps the disputed 1876 election and probably as much until the Bush - Gore election of 2000. The cast of characters includes Richard Nixon, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, George Romney, and George Wallace, all of whom were huge personalities and who were very interested in the power of the Presidency to shape his vision of the future. White's narrative style gets down on to the streets of Chicago during the tumultuous convention, New Hampshire during the primary with McCarthy's cleaned up college students mobilizing voters, and Wallace inciting the crowds with his racist invective of hate. White strikes detailed chords while providing insight into the personalities involved and the issues at stake, as well as making a compelling argument for the Electoral College. An unintended trait of the book, however is reading it in the light of distance in time. The book closes as Nixon is closing out his first months in office. The opening of China as well as Watergate were still in the future, yet integral characters such as Henry Kissinger, John Mitchell, John Ehrlichman, and H.R. Haldeman are already on the scene. Today's reader cannot help but see the stage being set for future and statements like "(Nixon) admonished (John) Mitchell to control wire-tapping with an iron hand 'I want no climate of fear in this country,' he had told his Attorney General." (p. 504) take on an increased resonance. One last note - one of George Wallace's top advisors was named Thomas Turnipseed. There is a joke in there somewhere.
September 2, 2013
White's third successive book examining a presidential election. White was a well-connected and respected journalist, and he uses that to his advantage as he is able to gain close and personal access to some of the candidates - notably Richard Nixon and Robert Kennedy.
The strength of the book is in White's making use of his proximity to Kennedy and Nixon. He is able to explain behind the scenes sequences and talk in-depth with both of them, asking them questions and getting a good read on their respective concerns and dilemmas as the campaign progresses. I found his conversations with Nixon especially enlightening, all the more so because at the beginning of the book (and the campaign) White obviously doesn't like Nixon too much, but by the end he seems to respect him.
A few years ago I read White's book on the 1964 election, and I thought he did a better job of fleshing out the various characters and issues in that campaign than this one. George Wallace does not appear in this book until around page 420. For someone who, running independently, took almost 14% of the popular vote in the election, I would have thought that White would have brought him into the book much sooner. He also makes frequent use of the word "renunciation" in regard to Lyndon Johnson's decision to not seek re-election. White uses that word so often that I got annoyed when I each time I came across it. After the fifteenth time, I want to say "OK, I got it. He failed." Finally, White only briefly touched on the conservative movement that brought Barry Goldwater the 1964 Republican nomination. Those conservatives were still out there this time around, yet White does not talk about them. I find that to be a glaring omission. Not a bad book, but I think White could have done better.
The strength of the book is in White's making use of his proximity to Kennedy and Nixon. He is able to explain behind the scenes sequences and talk in-depth with both of them, asking them questions and getting a good read on their respective concerns and dilemmas as the campaign progresses. I found his conversations with Nixon especially enlightening, all the more so because at the beginning of the book (and the campaign) White obviously doesn't like Nixon too much, but by the end he seems to respect him.
A few years ago I read White's book on the 1964 election, and I thought he did a better job of fleshing out the various characters and issues in that campaign than this one. George Wallace does not appear in this book until around page 420. For someone who, running independently, took almost 14% of the popular vote in the election, I would have thought that White would have brought him into the book much sooner. He also makes frequent use of the word "renunciation" in regard to Lyndon Johnson's decision to not seek re-election. White uses that word so often that I got annoyed when I each time I came across it. After the fifteenth time, I want to say "OK, I got it. He failed." Finally, White only briefly touched on the conservative movement that brought Barry Goldwater the 1964 Republican nomination. Those conservatives were still out there this time around, yet White does not talk about them. I find that to be a glaring omission. Not a bad book, but I think White could have done better.
July 18, 2012
Theodore White's third installment of his "Making of the President" series covers the terrible and unforgettable year of 1968. White gives a quick background of the previous four years, going over how Lyndon Johnson's overwhelming victory in 1964 was squandered in the quagmire of Vietnam and prophetically seems to predict the weariness of "Middle America" over the turmoil of the '60s; he writes lengthy backgrounds to the major candidates of the year, including Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, George Romney, the governor of Michigan, (who for a time in 1966 and '67 actually led LBJ in opinion polls before his campaign collapsed) Richard Nixon, (who had White completely mesmerize and snowed) and the tragic candidacy of Hubert Humphrey, the greatest liberal of his time whose presidential campaign was forever linked with the unpopular war that his vice presidency contributed little to. White doesn't cover the Kennedy campaign very well in my opinion but does an impressive job reporting from Chicago in 1968 where he correctly predicted that the Democrats were finished after the riots. America wanted a little boredom and got Nixon instead. Not a great book but a very good one.
June 30, 2015
Fantastic. A wonderful read and gave me a deeper understanding of Nixon, LBJ, and the whole political machine in general.
July 3, 2020
In preparing to teach a course this fall which will center on the upcoming election of 2020, I decided to turn to an election classic, one of Theodore White’s Making of.. series. I chose 1968 thinking that there might be a number of parallels worthy of exploration. I found some, but many things have changed. “Media” is still a big player, but the types of media and who controls them has changed. Conventions are no longer such important events. While the nation is still embroiled in an interminable foreign war, it no longer occupies the attention of the public as Vietnam did. What does remain important are race and maldistribution of wealth. There are also indications of the origin of disaffected whites, originally George Wallace voters in 1968, now the backbone of Republican Trump supporters.
The writing moves quickly. Remarkably White is able to weave together the multiple strands of that chaotic year without losing coherence. It stands the test of time quite well.
The writing moves quickly. Remarkably White is able to weave together the multiple strands of that chaotic year without losing coherence. It stands the test of time quite well.
October 30, 2009
P. 62-63, Making of the President 1968, by Theodore H. White.
Somewhere out beyond the Alleghenies the old culture of America still persists -- people who think Boy Scouts are good, who believe that divorce is bad, who teach Bible classes on Sunday, enjoy church suppers, wash their children's mouths with soap to purge dirty words, who regard homosexuals as wicked, whose throat chokes up when the American flag is marched by on the Fourth of July. In its extravagant and hyperbolic form -- as in Barry Goldwater's cosmology of demons -- the old culture sees the Atlantic Seaboard, particularly the Boston-New York-Washington belt, as the locus of a vast and sinister intellectual conspiracy, a combination of capital and decadence, corrupting the moral fiber and legendary decencies of an earlier America.
The new culture, of which we shall talk later, is the child of prosperity and the past decade. Characterized by an exuberance of color, style, fashion, art and expression flowing from the enormous excess energies of American life, it defines itself best not by what it seeks but by its contempt and scorn of what the past has taught. Its thrust lies in the direction of liberties and freedom, but with an exaggerated quality of aggressive infantilism. In its exploration of the limits of sensibility, all laws, manners, more, institutions which restrict such areas of individual expression as drugs, sex, obscenities, and mob violence are generally held to be oppressive; and the greatest agent of oppression in the twentieth century is generally held to be the United States government. As parochial as the old culture, the new expressionist culture is as sure of its own moral superiority over the old as the old culture of its superiority over the new; and in its extreme and paranoid form the new culture is convinced of the conspiracy of a military-industrial complex pushing America to war and ruin as, say, the John Birch Society is convinced of a Communist conspiracy pushing America to slavery.
In the operational climate of American politics, the critical difference between the two cultures is that the new culture dominates the heights of national communications, subtly but profoundly influences those who sit astride the daily news flow in New York and Washington, and thus stains, increasingly, the prisms of reporting through which the nation as a whole must see itself.
Much of what White writes here holds true today, except that the new culture, instead of regarding the United States government as an agent of oppression, now looks to it as an aider and abetter in battles against the new perceived oppressors, those who still hold to the old culture. That the new culture should be shocked and dismayed that the old culture would want to protect its perceived rights in this day and age is odd; they cannot expect the old culture to roll over and die simply because of its age. Youth's insistence that what it believes is right merely because it believes it is as shallow as the same insistence they see in the old.
Though this book is now more than 40 years old, underneath what pins it to the late 1960s is an excellent analysis of politics and cultural clash that is still playing out in the United States today. Unlike pundits of our time, however, White reports what he sees and what he opines in a detached, balanced way that highlights the bad in each political or cultural point of view, while conceding that there is good on both sides as well.
Somewhere out beyond the Alleghenies the old culture of America still persists -- people who think Boy Scouts are good, who believe that divorce is bad, who teach Bible classes on Sunday, enjoy church suppers, wash their children's mouths with soap to purge dirty words, who regard homosexuals as wicked, whose throat chokes up when the American flag is marched by on the Fourth of July. In its extravagant and hyperbolic form -- as in Barry Goldwater's cosmology of demons -- the old culture sees the Atlantic Seaboard, particularly the Boston-New York-Washington belt, as the locus of a vast and sinister intellectual conspiracy, a combination of capital and decadence, corrupting the moral fiber and legendary decencies of an earlier America.
The new culture, of which we shall talk later, is the child of prosperity and the past decade. Characterized by an exuberance of color, style, fashion, art and expression flowing from the enormous excess energies of American life, it defines itself best not by what it seeks but by its contempt and scorn of what the past has taught. Its thrust lies in the direction of liberties and freedom, but with an exaggerated quality of aggressive infantilism. In its exploration of the limits of sensibility, all laws, manners, more, institutions which restrict such areas of individual expression as drugs, sex, obscenities, and mob violence are generally held to be oppressive; and the greatest agent of oppression in the twentieth century is generally held to be the United States government. As parochial as the old culture, the new expressionist culture is as sure of its own moral superiority over the old as the old culture of its superiority over the new; and in its extreme and paranoid form the new culture is convinced of the conspiracy of a military-industrial complex pushing America to war and ruin as, say, the John Birch Society is convinced of a Communist conspiracy pushing America to slavery.
In the operational climate of American politics, the critical difference between the two cultures is that the new culture dominates the heights of national communications, subtly but profoundly influences those who sit astride the daily news flow in New York and Washington, and thus stains, increasingly, the prisms of reporting through which the nation as a whole must see itself.
Much of what White writes here holds true today, except that the new culture, instead of regarding the United States government as an agent of oppression, now looks to it as an aider and abetter in battles against the new perceived oppressors, those who still hold to the old culture. That the new culture should be shocked and dismayed that the old culture would want to protect its perceived rights in this day and age is odd; they cannot expect the old culture to roll over and die simply because of its age. Youth's insistence that what it believes is right merely because it believes it is as shallow as the same insistence they see in the old.
Though this book is now more than 40 years old, underneath what pins it to the late 1960s is an excellent analysis of politics and cultural clash that is still playing out in the United States today. Unlike pundits of our time, however, White reports what he sees and what he opines in a detached, balanced way that highlights the bad in each political or cultural point of view, while conceding that there is good on both sides as well.
May 4, 2018
Rereading this book, after an interval of 35+ years, was definitely worthwhile, and sheds a ton of light on the USA we see today. Not only does it dust off and bring back a year I experienced as a college student, one filled with the Vietnam war, tragic assassinations, riots, and many hopes and fears (also great music!), it allows one to view that year and the state of the nation at that time with the knowledge of what has happened since. White is a superb writer, insightful and amazingly prescient. He warns that George Wallace's racist candidacy and the people and forces that fed it—Wallace's campaign fizzled at the end but significantly affected the 1968 outcome—would not go away but would be something the nation and its leaders would have to deal with in the future. It took decades, but the line from George Wallace to Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, and President Donald Trump is crystal clear. In hindsight, there's one thing White doesn't get quite right: by the end of 1968 he had been won over by Nixon, whom he portrays as having transformed into a different and better person, from the paranoid and wrathful Nixon of the 1950s, "so eager for combat and lustful for revenge," to a new man who was "cautious and thoughtful, intent on conciliation." Subsequently events, culminating in Watergate, were to show this transformation to have been incomplete—people change in some ways, but not in others. Highly recommended!
July 22, 2007
This book is not just about the cliffhanger election campaign between Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and George Wallace. It tells the story of a year, 1968, in which everything changed. Americans had soured on the war, and although he was constitutionally eligible to run for another term, Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek re-election; in his place was the vice president, Humphrey, who had to defend the administration until he was given the green light to be his own man. The civil rights movement had helped to give birth to Wallace's right-wing independent candidacy. Nixon was back, apparently applying the lessons learned in his narrow loss to John F. Kennedy eight years earlier. There were some primaries in some states, but not nearly as many as there are now and the majority of convention delegates were assigned in other, more antiquated ways. Politically, the book is the story of another era. Some of the elements of the story are the same as today. It remains to be seen if the election of 2008 proves that we haven't learned the lessons from 40 years earlier. Too bad we don't have Theodore White to tell us about it after the ballots have been counted.
August 6, 2017
Great book. The great:
- Background on the country in 1968 - Vietnam, The Tet Offensive, cities burning, crime on the rise;
- In depth examinations of the key players - LBJ, RFK, McCarthy, Humphrey, Nixon, Romney, Rocky;
- Recaps of the primary process and conventions of each party;
- The comeback of Nixon between 1962-66 leading up to his run;
- Chronicle of RFK finally coming around to choose to run and then his candidacy and the fatal end of it;
- Just an overall insiders view of the politicians and the process of this massively important election. Up to the last days, Nixon and Humphrey's efforts are described in detail.
The bad:
- White was a Harvard educated insider and I think felt the need to show this off from time to time with tangential chapters dedicated to socio-political issues which slowed the good pace and momentum of the book. He followed two great chapters, first on Nixon and then RFK, with a long winded and academically sounding chapter on crime. And he probably could've ended after the election but another chapter on the start of Nixon's presidency was another skim job for me.
- Background on the country in 1968 - Vietnam, The Tet Offensive, cities burning, crime on the rise;
- In depth examinations of the key players - LBJ, RFK, McCarthy, Humphrey, Nixon, Romney, Rocky;
- Recaps of the primary process and conventions of each party;
- The comeback of Nixon between 1962-66 leading up to his run;
- Chronicle of RFK finally coming around to choose to run and then his candidacy and the fatal end of it;
- Just an overall insiders view of the politicians and the process of this massively important election. Up to the last days, Nixon and Humphrey's efforts are described in detail.
The bad:
- White was a Harvard educated insider and I think felt the need to show this off from time to time with tangential chapters dedicated to socio-political issues which slowed the good pace and momentum of the book. He followed two great chapters, first on Nixon and then RFK, with a long winded and academically sounding chapter on crime. And he probably could've ended after the election but another chapter on the start of Nixon's presidency was another skim job for me.
February 10, 2008
Teddy White's narratives of the 1960-1972 presidential campaigns can be alternately praised and criticized for how they shaped modern, national political reporting.
Though I would not suggest reading these books straight through, they remain fascinating reads. White worked closely with many of the candidates, particularly the Kennedys whose spell he fell under. His books offer modern leaders a contemporary look at figures - the Kennedys, Nixon, Goldwater, LBJ etc. who have since passed on into the world of legend, revulsion and parody. The fact that he does so with a taught, at times exhilarating prose certainly helps.
I am currently reading the 1968 offering to get a glimpse at how the Democrats handled (or mishandled) their brokered convention in Chicago. Not to be missed, though, are the early chapters of the 1960 book, which provide a human and humbling portrait of JFK that might be foreign to readers who were not alive to remember the actual man.
I’ll leave my review of this book unstarred as I do not plan to read the majority of it.
Though I would not suggest reading these books straight through, they remain fascinating reads. White worked closely with many of the candidates, particularly the Kennedys whose spell he fell under. His books offer modern leaders a contemporary look at figures - the Kennedys, Nixon, Goldwater, LBJ etc. who have since passed on into the world of legend, revulsion and parody. The fact that he does so with a taught, at times exhilarating prose certainly helps.
I am currently reading the 1968 offering to get a glimpse at how the Democrats handled (or mishandled) their brokered convention in Chicago. Not to be missed, though, are the early chapters of the 1960 book, which provide a human and humbling portrait of JFK that might be foreign to readers who were not alive to remember the actual man.
I’ll leave my review of this book unstarred as I do not plan to read the majority of it.
September 17, 2010
The Making of the President 1968 is my last book in a series of books by Theodore White. I am really interested in this particular election on two levels. I was twenty-one and that was the legal voting age in 1968. My first national election also had as its vice presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey for my home state of Minnesota.
The book was well written. Mr. White writes his election books a year after the election. It was interesting to read about so many main characters from Watergate before they stepped into the white house. Being from Minnesota, the 1968 election seemed very close to home. Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey were both major players in Minnesota politics. Hubert never had a prayer. People joke about Minnesota Nice. I wonder if the term nice and politics will ever appear together in my life time?
The book was well written. Mr. White writes his election books a year after the election. It was interesting to read about so many main characters from Watergate before they stepped into the white house. Being from Minnesota, the 1968 election seemed very close to home. Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey were both major players in Minnesota politics. Hubert never had a prayer. People joke about Minnesota Nice. I wonder if the term nice and politics will ever appear together in my life time?
December 21, 2012
Theodore White was the gold standard of political writers when I was growing up, and this book makes it clear why that was. Considering that he published the book within a year of the events that it describes, it is amazing how insightful it is. He gets a few things wrong (Ronald Reagan's national political life was obviously not over, for instance), but most of his insights were true then and remain true. He insightfully identified the group that in 1968 was "up for grabs": the disaffected white, working class man, and he nailed the anti-government temperament that was taking hold in 1968 (within years of the creation of the Great Society!). His take on 1968 is still, by and large, the consensus analysis of what was going on during that watershed year.
May 25, 2014
As with the other books in this series, this was a very enjoyable and informative read. White captures the various spirits of the times - such a key factor in this election. As has become more and more evident through the series, his basic respect for the politicians is clear, and in this volume this comes through in the form of a surprisingly positive picture of Nixon - a useful antidote to the hate-mongering that otherwise surrounds Nixon. Of course, his views on Nixon would later go downhill (starting with the final book in the series) but that does not invalidate the picture painted in this book. Strongly recommended.
November 23, 2009
More research on the book I'm writing. I wasnt prepared for how much I liked this book. It points to how much journalism has declined in a generation. This book was written in the six months or so right after the election so even though it contains biases and predictions that are amusing to a reader forty years later the sense of being right there at the time overcomes all of its drawbacks. If you're interested in this time in our history this interesting, well-written, non polluted by what happened later book is well worth your time.
March 23, 2020
Weak, compared to the '60 volume. At his best, White describes elections as a great syncing--the movement of a party, the movement of events, and the movement of the voting masses all sync up with the personality of a candidate, a candidate's dreams, and the organization the candidate builds to articulate those dreams, making the inchoate masses choate and making the theme of the moment legible. That model offered a fine account of '60. In '68, though, the story isn't a story of a great syncing and White never figures out another model for his narrative.
February 8, 2015
Theodore White's blow by blow first hand account of the 1968 US Presidential campaign is amazing! White one minute is in the inner-circle of RFK and the next is knocking back martinis with Nixon. White is an excellent writer from an era of excellent writing: the 1960s.
June 26, 2008
An exciting election year with the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson dropping out in March '68, Robert Kennedy then entering the race and being assasinated, the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, and the resurrection of Nixon's political career.
July 9, 2009
This book is highly opinionated and may well be the start of the advocate-intensive press that now reports the news with open bias. Ted White, a speech writer for JFK, clearly despises Nixon and uses his book as a platform to characterize the campaign as a battle of good and evil.
October 10, 2016
I selected this book because I saw parallels between 1968 and the 2016 election. I was only 11 in 1968 but I do have some memories of that time. Theodore White's work is a detailed recounting of that election and the turbulent times that were the background. Five stars.
November 18, 2008
Thoroughly enjoyed it - well written take on Nixon, his men, his personality, his campaign
February 18, 2011
What could have been (RFK), what almost was (HHH) and the tragedy of what ultimately happened (Tricky Dick).
August 29, 2015
The language might be a little out of date but this book is incredibly well-researched and sourced. It's a blow-by-blow account of an epic election. A classic. Very thorough.
May 3, 2016
Scary parallels between the 1968 and 2016 elections.
May 21, 2019
In the first four and a half months of 2019 I have read two books by Theodore H. White. The Making of the President 1960 chronicles the campaign that would elect the first President of the United States born in the 20th Century. In an election where the two principles, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were separated by less than two tenths of a percent of the popular vote, the American people chose the man who exuded personality and leadership. Indeed, the campaign of 1960 was about personalities.
The Making of the President 1968 tells of the campaign of 1968, one that certainly had personalities: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon. But unlike 1960, one could not sum up the campaign or even the year based on them. The complexity of issues, especially the Vietnam war, triggered passions unseen across the country in many a year. Those issues, combined with the men who sought the favor of the country, ignited a powder keg that exploded in city streets through the youth of America. Looking back to 1960, youth was well served by John Kennedy and it might have been again in 1968 and beyond by his brother Bobby or by Gene McCarthy. But when the torch that youth would have followed, perhaps to the White House, was extinguished by an assassin's bullets on June 5 in Los Angeles, they found their voice within themselves, and they spoke out with a full range of emotions.
Such was the campaign I remember as a 17 year old, two months shy of voting age and the one written of so eloquently by White.
However, fifty years after the inauguration of Richard Nixon, it is impossible for one who lived through those years with more than a casual interest, to see this election without recalling the fall of Nixon five years later.
The concluding chapter of the book is of Nixon, two days after his inauguration, looking ahead. It is also of White reflecting on the Nixon of 1960 and 1968 and, unfortunately, missing the mark, writing,
"Richard Nixon has roved across the entire map of the United States geographically, emotionally, spiritually, above all, politically, seeking his own lodestar. But no passage of this public wandering has been more impressive than the transformation of the impulsive, wrathful man of the 1950's, so eager for combat and lustful for vengeance, to the man in the White House, cautious and thoughtful, intent on conciliation. "
The Nixon of the 1950's and of 1972-74 lives in the White House today in the body of the 45th President, eager for combat and lustful for vengeance.
Five stars
The Making of the President 1968 tells of the campaign of 1968, one that certainly had personalities: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon. But unlike 1960, one could not sum up the campaign or even the year based on them. The complexity of issues, especially the Vietnam war, triggered passions unseen across the country in many a year. Those issues, combined with the men who sought the favor of the country, ignited a powder keg that exploded in city streets through the youth of America. Looking back to 1960, youth was well served by John Kennedy and it might have been again in 1968 and beyond by his brother Bobby or by Gene McCarthy. But when the torch that youth would have followed, perhaps to the White House, was extinguished by an assassin's bullets on June 5 in Los Angeles, they found their voice within themselves, and they spoke out with a full range of emotions.
Such was the campaign I remember as a 17 year old, two months shy of voting age and the one written of so eloquently by White.
However, fifty years after the inauguration of Richard Nixon, it is impossible for one who lived through those years with more than a casual interest, to see this election without recalling the fall of Nixon five years later.
The concluding chapter of the book is of Nixon, two days after his inauguration, looking ahead. It is also of White reflecting on the Nixon of 1960 and 1968 and, unfortunately, missing the mark, writing,
"Richard Nixon has roved across the entire map of the United States geographically, emotionally, spiritually, above all, politically, seeking his own lodestar. But no passage of this public wandering has been more impressive than the transformation of the impulsive, wrathful man of the 1950's, so eager for combat and lustful for vengeance, to the man in the White House, cautious and thoughtful, intent on conciliation. "
The Nixon of the 1950's and of 1972-74 lives in the White House today in the body of the 45th President, eager for combat and lustful for vengeance.
Five stars
November 22, 2023
I read "The Making of the President 1960" and then read this one - I think some of the weaknesses of the former are amplified in the latter. Good things first - this book certainly focuses "on the time" and it a good explanation of how such things as racial politics, "law & order," and the urban/rural divide were understood as the time. Certainly it is from the author's perspective, but it's a contemporary perspective. This book also follows all the major players on the road to the White House 1968.
Another strength is also its weakness. I don't know if the author chose the cover, but to have RFK on it and not, say, the winner of the 1968 election is a clue to how this book is approached. You will certainly learn more about Senator Kennedy's (tragically short) campaign for the presidency. And you also get the precursor of Eugene McCarthy's journey to be a presidential candidate, mixed in with LBJ's "renunciation" (such an odd but pretty word chosen and used throughout the book). I don't pretend to be a historian, but I don't think RFK can be said to be the main character of 1968, if only for the brevity of his appearance in the campaign. I would not argue his importance, but if you are looking for in-depth Humphrey and Nixon coverage (the ACTUAL candidates of the campaign), you'll be caught short. The author is a Kennedy man through and through - he certainly had a perspective on Nixon in 1960 (the loser), and one senses ALOT of struggling with how he portrays Nixon in 1968 (the winner).
There are many ways to approach a campaign story, but I do wish we had "met the players" a bit early on. Humphrey doesn't appear until the last quarter of the book (I'd love to know what he did when LBJ announced he wouldn't run - was it an obvious choice? What did he do after? He just "magically" appears a few weeks before the convention). Wallace also appears quite late in the book - again, I'd love a more chronological explanation of the man who came in third (or first or second, depending on the state!) in this election. The book is REALLY about McCarthy and then Kennedy, and then stumbles through to the end - though it does stop to address cultural and policy issues.
It's a mixed bag. I would not say this is the definitive book on the 1968 campaign, but you'll certainly learn something.
Another strength is also its weakness. I don't know if the author chose the cover, but to have RFK on it and not, say, the winner of the 1968 election is a clue to how this book is approached. You will certainly learn more about Senator Kennedy's (tragically short) campaign for the presidency. And you also get the precursor of Eugene McCarthy's journey to be a presidential candidate, mixed in with LBJ's "renunciation" (such an odd but pretty word chosen and used throughout the book). I don't pretend to be a historian, but I don't think RFK can be said to be the main character of 1968, if only for the brevity of his appearance in the campaign. I would not argue his importance, but if you are looking for in-depth Humphrey and Nixon coverage (the ACTUAL candidates of the campaign), you'll be caught short. The author is a Kennedy man through and through - he certainly had a perspective on Nixon in 1960 (the loser), and one senses ALOT of struggling with how he portrays Nixon in 1968 (the winner).
There are many ways to approach a campaign story, but I do wish we had "met the players" a bit early on. Humphrey doesn't appear until the last quarter of the book (I'd love to know what he did when LBJ announced he wouldn't run - was it an obvious choice? What did he do after? He just "magically" appears a few weeks before the convention). Wallace also appears quite late in the book - again, I'd love a more chronological explanation of the man who came in third (or first or second, depending on the state!) in this election. The book is REALLY about McCarthy and then Kennedy, and then stumbles through to the end - though it does stop to address cultural and policy issues.
It's a mixed bag. I would not say this is the definitive book on the 1968 campaign, but you'll certainly learn something.
August 24, 2025
1968 was the most tumultuous year of my lifetime. I was young and only cared about the Detroit Tigers winning the World Series, but I do have memories of the riots, assassinations, and of course the Vietnam war. I picked it up at the used bookstore to have a little more insight on the year everything changed. Theodore White’s “The Making of the President is a classic series. It was very interesting to read a book that was published a year after the event. We have a well- run republican campaign by All the President’s Men, who would later all be implicated in Watergate after the next election. John Mitchell, H.R. Halderman, ad John Erlichman to name a few are all viewed in this book as an intelligent and efficient staff. I did forget that Michigan governor George Romney was the leading candidate at the very beginning of the race but was considered too wholesome by the national press. Nelson Rockefeller entered the campaign too late. All candidates are covered with White giving his perspective on why they either failed or succeeded.
The book points out what a mess the Democratic side was with Eugene McCarthy and his backing of college students being a challenge to LBJ until Robert Kennedy entered the race and took votes from him before his assassination in Los Angeles. White also shows how Humphrey had to balance being LBJ’s VP even though the winning policy was to go against the President’s running of the Vietnam war. It all came to a head at the craziest convention of all time in Chicago. White passes out blame to the radical element of crazies, Major Daley’s police force, and the media for what went on.
The best chapter to me was “The Issue of Law and Order” which touched on the cultural issues that are still with us today.
Everything has changed after 1968 conventions and maybe it’s a good thing even though todays conventions are boring. Theodore White was a great journalist who showed both sides of the story. Hoping to read something similar about how Trump got elected.
The book points out what a mess the Democratic side was with Eugene McCarthy and his backing of college students being a challenge to LBJ until Robert Kennedy entered the race and took votes from him before his assassination in Los Angeles. White also shows how Humphrey had to balance being LBJ’s VP even though the winning policy was to go against the President’s running of the Vietnam war. It all came to a head at the craziest convention of all time in Chicago. White passes out blame to the radical element of crazies, Major Daley’s police force, and the media for what went on.
The best chapter to me was “The Issue of Law and Order” which touched on the cultural issues that are still with us today.
Everything has changed after 1968 conventions and maybe it’s a good thing even though todays conventions are boring. Theodore White was a great journalist who showed both sides of the story. Hoping to read something similar about how Trump got elected.
November 12, 2020
Dreadful. A perfect encapsulation of the pollyannish comfortable liberal of the late 1960’s - fat, at ease, deferential to authority to a fault, and completely unwilling to empathize with anyone from a lower social station than himself. The idea that anyone could look at Nixon ca. 1968 and see a fundamentally decent human is laughable, particularly in light of what came after. White is a rube, no less than the Wallace-supporting racists he clearly despises, and arguably a more dangerous one. White is an urbane hayseed, totally happy to get rooked by powerful figures of influence in order to flatter his own sense of decency and decorum.
Following the 1960s, liberals tried to fight an emergent well organized and ruthless right-wing with doe-eyed, cosmopolitan hicks like White, it is no wonder they lost. It’s just a shame that we’re the ones that are paying for it.
Following the 1960s, liberals tried to fight an emergent well organized and ruthless right-wing with doe-eyed, cosmopolitan hicks like White, it is no wonder they lost. It’s just a shame that we’re the ones that are paying for it.
November 10, 2020
A generally good account that tends to fall prey to White's characteristic veneration of the winner as if they are a saintly classical hero (particularly ironic given the way Nixon's presidency ended). This extends to strange self-contradictions such as the chapter which insists the Nixon "southern strategy" was a myth before then going on to describe the Nixon campaign deliberately stoking concern in southern whites along racial lines to make Nixon feel like the safer choice. That was the southern strategy which White denied the existence of pages earlier and is just one example (to my mind, the most egregious) of the massaging of history to fit White's preferred "cometh the hour, cometh the man" narrative approach.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews