They Also Ran

by Irving Stone

s/t: The Story of the Men Who Were Defeated for the Presidency

Genres: History, Politics, Biography, Nonfiction, American History, The United States Of America, American

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1943

About the author

In 1923, Stone received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley. In the 1960s, Stone received an honorary Doctorate of Letters from the University of Southern California, where he had previously earned a Masters Degree from the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences.

When at home, Stone relied upon the research facilities and expertise made available to him by Esther Euler, head research librarian of the University of California at Los Angeles, to whom he dedicated and thanked, in addition to many others, in several of his works.

Stone enjoyed a long marriage to his wife and editor on many of his works, Jean Stone. The Stones lived primarily in Los Angeles, California. During their lifetime, Stone and his wife funded a foundation to support charitable causes they believed in.

Stone's main source for Lust for Life, as noted in the afterword, were Van Gogh's letters to his brother Theo. It seems probable that Vincent's letters to and from his own brother Theo provided a foundation for Adversary in the House. Stone additionally did much of his research "in the field". For example, he spent many years living in Italy while working on The Agony and the Ecstasy. The Italian government lauded Stone with several honorary awards during this period for his cultural achievements highlighting Italian history.

From Wikipedia

Reviews

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irving Stone's They Also Ran is a unique collection of mini-biographies, profiling failed presidential candidates from the early 1800s through Barry Goldwater (the edition I owned was written in 1967). Stone, the novelist best-known for historical fiction like Lust for Life and The Agony and the Ecstasy, has a flair for colorful portraiture, assessing the personalities, skills and shortcomings of political leaders. Some figures are colorful enough to speak for themselves: the flamboyant populist William Jennings Bryant and congressional giant Henry Clay; the egotistical George McClellan and prevaricating "Little Giant" Stephen Douglas; the war heroes Winfield Scott and his namesake, Winfield Scott Hancock. But Stone adds detailed coverage even of obscure figures, like Alton G. Parker, the honorable but colorless New York State Judge handed the impossible task of challenging Theodore Roosevelt at the height of his popularity; James Cox, the progressive Ohio governor steamrolled by Warren Harding. Stone obviously possesses a mid-20th Century Democrat perspective: he's a liberal in most regards, disdainful of conservatives like Coolidge and Eisenhower, but also drops into a sneer whenever discussing Grant and Reconstruction, or mocking the prairie populism of Bryant as if his massive appeal isn't worth serious consideration. 21st Century readers (if there are any for such a rare volume) can assess whether his positive views of New York's Civil War Governor Horatio Seymour, a borderline Copperhead and inveterate racist, or John W. Davis, the winner of the Democrats' deadlocked 1924 "Klanbake" convention, deserve the glowing depictions Stone affords them. Dated though it is, They Also Ran is the kind of bracing, wryly humorous popular history that political buffs find irresistible.

[Aloysius · Rating 3 out of 5]

An old mid-twentieth century book detailing the men who lost the races for the presidency from Henry Clay to Thomas Dewey. Stone gives the life stories of men as diverse as McClellan and Greeley, and how the country would have been different if the election results had gone another way in each circumstance. I don't agree with every conclusion reached (for example, I think Clay, the founder of the Whigs, would have been a better executive than Stone thought, and I think Lewis Cass would merely have been a Democratic analogue of Millard Fillmore, a forgettable antebellum footnote, had he beaten Zachary Taylor),and I wish he would have been more specific in the attributes and vices of the potential officeholders in the book, but I appreciate the effort all the same on such a noteworthy topic.

I do wonder what, if Stone were still alive, he would think of the also-rans McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney. In any event, a decent book to burn through in a few days. Glad I read it.

[Bruce · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book by Irving Stone came out in 1945 and it is a series of biographical sketches of all the men who ran and lost the presidency over our history. Irving Stone is a good writer and if you want an
example of good work he did than I would recommend The Agony And The Ecstasy about Michelangelo or his biography of Clarence Darrow though both tend toward hagiography.

But this one is so incredibly superficial it's almost useless and some of Stone's conclusions just don't
stand up to any kind of deeper analysis. In every case he either said we were lucky to not have elected this individual or we missed true greatness. In only two cases does he say it was dead even and those Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 and Herbert Hoover and Alfred E.
Smith in 1928.

Some of the more outrageous conclusions he drew about the losing men were that of John C. Fremont
in 1856, William Jennings Bryan in 3 elections 1896, 1900, and 1908 and John W. Davis in 1924.

Fremont was a brave man and a great explorer and his western expeditions captured the public's
imagination when he did them. He knew how to exploit his fame and his Washington connections
were used to the max, he married the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton the long time Senator from
Missouri. He was also reckless at times, he got into an extremely stupid controversey during the
Mexican War which broke out while he was on one of his expeditions. Quite on his own and on
active service with the army he decides to recognize Navy Commander Robert Stockton as the
ruling party in newly conquered California. General Stephen W. Kearney who was the commanding
army general had the peculiar notion that his rank entitled him to Fremont's loyalty and recognition. Fremont was courtmartialed and it took all of Benton's wirepulling to get him out of
that scrape. During the Civil War as a commander of the theater in Missouri he took it upon himself to free the slaves. Again Abraham Lincoln thought he was the one to make that decision.
Fremont was relieved of command. In his declining years when he was broke and living in genteel
poverty President Hayes made him territorial governor of Arizona. He was barely ever there. Fremont used the office to try and repair his lost fortune and this was while the Apache Indians
were quite active and so was the legendary exploitations of the Clanton gang against the Earp brothers. Where was Fremont? Seeking investors for one scheme after another and traveling out
of Arizona on the taxpayer dime. Fremont ran against James Buchanan who is one of our worst
presidents, but there's nothing to suggest Fremont would have been any great improvement.

William Jennings Bryan sad to say suffers from the Lawrence-Lee play Inherit The Wind about his
last public activity celebrity prosecutor of John Thomas Scopes for teaching Darwin's theory of
evolution and the debacle he made of himself under Clarence Darrow's examination. Remember
Stone did a most favorable study of Darrow so his prejudices were well established. But Bryan was
a remarkable man. He only held two public offices, as a Representative from Nebraska for two
terms and as Woodrow Wilson's first Secretary of State. He got his first nomination for president
in 1896 at the Democratic convention when he made his celebrated Cross of Gold speech in favor
of a cheaper mixed gold/silver standard as base for our currency. He lost of course, but by sheer
force of personality dominated the Democratic party for the next 16 years, remember he held no
office at this time. As Secretary of State he's far from the best who ever was in that office, but he
truly felt that we should be truly neutral in regard to the war in Europe. Who is to say he was wrong in fact you could make a damn good case for his position. In any event he resigned as Secretary of State as a point of principle, how many do that? He was a devoutly religious man, but
he also backed an entire array of reforms from the Populist/Progressive era, things that later became law. Bryan was far from a reactionary because of his religion as so many are today. Again
he ran against McKinley and Taft and no reason to think he might not have been a decent president.

One of my favorites is Democratic candidate John W. Davis who won his nomination on the 103rd
ballot of the 1924 convention. He was in fact one of the best lawyers in the nation who won many
landmark cases. But his last case was defending the policies of segregation in the famous Brown vs.
Board of Education case. Davis lived another 31 years after his unsuccessful run in 1924 and to be
fair Stone's book was written before this happened. Davis was a Representative from West Virginia, Solicitor General, and then Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Stone describes Davis as
a most distinguished man who gave a good image of the USA to the British. And he duly reported
back wonderful reports on them including how they were just this close to crushing those Irish
rebels. This was right up to the day the British called for a truce and Michael Collins,etc. went to
parley with them. He was hardly on top of that situation and in 1924 reliably Democratic areas
voted for Calvin Coolidge such was the disdain Davis was held in. 1924 for instance was the last
time Brooklyn voted for a Republican presidential candidate.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There are a lot of new biographies out of some of the
men who ran and lost for president and a lot of presidents are being radically reassessed and they've gone up and down accordingly. All but Alton B. Parker who ran and lost against Theodore
Roosevelt have had biographies written about them. Study any and all of them and I think you
will see how false and superficial some of Irving Stone's conclusions are.

[Cynthia Egbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

“But politics is a recurrent disease: there is no cure.” (Page 303)

“Democracy never comes so close to destroying itself as when it is attempting to perpetuate itself by free elections.” (Page 89)

“Much of the truth of American history remains obscured: every minute fact has been drowned in a blood bath of partisanship.” (Page 307)

Whew! This one has taken me months to make my way through, but I am glad I did. The three quotes above will give you a taste of what this volume contains. Yes, Stone's biases do come through, but I can allow for that because I learned so much reading these mini-biographies of an intriguing group of men. Yes, it also sent me down a million different rabbit holes and added a boatload of books to my to-read list, but that's the hazard I am willing to face to read such thought-provoking material. As you can imagine, I have a lot of quotes that I want to remember...

“Just as Lincoln and the Republican party had contrived to win the war, Grant and Republicans were contriving to lose the peace.” (Page 15)

“Horace Greeley’s most colorful contribution as a congressman, and one which brought down upon him the wrath of his confreres, was an exposure of the means by which the congressmen were mulching the public funds by drawing traveling expenses on the longest and most circuitous routes from their homes to Washington. He drew up charts showing how much each congressman could save by utilizing the newest and fastest routes of travel. The congressmen used them from that time on; he had left them no choice.” (Page 16)

“Newspapers are, or ought to be, printed for the information and entertainment of the whole community,” announced Greeley in his revolutionary credo. “When they are mere advocates of petty or even of ponderous private interests, the advertisers of personal schemes, and puffers of men who have a large amount of axes to grind, they must lose all independence, manliness, and substantial patronage.” (Page 19)

“This is the strangest man I ever met,” said a notorious Albany politician about Charles Evans Hughes. “You can’t make any sort of trade with him; you can’t approach him on the side of personal advantage; you can’t seem to touch his political ambition. He is beyond me; the fool simply does right the whole time!” (Page 117)

“Hughes is no genius,” said one observer, “except the genius for thinking and doing the direct and obvious thing.” (Page 128)

“It is a curious bit of Americana that the more handsome the man, the greater his capacity for swearing.” (Page 140)

“There were no medals or promotions to be gained from this kind of heroism: only an ugly and instantaneous death and an end to his cherished career. Yet Winfield Scott fought the battle of the cholera with all the dash and courage and skill with which he fought the battles of Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane. This he learned from an educated heart, and not from Plutarch.” (Page 145)

“What was wanted in a president was courage, vision, love of his people over his party. Pierce and Buchanan had none of these; they had only the disadvantages of experience; cutting the corners, picking up marbles. In eight of the nation’s most critical years the White House was occupied by small-minded politicians who had absorbed all the bad tricks of their profession without assimilating much of the good. Had either Winfield Scott or John Charles Fremont been elected there is a possibility that the Civil War might have been little more than a short-lived insurrection.” (Page 179)

“There also emerged the basic weakness of McClellan’s character: having built the most powerful army of its times, he could not be persuaded to use it. He held parades in Washington, rode up and down on horseback before his troops to the sweet music of their tumultuous shoutings, conceived superb plans of defense – but he could be made to fight. The north did not want a defensive war: they had been attacked, the Union had been shattered, the people were clamoring for a vigorous campaign. But McClellan was interested in protecting Washington, in keeping General McClellan’s Army of the Potomac intact and shiny!
He permitted the Confederates to build strong batteries on the Potomac without challenging them, refusing to make any defensive movement until he had built up the perfect army, the complete army, the army which would conquer all. Slowly it became evident to the administration, and then to the nation at large, that his ideal of preparedness was a chimera in McClellan’s mind, an idea of perfection which receded no matter how far forward he moved. His temperament engendered other weaknesses: his fear of the enemy and consequent exaggeration of their strength. He could have won smashing victories with the troops, plans and equipment on hand, but he forever was afraid that his army was still outnumbered, too weak to win. His indecision provoked President Lincoln to exclaim:
‘If by magic I could reinforce McClellan with a hundred thousand men, he would go into ecstasy over it, thank me, and tell me he would go to Richmond tomorrow, but when tomorrow came he would telegraph that he had certain information that the enemy had four hundred thousand men, and that he could not advance without reinforcements.’ To this Secretary of War Stanton added, ‘If McClellan had a million men he would swear that the enemy had two million, and then would sit down in the mud and holler for another million.’
McClellan was only half a general; another half was needed to wage the fight…McClellan did not like defeat; he could not take defeat; in his mind he resolved never to fight because then he never could be defeated.” (Page 190-1)

“In almost every instance the wives of the men who Also Ran had much to do with their husbands’ success and good works.” (Page 202)

“At the halfway point through this book democracy has thus run two dead heads, been dumb in five elections and smart in three. Twenty percent of the time the voters have passed up first-rate men for other first-rate men; thirty percent of the time they have avoided dangerous and inferior men; fifty percent of the time they have rejected good and superior men and bought gold bricks.
Part of the reason for this astonishingly poor box score – so bad that one wonders how democracy has managed to survive – has been the blind, unreasoning support given to both parties by vast blocs of voters who will vote the straight part ticket at any cost, who don’t give a continental how injurious their party’s record has been, nor how feeble, corrupt and incompetent the candidate might be. Almost ninety percent of the orthodox party vote is cast for its own side regardless of issue, and on the basis that their worst candidate is preferable to their opponent’s best candidate; some vote as sheer automatons, others because they are convinced that their party’s conception of government is what keeps the country going…The ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity.” (Page 215-6)

“Shakespeare said, ‘Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ‘em.’ Greatness was never thrust upon more reluctant shoulders than the frail shoulders of Samuel J. Tilden.” (Page 224)

“The story of Stephen A. Douglas demonstrates that although a democracy needs specialists in government, the young men who clasp politics to their bosoms as a career often become too clever, too experienced in the tricks of the trade to be valuable to the nation as a whole. Thus democracy is sorely beset by a dilemma: experience is needed in the men who are to run the government, yet experience in this particular field has turned out more self-seeking party servitors than public servants. There can be no good government without experience, yet in politics, above all other callings, experience corrupts.” (Page 256)

“James G. Blaine was a container rather than a content: he could empty himself on the shortest notice and refill with any new material which he deemed expedient. As a supreme opportunist he was furnished with all modern political conveniences, including hot and cold running ideas.” (Page 257)

“He had the courage of his investments, not his convictions.” (Page 260)

“God be praised, we have no Paris with its powerful influence and its inflammable materials. He who occupies the lowliest cabin upon the very verge of civilization has just as important a part to play in the fate of our country as the denizen of the proudest city in the land.” -Lewis Cass (Page 281)

“The task of the voter is indeed a hard one; political discernment is difficult to achieve; for the democracies the royal road to electoral wisdom has been staked out, but it has not yet been paved.” (Page 294)

“For a man who wanted a placid life, Horatio Seymour took the long way round Robin’s barn.” (Page 297)

“The idea pervades the bill that severe penalties will secure enforcement; but all experience shows that undue severity of laws defeats their execution. After the excitement which has enacted them passes away, no one feels disposed to enforce them, for no law can be sustained which goes beyond public feeling and sentiment. All experience shows that temperance, like other virtues, is not produced by lawmakers, but by the influences of education, morality, and religion. Men may be persuaded – they cannot be compelled to adopt habits of temperance.” -Horatio Seymour (Page 303)

“Seymour never stopped preaching the thesis upon which his life was founded: force destroys those who use it!” (Page 308)

“The depth of his understanding of the commonwealth is best illustrated by his article in the North American Review answering the comment made by Gladstone in England that ‘the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off by the brain and purpose of man.’ Seymour replied that the Constitution was not and could not have been ‘struck off,’ that it had grown slowly in America from 1607, that ‘the compact of 1787 was the written record of political experience up to the time when it was made.’” (Page 313)

“The longer I live and the more I learn of men, the more I am disposed to think well of their hearts and poorly of their heads.” -Horatio Seymour (Page 314)

“I never oppose men, I oppose principles.” -Alfred E. Smith (Page 317)

“The Annual Appropriation Bill, a document of some three hundred pages (those were the days), was a technical matter settled between the heads of departments and the inner ring of the legislature. No one read any part of it except his own pork-barrel plank. As a freshman state legislator, Al Smith did not know that he was not expected to read this weighty document: during each session he read the volume from cover to cover, insisting upon knowing why every item was there and what justified the expenditure of that sum of money. His boardinghouse room was his college dormitory; in his three lonely years he trained himself to become a student of state legislation.” (Page 322)

“Thus democracy had arrived at one of the happier moments of its political pattern: the electorate could not lose, no matter which man it decided upon. Yet such was the irony of popular government that whichever man went into the White House would have a difficult time repairing the damage done in the days of the campaign.” (Page 332)

“In the prewar years we fought against the domination of the people by Big Business. We now face the domination of the people by Big Government. The liberal who fought against one kind of domination thirty-five years ago should find himself fighting against this new kind of domination today.” -Wendell Willkie (Page 374)

“This declaration will not interest those who regard the United States as a laboratory for social experiments, as a free-lunch counter or as an impoverished gold mine out of which they can still scrape a nugget or two for themselves. For the old American principle that government is a liability to be borne by the citizens for the sake of peace, order and security, the New Deal has substituted the notion that government is an asset without which none of us can survive.” -Wendell Willkie (Page 384)

“Party lines are down; nothing could make that clearer than the nomination by the Republicans of a liberal Democrat who changed his party affiliation because he found democracy in the Republican party and not in the New Deal. We go into this campaign as into a crusade. We shall fight the campaign on the basis of American liberty, not on the basis of hate, jealousy or personalities.” -Wendell Willkie (Page 389)

“The electorate is fickle; it wants a new political romance with each election.” (Page 401)

“When he was a child Tom Dewey’s mother gave him a bicycle, but warned her only son that if he fell off even once, she would put the bike away for a year. Young Tom fell off almost immediately, and immediately the bike was stored in the Dewey cellar for a solid year. This stringent discipline taught Tom a lesson: he has never fallen off a bicycle since. He is a paragon of virtue in the tightest Sunday-school tradition, and in deadly earnest, but he could not be as dull as his press agents make him out to be: no man could be that dull and stay alive.” (Page 403)

“It is the corollary of the materialism he learned from his grandfather which makes Tom Dewey devoid of warmth and its inseparable companion, compassion. The president of on hundred and thirty-seven million humans should have a deep-seated and unshakable love for people. This human warmth emanating from the White House can do more to bind the people together, make them tolerant and happy, devoted to their government and their country than can a whole parcel of rigidly correct laws, aseptically administered. We have resources to spare, we have the means of corralling impingements on our personal liberty; but against the deep-freeze, against the lack of sympathy, tolerant amusement, and warm forbearance of our polyglot peoples there can be no corrective, no remedy. The heart of the people grows cold.” (Page 436)

“He gave no indication of understanding the nature of the upheaval through which the world was passing, or of the basic problem of our times: how much freedom could we give up for how much security?” (Page 436)

[David Dunlap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Irving Stone brings Presidential 'also-rans' to vivid life!

[Jerry Landry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book about the men who ran but lost the presidency from the 1940 presidential election back. Just the concept of addressing the also-rans is enough enticement to pick up this book. While it was informative, I wished at some points that Stone had given the reader more details. Also, the way he grouped people together instead of presenting them in chronological order was a bit distracting to me. However, Stone's perspective was fasinating since the book was written while the nation was still in World War II and FDR was president.

[Relstuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting looking at the other people that ran for the highest office in America. It is also interesting thinking about what would have been different had they won. We would live in a very different country today had some of the races gone the other way.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had to read this one in high school but found it to be very interesting. I wonder if I would still find it interesting now, all these years later?

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot about the men who ran for the WHite House and lost. Very interesting

[Martin Denton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book many many years ago and really enjoyed it and, more importantly, found it highly memorable. Stone's breezy style was atypical for political history/biography in those days--it's probably less surprising today.

The book offers short, opinionated biographies of the men who were presidential candidates of the 2 major parties but never won. Stone is unforgiving and relentless as he goes after the men who he feels were unqualified to be president, and admiring and sometimes fawning over those who he wishes had prevailed in their elections. Small spoiler alert: some of the former include George McClellan and Henry Clay, some of the latter include Samuel Tilden and Horace Greeley.

It's an informative and engaging read, if not particularly objective.

I have recently dipped back into it, reading the chapters on Bryan and Alton Parker, and I am planning to revisit some of the other characters. Indeed, one of the nice features of the book is that you can dip in in just that way: because the flow is not chronological, you can read the chapters in any order.

The chapter on Bryan is terrific and illuminating. I had just finished Howard Fast's "The American," in which Bryan comes in for some deserved bashing as a blowhard opportunist; Stone certainly doesn't hold back in flaying the Boy Orator with similar criticism.

I need to re-read the Henry Clay chapter and will probably update this review when I do so.

This is a recommended book for those who are familiar with their US history. It's probably not the best place to start if the whole subject of American politics is new to you.

I currently have the paperback edition; I wish I had the one shown here with the great pictures of the candidates' relative stature!

[Judith Squires · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a vintage book I found while browsing at my favorite independent bookstore in Bend, Oregon. It was published in early 1943 and is a fascinating account of some of the "also rans" who contended for the Presidency, but didn't win. Irving Stone renders a verdict at the end of each chapter about whether the loser would have made a better president than their opponent or been a disaster. I learned so much about some obscure candidates, such as Horatio Seymour and Lewis Cass. There are also accounts of the more famous losers such as Stephen Douglas and Al Smith. In the epilogue Stone concludes: "Countless crimes have been committed in the name of partisanship. Popular government is thus faced with a dilemma; a two-party system is necessary to the functioning of a democracy; yet out of a two party system has arisen a majority of the political ills of this nation. No political sulpha-drugs have been evolved which would eradicate these election diseases. I found that be extremely timely, given our political divisions in 2022. I love Presidential history and I very much enjoyed this book.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mr Stone had a terrific idea in writing this book - we know far too little about many of the unsuccessful Presidential candidates. Mr Stone set the issues of the various campaigns and built a decent understanding of many of the personalities. He tended to voice a negative opinion about many of the candidates who today we'd label pro-business growth - he would certainly be a Bernie supporter in today's debates. I also thought his decidedly negative treatment of Henry Clay was off base. I would add that Mr Stone wrote his first edition of this book in 1943 and some characters have improved or declined in general historian view since then. All in all, I would definitely recommend this book to a student of American politics.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book extremely comforting to read in the political climate of 2017. It was reassuring to read accounts of other elections that had far-reaching consequences for the country. Stone leans to the left. I'm not sure what more conservative thinkers would think of his conclusions, but I liked the way he showed that most political arguments are connected to Adams and Jefferson way back at the founding.

[Al Gritten · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of biographical essays centered around the men who lost their bids for the presidency. It is a bit dated as it was published in the mid 20th century, but it is an interesting look at their lives and their dreams. For historical buffs this is a good look at the also rans, many of whom history has forgotten. Never the less, I found it fascinating to look at their motivations and histories.

[Yvonne Lacy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this book is dated (only goes through the 1944 presidential election) it is one of a kind: it asks what might have happened had the defeated candidates won. There is very thoughtful consideration of each man's background and of the election campaigns involved. It's instructive to learn that nothing we see or hear in our present election is actually new...and that the country has survived.

[Jason Freng · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting stories about interesting people that we never hear about. The style is engaging and you get a look at the personal life of each of the Also Rans. My biggest dissappointment was that this book was written so long ago and I didn't get to read Stone's writings about the last 60 years.

[Janet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read my copy.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

A month before the election the Democrats were denying that I had ever been a Democrat; a month after the election the Republicans were denying that I had ever been a Republican.

Who am I?

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

They came, they ran, they almost always disappeared. Irving Stone, made rich by authoring fictional biographies of famous men (THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY on Michelangelo; JACK LONDON: SAILOR ON HORSE BACK; FIRES OF THE MIND on Freud) here decided to go for hard-core non-fiction on a most unlikely topic, and that is the men who ran for the presidency and lost. Would we be living in a different America if these losers, some beautiful, others grotesque, had made it to the White House? (Stone published this book in 1968, hence we get no assessment of Richard Nixon versus Hubert Humphrey. As for the 1972 contest, I once heard George McGovern say in person, "I'd rather have been the loser in that race than traded places with the winner".) Let's cut to the presidential chariot race. Stone is right in arguing that any Democrat elected between 1920 and 1928 would have made a better president than Harding, Coolidge or Hoover. They might not have been able to stop the Great Depression but at least the Democrats pointed out the dangers of the stock market bubble and the need to regulate Wall Street, in addition to calling attention to the plight of the American farmer and low crop prices. The case of Hoover versus Al Smith merits special attention. Hoover had the Jimmy Carter problem; both men were extremely intelligent and trained engineers who could not see the trees for the forest, meaning big plans and little results. Both lacked tact in dealing with other politicians. When Hoover lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 he refused to drive to his Washington apartment to take him to the inauguration, telling him over the phone, "Mr. Roosevelt, when you have been in this town long enough you will realize the President of the United States calls on nobody". Yet his opponent, Al Smith, governor of New York and the first Catholic to run for president, showed little grasp of national issues and it's a miracle he carried most, not all Southern states. Speaking of which, the presidential contests of the nineteenth century post-Lincoln leave much to be desired. The Republicans were swinging away from the party of "free soil and free men" and towards big business, yet no Democrat could get to the White House without the Solid South, and that meant endorsing Jim Crow and ignoring the Ku Klux Klan. Grover Cleveland managed to slide into the White House, the only Democrat president between Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, but then his opponent, James G. Blaine stupidly endorsed the slogan coined by a Protestant Minister, "The Democrats are the party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion". Imagine how that went over with Catholic voters. .(Cleveland won the popular vote in running for re-election but lost to Benjamin Harrison in the Electoral College.) I have one giant bone to pick with Stone, and that is his assessment of William Jennings Bryan. One contemporary joke, reproduced in these pages, ran, "Bryan would rather be wrong than be president". Yes, Stone concedes, Bryan should have won in 1896, the closest he ever came to the presidency, (anybody but that zombie McKinley) but he was also "a near psychopath" who richly deserved to lose in 1900 and 1908: "His mind was like a large, empty bowl; capacious but holding nothing inside". That is grossly unfair to the "Boy Orator from the Platte" who championed female suffrage, direct election of U.S. Senators and a progressive income tax at home and anti-imperialism abroad. Of a more contemporary candidate Stone believes Adlai Stevenson would have made a better president than Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956. Yet, Adlai paid as little attention to civil rights as did Ike, and it's hard to imagine him negotiating peaceful coexistence with Khrushchev. THEY ALSO RAN is more than a trip down memory lane. Stone offers us a chance to debate the merits of today's presidential candidates and how Americans often choose neither wisely nor well.

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting stories of the men who ran for president and lost! Irving Stone is a great storyteller.

[Dennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today on President's Day I thought about this book I read years ago. It is a good read pretty interesting. But one thing that struck me about it that I still remember is the irony of how we so often had two great men run against each other and also so many times had two mediocre men run against each other. Too bad we could not have had the deck shuffled differently. Anyway, for anyone interested in history I recommend it.

[Al Berry · Rating 3 out of 5]

20 page short biographies, on the men who ran for President but lost, up until Dewey, Bios are good, but the authors biases stand out in full force and are undeserved conclusions, for instance. stone fears had WJB won he would have instituted a theocracy.

[Orville · Rating 4 out of 5]

I preferred the 1945(?)edition. The 1965(?) printing included more loosers but the editing and construction wasn't and interesting.

[Christopher Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arguably the most in-depth look at the men who ran and lost the presidency out there. What I really liked about this book is how it really demonstrates that thoughts on presidents is rarely fixed. For example, the book pans the Administrations of Grant, Garfield, and Coolidge (just as most historians did at that time) while paying homage to Jackson. Additionally, I don't think you'll find a better write short bio of people long forgotten from history but who played an important role in the founding of our Republic. I learned so much about John Fremont, Lewis Cass, Horatio Seymour, Wendell Wilkie, and George McClellan through this book. Definitely a read for those who love presidential history.