zkonedog This CNN series takes a look at some of the key presidential races from years past and dissects them from the start of the campaign until the finish. While some of the visuals are a bit hokey and awkward, for the most part this is a great little election history lesson.The races covered in the six episodes include:-Kennedy vs. Nixon; Bush vs. Dukakis; Dewey vs. Truman; Jackson vs. Adams; Clinton vs. BushIn each of these episodes, I learned things about those races that I hadn't previously known, so I was engaged the entire way through. CN makes great use of engaging graphics and energetic interviews to make sure nothing ever gets dull.The only disappointing thing about this series (and the reason I dropped it down to 4-stars instead of 5) is that CNN awkwardly casts somewhat look-alike actors to portray each President in dramatic representation. I understand why they did this (it seems like it would be more exciting for the casual viewer to get moving images rather than static pictures), but instead it is just weird. As such, the first, second, and final episodes listed above work the best, as they are the newest and can feature actual video of the candidates. In the older ones, there is too much of the play-acting for my tastes.Overall, though, I looked forward to "Race for the White House" each week it was airing and each time got swept up in the race being examined. I'd love to see CNN feature some different races in the future…I would tune into all of them!

Luke9821 *Spoilers ahead This mini-series was probably one of the most polished and well-done historical political docu-series I have ever seen. CNN, like usual, roles out a visually appealing and entertaining series.However, the series is almost cringe worthy. I watched the first episode and immediately knew that this was an incredible piece of left wing propaganda. I knew from the very beginning that the last episode would be on the Clinton vs. Bush election in 1991 and would be used to shine light onto Hillary. Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. It brushes past the sex scandals of Bill Clinton and makes it out to be nothing even though it was. They talk about how amazing Hillary is but never seem to mention any other of the candidates wives almost like the wife of the candidate doesn't matter at all.The series constantly misrepresents or neglects the facts and distorts truth to make the viewer think that republicans are evil and nasty and the democrats are all kind hearted. Whenever a republican ran an attack ad it was framed as a malicious attack by the right yet they fail to mention any attack ads by the left.Framing matters and CNN knows it. They will leave out facts or ad non-relevant material to bolster the lefts agenda- keep that in mind next time you watch the news. They remind me very much of the propaganda machine in Nazi Germany circa 1940.

Charles Herold (cherold) I've watched a few of these now, and they're all quite fascinating. The series is a bit too gimmicky, with way too many unnecessary reenactments of even the littlest things (you can't have a random person talk about what it was like to be at a convention without an actor being shown sitting in a convention seat), but it's still quite interesting.They are full of interesting tidbits. For example, they suggest that in 1960 the Republicans weren't yet the party African Americans hated and Nixon could have won them over with some help from the White House. It was also interesting to see that, like Gore years later, Nixon decided not to challenge the results - even though the election was most probably stolen from him - because it would be bad for the country. By 1968 he'd given up on the black vote and figured if cheating worked for Kennedy it would work for him as well. Presidential elections look like sleazy affairs, and it appears that candidates like Dukakis that try to run a genuinely honest and positive campaign just get knocked down for it, so it's not a series that is going to make you feel better about the election process. But it is interesting.

lreese-1 I watched the Lincoln v Douglas episode. It was somewhat interesting, but not particularly based on facts. I was surprised at how inaccurate it was. I suppose they wanted to make the story interesting, but I was hoping to actually learn something new. Living in Illinois, 30 miles from Springfield, I have learned quite a bit about Lincoln and the politics of the time. Within the first few minutes the show claims Lincoln was an inexperienced politician. He wasn't. He'd been in the state legislature since the 1830's. Then it states he lost the Senate election to Stephan Douglas. There was no Senate election. Senators were appointed by the state legislature. These factual errors continue throughout the show.Entertaining, but you could learn more on Wiki!!