Truman vs Clinton

A reader writes:

Truman could definitely have done things better, and asking for Kennedy to step down was ridiculous, but there is a huge difference: Truman was right. The Democratic Convention in 1960 was terribly, and unduly, influenced by the Kennedy campaign.  Kennedy supporters were passing out bribes to precinct captains and county sheriffs all throughout the country--particularly in the South - and it's not exactly like Joe Kennedy didn't have any influence and wasn't mega-rich from criminal business. This is all well documented. Why shouldn't he have been concerned? What if Obama's father was a former narco-trafficker with connections to the mafia?

Compare it to Bill Clinton, who called Obama's campaign a fairy tale, misrepresented his remarks and his platform, and blames the media for not asking questions it actually asked months ago.  And note how Truman didn't gush about all the wonderful things he did and then say, to the effect, "oh yeah, by the way, Symington is running too" the way Bill does with his wife.  Truman was out of line, but he was honestly concerned about his party, not trying to run for a third term.