I was 19 when this debate took place 56 years ago. My brother, John, two years older, and I campaigned door to door for JFK. We went to rallies, made phone calls from Demo lists. We eagerly watched the debate in Northern California and declared our favorite the winner! As irony would have it, the following Spring, 1961, my brother was among the first Peace Corps group chosen to go to Ghana. Myself, I transferred to George Washington University, in Washington, DC., to complete my studies in History. What a grand time for a brief period in our lives.
A wonderful article by David Dunlap. Sigh, I was upset when the Times gave up the eight column format.
The debate was important, but at that time, the Soviet Union was important, unlike Russia today... wait.. no... well, never mind about that. Soviet actions did raise reader interest. Intertwined with the Soviets was Jack Kennedy's strong stance against them. But staging the debate on TV gave voters a chance to see these candidates in the home, the way they'd see Walter Cronkite or Jackie Gleason. So we all watched.
The debate, and the election, were close. But Jack Kennedy certainly appeared like the attractive, young, dynamic boy. Yet this wasn't necessarily a complete advantage for him; to Republicans it was Nixon's experience and age that were an advantage, despite what Eisenhower said about him. And don't forget, Kennedy was Catholic, so many watched for that complex reason. Some were open minded but were watching to grade his credibility. He passed.
Yes, it was a time of greater civility, unlike the Right Wing talk shows of today, and the news shows in which people talk over one another. People were looking for some substance. They had longer attention spans (they read more) and newspapers wrote more (hey, did I mention that the Times had an eight column format?).
I like to think that our families understood that this debate was not entertainment but an important event. Today we can't distinguish between the two, given the quality of the candidates.
The debate was important, but at that time, the Soviet Union was important, unlike Russia today... wait.. no... well, never mind about that. Soviet actions did raise reader interest. Intertwined with the Soviets was Jack Kennedy's strong stance against them. But staging the debate on TV gave voters a chance to see these candidates in the home, the way they'd see Walter Cronkite or Jackie Gleason. So we all watched.
The debate, and the election, were close. But Jack Kennedy certainly appeared like the attractive, young, dynamic boy. Yet this wasn't necessarily a complete advantage for him; to Republicans it was Nixon's experience and age that were an advantage, despite what Eisenhower said about him. And don't forget, Kennedy was Catholic, so many watched for that complex reason. Some were open minded but were watching to grade his credibility. He passed.
Yes, it was a time of greater civility, unlike the Right Wing talk shows of today, and the news shows in which people talk over one another. People were looking for some substance. They had longer attention spans (they read more) and newspapers wrote more (hey, did I mention that the Times had an eight column format?).
I like to think that our families understood that this debate was not entertainment but an important event. Today we can't distinguish between the two, given the quality of the candidates.
3
The Nixon-Kennedy debate was a real debate. In that debate, the candidates stated their views of the world. Of course that was in the time of an East-West cold war. Today, the GOP debate is more like a beauty contest with candidates trying to appeal to wealthy donors (if I may go so, "sugar daddies"). No critical comments are allowed, only buzz words and phrases. No serious statements are allowed.
3
You are such a treasure for her, Mr. Dunlap. "They didn't call us the Gray Lady for nothing." How fun. How fun, indeed.
3
Aren't the clothing descriptions turned around? Or is "oxford gray" darker than "blue-gray"? And Nixon's tie looks much lighter than as described as "dark blue tie".
3
And as I recall Kennedy was more bellicose than Nixon on issues of the Cold War related to the "missile gap" and China.
No mention of the ground-breaking nature of this debate is complete - or even accurate! - without mentioning that Kennedy was tanned, animated and properly made up for TV, while Nixon "looked like death" due to sleep loss and old-fashioned white pancake make-up. The Times's sidebar (illustrated here) calls Kennedy's white shirt "non-telegenic" compared to Nixon's blue; aside from the fact that this was a black-and-white broadcast, not color, that wisdom proved in time to be nonsense. In any event, though Nixon was an accomplished debater with a quick mind and tongue, viewers overwhelmingly said Kennedy looked stronger and more appealing.
Even today, there's no consensus among scientists, commentators or citizens as to what makes a candidate seem strongest or most appealing. But the fact that such an impression is made anyway should never be overlooked.
Even today, there's no consensus among scientists, commentators or citizens as to what makes a candidate seem strongest or most appealing. But the fact that such an impression is made anyway should never be overlooked.
4
"Didn't" call you the Gray Lady? Still do in some quarters....and it should be worn as a badge of honor.
2