As our tumultuous election year enters its final phase—with more tension and drama than many predicted—David Pietrusza (1920: The Year of the Six Presidents) has released 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon. The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies (Union Square), a new book that reminds us about another election year fraught with epic personalities and much intrigue. Many say that the 1960 election hinged upon a televised debate. As we await this cycle’s debates, LJ reviewer Karl Helicher, director of Upper Merion Township Library, King of Prussia, PA, chatted online with Pietrusza. Those of us old enough to have read Theodore H. White's, The Making of the President, 1960 (1961), which for better and worse, created the genre of the modern political campaign account, will see a similarity in yours and his graceful writing style. How do you believe 1960 measures up with White; what were White’s strengths and weaknesses? White possessed unusual access to JFK’s campaign, but it often clouded his vision. He also wrote without the perspective of time. Neither, he, nor anyone else, could then know the real significance of what was to follow or what might later be revealed. Now that we have the perspective of time, what made the 1960 election so significant? By the way, I was fascinated by the important behind-the-scenes role played by Joe Kennedy, the family patriarch. We started to move away from the old New Deal political paradigm, and, as JFK suggested—though without really knowing the true meaning of his remarks—into something new: the 1960s. And, yes, Joe Kennedy was a fascinating figure, a man of great ambition, talent—and resources. His dream is the quintessential American dream—a child growing up to be president—yet somehow immensely larger. Yes. I learned from your book that he—Joe Kennedy—was responsible for LBJ’s selection as JFK’s running mate, in spite of Robert Kennedy’s strong protest. There have been a number of comparisons made between the 2008 and the 1960 one. Do you agree that there are some valid comparisons, and if so what are they? The great link is that of the rivalry caused by identity politics. In 1960, Jack Kennedy represented the aspirations of Catholics and Lyndon Johnson that of Southerners; in 2008 Obama represents that of African Americans, Clinton that of women. In both years a younger, still untested candidate triumphed very narrowly for the party nomination. There are, of course, great dissimilarities. If 2008 were indeed 1960 we would be seeing an Obama-Clinton ticket, a variant of the JFK-LBJ combination. Instead, we have something resembling a Kennedy-Stuart Symington [U.S. senator from Missouri, 1953-76] slate. Very interesting insight into how the selection of VP has changed over the years. Speaking of vice-presidents, Richard Nixon, who had just completed two terms as Eisenhower’s veep, lost the election by a razor-thin margin. He went on to be arguably the most dominate politico of the rest of the 20th century. What insights did Nixon glean from his 1960 loss? The first was obvious: never to debate again. But also his disappointments and resentments over 1960’s loss may have helped trigger Watergate and his eventual downfall. Otherwise, the Nixon of 1968 and 1972 was very much like the Nixon on 1960: personally isolated, foreign policy oriented, relying on his Republican base, yet still hoping for major gains in the South. David, you offer the intriguing conclusion that despite doing everything right JFK won by such a small count because there was something about him people just didn’t like. What was it? Certainly, there were questions regarding JFK’s Catholicism, youth, and family background. But he may also have become a victim of his own rhetoric. Kennedy promised America challenging, even dangerous, times, and ultimately voters may have shrunk back from that. They were just emerging from eight calm, peaceful Eisenhower years. “Pay any price, bear any burden” (words actually from JFK’s inaugural) may not have been on the American agenda. It rarely is.