What do you think?
Rate this book
Tension City: Inside the Presidential Debates
“In his quiet but intense way, Jim Lehrer earns the trust of the major political players of our time,” notes Barbara Walters. “He explains and exposes their hopes and dreams, their strengths and failures as they try to put their best foot forward.”
From the man widely hailed as “the Dean of Moderators” comes a lively and revealing book that pulls back the curtain on more than forty years of televised political debate in America. A veteran newsman who has presided over eleven presidential and vice-presidential debates, Jim Lehrer gives readers a ringside seat for some of the epic political battles of our time, shedding light on all of the critical turning points and rhetorical faux pas that helped determine the outcome of America’s presidential elections—and with them the course of history. Drawing on his own experiences as “the man in the middle seat,” in-depth interviews with the candidates and his fellow moderators, and transcripts of key exchanges, Lehrer isolates and illuminates what he calls the “Major Moments” and “killer questions” that defined the debates, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-McCain.
Oftentimes these moments involve the candidates themselves and are seared into our collective political memory. Michael Dukakis stumbles badly over a question about the death penalty. Dan Quayle compares himself to John F. Kennedy once too often. Barack Obama and John McCain barely make eye contact over the course of a ninety-minute discussion. At other times, the debate moderators themselves become part of the story—and Lehrer is there to give us a backstage look at the drama. Peter Jennings suggests surprising the candidates by suspending the carefully negotiated rules minutes before the 1988 presidential debate—to the consternation of his fellow panelists. Lehrer himself weathers a firestorm of criticism over his performance as moderator of the 2000 Bush-Gore debate. And then there are the excruciating moments when audio lines go dead and TelePrompTers stay dark just seconds before going on the air live in front of a worldwide television audience of millions.
Asked to sum up his experience as a participant in high-level televised debates, President George H. W. Bush memorably likened them to an evening in “tension city.” In Jim Lehrer’s absorbing insider account, we find out that truer words were never spoken.
From the man widely hailed as “the Dean of Moderators” comes a lively and revealing book that pulls back the curtain on more than forty years of televised political debate in America. A veteran newsman who has presided over eleven presidential and vice-presidential debates, Jim Lehrer gives readers a ringside seat for some of the epic political battles of our time, shedding light on all of the critical turning points and rhetorical faux pas that helped determine the outcome of America’s presidential elections—and with them the course of history. Drawing on his own experiences as “the man in the middle seat,” in-depth interviews with the candidates and his fellow moderators, and transcripts of key exchanges, Lehrer isolates and illuminates what he calls the “Major Moments” and “killer questions” that defined the debates, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-McCain.
Oftentimes these moments involve the candidates themselves and are seared into our collective political memory. Michael Dukakis stumbles badly over a question about the death penalty. Dan Quayle compares himself to John F. Kennedy once too often. Barack Obama and John McCain barely make eye contact over the course of a ninety-minute discussion. At other times, the debate moderators themselves become part of the story—and Lehrer is there to give us a backstage look at the drama. Peter Jennings suggests surprising the candidates by suspending the carefully negotiated rules minutes before the 1988 presidential debate—to the consternation of his fellow panelists. Lehrer himself weathers a firestorm of criticism over his performance as moderator of the 2000 Bush-Gore debate. And then there are the excruciating moments when audio lines go dead and TelePrompTers stay dark just seconds before going on the air live in front of a worldwide television audience of millions.
Asked to sum up his experience as a participant in high-level televised debates, President George H. W. Bush memorably likened them to an evening in “tension city.” In Jim Lehrer’s absorbing insider account, we find out that truer words were never spoken.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
18 people are currently reading
380 people want to read
About the author
Jim Lehrer
43 books39 followersJames Charles Lehrer was an American journalist and the news anchor for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, known for his role as a frequent debate moderator during elections. Lehrer was an author of non-fiction and fiction, drawing from his experiences and interests in history and politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews
May 26, 2020
If there was ever a book you should listen to rather than read it is Jim Lehrer's book "Tension City." The reason is because in the audio version you get to revisit the actual presidential debates which Lehrer moderated over the years. You not only get to listen to memorable exchanges from the candidates, you get background from Lehrer about the behind-the-scenes drama that sometimes accompanied the debates. In addition, Lehrer includes audio interviews he has done over the years with various presidents recalling particular debates. This is the way history should be taught by letting the participants describe it in their own words.
Lehrer is also surprisingly hard on himself in analyzing the debates pointing out to listeners how he failed to complete important research or missed visual miscues that became important in the analysis of the debates.
As a former reporter myself I was glad that Lehrer took to task interviewers who fail to actually listen to the answers from the subjects interviewed. This is a major hazard when reporters, so intent on their next question, fail to understand the significance of answers they receive. This drives me crazy when I listen to many television journalists and apparently it also bothers Lehrer.
With the upcoming presidential debates just around the corner, this book adds to the public understanding of what has become an important event in our nation's political life.
Lehrer is also surprisingly hard on himself in analyzing the debates pointing out to listeners how he failed to complete important research or missed visual miscues that became important in the analysis of the debates.
As a former reporter myself I was glad that Lehrer took to task interviewers who fail to actually listen to the answers from the subjects interviewed. This is a major hazard when reporters, so intent on their next question, fail to understand the significance of answers they receive. This drives me crazy when I listen to many television journalists and apparently it also bothers Lehrer.
With the upcoming presidential debates just around the corner, this book adds to the public understanding of what has become an important event in our nation's political life.
July 31, 2012
Im going to start out saying that I am a political junkie. I watch two things on TV: the news and The Vampire Diaries (in that order). I also am a fan of non-fiction books about 20th century history. My point is that I have read books on similar topics as this and, basically, it is not my first time at the non-fiction political rodeo.
"Tension City" was probably one of the worst non-fiction books that I have ever read. There were a few things that Jim Lehrer did that turned me off as a reader. First he put unnecessary stories about his personal life into the book. "Tension City" is about presidential debates, not his family history, pre-debate rituals or his granddaughter's diaper. Second he jumped around from the different debates and did not go in chronological order. As a reader, who was not alive for 97% of these debates referenced, it was hard to follow exactly who the minor players were (i.e. failed presidential candidates and their VP's). I would have rather a chronological approach to the debates rather than the book jumping around.
However I did find it interesting the transcripts of the debates and seeing what the candidates said and how they responded to the questions. I thought that "Tension City" would feature more of that rather than Lehrer's own personal anecdotes on life itself.
"Tension City" was probably one of the worst non-fiction books that I have ever read. There were a few things that Jim Lehrer did that turned me off as a reader. First he put unnecessary stories about his personal life into the book. "Tension City" is about presidential debates, not his family history, pre-debate rituals or his granddaughter's diaper. Second he jumped around from the different debates and did not go in chronological order. As a reader, who was not alive for 97% of these debates referenced, it was hard to follow exactly who the minor players were (i.e. failed presidential candidates and their VP's). I would have rather a chronological approach to the debates rather than the book jumping around.
However I did find it interesting the transcripts of the debates and seeing what the candidates said and how they responded to the questions. I thought that "Tension City" would feature more of that rather than Lehrer's own personal anecdotes on life itself.
November 15, 2024
If you like watching Presidential candidates "debate," you'll enjoy this book. Written by Jim Lehrer, co-anchor of the PBS McNeil-Lehrer News Hour, this book is his first hand account of what transpired, both on and off camera, as he saw it in his role as either a moderator or a reporter.
The one remarkable thing is simply the constant degradation of the public discourse. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was actually an articulate exchange of well founded policy ideas, grounded in logic and civility (and it was not short-circuited by mindless sound bites and over the top dramatics).
Once upon a time, it was all substance over form. It seems that in the debates of our more current times, these things have become a circus of form over substance.
The one remarkable thing is simply the constant degradation of the public discourse. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was actually an articulate exchange of well founded policy ideas, grounded in logic and civility (and it was not short-circuited by mindless sound bites and over the top dramatics).
Once upon a time, it was all substance over form. It seems that in the debates of our more current times, these things have become a circus of form over substance.
October 13, 2019
El periodista estadounidense Jim Lehrer, hoy retirado, es un experto en debates presidenciales. A lo largo de su carrera moderó 12 de ellos, desde Bush-Dukakis, en 1988, hasta Obama-Romney en 2012. En 2010 escribió un libro, Tension City, que mientras da cuenta de sus experiencias personales en estas lides, hace un racconto histórico de los debates presidenciales que tuvieron lugar desde el famoso enfrentamiento entre Nixon y Kennedy, en 1960, y que se han convertido en prácticamente una institución en EEUU.
¿Qué validez tiene el debate hoy en día, cuando sin duda existen mejores medios de comunicación para los candidatos, y el contenido de sus mensajes es tan etéreo? En un país bipartidario, como EEUU, se sabe que hay republicanos duros y demócratas duros, que no cambiarán su voto casi bajo ningún concepto. Pero entre unos y otros hay una franja del electorado, digámosle la franja púrpura (entre el rojo y el azul), cuyo voto puede variar de elección a elección, según circunstancias más o menos casuales. A este jugoso sector es al que apuntan los candidatos con sus discursos y acciones, y a ellos están dedicados también los planes de batalla de los debates. A veces una metida de pata, una frase fuera de lugar, una salida ingeniosa, pueden cambiar la tendencia de la franja púrpura, al menos en algunos decimales.
Es fundamental para el candidato mostrarse como un presidente posible, alguien que sabe cómo responder a lo inesperado, al tipo de situaciones límites que un líder debe resolver a diario. Pero no hay una sola forma de responder, claro, y tampoco es seguro nunca el impacto que tendrá en los indecisos. Cuando, en uno de los debates del 88, el moderador preguntó a Michael Dukakis si favorecería la pena de muerte en caso de que Kitty Dukakis (su esposa) “fuera asesinada y violada”, lo que sorprendió fue la frialdad en la respuesta de Dukakis, que optó enseguida por la corrección política y ni siquiera alzó las cejas cuando le plantearon un escenario tan terrible.
A este tipo de situaciones, Lehrer las llama “Major Moments”, y hay muchas que valdría la pena mencionar. En los debates de 1976, Ford aseguró que no había “dominación soviética en Europa del Este”, para sorpresa del moderador. En 1980, Reagan humilló a Carter con su famosa salida “there you go again” (“ya empezás de nuevo”). En 1992, Bush (padre) evidenció su incomodidad sólo con un vistazo a su reloj de pulsera. En 2000, Al Gore intimidó físicamente a su rival, George Bush (hijo), ante la mirada perpleja de este y del público.
Estos son los eventos que quedan en última instancia en la memoria de los espectadores, dice Lehrer. Frases como la de Reagan se metieron en la memoria colectiva, y sin embargo no debe haber muchos que recuerden qué dijo a continuación, o a qué estaba respondiendo. Los debates están llenos de ideas ya conocidas y palabras previsibles, repetitivas, obvias. A veces los candidatos son extremadamente cautos. Y sobre todo, si saben lo que hacen, no buscan seducir con su ideario, sino con su actitud y su apariencia.
El fondo de todo debate es este componente actitudinal del candidato. Del primer cruce entre Nixon y Kennedy suele decirse que Kennedy, relajado y buen mozo, ganó ante las cámaras frente a un Nixon incómodo, mal dormido y que se negó a usar maquillaje. En cambio, los radioescuchas prefirieron a Nixon, cuyas dotes de orador eran superiores. Del primer debate entre Gore y Bush, en el 2000, se recuerda la mala educación de Gore, sus suspiros continuos y su irritación ante todo lo que decía su contrincante. Lo que se discutió ya ha dejado de ser importante.
Los Major Moments son impredecibles, en general espectaculares, y un debate sin ellos casi no vale la pena. Al mismo tiempo, no puede haber un debate sólo hecho de Major Moments. Las reglas que rigen estos eventos son las de la narrativa: su intensidad tiene que ser oscilante. Igual que en una buena novela, o película, los grandes momentos deben estar rodeados por otros más intrascendentes. Los debates son a fin de cuentas una forma del espectáculo.
Muchos, incluso Jim Lehrer, consideran que es muy difícil que cambien la tendencia general del electorado, salvo que ocurra un improbable desastre. Pero a veces, como vemos en Tension City, los debates no son tanto para el público como para sus protagonistas. Bill Clinton dijo que prepararse para debatir fue una parte de prepararse para gobernar. El cruce de los candidatos, como otros puntos de la campaña, sirve en la construcción del candidato (y quizás del presidente), y es un capítulo en su narrativa personal.
¿Qué validez tiene el debate hoy en día, cuando sin duda existen mejores medios de comunicación para los candidatos, y el contenido de sus mensajes es tan etéreo? En un país bipartidario, como EEUU, se sabe que hay republicanos duros y demócratas duros, que no cambiarán su voto casi bajo ningún concepto. Pero entre unos y otros hay una franja del electorado, digámosle la franja púrpura (entre el rojo y el azul), cuyo voto puede variar de elección a elección, según circunstancias más o menos casuales. A este jugoso sector es al que apuntan los candidatos con sus discursos y acciones, y a ellos están dedicados también los planes de batalla de los debates. A veces una metida de pata, una frase fuera de lugar, una salida ingeniosa, pueden cambiar la tendencia de la franja púrpura, al menos en algunos decimales.
Es fundamental para el candidato mostrarse como un presidente posible, alguien que sabe cómo responder a lo inesperado, al tipo de situaciones límites que un líder debe resolver a diario. Pero no hay una sola forma de responder, claro, y tampoco es seguro nunca el impacto que tendrá en los indecisos. Cuando, en uno de los debates del 88, el moderador preguntó a Michael Dukakis si favorecería la pena de muerte en caso de que Kitty Dukakis (su esposa) “fuera asesinada y violada”, lo que sorprendió fue la frialdad en la respuesta de Dukakis, que optó enseguida por la corrección política y ni siquiera alzó las cejas cuando le plantearon un escenario tan terrible.
A este tipo de situaciones, Lehrer las llama “Major Moments”, y hay muchas que valdría la pena mencionar. En los debates de 1976, Ford aseguró que no había “dominación soviética en Europa del Este”, para sorpresa del moderador. En 1980, Reagan humilló a Carter con su famosa salida “there you go again” (“ya empezás de nuevo”). En 1992, Bush (padre) evidenció su incomodidad sólo con un vistazo a su reloj de pulsera. En 2000, Al Gore intimidó físicamente a su rival, George Bush (hijo), ante la mirada perpleja de este y del público.
Estos son los eventos que quedan en última instancia en la memoria de los espectadores, dice Lehrer. Frases como la de Reagan se metieron en la memoria colectiva, y sin embargo no debe haber muchos que recuerden qué dijo a continuación, o a qué estaba respondiendo. Los debates están llenos de ideas ya conocidas y palabras previsibles, repetitivas, obvias. A veces los candidatos son extremadamente cautos. Y sobre todo, si saben lo que hacen, no buscan seducir con su ideario, sino con su actitud y su apariencia.
El fondo de todo debate es este componente actitudinal del candidato. Del primer cruce entre Nixon y Kennedy suele decirse que Kennedy, relajado y buen mozo, ganó ante las cámaras frente a un Nixon incómodo, mal dormido y que se negó a usar maquillaje. En cambio, los radioescuchas prefirieron a Nixon, cuyas dotes de orador eran superiores. Del primer debate entre Gore y Bush, en el 2000, se recuerda la mala educación de Gore, sus suspiros continuos y su irritación ante todo lo que decía su contrincante. Lo que se discutió ya ha dejado de ser importante.
Los Major Moments son impredecibles, en general espectaculares, y un debate sin ellos casi no vale la pena. Al mismo tiempo, no puede haber un debate sólo hecho de Major Moments. Las reglas que rigen estos eventos son las de la narrativa: su intensidad tiene que ser oscilante. Igual que en una buena novela, o película, los grandes momentos deben estar rodeados por otros más intrascendentes. Los debates son a fin de cuentas una forma del espectáculo.
Muchos, incluso Jim Lehrer, consideran que es muy difícil que cambien la tendencia general del electorado, salvo que ocurra un improbable desastre. Pero a veces, como vemos en Tension City, los debates no son tanto para el público como para sus protagonistas. Bill Clinton dijo que prepararse para debatir fue una parte de prepararse para gobernar. El cruce de los candidatos, como otros puntos de la campaña, sirve en la construcción del candidato (y quizás del presidente), y es un capítulo en su narrativa personal.
February 25, 2015
Written by Jim Lehrer, veteran moderator of 11 debates on the national stage, this book should be like catnip for a political junkie like me. It turned out to be bland cat food. I expected epic tales of behind-the-scenes secrets, true insights into the debate process and his own personal reactions, as well as after-action reports from the participants themselves who could attest to what it's like under the glaring spotlight.
The book does, to its credit, check all those boxes. However, the book hardly seems motivated to go beyond. The text reads more like a work done out of obligation than one done out of passion, love and care. For the most part, the book sticks to a safe, stilted formula: introduce the year, drop a few insights on the debate, go through the debate with some passages quoted from the candidates' mouths, and then add interviews with each of the participants as a sort of reflective passage. No bombshells are dropped, no real things are revealed. The candidates still speak like candidates, always on guard, always taking care to play it safe, say positive image-boosting things and not rock the boat of the good ship Legacy. Some of these men are 30-40 years removed from the stage, and they're still locked-in as if they never left the podium.
Neither is anything of substance revealed from the author's own experiences, unless you would count the number of times he's asked his wife and kids for revising the questions. I suppose he wanted to stick to his debate belief that the moderator works best when the moderator is not noticed, and while I can appreciate that view, it does not fly here when it is he that the readers are after.
And that, perhaps, is the main gripe I had with the book. I wanted to learn more about the process and what went on, but I was deprived of that for almost all of the ~200 pages of the book. A casual observer who only tunes into politics when a President is being elected may draw heaps of insight. However, I already knew about how people listening on the radio thought Nixon beat JFK, of how Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis an incendiary question, and of how some people thought they saw Bush hide a recorder in the back of his suit. These are all well-known facts among the politically-interested, well-documented in Wikipedia articles, and thus they add nothing new to the discourse. (Perhaps this is a sign that books can be outpaced by New Media?)
I should credit the author with adding more material than merely sticking to the debates. He does add insight into pseudo-debates with multiple Democratic candidates in 1996 at a Young Leaders conference, a forum with multiple Cold War leaders, and roundtable discussions between participants as varied as multiple historians to an exhibition featuring actors portraying Thomas Jefferson and one of his slaves. There are also a few pages devoted to political reporting, such as the author's interview with Bill Clinton at the beginning of the Lewinsky scandal. However, these tales are too little, too short, and are passed by too fast, making them ultimately too late to save the work.
RATING: 2 stars ("Not only do I not like it, it's hard to recommend to others even if they like the author/genre.") The book does not live up to its promise in any sense of the word. The author has presided over some of the most important steps in selecting the most powerful person in the world, and he should have more to say than the cost of his traditional pre-debate tie ($145, if you were wondering). Political novices and casual observers will be fascinated with the insights dropped in this work. Wonks, political veterans and even those who merely keep up with the news on a semi-often basis should give this book a pass.
TL;DR: A disappointment whose material proves to be as light as its weight. An immense amount of potential was squandered.
The book does, to its credit, check all those boxes. However, the book hardly seems motivated to go beyond. The text reads more like a work done out of obligation than one done out of passion, love and care. For the most part, the book sticks to a safe, stilted formula: introduce the year, drop a few insights on the debate, go through the debate with some passages quoted from the candidates' mouths, and then add interviews with each of the participants as a sort of reflective passage. No bombshells are dropped, no real things are revealed. The candidates still speak like candidates, always on guard, always taking care to play it safe, say positive image-boosting things and not rock the boat of the good ship Legacy. Some of these men are 30-40 years removed from the stage, and they're still locked-in as if they never left the podium.
Neither is anything of substance revealed from the author's own experiences, unless you would count the number of times he's asked his wife and kids for revising the questions. I suppose he wanted to stick to his debate belief that the moderator works best when the moderator is not noticed, and while I can appreciate that view, it does not fly here when it is he that the readers are after.
And that, perhaps, is the main gripe I had with the book. I wanted to learn more about the process and what went on, but I was deprived of that for almost all of the ~200 pages of the book. A casual observer who only tunes into politics when a President is being elected may draw heaps of insight. However, I already knew about how people listening on the radio thought Nixon beat JFK, of how Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis an incendiary question, and of how some people thought they saw Bush hide a recorder in the back of his suit. These are all well-known facts among the politically-interested, well-documented in Wikipedia articles, and thus they add nothing new to the discourse. (Perhaps this is a sign that books can be outpaced by New Media?)
I should credit the author with adding more material than merely sticking to the debates. He does add insight into pseudo-debates with multiple Democratic candidates in 1996 at a Young Leaders conference, a forum with multiple Cold War leaders, and roundtable discussions between participants as varied as multiple historians to an exhibition featuring actors portraying Thomas Jefferson and one of his slaves. There are also a few pages devoted to political reporting, such as the author's interview with Bill Clinton at the beginning of the Lewinsky scandal. However, these tales are too little, too short, and are passed by too fast, making them ultimately too late to save the work.
RATING: 2 stars ("Not only do I not like it, it's hard to recommend to others even if they like the author/genre.") The book does not live up to its promise in any sense of the word. The author has presided over some of the most important steps in selecting the most powerful person in the world, and he should have more to say than the cost of his traditional pre-debate tie ($145, if you were wondering). Political novices and casual observers will be fascinated with the insights dropped in this work. Wonks, political veterans and even those who merely keep up with the news on a semi-often basis should give this book a pass.
TL;DR: A disappointment whose material proves to be as light as its weight. An immense amount of potential was squandered.
February 22, 2012
It's tempting to describe this book in terms of what it is not. It is not a comprehensive history of presidential debates. It is not a description of the debate process in general (although there is enough mention of the Commission on Presidential Debates to leave you wanting to learn more about it.) And most importantly, it does not at any point address the question I was dying to ask, which is, why does no political "debate" resemble the discipline of Debate I learned about in high school? You know, where you have to actually address the points your opponent makes, supply factual, sourced information . . . oh, never mind.
Anyway, this is a short, readable, entertaining memoir-style account of Lehrer's years as a Presidential Debate moderator. He's an engaging writer and I enjoyed the book and his memories of the candidates, the tense moments, and the technical glitches.
It really is slight at under 200 pages, so don't take this as your only in-flight reading for anything over an hour or two.
Anyway, this is a short, readable, entertaining memoir-style account of Lehrer's years as a Presidential Debate moderator. He's an engaging writer and I enjoyed the book and his memories of the candidates, the tense moments, and the technical glitches.
It really is slight at under 200 pages, so don't take this as your only in-flight reading for anything over an hour or two.
November 26, 2011
Jim Lehrer has seen lots
Of candidates debating:
They screw up a lot.
Of candidates debating:
They screw up a lot.
January 12, 2021
Fascinating! I really enjoyed the audiobook, which allows the listener to revisit recordings from various interviews, debates, and panels that Jim Lehrer facilitated throughout the years. Chapters 1 through 7, in particular, are nothing short of fantastic, as Lehrer walks listeners/readers through the details underlining key debates that he helped moderate over the course of his career.
Highly recommended for all political junkies.
Highly recommended for all political junkies.
August 10, 2025
Really glad I picked this up—absolutely worth the time. In the audio version I really appreciated the actual audio snips from the actual debates. Lehrer takes his role a little over-seriously but far better that than the political journalistic environment we have now.
May 6, 2014
Given that Jim Lehrer has had a front row seat to eleven U.S. presidential debates, you wouldn't be wrong to expect more from Tension City, a slim volume that works as an appetizer when it should have been a meal. The metaphor is apt since, like a good croquette, Tension City is easy to digest and possible to finish in a single sitting. As a man who had a worm's eye view of some significant political moments, Lehrer had the opportunity to supply some deft political analysis, both on the art of debating and the evolution of the televised debate from political confrontation to its current form as orchestrated entertainment. Instead, Lehrer seems content to supply anecdotes and only a few juicy facts as he gives us a whirlwind tour across fifty years of debating history.
The televised debate, of course, revolutionized American politics, beginning with the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. Listening to the debate, one might have guessed Nixon was the better politician; but he fared so pooly on camera when compared to the robust and tanned Kennedy that many believed the election was lost in a single night. "I paid too much attention to what I was going to say," wrote Nixon, "and too little to how I would look." Lehrer remarks that these are words to live by for the modern politician and he couldn't be more correct. We've come a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858: the quality of your character isn't half as important as how you look on film. Lehrer points out a few moments when this fact has come to haunt a candidate: George H. W. Bush checking his watch during the 1992 debate with Bill Clinton; Al Gore's heavy sighs during a 2000 debate with George W. Bush; and John McCain's refusal to look Barack Obama in the eye during a campaign in 2008.
It's a savvy idea to take Nixon's remark, written at the dawn of the televised debate, and see how it has been reflected through the years. Unfortunately, this is one of the only insights Lehrer brings to the subject. For all his knowledge and experience, he seems stuck in his role as a journalist: he's happy to print the facts, but shies away from opinion. He breaks away from this on occasion - he clearly has no respect for the most recent evolutionary step in televised debates, the Town Hall - but for the most part he seems content to leave the analysis to the politicians who he interviewed about their performance. This is a bit of a coup, as there are definitely some telling moments of self-reflection from both George Bushes and Bill Clinton. But there are too many gaps. Al Gore and Ross Perot both declined to be interviewed and it's far too soon to have any clever insights from John McCain or Sarah Palin about their 2008 debating performance.
At times, Tension City fights to double as a psuedo-memoir, with Lehrer charting his journey from neophyte to consummate pro. There are touches of this throughout, but it's not nearly enough - again, Lehrer gets caught in the journalist's trap. He himself is so absent as a character that when he does have a few moments of triumph, they fail to resonate. More focus on Lehrer's own professional journey through the years would have given the debates far more significance: each would have been a benchmark in a man's development. It may very well be that this is what they were, but Tension City's narrative fails to highlight this in any way.
Ultimately, the book feels most like a missed opportunity. To return to the food metaphor, the book left me hungry for more and I ended up crawling through cyberspace searching for clips from the Dukakis - Regan debate or the Cheney - Lieberman debate which, apparently, was one of the most civilized in history. It's definitely a testament to Lehrer that he was able to whet my appetite for something as seemingly dull as presidential debating history; but given that Lehrer is the only person to ever moderate eleven debates, it's too bad that he chose to keep his journalist hat on for as long as he did.
The televised debate, of course, revolutionized American politics, beginning with the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. Listening to the debate, one might have guessed Nixon was the better politician; but he fared so pooly on camera when compared to the robust and tanned Kennedy that many believed the election was lost in a single night. "I paid too much attention to what I was going to say," wrote Nixon, "and too little to how I would look." Lehrer remarks that these are words to live by for the modern politician and he couldn't be more correct. We've come a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858: the quality of your character isn't half as important as how you look on film. Lehrer points out a few moments when this fact has come to haunt a candidate: George H. W. Bush checking his watch during the 1992 debate with Bill Clinton; Al Gore's heavy sighs during a 2000 debate with George W. Bush; and John McCain's refusal to look Barack Obama in the eye during a campaign in 2008.
It's a savvy idea to take Nixon's remark, written at the dawn of the televised debate, and see how it has been reflected through the years. Unfortunately, this is one of the only insights Lehrer brings to the subject. For all his knowledge and experience, he seems stuck in his role as a journalist: he's happy to print the facts, but shies away from opinion. He breaks away from this on occasion - he clearly has no respect for the most recent evolutionary step in televised debates, the Town Hall - but for the most part he seems content to leave the analysis to the politicians who he interviewed about their performance. This is a bit of a coup, as there are definitely some telling moments of self-reflection from both George Bushes and Bill Clinton. But there are too many gaps. Al Gore and Ross Perot both declined to be interviewed and it's far too soon to have any clever insights from John McCain or Sarah Palin about their 2008 debating performance.
At times, Tension City fights to double as a psuedo-memoir, with Lehrer charting his journey from neophyte to consummate pro. There are touches of this throughout, but it's not nearly enough - again, Lehrer gets caught in the journalist's trap. He himself is so absent as a character that when he does have a few moments of triumph, they fail to resonate. More focus on Lehrer's own professional journey through the years would have given the debates far more significance: each would have been a benchmark in a man's development. It may very well be that this is what they were, but Tension City's narrative fails to highlight this in any way.
Ultimately, the book feels most like a missed opportunity. To return to the food metaphor, the book left me hungry for more and I ended up crawling through cyberspace searching for clips from the Dukakis - Regan debate or the Cheney - Lieberman debate which, apparently, was one of the most civilized in history. It's definitely a testament to Lehrer that he was able to whet my appetite for something as seemingly dull as presidential debating history; but given that Lehrer is the only person to ever moderate eleven debates, it's too bad that he chose to keep his journalist hat on for as long as he did.
November 20, 2024
I expected something different out of this book — I was hoping for a heavy-hitting, intellectual analysis of the last 40ish years of presidential debates.
Instead, it is Jim Lehrer’s personal swan song to his years as a debate moderator. He captured the texture and emotional arc of an era I was hardly alive for, and will never observe from his vantage point. Once I adjusted my expectations, I found this book valuable.
This book requires knowledge of presidential and vice presidential candidates of a bygone era. If it’s been a while since you’ve revisited that history, I would recommend watching some YouTube videos for the basic facts before you get too deep into the book.
Lehrer does ramble a bit. There are a few pages I simply couldn’t make sense of, probably due to lack of context.
Still, the overall experience of reading this book was pleasant — and captivating at times. His energetic retelling of the debates is the strongest part of the book. I appreciate that Lehrer spent time in his retirement to share his singular experiences with the rest of the world. May his legacy be remembered.
Instead, it is Jim Lehrer’s personal swan song to his years as a debate moderator. He captured the texture and emotional arc of an era I was hardly alive for, and will never observe from his vantage point. Once I adjusted my expectations, I found this book valuable.
This book requires knowledge of presidential and vice presidential candidates of a bygone era. If it’s been a while since you’ve revisited that history, I would recommend watching some YouTube videos for the basic facts before you get too deep into the book.
Lehrer does ramble a bit. There are a few pages I simply couldn’t make sense of, probably due to lack of context.
Still, the overall experience of reading this book was pleasant — and captivating at times. His energetic retelling of the debates is the strongest part of the book. I appreciate that Lehrer spent time in his retirement to share his singular experiences with the rest of the world. May his legacy be remembered.
July 1, 2021
I read this as part of the Pantsuit Politics Extra Credit Book Club. Part of what I love about the club is that a large percentage of the books are either ones I have never heard of or would never have selected on my own to read. This was interesting and well written, albeit somewhat more mundane than I was expecting given the subject matter. As someone who never watched a political debate until 2020, I give this book a lot of credit for holding my attention. Recommend this for those interested in politics or eager and willing to learn about the political process as it interacts with the media.
February 2, 2020
Could have used more information about the debates and less about the author.
December 29, 2020
Fascinating look at the behind the scenes of the presidential and veep debates from a legendary journalist’s POV
October 25, 2024
I moved on to the opening question but I did so poorly.
“Let me begin with something General Eisenhower said in his 1952 presidential campaign. Quote, ‘We must achieve both security and solvency. In fact, the foundation of military strength is economic strength,’ end quote.”
It was a dumb and unnecessary justification for asking about the financial crisis. I also violated my own rules about getting right to the point. The words were barely out of my mouth when I thought about all the times I had shouted through a television screen to a moderator/interviewer, “Just ask the question!” (148)
When I was growing up, Jim Lehrer was the most trusted face in network journalism. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was by far the most boring, civil news program on TV. It was so boring and civil that PBS, flamethrowers that they are, followed it with The McLaughlin Group, a panel show that at least tried to raise the hackles. You had to, after Lehrer and his team of humorless Raisin Bran correspondents delivered the news in accentless American English for 60 minutes.
I say this all from a place of love. Jim Lehrer’s brand of journalism — his mode of intellectualism — was nonpartisan, organic, and thoroughly American. He was perhaps a kind of TV American we’ll never see again: curious and righteous and stolid, a Beltway version of Norman Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech.” He spoke with gravitas and carried a sense of institution — like his show was mandated in Article 2, like one of the colonnades of the White House had come to life. Lehrer conveyed information and analysis to citizens, dammit, whose right to understand the world was an emolument of democracy itself.
He’s dead now, I was sad to learn, and so is the world he came from. Reading Tension City took me back to a political environment I was a part of, as a news-junkie kid, but can scarcely remember in our post-Trump world. It was a time when the public face of politics was two genteel white men straitjacketed every which way — in their manners of speech, talking points, modes of comportment, humor — attempting to score the most marginal of victories over one another. Today, the goal is annihilation.
In every way this memoir is a throwback. What used to be considered a debate gaffe or a zing wouldn’t register anywhere today. Reagan’s “There you go again” is praised in these pages as the kind of signature dunk that separates memorable politicians from failures. This is a mode of politics that might never return. What I was surprised to find myself wondering was whether I wanted it to.
Here’s the thing: These were not the good old days. Sure, politics (and political theater, which is the subject of this book) was more boring than any moderner would believe. But the political world in this book is bad.
For starters, the parties are in complete collusion. The way both the media and Bush / Clinton discarded Ross Perot — truly a “man of substance” (76) if too quirked-up to be president — was gross.
I was surprised to learn how few recurring parameters there are to presidential debates; they tend to be negotiated anew every election, between the two parties, each seeking to amplify their candidates’ strengths by tweaking the format, subjects, etc.
The Hartford debate at the Bushnell theater was a podium event with strict rules: two-minute opening statements, ninety-second answers, sixty-second rebuttals, thirty-second responses, and two-minute closing statements.
That buttoned-up game plan was insisted on, I was told, by the Dole campaign. They wanted to play to Dole’s strength as a quick-wit short responder and away from Clinton’s as a voluble, long-form charmer. The trade-off was Dole agreeing — at Clinton’s insistence — that the second debate would be a town hall format. (78)
About the planning of the 2004 debates:
There were negotiations about the negotiations, and finally a thirty-two page agreement between the two candidates emerged that went into minute detail about the debates — the room temperature, the use of notes at podiums, even the size of the various holding rooms at the debate sites.
The provision that drew the most attention, however, was this: “When a candidate is speaking, either in answering a question or making his closing statement, TV coverage will be limited to the candidate speaking. There will be no TV cutaways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so.”
That was clearly aimed at avoiding a repeat of anything resembling Gore-like Big Sigh shots. (117)
I disliked the total lack of qualm Lehrer had about this institutional collusion. By all indications he was a man of civic integrity, but never does he spare a thought for the idea that the electoral process should be more open, or at least less insider.
What’s worse is that the insiderism doesn’t lead to better politics. It’s crazy that there’s this much pomp and circumstance leading up to a discussion on politics at the dumbest possible level.
Perot tried to move on to NAFTA’s effect on manufacturing, arguing that the United States would not be able to sell goods to Mexican citizens who made low wages. Gore seemed to ignore his assertion.
GORE: “OK. First of all, you will notice, and the audience will notice, that he does not want to publicly release how much money he’s spending [on Perot’s famous airtime blocs to promote his message], how much money he’s received from other sources to campaign against NAFTA. I would like to see those public releases that the other side has made. Now, let me come to the point — he talked about accuracy of forecasts and numbers…” (74)
But neither that nor the TV dollars were the issue. Gore was wrong about NAFTA and couldn’t address it head-on, because he was not constructed that way as a public-facing concept. Other politicians in this book similarly give glib, vacuous answers to important questions.
Institutionalists like Lehrer and the party bosses can lament the loss of respectability Trump ushered in, but he was always someone who simply identified a bad television show when he saw one. Elections had long been TV-fied festivals of sound bites. Plodding, prescribed board games. It was like that when Trump got there, and the thing is, I think it’s good that things are (somewhat) different today. The stability of the system Lehrer writes of, all this Ivy League and network TV capture, did not lead to better public dialogue, let alone better politics.
John Kerry very much disliked the format.
“I had ninety seconds to talk to America about why I thought what I thought.” He cited the question about how he would rate himself as an environmentalist.
“My God, we’re talking about global climate change, cancer, health, security, energy independence, pollution of our waterways, loss of our fisheries, countless issues, and we had ninety seconds to talk about it in the most viewed moment of a presidential race.” (131)
Even though nearly every question could (and probably should) be answered with a college semester’s worth of interdisciplinary material, the name of the game was keeping a brisk pace. A debate is TV before it is politics. Ultimately, presidential debates test a person’s ability to handle the most complex questions in human history against a rubric written by an ignorant, disinterested public.
And look, it’s not really Jim Lehrer’s fault. People like him play their part in this carefully stage-managed opera by showing preoccupation over appearances. There’s a section here where Lehrer is invited to play himself on an episode of The West Wing but ultimately turns down the opportunity, fearing too much coziness between the press and the entertainment industry. (138) Where this concern went when Andrew and Chris Cuomo demonstrated media and politics to be two sides of the same coin, I do not know. But it didn’t upset anyone I saw on TV. Nor did the fact that Bush v. Gore was two DC nepo babies contesting for the presidency. These were simply not problems that made the radar of the DC establishment at the time. They weren’t problems at all.
In terms of the actual substance and writing of the book, it was pretty dry. You get a behind-the-scenes look at just what goes into debate prep from the journalist’s side — basically, they write questions themselves and don’t share it beforehand, simple as that — and a sense of how nerve-wracking it is to do these things. (Hence the name of the book, pulled from a description George HW Bush used to describe presidential debates.) On the art of writing and asking questions — two separate art forms — Lehrer has this advice: just keep it simple. (184)
Special mention goes to the absolutely insane story of journalist Bernard Shaw’s question that opened — opened — a 1988 debate:
”The first question goes to Governor Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond. Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” (35)
Holy fuck! Jesus. That was wild.
But not too much else happens here. Presidential debates are just one more arena in which tight coordination between the parties is made to look like a contest for the American public, with the real decisions made backstage and drivel performed for the lowest common denominator.
One last comment: I was laughing, throughout this book, how funny it was that someone like Lehrer was once not only at the top of the political journalism world, but represented the standard format of political news. It’s just so far from today. We used to have a whole genre’s worth of these guys: corn-fed sub-Cronkites, the wise but spry older man who’s asking the hard questions in politics. Can you imagine a guy like Bob Schieffer or Ted Koppel doing this now? That kind of thing got sexed up a long time ago, with Anderson Cooper and all the rest of the cable news gang. I guess Chuck Todd is still like that, but he may be the last of his kind.
No, the world Lehrer writes of here is gone. People don’t trust politics anymore, and based purely on what’s in this book, they shouldn’t. But people also want more explosive fireworks from politics nowadays, and if I’m being honest, I do too. I couldn’t imagine caring much about a mode of politics this boring. Maybe that was always the goal.
February 27, 2021
I was surprised at how many quotes or scenes I remembered from debates that I had either never saw or were a long time ago. Sadly, none of them involving any substance or policy. Although I was too young to be paying much attention to the Carter/Reagan debates, the "There you go again!" line lives on in my mind.
I was surprised to learn the presidential debates were considered optional until relatively recently, (1992, I think?). I was also surprised to learn that Lehrer as a single moderator was also expected to juggle the questioning and the time constraints. Even in our local debates for things like School Board the League of Women Voters has about 3 people doing these tasks. I am not sure how he managed. I definitely don't think moderators should be expected to correct facts candidates say on the debate floor on top of all that. Not even considering whether that is appropriate, I don't see how it is physically possible.
I would have liked a little more analysis rather than just a play-by-play of the various debates, and more discussion of what Lehrer thinks are the pros and cons of different formats. But the book is fast and fun.
I appreciated the rituals he and his family took at each debate and the obvious love between them.
Finally, as an Upstate New Yorker for over 20 years, how did I not know that Jack Kemp was a Buffalo Bills star quarterback! I know he hasn't been around for a while, but that is a big deal!
I was surprised to learn the presidential debates were considered optional until relatively recently, (1992, I think?). I was also surprised to learn that Lehrer as a single moderator was also expected to juggle the questioning and the time constraints. Even in our local debates for things like School Board the League of Women Voters has about 3 people doing these tasks. I am not sure how he managed. I definitely don't think moderators should be expected to correct facts candidates say on the debate floor on top of all that. Not even considering whether that is appropriate, I don't see how it is physically possible.
I would have liked a little more analysis rather than just a play-by-play of the various debates, and more discussion of what Lehrer thinks are the pros and cons of different formats. But the book is fast and fun.
I appreciated the rituals he and his family took at each debate and the obvious love between them.
Finally, as an Upstate New Yorker for over 20 years, how did I not know that Jack Kemp was a Buffalo Bills star quarterback! I know he hasn't been around for a while, but that is a big deal!
October 21, 2021
A humor and introspective look at presidential debates from the undisputed master moderator. While there is some funny and insightful commentary, this is not a tell-all or salacious gossip story. Lehrer mostly narrates and let's the candidates tell their stories, much like his trademark interview style. Particularly of interest was how serious he took them, how much prep work he did, and how focused he was in the moment. A civil, insightful book that kept me turning pages well into the night.
My only disappointment was the final chapter with his thoughts on the role of debates in the public discourse and tips for future moderators seemed perfunctory and abrupt. There were flashes of heartfelt insight, but most of the chapter seemed clinical compared to the personal narrative I had just enjoyed. It seemed odd, given how passionate Lehrer had seemed about the process heading into each debate - maybe a little over-edited, or the journalist in him didn't feel comfortable editorializing?
My only disappointment was the final chapter with his thoughts on the role of debates in the public discourse and tips for future moderators seemed perfunctory and abrupt. There were flashes of heartfelt insight, but most of the chapter seemed clinical compared to the personal narrative I had just enjoyed. It seemed odd, given how passionate Lehrer had seemed about the process heading into each debate - maybe a little over-edited, or the journalist in him didn't feel comfortable editorializing?
March 3, 2021
I really enjoyed listening to Jim Lehrer reading his book. I was a fan for many years and hearing his voice again was nice. His recounts and reflections about the debates were interesting to me and to my husband. We listened to the audiobook together. The addition of his own feelings, preparation, rituals, successes and failures added to our overall appreciation of his experiences. We’ll never view Presidential debates the same again. It was a valuable look behind the process and the people.
Read
February 10, 2020As someone who was too young to be involved in most of the debates, this was helpful in understanding modern presidential history. In addition, to see a written transcript is a very helpful tool when people say things very emotionally and just tiny clips are played on tv. This is a useful book for young adults and would be helpful in a civics class or government class.
February 25, 2020
It was neat looking into the history of Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, as told by news anchor and frequent debate moderator, Lehrer. He goes back to the years of Kennedy and Nixon and explores the ins and outs of debate prep, negotiation between the parties, and even some of the scandalous responses given over the course of history through to the present time. It read much like a political podcast and wasn't terribly exciting, but it was interesting.
January 12, 2021
Although not a page-turner, I did enjoy the analytics of how presidential debates—and moments inside those debates—impacted election outcomes. I also found interesting the behind-the-scenes stores that Jim Lehrer shared. The book was difficult to follow at times as the debates were not chronological, and I was not politically aware (or alive) for the majority of the debates he discussed.
September 6, 2024
Outstanding detail of history
Thankyou Mr Lehrer for writing a book on this major subject of American history. How the presidents of the modern era debated their way to winning the highest office in the land. I loved reading the personal anecdotes and behind the scenes stories. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Thankyou Mr Lehrer for writing a book on this major subject of American history. How the presidents of the modern era debated their way to winning the highest office in the land. I loved reading the personal anecdotes and behind the scenes stories. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
March 8, 2019
Lehrer's writing is compelling, and the book gives real incite in the goings on behind the different televised presidential debates. It's a short read too. -Matt
December 7, 2020
An interesting behind-the-scenes look into presidential debates. Not something I’ve ever read a lot into and I enjoyed this little peek into some of those experiences.
September 25, 2011
Famously beginning with the Nixon-Kennedy debate, televised presidential debates have defined the modern era of presidential elections. But after the Nixon-Kennedy debate another presidential debate was not held until the Carter-Ford debate in 1976 (the first vice presidential debate was also held in 1976). They have been a mainstay of the quadrennial presidential election season ever since.
Jim Lehrer is uniquely qualified to write an account of the presidential debates. He has moderated 11 of the 34 televised presidential-vice presidential debates. He also interviewed all but three of the participants from the 1976 debates onwards for an oral history project.
Lehrer relies heavily on quotes from the debate participants, both from interviews and from the debates themselves. This is an inherently clunky approach, but it works well enough in the hands of a journalist as talented as Lehrer.
Lehrer is eminently fair to his subjects, letting them respond to major moments in their own words and printing a page worth of the Admiral Stockdale’s opening statement after his famous open of “Who am I? Why am I here?”. All of the major moments are covered, from Ford declaring that he didn’t believe Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union to the first Bush president checking his watch to Gore’s sighs (Lehrer missed the last two, as he was watching the candidate answering).
Lehrer also gives us an inside baseball account of the debates, from taut (and petty) negotiations over format to embarrassing logistical issues, including the secret service trying to stop him from entering the stage mere minutes before the debate was to start (“I’m the moderator! There are three people who have to be out there on the stage, and I am one of them!”). I enjoyed the personal anecdotes. For one example, Lehrer, continuing a personal tradition, bought a new tie for one of the 2004 debates the day of with his daughters; that evening he gave the $145 tie to a grandson for his thirteenth birthday.
The book is structured in roughly chronological order. In the last couple chapters, Lehrer covers other debates he has moderated through the years (including a disastrous post-9/11 debate) and muses on the “guts” of serving as a moderator.
Tension City is a short and easy read. Lehrer has an easy confidence, a self-deprecating wit, and a sharp eye for interesting anecdotes. His willingness to admit error is refreshing (and shocking). He points out that he missed Clinton’s use of the present tense in their interview the day the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke (a mistake of Lehrer’s that was ignored in the media storm to follow). I would recommend this book for anyone interested in how American presidents are chosen.
Jim Lehrer is uniquely qualified to write an account of the presidential debates. He has moderated 11 of the 34 televised presidential-vice presidential debates. He also interviewed all but three of the participants from the 1976 debates onwards for an oral history project.
Lehrer relies heavily on quotes from the debate participants, both from interviews and from the debates themselves. This is an inherently clunky approach, but it works well enough in the hands of a journalist as talented as Lehrer.
Lehrer is eminently fair to his subjects, letting them respond to major moments in their own words and printing a page worth of the Admiral Stockdale’s opening statement after his famous open of “Who am I? Why am I here?”. All of the major moments are covered, from Ford declaring that he didn’t believe Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union to the first Bush president checking his watch to Gore’s sighs (Lehrer missed the last two, as he was watching the candidate answering).
Lehrer also gives us an inside baseball account of the debates, from taut (and petty) negotiations over format to embarrassing logistical issues, including the secret service trying to stop him from entering the stage mere minutes before the debate was to start (“I’m the moderator! There are three people who have to be out there on the stage, and I am one of them!”). I enjoyed the personal anecdotes. For one example, Lehrer, continuing a personal tradition, bought a new tie for one of the 2004 debates the day of with his daughters; that evening he gave the $145 tie to a grandson for his thirteenth birthday.
The book is structured in roughly chronological order. In the last couple chapters, Lehrer covers other debates he has moderated through the years (including a disastrous post-9/11 debate) and muses on the “guts” of serving as a moderator.
Tension City is a short and easy read. Lehrer has an easy confidence, a self-deprecating wit, and a sharp eye for interesting anecdotes. His willingness to admit error is refreshing (and shocking). He points out that he missed Clinton’s use of the present tense in their interview the day the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke (a mistake of Lehrer’s that was ignored in the media storm to follow). I would recommend this book for anyone interested in how American presidents are chosen.
September 9, 2011
[Reviewed from a galley from Book Expo America 2011. Expected publication date 9/13/2011]
In college, I took a course called "Presidential Rhetoric," taught by a former George HW Bush speechwriter. The class was an interesting study of what presidents say, why and how they say it, and who puts the words into their mouths. Lehrer's new book -- his first nonfiction work in two decades, according to the author bio -- would be a good addendum to a course of that type. I know I'm not the only person who thinks "Jim Lehrer" when the topic of debate moderators comes up -- having moderated a great many of them over the past couple of decades, he is in a unique position to discuss them.
For the book (and for a previous PBS documentary), Lehrer interviewed former presidential and vice-presidential candidates about their debate performances, and their recollections are interspersed with his own memories, sections of transcripts, and discussions of whether, and how, the debates really shaped the trajectory of the race. He discusses "major moments" -- the infamous Kitty Dukakis question from 1988; "There you go again"; "You're no Jack Kennedy"; the sighing, lockbox-obsessed Al Gore. And Lehrer doesn't spare himself from his criticism: he discusses things that he did wrong as moderator, questions he wishes he'd worded differently, and questions he wishes he hadn't asked.
The book is an interesting historical document. Lehrer's writing style here leans a little towards "college essay," but it's a quick read and would be of interest to anyone who's a bit of a political junkie.
In college, I took a course called "Presidential Rhetoric," taught by a former George HW Bush speechwriter. The class was an interesting study of what presidents say, why and how they say it, and who puts the words into their mouths. Lehrer's new book -- his first nonfiction work in two decades, according to the author bio -- would be a good addendum to a course of that type. I know I'm not the only person who thinks "Jim Lehrer" when the topic of debate moderators comes up -- having moderated a great many of them over the past couple of decades, he is in a unique position to discuss them.
For the book (and for a previous PBS documentary), Lehrer interviewed former presidential and vice-presidential candidates about their debate performances, and their recollections are interspersed with his own memories, sections of transcripts, and discussions of whether, and how, the debates really shaped the trajectory of the race. He discusses "major moments" -- the infamous Kitty Dukakis question from 1988; "There you go again"; "You're no Jack Kennedy"; the sighing, lockbox-obsessed Al Gore. And Lehrer doesn't spare himself from his criticism: he discusses things that he did wrong as moderator, questions he wishes he'd worded differently, and questions he wishes he hadn't asked.
The book is an interesting historical document. Lehrer's writing style here leans a little towards "college essay," but it's a quick read and would be of interest to anyone who's a bit of a political junkie.
July 29, 2012
Let me start by saying that I really like and respect Jim Lehrer. I think the Newshour is the best news program by far. You learn a lot more by watching one episode of the Newshour than you do from watching 24 straight hours of any of the cable news networks.
This book recounts all the presidential debates, even the ones Lehrer wasn't involved in. I found most of the stories about the non-Lehrer debates to be largely uninteresting, with the exception of the 1988 presidential debate, in which Bernie Shaw of CNN asked Governor Michael Dukakis an astonishing question to open the debate. (Video of that can be found here). I had forgotten that incident. Even in today's more mean-spirited politics, that question would be viewed as out-of-bounds by most people. The story behind that question is interesting, as well.
The meat of the book is Lehrer's tales of mishaps and walking on a knife's edge during his participation in the presidential debates. He recounts near-disasters and highlights the few awful questions and debates he had.
This is one of the few books that almost HAS to be consumed in audiobook form. It's great to hear Lehrer read the book and made it much more memorable for me. The most important part of the audiobook, though, is the ability to hear the audio clips from the TV debates and interviews with most of the debate participants that Lehrer conducted for a separate project. It greatly enriches the material when you're able to hear exactly what Lehrer's talking about.
In any format, this is a short, well-written book.
This book recounts all the presidential debates, even the ones Lehrer wasn't involved in. I found most of the stories about the non-Lehrer debates to be largely uninteresting, with the exception of the 1988 presidential debate, in which Bernie Shaw of CNN asked Governor Michael Dukakis an astonishing question to open the debate. (Video of that can be found here). I had forgotten that incident. Even in today's more mean-spirited politics, that question would be viewed as out-of-bounds by most people. The story behind that question is interesting, as well.
The meat of the book is Lehrer's tales of mishaps and walking on a knife's edge during his participation in the presidential debates. He recounts near-disasters and highlights the few awful questions and debates he had.
This is one of the few books that almost HAS to be consumed in audiobook form. It's great to hear Lehrer read the book and made it much more memorable for me. The most important part of the audiobook, though, is the ability to hear the audio clips from the TV debates and interviews with most of the debate participants that Lehrer conducted for a separate project. It greatly enriches the material when you're able to hear exactly what Lehrer's talking about.
In any format, this is a short, well-written book.
November 9, 2014
This is not the first time an author has published a back-stage peek at what really happened behind the scenes at American presidential and vice-presidential debates over the last half century. There have been at least three previous debate chronicles published by Sidney Kraus, Alan Schroeder and Newton N. Minow with Craig L. Lamay. However, this may be the first printed documentary written by someone as close to the historical events as the candidates themselves, veteran debate moderator, Jim Lehrer.
The good, the bad and the ugly that occurs in and around these tension-filled, presidential face-offs could only be reported by someone who actually sat “in the middle seat.” Lehrer did so about a dozen times over the course of a long television journalist career for PBS. In the pages of this eye-witness account, Lehrer pulls no punches about his own gaffes on-or-off the air, not to mention the silliness displayed by presidential candidates from both sides of the political aisle.
While Lehrer’s candor is refreshing, in his attempt to remain neutral, “fair and balanced,” he does let his political leanings sneak out just a tiny bit in his treatment of the controversial Al Gore. On page 111 we learn that the loser in the Supreme Court-decided race of 2000 “has moved on to an honored place as a world advocate for environmental causes.” Lehrer even goes on to say that he believes Bill Clinton’s second-in-command will “someday . . . tell his story of 2000 in a well-written book.” Until that happens, in the meantime, if you like political theater, it doesn’t get any better than this.
The good, the bad and the ugly that occurs in and around these tension-filled, presidential face-offs could only be reported by someone who actually sat “in the middle seat.” Lehrer did so about a dozen times over the course of a long television journalist career for PBS. In the pages of this eye-witness account, Lehrer pulls no punches about his own gaffes on-or-off the air, not to mention the silliness displayed by presidential candidates from both sides of the political aisle.
While Lehrer’s candor is refreshing, in his attempt to remain neutral, “fair and balanced,” he does let his political leanings sneak out just a tiny bit in his treatment of the controversial Al Gore. On page 111 we learn that the loser in the Supreme Court-decided race of 2000 “has moved on to an honored place as a world advocate for environmental causes.” Lehrer even goes on to say that he believes Bill Clinton’s second-in-command will “someday . . . tell his story of 2000 in a well-written book.” Until that happens, in the meantime, if you like political theater, it doesn’t get any better than this.
October 14, 2016
It's debatable.
I debated on reading Jim Lehrer's 2011 book called, Tension City, Inside the Presidential Debates, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-McCain for various reasons.
Too much politics on TV and social media being one.
But what's intriguing is the view from the middle seat. In this case, Jim Lehrers, a veteran moderator who has presided over eleven presidential and vice presidential debates.
While delving into the debates in which he's moderated, Lehrer also highlights the ups and downs of being a moderator, the pressure and "knife blade walking" stress and those out-of-your-control moments when technology fails and his own mistakes or regrets on questions asked and being unprepared; The no-win situation of being a moderator, for once the debate has concluded, criticism comes from all sides.
And...he offers this sage advice: For the moderators, he recommends that their success lies in how invisible they are. And for the candidates, perhaps the most important advice of all---whatever (they) do, answer the question.
Would debates and campaigns from years ago be as nasty as they can be today if social media was as prominent then as it is now? Debatable.
Would you enjoy Lehrer's book? Debatable.
Would I want to be a debate moderator? Non-debatable!!---no way, no how!
I debated on reading Jim Lehrer's 2011 book called, Tension City, Inside the Presidential Debates, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-McCain for various reasons.
Too much politics on TV and social media being one.
But what's intriguing is the view from the middle seat. In this case, Jim Lehrers, a veteran moderator who has presided over eleven presidential and vice presidential debates.
While delving into the debates in which he's moderated, Lehrer also highlights the ups and downs of being a moderator, the pressure and "knife blade walking" stress and those out-of-your-control moments when technology fails and his own mistakes or regrets on questions asked and being unprepared; The no-win situation of being a moderator, for once the debate has concluded, criticism comes from all sides.
And...he offers this sage advice: For the moderators, he recommends that their success lies in how invisible they are. And for the candidates, perhaps the most important advice of all---whatever (they) do, answer the question.
Would debates and campaigns from years ago be as nasty as they can be today if social media was as prominent then as it is now? Debatable.
Would you enjoy Lehrer's book? Debatable.
Would I want to be a debate moderator? Non-debatable!!---no way, no how!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 20, 2012
For people who follow presidential debates, Tension City is both wonderful for its insights on the process and tiresome for its focus on the "key debate moments" that we have heard about many times through the years. George W. Bush looking at his watch, the "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment, Ford on Soviet influence in Europe, sweaty Nixon, etc. etc. etc.
So why do I give it 4 stars? Two reasons:
1. Jim Lehrer has moderated more debates than anyone else, and his unique perspective from the moderator's chair gives insight that one rarely sees or hears about in all the discussion and punditry of presidential debates.
2. I listened to this book as an audiobook, narrated by Lehrer himself and including actual audio from the moments in debate history that he refers to throughout the book. That alone makes this a brilliant piece of nonfiction, because you can't read a quote and get the tone and tenor of the moment that is the most important aspect of how a statement is PERCEIVED in a presidential debate.
So in conclusion, it's a fantastic book when listened to in audio form, but otherwise just a good book about presidential debate history coupled with the view from the moderator's chair.
So why do I give it 4 stars? Two reasons:
1. Jim Lehrer has moderated more debates than anyone else, and his unique perspective from the moderator's chair gives insight that one rarely sees or hears about in all the discussion and punditry of presidential debates.
2. I listened to this book as an audiobook, narrated by Lehrer himself and including actual audio from the moments in debate history that he refers to throughout the book. That alone makes this a brilliant piece of nonfiction, because you can't read a quote and get the tone and tenor of the moment that is the most important aspect of how a statement is PERCEIVED in a presidential debate.
So in conclusion, it's a fantastic book when listened to in audio form, but otherwise just a good book about presidential debate history coupled with the view from the moderator's chair.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews