Skip to footer

Presidential debate: 7 defining moments in history (+video)

From Ronald Reagan’s one-liner, “There you go again,” to Al Gore’s heavy sighs and eye rolls, zingers and mannerisms can define a presidential debate even more than the candidates’ positions on critical issues. Here is a look back at seven defining debate moments.

1988 vice presidential debate: Dan Quayle vs. Lloyd Bentsen

Sen. Dan Quayle (R) of Indiana was elected vice president in 1988, but he was on the wrong side of a defining moment during the vice presidential debate on Oct. 5 that year.

The recurring criticism of Senator Quayle’s lack of experience – especially if became necessary for him to take over the presidency – became a heated topic during the debate.

Panelist Tom Brokaw, repeating the question of Brit Hume, another journalist on the panel, asked Quayle what specific plans he had if he became president.

Quayle, frustrated with having to answer the same question three times, compared his amount of experience to that of Kennedy when he ran for the office:

“I will be prepared not only because of my service in the Congress, but because of my ability to communicate and to lead,” Quayle said. “It is not just age; it's accomplishments, it's experience. I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.”

His opponent, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D) of Texas, shot back:  “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”

Quayle had anticipated that Senator Bentsen might respond in that way, but he had not expected the audience to shout and applaud.

“What I wasn't anticipating was the crowd getting involved as much, and they got very involved, as you can listen on the tape,” Quayle told PBS's Lehrer in 2008. “That I did not expect because there were certain rules or understanding that you had that the crowd was to be there to observe, and not to participate. And they did, and I wasn't prepared for that, but I was somewhat prepared for his line. It was a good line.”

7 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.