I was not impressed with the distracting irrelevancies, e.g. Jackie-O's glamor, John John's darlingness, Jack Kennedy's sexy philandering. On the contrary, I found them irritating at best, dangerous at worst.
Of course the assassination was horrifying, but the glitz dazzled and blinded millions enough to allow some appalling things to occur, such as Teddy Kennedy's long stint in Congress despite the horrifying Mary Jo Kopechne incident, ignored successfully because of the glitz, and other things as well.
Kennedy was a mediocre President, certainly not as bad as the Democrat Presidents who came after him.
In the past few years I have read a number of books about the Kennedys. Generally, they had good points and bad. I do find things to admire about Joe the patriarch, Jackie, and Jack, along with things that are not admirable.
If they were the people living next door, I'm sure I would like them very well, recognizing their good and bad points.
But the glitz and "glamor" were an appalling and dangerous illusion and a glaring example of why we must never allow irrelevancies--or fantasies--or illusions--to distract us from the truth.
This is a big problem. Today, self-serving politicians et al. invent and encourage such illusions to serve their purposes, and many in the public accept and encourage them for various reasons, some because they don't want the bother of thinking.
For example, the fantasies about Obama have prevented an honest examination of his birth and background.
There are many other examples.
Glitz, fantasies, and this sort of "mythology" are illusions, and illusions are very dangerous, especially when they interfere with truth, and this is the real criticism of the illusion known as "Camelot."
While I agree with much of what you have said, think about American society at the time and from a historical perspective. Post WWII Eisenhower, a grandfatherly figure, was a remnant of a grateful America who rewarded him with two terms. Kennedy was the optimistic transition kid with the glamorous wife.
Kennedy was on the leading edge of a societal revolution. He was young, good looking. He had a hot wife and he was a known philanderer. Think of what came directly out of this. I'll give you a hint, Hugh Hefner.
Right at this exact moment the whole Playboy persona exploded in American culture. In large measure because American society wanted to emulate the young, suave, powerful guy who sexually attracted all the girls. That was the Kennedy persona, or myth, constructed or not. This is exactly why Hugh Hefner was exactly in the right place at the exact right historical moment. At that time every guy, and I mean every one, fancied himself a Kennedy-esque Playboy.
What else happened culturally that was Kennedy-esque? In 1963 the first James Bond movie was released (Dr. No). Again, the handsome, powerful guy who possessed all the sexual prowess to score any woman.
It's hard to underestimate the deep cultural impact of the sociology at the time that Kennedy had. It was like, after the abject hardships and suffering of WWII America had turned a page. We were becoming very economically powerful and youth and optimism were surging, and Kennedy was that transcendent and iconic symbol of that historical moment.