5 comments about Living History.

1. A very real, open look into the life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She dares to be vulnerable in many areas of the book, while maintaining the class and dignity she is known for by her fans. A great read...I couldn't put it down.



2. For me, the book was particularly a big bore. It seems as though her autobiography is an attempt to glorify her years sidelined in the White House. The book can only be truly enjoyed by Hillary enthusiasts. I'm not a critic of Hillary Clinton, but specifically this book was written with very dry, shriveled style. If you'd like to read a decent biography of Hillary Clinton, I suggest Carl Bernstein's biography of her.



3. A Memoir Review: Living History
   By Hillary Clinton
   
   Upon witnessing abridged television clips of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign speeches, I made the ignorant assumption the Presidential hopeful was clueless: "she's the wife of a former President; based on what professional formation does she speak?" The impression was unjustifiable. I considered her candidacy an attempt to re-establish the family name given former President Bill Clinton's embarrassing impeachment. Politics, after all, is much more than meets the eye, and as I discovered via the woman's autobiographical memoir Living History, Hillary Rodham Clinton is certainly much more than meets the eye.
   
   My primary reason to pick up Clinton's book was to learn about her political career--nevertheless, the work covers her early life extensively. This is appropriate, and crucial to set the context of her years as an executive. The initial chapters are engaging: not only are they an insightful look into Hillary as a young woman, but also an insightful look at being an American youth in the sixties. Clinton's extensive resume is testament to her scholarly knowledge, and her presence behind the scenes at The White House contributes to an equally significant practical knowledge. Hearing of her pioneering speech at Wellesley College, the first student to have ever given a commencement address, her entry into the all-male Rose Law Firm, and her intertwining of typically hardball politics and compassionate child work made me recognize Hillary Rodham was bound for a high-profile political career long before meeting William Jefferson Clinton.
   
   Clinton's writing embodies humanistic qualities, as if she is still an accessible advocate for everyday hiring. This fact is emphasized by her commentary on routine activities, and her naming of each political associate with which she worked. This latter aspect truly fleshes out the memoir--regardless, the squat descriptions of her colleagues sound unappealingly phoney. Everybody in Arkansas seems to be a close friend of the couple: "As soon as Bill and I became a couple, they became friends of mine. And their sons became close to Chelsea" (Clinton 105). Speaking of partner Sara Ehrman, a member of Senator McGovern's legislative staff, "We sized each other up and decided we would enjoy the ride together, and it was the start of a friendship that endures today" (Clinton 60).
   
   Alluding to "businessman and longtime politico" Jim McDougal, he "was a character: charming, witty and eccentric as the day is long" (Clinton 87). Admiring former Mayor of Little Rock, "Webb Hubbell was a big, burly, likeable man" (Clinton 80). Referring to trip director Kelly Craighead, "she had a lot of insight, dedication and spunk." Clinton chooses three formulaic adjectives to describe each of her acquaintances, and the mechanical style soon becomes tedious. The technique corroborates the "safeness" of Clinton's autobiography: nothing shocking, nor a "tell-all"--simply reserved commentary of nationally and personally historic moments. Understandable, since she would be running for President six years later. In this sense, I do believe there were ulterior motives for the memoir's release; the 2003 year of publishing was opportunely timed for Clinton's 2008 candidacy. The latter stipulation supports my learning that a Presidential campaign begins as soon as one shakes hands with the lowest-ranking political official twenty years from an official convention, and that one's private life will be increasingly scrutinized and distorted.
   
   There is little mention of the financial burden statewide and national elections place on nominees, which I found surprising given Bill Clinton's numerous campaigns. This is insight I was looking forward to reading about, given its increasing importance in our visually driven and electronic society.
   
   Though I have not reached the chapters focussing on the infamous Whitewater scandal, nor her conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt, I have already changed my impression of Hillary Rodham Clinton: she is a well-informed Democrat, whose has consistently demonstrated her leadership skills. Clinton is an activist currently living in manner she has promoted all her life, literally living history.



4. So many people want to give their opinion of Hillary and not the book itself. I found the book extremely interesting and informative and the information she provides about all of the things she learned as First Lady I do feel made her perfectly well suited to become President. She knows all the appointments that need to be made, all the jobs that need to be filled, and she's learned what types of comments and actions can get you in trouble while in the White House. I find her incredibly smart and had no idea of all the different issues that she is familiar with and all the people and friends she has made over the years who can and do give her insight. All in all a delightful book and a good read.



5. Most conservatives give this book 1 star. Why? EVERY conservative should read this book. Now if I were judging it purely as a memoir, let's just say that James Frey has nothing on Hillary Clinton when it comes to "embellishment" (or should we call it "mis-writing"?).
   
   But for those conservatives who know how to do a web search or two, this book is rife with useful material. Contrast her story of Watergate versus Jerry Zeifman's account, for instance. Or read pages 440, 448, 465-466 on her account of how she and Chelsea learned about Monica Lewinski (and then ask after repeating the names Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowes, Paula Jones, etc. "So, you're telling me that this is how it went down? OK, so choose -- is she the dumbest woman in America or the biggest liar?").
   
   For a real laugh, read her account of Whitewater -- seriously, if you read this out loud, people would think you're doing a comedy routine.
   
   And her rewriting of the history of her health insurance debacle and the aftermath is priceless. Her tales of Bill's leadership and how she was a support are gems.
   
   EVERY conservative should buy several colors of highlighters and read this book (preferably alongside a copy of Dick Morris' Rewriting History). Besides, with every book purchase, you get a free dartboard (the cover).

No comments about The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

1 comments about Redneck Boy in the Promised Land: The Confessions of "Crazy Cooter".

1. I've met Ben and he is exactly how he presents himself in this book -- a witty, charismatic man who has overcome adversity and remembers where he come from. This is a good, inspiring story of recovery.

5 comments about Bobby and J. Edgar: The Historic Face-Off Between the Kennedys and J. Edgar Hoover That Transformed America.

1. A new slant on the differences between a new generation in politics and how not to use power.A nasty powerful man who was corrupt and used his position to stay in power at others expense.The Kennedys and J Edgar Hoover is a good book and lots of information brought to light .A.T.Kiln



2. It's a well-written, well-sourced book detailing disturbing relationships, among them:
   * The mob and the Mormons in Las Vegas
   * The rum-running "founding father" Joseph Kennedy and his intertwined business interests with the criminal element
   * The at-times destructive relationship of the brothers Kennedy to one another.
   Mr. Hersh's account is high on credibility and readability. However, this is not a book for those who want to swallow the "martyr" myths about JFK and RFK.



3. This primly salacious biography suffers from two conflicting flaws. Writer Burton Hersh seems to know too much about his subjects and is unable to dissever the wheat from the chaff. He seems hell-bent on telling the reader everything about everything, to the point of confusion. Detailing knicknames of mobsters who make cameo appearances in a paragraph or two, for example, blurs understanding rather than clarifying. Burton's quick switching between names hampers understanding as well, with John F. Kennedy switching to Jack and Bobby to Robert to Bob within a few sentences, making it difficult to be sure what character is acting in the play. The overabundance of detail makes for a very tedious read.
   
   Compounding the difficulty is a serious failure in editorial oversight. Misspellings abound, both typographic and the "spellcheck" variety with correctly spelled but incorrect words. Sentence structure is convoluted to the point that necessitates re-reading, parsing and deconstructing the author's intent. A competent editor would have cut a third of the text and imposed clearer chronological threads. History buffs will pick up a few new details and learn more about the sex lives and obsessions of the rich and famous than is particularly useful.



4. For about half the book, I was thinking Hersh did a tremendous job of researching the Mob-Kennedy-Hoover nexus, adding a great deal to what several other books on the subject have alleged.
   
   Then I got to the Kennedy assassination and it became clear that Hersh was simply repeating conspiracy lore and mythology without any ability or perhaps inclination to evaluate the material.
   
   Suspicion is not evidence, and to allege that a lot a strange and suspicious things happened, does not prove that the Mob/CIA/FBI/Cubans were in league to kill Kennedy. A plausible motive is not the same as proof of participation in a conspiracy.
   
   Only one case in point: on page 422 Hersh alleges that the FBI reversed six crucial images on the Zapruder film -- frames 313-319 -- to cover up the fact that there was another gunman (or was it several)?
   
   Does Hersh think that a half-dozen splices can be made in film and not be detectable? Nobody would notice that Kennedy's head, instead of exploding for six frames, would be reassembled? The limo, instead of traveling left-to-right, would be traveling right-to-left for six frames?
   
   This is grade-school stuff.
   
   It is understandable that the FBI would attempt to protect its reputation, even to the extent of altering/suppressing evidence of its incompetence. But to suggest that the FBI had an interest in protecting the killers requires evidence. Conspiracy buffs quote each other as authorities, and eventually create a huge network of myth, aided and abetted by Oliver Stone's bizarre movie (ummm, those were composites characters, was his defense).
   
   In the end, Hersh proves to be so gullible that nothing he wrote in the book can be taken at face value, however sensational -- maybe, particularly if sensational.



5. This book is written in a way where the author NEVER traces his sources back to the original cite. He admits that he takes each source for his book from the LAST place he read it, and does not trace the source back. Thus the book simply cannot be believed. There are many things said in this book that lots of us would like to believe, especially those of us that are conservative and look back at the Kennedy presidency as a fake "Camelot" in every sense of the word. Read it if you like, but beware, I didn't come away from reading the book, some chapters twice, with any assurance that everything in it is true, right down to naming the assassin who fired the shot from the Grassy Knoll, and with what type of weapon and bullet. My guess is that someone else guessed which weapon was used and the author used this as his source. That is, if you believe shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll that killed the President in the first place. The conflict between RFK and J. Edgar was likely real, and I wish someone would write a book on just that subject. Whoever said above that they believed the book exposed the truth has to go back and check every source cited in the book to it's original source and then judge from there.

5 comments about Robert Kennedy and His Times.

1. Arthur Schlesinger's mammoth biography is a critically important look into one of our countries most engaging political figures. This book, while written by a Kennedy insider, is one of the most well researched documentaries I have ever come across. In today's political arena, so much of what we read or hear about is blatantly biased or otherwise opinionated, it is refreshing to a book that has so many sources attributed to it. It was interesting to read about Bobby's difficulties in academics, his faith, and his need to please his father. I would really recommend this book to any person who has a thirst for a moving story or is interested in politics. While I -- and most of us -- know how the story ends, there is this intense curiosity I encountered as the book moved along, that maybe the outcome on June 5, 1968 would change.
   
   A highly recommended read.



2. Arthur Schlesinger writes competently enough on RFK's religious and political beliefs and evolution as a public figure. There is roughly 400 pages on his time as Attorney General and 300 on his time as U.S. Senator and presidential candidate. What is lacking is a feeling of really knowing the man personally that I usually get after reading a good biography (e.g. Truman, Years of Lyndon Johnson). Though Schlesinger's is among the longest RFK biographies, almost nothing is mentioned about his marriage, relationship with children and family or anything else aside from his public life and persona. The most interesting aspect of RFK is his willingness to get dirty; visiting rat-infested slums in Bedford, NY and listening to people. No U.S. Senator does that anymore. He truly cared about poverty and suffering and based his presidential campaign around it. He was an excellent public servant and; had he lived a few years longer, would have made a great president. Considering this is the highest-regarded of RFK biography, I was sorely disappointed. Schlesinger as historian manages only dry prose which cannot capture the style or mood of the nation at the end of Kennedy's life.



3. This affectionately written biography of Bobby Kennedy is both pleasurable and painful to read. The man's transformation from his early years as a rackets investigator and attorney general who probably deserved the description of "ruthless," to his years following the assassination of his brother when he became a champion of the disenfranchised and an outspoken critic of U.S involvement in Vietnam, is nothing short of remarkable. One cannot help but imagine how our history might have been changed had he not been killed just after winning the California Democratic Presidential Primary in June, 1968. Could Kennedy have gone on to win the nomination? It seems likely. One thing to keep in mind when playing "What if?": The eventual Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey, a man with virtually no charisma at all, nearly beat Richard Nixon for President.



4. I really enjoyed reading this book. Schlesinger has given us a true portrait of Robert Kennedy, including wonderful insights into his childhood and early adult life by publishing excerpts from family letters.
   
   He goes into great depth to show the work that RFK did as his brother's Attorney General (sometimes a little too much depth) but it gives you an appreciation for RFK's great administrative skills. After seeing how RFK worked as head of the Justice Department, surrounding himself with the `best and the brightest' I believe that he could have a made a great president.
   
   What is amazing from this book is the transformation of RFK following his brother's assassination. He became a champion of the poor, of blacks and an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war. RFK is shown to be a man of great conviction, courage and compassion. Schlesinger also portrays a man of introspection, humor and family values.
   
   It was a great tragedy that he was himself killed in 1968. Unfortunately the book ends rather abruptly upon RFK's death, while I thought a chapter summing up his life and legacy was needed.
   
   That said, this is still the best book available on the life of Robert Kennedy. I recommend this book to everyone who wants to know more about the complex historical figure of RFK.
   
   Whether you agreed with all his politics or not, you come away from this book inspired by Kennedy's example and by his quest to "tame the savagenesss of man and to make gentle the life of this world."



5. I highly recommend this book to those who enjoy reading political biographies and especially those who are interested in the 1960's and in learning about RFK. I decided to read this book after first reading An Unfinished Life: John F Kennedy 1917-1963.
   
   Before reading this book, I knew very little about RFK. It is a long book, with some parts a little slow going. Beginning with the chapter "The Brothers: II", examining the JFK-RFK relationship during the Kennedy administration, I found the book to be totally engrossing. I concur with another reviewer who remarked the book is compartmentalized, and might have read better if told in chronological order. Yet the author's approach may be the most intelligible way to present such detailed examinations of political and social issues of the time.
   
   In conclusion, I found this to be a superb biography, thoroughly researched, well written. Truly an inspirational story of a man of integrity and great compassion.

No comments about The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a Global President.

5 comments about Napoleon: The Path to Power.

1. This is a book for the serious Buonapartiste - particularly his secret detractors. The Sorbonne-educated historian has given us PART ONE of his work - a work of over 600 pages - and I found the deluge of historical materials to be both overwhelming and deftly handled, the resolution to this paradox being that Dwyer is guilty of what he demonstrates behind Napoleon's ascent: a clumsy spin doctoring of the "facts."
   
   This also is the reason I find fault with the very conception of the book: we long have reconciled ourselves to remaining trapped within the vortices of history, myth, and cultural creationism when it comes to this particular biographical subject. Unable to break the historian's taboo of psychoanalytic consideration of its subject, this book ultimately is a doomed enterprise as yet another attempt at "understanding" the man.
   
   I wait for the biography that tells us something new about how the man's context, the history/myth/culture that he found himself in, struggled against, and, in this case, to great extent, found itself transformed in his wake. Our obsession with the little giant certainly would favor this approach.
   
   Peter Glidden, Ph.D.



2. This biography is dry as dust. All the principle individuals are two dimensional. The writer writes as if they were stick figures rather than real people who influenced the course of history. His protrait of Napoleon is without flesh and blood.



3. Napoleon's military brilliance, his ruthless domination of both his army and France's conquered territories - such as in his Egyptian campaign - and his intuitive grasp of nation building through nation invading, is a fascinating story and author Philip Dwyer writes a gripping tale of Napoleon's strategic and tactical military conquests.
   
   Yet, for this very reason, Dwyer's "Napoleon: Path to Power" reads more like "Napoleon: March to Victory" as the book is less a political biography as it is a military history. With its interesting battle and territory maps, as well as art and captions, I felt this book earned a 4-star rating.
   
   Dwyer clearly establishes Napoleon's early influences as a youth on Corsica and at a boarding school in France, where he learns - sometimes at great expense - that the battlefront is a means to the end in the battleground of ideas. As a young adult, he uses his army abroad to build a constituency back home in France. He shamelessly manipulated his soldiers, the press, his family and friends and even his countrymen to achieve his real ambitions of political domination.
   
   If Dwyer had followed that narrative, this book may have been a more compelling story. Napoleon wasn't a general who somehow became a politician; he was a politician who became a general so he could become an even bigger politician.
   
   The proof of which is that Napoleon's greatest victory isn't even on the battlefield; it's a bloodless coup d'etat in 1799 over the corrupt and ineffective French Directory (his superiors) - the post-Revolutionary constitutional government. He was 30-years old and First Counsel of an emerging European power.



4. I tried to read it. I really did. It's one of my favorite subjects. I so far got through maybe 100 pages. I haven't given up, but nor would I take it on vacation. Perhaps if I were stuck in an elevator, alone with nothing to do and nothting else to read, I'd sit down and complete another 100 pages.
   
   Well, after trying the phone, pounding on the walls, and trying to jump up to the ceiling to exit through one of those hidden doors and shimmying up the greased cables to a door and trying to pry it open. Failing that, I may just be inclined to read more of the book.
   
   But then again, why would I have it with me?



5. This is a well written biographical account of Napoleon's rise to become absolute ruler of France, covering as much his psychological development as his political dealings and military victories.

5 comments about McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.

1. You don't have to be a libertarian, I think, to find something disturbing in the definitiveness with which John McCain declares (as Matt Welch quotes from the Senator's autobiography "Worth the Fighting For"), "I have no reluctance to subordinate my independence to a cause greater than my own self interest. But that cause is my country, first and last. ... Were I to believe otherwise, the independence I have prized all my life will have been nothing more than egotism" (p. 83). For voters or interested citizens of any political persuasion, "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick" performs a valuable service in showing just how much John McCain means what he says.
   
   Most voters, I would imagine, have some vague idea of John McCain's biography, particularly his years as a prisoner of the brutal Vietnamese communists. But Welch excels in showing how McCain's roots influence his world view and his sense of where he wants to lead this country. The author gives us many examples of McCain disparaging those who pursue self-interest or personal gain while honoring those who place "country" (which in practice means government service) before "self" (the productive sector). But given that McCain is a lifelong federal employee, the son and grandson of lifelong federal employees, this is really little more than *nostrism*, the egoism that extravagantly praises a collective of which he is himself a part.
   
   The greatest merit of Welch's "McCain," is his proof of how much McCain is driven by this idea of "a cause greater," and by his belief that, as again quoted from his autobiography, "the proper object of every American's citizenship" is "national greatness" (p. 94). Combine that with his stated preference that he "would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt" (p. 95), then ask not what you can do for your country because President McCain is going to tell you. (To be fair, President Obama and President Rodham possess this same urge to march at the head of a well-drilled body of citizens all subordinating their independence to "a cause greater" chosen for us by our Leader)
   
   It's probably "nothing more than egotism" to believe that while a man can subordinate his own life to whatever he wants, it is grossly immoral for him to make that decision about anyone else's life. Other people are not your property. Though it is sadly not getting the same degree of attention as some other McCain biographies out there, "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick" raises some pretty profound questions. We had better start answering them before we find they've all been answered for us



2. Author Matt Welch provides a warning that if John McCain becomes the next President of the United States we as a nation may well have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. In this book, he tells us where McCain has come from, what he does, what he thinks, and where he is going if he becomes the chief executive.
   
   McCain comes from a very long military tradition in which his father and grandfather served as admirals. Reared in and near the capital where he lived most of his life (!) with a heavy dose of paternal influence, and an education at an expensive preparatory school and the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, John McCain sees himself as the romantic and fatalistic warrior Robert Jordan from "For Whom the Bells Toll." He prides himself on being rebellious, yet principled.
   
   What he does is divorce his wife who kept the family together raising three children in spite of a bad automobile accident that gave her permanent injuries, while he was in captivity. Lieutenant Commander McCain is no sooner back in D. C. when he begins several extramarital affairs, and chases after a beer heiress seventeen years his junior. He decides to jump into politics declaring that Arizona, the headquarters of the distributorship, is to be his home state. Claiming to be in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and the representative of the common man, he is neither liked by Goldwater, nor ever found amongst the working or poorer classes of his constituency preferring the company of the wealthy.
   
   In the tradition of his alcoholic father, McCain believes that principles and honesty are the most important things even if the latter and the condition seem incompatible. Just as a twelve-stepper will do and as a military officer is trained to do, McCain will admit that he has made past mistakes and is willing to air them in public. This adds to his charm of honesty despite waffling, changing, and spinning on a number of issues throughout his career. Even though he "fesses up" in his latest book about the Keating Scandal, McCain makes it clear that he did it because of his principles and his obligation to help his constituents.
   
   According to the author, McCain is poised to raise flip-flopping and spinning to an art form to get elected. He is now for the Bush tax cuts despite having been against them three years ago. Why? Eliminating the tax breaks would mean a raise in taxes, and he doesn't want to raise taxes, so now he favors keeping the cuts. Uh-huh. He once referred to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as evil, but has actively sought their support. McCain has also accused Americans of not supporting our troops if they did not support the war. By this logic, he stands accused of the same thing in previous military involvements.
   
   And now, where is he going? McCain wants to emulate his heroes, Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Jordan. He believes that it is our destiny to be the strongest country in the world, and it is our right to wipe out terrorism and tyranny wherever it exists. For him, there is no returning to a Vietnam style conflict without victory. There is no negotiation. It will be our way or the highway.
   
   This short book reveals something about the man and the politician of John McCain. It is interesting and revealing, even if not powerful or riveting. The tone is matter-of-fact, and not vociferous. I had the impression that author-journalist simply wanted to reveal the man behind the public persona. I would recommend it highly for those who are politically involved, and want to learn more about their candidates.
   
   This book supplies plenty of evidence to the anecdotal question: "How can you tell if a politician is lying?"
   
   
   
   
   
   244 Days and a Wake-Up until one tyrant is gone.



3. I have had a very negative opinion of McCain for years, but I hoped to gain a greater depth of understanding of the man from this book.
   
   And indeed I did.
   
   
   I think one essential contribution of the book is that it identifies the key philosophical foundation of McCain's political views. Namely, his belief that maintaining the stature of the United States requires that the American people revere their governmental institutions.
   
   This leads to his dominant public policy thrust being the pursuit of "reform" legislation that purports to strengthen or restore the integrity of public institutions, often at the expense of societal values that many others consider important. (e.g. civil liberties)
   
   This reformist mentality is heavily imbued with a moralistic mindset, which undoubtedly is a big part of the explanation for McCain's massive ego and arrogant demeanor.
   
   Obvious examples are campaign finance "reform", steroids.
   
   Although the author doesn't discuss it much, I can see "comprehensive" immigration reform fitting into this mold as well. Immigration policy cannot be based on a rational evaluation of the benefits and costs of particular policies for the people of the United States, it must be based on the infinite moral superiority the United States establishes for itself by adopting an unlimited policy of open-borders, a policy that in my view, however, ironically leads to the guaranteed destruction of the American empire that is so near and dear to Mr. McCain's heart.
   
   
   Other aspects about McCain as a public figure that I was aware of, but that the book provided me more detail on, included:
   
   1). The establishment media's love affair with the media.
   2). The fact that McCain is fundamentally a hard core elitist, with little interest in the affairs of the "common folk". (related to this is his use of advocacy organizations to advance his own political career, something that is much at odds with his supposed committment to political reform)
   
   4). McCain's incredible aility to manipulate moralism to his own advantage. He has gained a great deal of political benefit by his self-proclaimed virtue ("straight talk", etc), and yet when he has failed to live up to such standards in a myriad of ways, he has been able to leverage his own misdeeds to his political advantage. This was one of the most powerful points made in the book. I think this skill on the part of McCain is a huge factor in his political success, and is one that those of us who believe McCain is a highly negative force in American public life have good reason to fear.
   
   5). His famous temper. This one I was pretty aware of. However, although I had heard that there were POW families that disliked McCain for having given them short shrift on their claims that there might still be POW's in Vietnam, I wasn't aware of how harsh he had been toward the POW activists until reading the book.
   
   (by the way, it will be interesting to see whether Barack Obama can make use of McCain's temper in the general election in addressing the "who would you want answering the phone at 3AM issue. I think that could be a rather effective strategy. Do you want a guy with a tendency to fly off the handle like this guy answering a call from the head of a powerful foreign nation at 3 in the morning?)
   
   6). His pursuit of retribution to redress grudges (in some cases, to a frightening degree). (this I was not familiar with, but it certainly is in keeping with everything else about him)
   
   
   Another thing I learned is that McCain was the original political footsoldier for the neocon movement. I have seen comments by people left of center on the political spectrum that seem to have felt that McCain was not a neocon. I'm not sure where that comes from- his opposition to waterboarding is one thing that has led to that misperception.
   
   Obviously, philosophically on the big issues McCain is right in lockstep with the neocons, but I hadn't previously been aware that he was closely interwoven with the William Kristol/Weekly Standard crowd going into the 2000 election. After 9/11, of course, George W. Bush essentially morphed into John McCain, although, as is obvious by now, a much less competent one.
   
   
   Probably the most important lesson I learned from the book is that even though I consider McCain extremely misguided and downright dangerous on the issues, he is an extremely shrewd and capable politician, and anyone who underestimates him does so at their peril.
   
   
   As to the composition of the book, I found it extremely well arranged in the order in which the various topics were presented, and in the seamless transition from one topic to the next.
   
   
   (and by the way, although this is April 1, it should be obvious that this review is not intended as any sort of joke!)



4. I am a registered Republican. I should really switch to registered Libertarian. This is not because I want to but because my party has left me. Matt Welch has shown in this book that Senator McCain is every bit as willing to use the government to force you to behave how he feels you should behave, just as willing to steal the money you want to spend on your family as the party and opponents he claims to be against.
   
   Welch documents McCain's massive anti-(L/l)ibertarian bent and behaviors. Huckabee was his last opponent and either one feels he knows what is the better way to lead your life than the course you want to take it and are PERFECTLY willing to use men with guns to force you there. Like I said, I dread the day I will switch my party registration, but Goldwater is rolling in his grave that his former seat is held by this statist abuser of personal liberty.
   
   The gist is if you value personal liberty, vote for someone else and hold the Dems accountable while they are in the office.
   
   I truly want to vote for the man as the lesser of evils but after reading this history I cannot. Even if you want to disagree with the author's take or slant, you cannot disagree when he is referencing occurrences, statements of public record, voting record, or documented history.
   
   I would beg you to read this and if you like McCain, Obama, and Clinton think that the State is there to force us to behave in all areas of our life then you won't even mind the attacks Welch makes because they are only attacks if you believe in personal liberty over governmental regulation.



5. I thank Matt Welch for his insightful book. It is a brutal work, but fair. The very left-wing Todd Gitlin legitimately credits him with smoking "out McCain with gusto." I tend to agree. But so what? John McCain will probably still become our next president. The ambitious and often frustrating Arizona U.S. senator is perceived by many, including myself, as the lesser of evils next to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. This is particularly true regarding national defense issues. Perfect people do not exist on this planet---and he is no exception. We therefore need to better understand the pluses and negatives of a likely McCain presidency.
   
   The author is an avowed libertarian and may wish to delude himself that he can take a lifelong vacation from the messy and yucky real world. He and I, after all, are both irritated by McCain's efforts on behalf of "campaign finance reform." I am also stunned by his gullible acceptance of the global warming nonsense. Nonetheless, when push comes to shove Mr. Welch will have to undergo his own existential dark night of the soul and make a decision on Election Day. What will he do? I have made my choice---and he will have to make his. Another question: what will you do? McCain: The Myth of the Maverick should greatly assist you in making up your own mind. Make sure you read it in the very near future.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone, 1932-1940.

1. Manchester is one of those writers who appears unable to disappoint. This is a book to be read and savored. For years, it sat on my shelf - I saw as a large undertaking that I wanted to do right.
   
   The book has a very interesting structure. First, it begins with a kind of interpretive introduction to the man, vividly characterizing him while also evaluating his strengths as a man of history and his glaring weaknesses. You see him, worts and all, and it is both funny and enlightening. The psychological depth is virtually unprecedented in any other bio I have read. Second, you get a view both into his milieu - as an aristocrat of talent and privilege in Victorian Britain - and a biography of both of his parents. This is crucially important, as we come to see Churchill as an anachronism, but also as a boy neglected by narcissistic parents. (Interestingly, the absence of one or both parents is a common trait in extraordinary achievers.) Third, you get his life story, more from the events he was involved in than as an intimate portrait, though much of his personal life is covered. Indeed, he used action as the most effective tonic against depression.
   
   The man that emerges is flawed and complex, but evidently a political genius. In my view, the key to his character is that he remained a Victorian gentleman, who viewed martial valor as the greatest source of meaning and glory in life. This suited him to titanic struggles, such as the one he faced with Hitler that places him in the ranks of the greatest historical figures. As an egotist, he always wanted to place himself at the center of events and yet did so with courage and tenacity in spite of his physical weaknesses. When out of power, he exercised other gifts, such as writing, with equal talent and energy.
   
   Nonetheless, Manchester proves that Churchill was not a politician deeply in touch with his constituency: he never developed a typical base of power and often his views did not synch with the mainstream. Without Hitler, his hour might never have arrived: this duality is a theme that runs through the entire book.
   
   If there is any flaw here, it is that Manchester includes a plethora of detail, not only about world events but in Churchill's political maneuverings. Normally, I delight in these details, if I know there is a purpose to all of it, which I did not always sense in this book. (Here a comparison with Robert Caro is instructive: you always know where he is going and why.) Others may see it differently, of course. Also, many of the historical details I already knew, so did not need Manchester's wordy introductions, but they were useful in the many cases of which I was ignorant.
   
   All in all, this is one of the most engrossing and fascinating bios I have ever read. Warmly recommended.



2. A frightening story with a redoubtable yet all too human hero who prevails. There are even evil and bumbling villains along the way during this shameful period. The Last Lion should be required reading for politicans and world history students. William Manchester does a masterful, well researched [and entertaining] job of describing the inspirational leader of the Free World.



3. There are two volumn of "The Last Lion" and both are them are an excellent history of not only one of Great Britain's finest statesman of the 20th century, but one of the World greatest statesman, historian, and many have said "the man of the 20th Century" And after reading these two volumns one might have to agreee with the historians.
   Congtributed by Hurdrey Angus Jordan



4. This book was given to me by my father, who is a huge fan of Winston. I was absolutely shocked and amazed by the information that this book brought to light. I was taught, so little about WWII! I was amazed. I savored this book. I would recommend and have recommended this book to anyone, who would listen. Prepare to be amazed by the man and confronted with the real realities of Britain before and during the first declarations of war.



5. For some inexplicable reason, the second (and unfortunately final) volume of William Manchester's biography sat on my shelf unread for some time. I think because the book spans the years 1932 to 1940 -- and does not cover most of World War II -- I skipped the book over, figuring that Winston's best and most important years were his war years. After reading "Alone", I realized immediately how wrong I was: if anything, Manchester's incredible book demonstrates that Churchill's so-called "wilderness years" out of power were his finest hour. Unquestionably, Churchill provided resolute leadership to Great Britain -- as well as the rest of the Allied world -- during the War. But he perhaps demonstrated even greater leadership while out of power, when he was quite literally the only European statesman who was repeatedly warning the world of the dangers of Nazi Germany and calling for rearmament to stand up to Hitler. Thus, "Alone" is not just about Churchill and his greatness, but also a powerful historical record of the dangers of appeasement in the face of tyrants.
   
   This book goes beyond being a simple historical biography. Manchester's writing is delightful and seamless, literally depositing you into Churchill's time and Churchill's life. It maintains and builds a tenseness throughout the book as the world moves closer and closer to war despite Churchill's warnings, which if heeded, could have averted the conflict many times over. The work is meticulously researched and crafted, and flows perfectly. Perhaps most of all, reflective of the title, Manchester captures how completely and totally alone Churchill was during the 1930s. Aside from a very small coterie of loyal friends, Churchill alone rose in opposition to appeasement in the House of Commons and elsewhere hundreds of times as Hitler consolidated his power, practically begging his nation's leadership to stand up to the Fuhrer.
   
   I suppose that one sign of a great work is that it moves you in some way, and evokes great emotion as you read it. The most striking asset of this book is how angry, shocked, and prideful I was as I read it. I shook my head in disgust at least 100 times as I read Manchester's descriptions of the putrid, almost treasonous behavior by Prime Ministers John MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin, and of course Neville Chamberlain as they repeatedly ignored Churchill's warnings and countless pieces of evidence showing that Hitler would not be appeased. Manchester's sections on the Munich Crisis and Britain and France's literal sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis is particularly noteworthy; the Chamberlain government literally served the nearly defenseless nation on a platter to the German war machine despite a pledge from the British to defend them if invaded. Much of the book in fact summarizes the folly of His Majesty's Government's appeasement policy, and Churchill's many warnings against the policy. Fascinatingly, appeasement was heartily endorsed by nearly the entire British media establishment, which repeatedly refused to air Churchill's views and other dissenting voices. Indeed, as Manchester well demonstrates, the government and media literally crafted its policies and made important appointments, with pleasing Hitler being the sole objective. While hindsight is of course 20-20, reading these sections was completely maddening to me, and made me want to scream many times over.
   
   I hesitated writing a review of this book because I know it is impossible to do full justice to Manchester and this fantastic book. I just wanted to express how much I enjoyed the book; it completely lives up to its reputation as perhaps the finest Churchill biography and easily the most accessible. I, like millions of other readers, am greatly saddened that illness and other tragedies kept Manchester from completing the final volume of his intended trilogy. Treat yourself to this book: it will give you greater appreciation of Winston Churchill's greatness, courage, and foresight, and probably an even greater hatred of appeasement and diplomatic cowardice.
   
   Five big stars.

5 comments about Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America.

1. This book is a must read!!! I recommend this book...inspiring. as well as sad when Francis and many others have to suffer...I honestly did not know that slavery still exist in sudan and many other countries



2. The first portion of the text is hard to put down, an eye-opening first person account of a life torn from his home community. The later narrative of his work with the NGO, testifying, lecturing and the like is a bit stilted and boring, and some of the culture conflicts upon arrival in the USA seem exaggerated for attention or effect. Still, a worthy subject matter and interesting author.



3. Two days ago I began to read "Escape from Slavery". I have hardly wanted to set it down since I picked it up. I have been saddened but incredibly inspired. I am forcefully reminded that freedom is a miracle too easily taken for granted. Until this week, I admit I was completely ignorant of Sudan, let alone the plight of it's people. In fact, I only knew Sudan was another big country "somewhere in Africa". This book is not a history of Sudan, but it does put it on the map for you. It does not try to expound on all of the political issues, but it paints a very human picture of how the government affects the people. This is one young man's compelling account of his early life and journey as a slave in Sudan. It is told in a simple, clear and honest voice. For me, Sudan is now the birthplace of Piol Bol Buk - known today as "Francis Bok". It is the place where Piol laughed and played with his family. He made clay cows with his friends, and dreamed of being like his father. It is the place where Piol was entrusted one day to take his mother's produce to sell at the market...and would never return. Here was a little boy forced to witness unspeakable violence, and who had everything taken away from him. However, no one could take his indomitable spirit. Sudan is a place where innocent lives are crushed every day, and yet it is also the place where Francis Bok was created. Francis humbly and painstakingly details his escape, the agonizing immigration process, and the miraculous turn of events that ensued. Francis has begun to fulfill his father's prophesy that someday he would do "great and important things" and would have the strength of "twelve men". This is a story about slavery, but it is really a story about hope, faith, will-power and determination. It is a miraculous story. Who could have imagined that this young boy with no hope of survival would make such a huge impact for his country already? Truly inspirational! This is a testament that the human spirit can survive unspeakable things - and then can rise from the ashes. When you find a story like this, you just can't wait to share it with the world! Francis Bok lived through such horrific pain, and yet now we have the chance to listen to his story, and to make a difference in the world just like he has. I hope that you will choose to read this story. I know that you will be so grateful!



4. This is a powerful book. It is written in a clear and engaging style. It is important that people know about the human rights abuses going on in Sudan. Mr. Bok's story does this in a meaningful and moving way.



5. I read this book for one of classes and I must say that while I tend not to be a fan of non-fiction I was completed enamored by this book. Bok wrote a very engaging story about his life and his involvement in making a difference in what is occurring in Sudan. I liked so many things about this book. It was a personal story. Someone really overcoming the odds placed against him. A true underdog story. The story was heart-wrenching in parts, especially when confronted with the truth about slavery in Southern Africa. I couldn't have more respect for Bok, he overcame horrific hardships and continues speaking out. I really reccomend this book!