5 comments about RFK: A Photographer's Journal.

1. Benson's photography is great--but whoever edited the book flipped photos. Including the cover photo--which clearly has RFK's hair parted on the opposite side. C'mon guys--



2. Although 40 years have passed since Bobby Kennedy's assassination, the photographs in this book still bring a sense of sadness and longing. In many ways RFK's death, following that of Martin Luther King, marked the death of hope in American politics, perhaps even American society. Author/photographer Harry Benson's photo-history of RFK captures some of that promise and sadness but, to my mind, it could have been so much more.
   
   Benson's book consists of two separate sections. One documents a boating trip RFK & family made in 1966 down Idaho's Snake River. The 1968 section covers Kennedy's bid for the presidency, ending with his burial at Arlington.
   
   In the '68 section, Benson intermixes photos he took of Kennedy with entries from his diary and excerpts from some of Kennedy's speeches. In terms of imagery, most of the photos are fairly stock shots. The Ambassador Hotel snaps though are heartbreaking. Others have commented on the flip-flopping of images which is somewhat disconcerting. (Didn't Benson look at the galleys?)
   
   Aside from correcting the photo mistakes, the book would have benefited from more personal comments and observations from Benson and less usage of speech excerpts.
   
   Recommended with some reservations.



3. I was very moved by this book - the intimate images of a family vacation we beautiful. It is definitely worth getting and I think it would make a great gift.



4. This book is a great reminder of what artistic photo journalism can be. The book compiles a set of shots that walk the line between a family's intimate moments and a political leader's ascent and death. It is both micro and macro and could only have been made by a talented photographer with deep access and the knack for being in the right place at the right time. And keeping his wits about him when he was in the worst place at the worst time.



5. This book by famed photographer Harry Benson is a fitting tribute to RFK's legacy, with stunning behind the scenes photographs of RFK and his family on holiday on the River of No Return, during the St. Patrick's Day parade and campaign, as well as before, DURING and after the assassination at the Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968. Benson was the last photographer to leave the Amassador Hotel kitchen that night. Although other photographers may have taken photos that evening, none caught the scene or covered this horrific event as extensively as Benson. Have you also seen Benson's books on the Beatles? You should.

5 comments about James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. Dr. Labunski captures the emotion, immediacy and intensity of the debate over the Bill of Rights as only a journalist of the day might be expected to write. A truly new perspective on Mr. Madison as "vote counter" and "political strategist."



2. I hate saying bad things about other people's books because I know how much hard work goes into each one, though I have to advise the reader of this review to find another book if you're interested in the creation of the Bill of Rights. If it weren't for this book being on audio disc I would never have finished it. It's very boring and flat. The material is doubtlessly interesting, and I imagine that depending upon the author's take on the subject, this book could come out in many different, yet equally interesting, permutations.
   
   My strong criticism it that it is the book has no incisive analysis of the subject, nothing to make it read, no sense of perspective,...how this subject played out in the bigger scheme of things and over time. The epilogue was equally disappointing, offering the scantiest description of how the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights affected future generations. In fact, I was eagerly looking forward to reading the epilogue, it was the only thing keeping me going, and I was disappointed.
   
   So, what we get is just a simply recounting of the events, without much to make the writing interesting. It really gets tedious and boring, sounding like a straight reading of an official transcript or diary especially when the author describes the proceedings of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying Convention and other similar events, which is what a lion's share of the book is.
   
   Any suggestions??



3. "James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" was a very enjoyable read, and one that I would definitely enjoy reading again. It is full of detail, but doesn't lack on readability either. Unlike some of the reviewers, I enjoyed the details of weather conditions and felt that this information was important to telling the struggle for the Bill of Rights as weather was a huge obstacle to travel in that time. I also was able to better picture what it would be like to sit in a hot, sultry, building with no ventilation (as when the windows had to be closed due to the noisy streets) and spend hours discussing how much power the constitution would grant the federal government or if it indeed would greatly infringe on individual liberties.
   
   Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).
   
   The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.



4. The Bill of Rights was always just there at the end of the Constitution -- a list of unalienable rights to be interpreted, argued over and used to browbeat opponents in political discussions. I, for one, never gave much thought to how those 10 constitutional amendments came to exist within four years of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
   
   Now that I know what a narrow thing ratification of the Constitution was (Virginia and New York sought to make adoption conditional upon the adoption of amendments; North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights passed Congress) and how difficult the adoption of amendments so soon after ratification, I'll certainly never take them for granted again. Anti-federalist opposition to the Constitution, particularly without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, was very strong in Virginia, led as it was by the able orator Patrick Henry, who dominated the Virginia Legislature during the late 1780s.
   
   On one point the book is clear: the amendments would not have been proposed and adopted without the guidance of James Madison, first as a member of the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention and then as a member of the US House of Representatives. The story of his battle is a fascinating one, from the first use of gerrymandering to prevent him from being elected to the US House (this was Patrick Henry's idea and it didn't work), to the final triumph in 1791 when Virginia finally ratified the amendments.
   
   If you thought dirty politics was born in the current era, think again. I was struck by how much political maneuvering, both explicit and behind the scenes, existed at a time most Americans think of in mythological terms. Our cherished heroes were politicians all, attempting to satisfy local demands while at the same time doing justice to the larger, longer term issues. They didn't always succeed, but this time they did, thanks to Madison's persistence.
   
   I strongly recommend this book for the light it sheds on a period in US history that is rarely discussed. However, I have only given the unabridged audio edition of this book 4 stars because I thought the narrator read too fast. I found I had to listen to many passages two and three times follow them completely. It's one thing to read fiction at a fast clip, and another when you attempt to speed through historical narrative.



5. When listening to books on cd or I-Pod, particularly when non-fiction, I try to make sure I get unabridged versions so I don't feel slighted. With this cd, I could have used a little slighting.
   
   James Madison was indeed important for passing the Bill of Rights. It couldn't have been more amazing since Madison originally believed that a bill of rights was not needed: since Congress was not granted the powers to infringe on basic it rights, so the argument went, there was no need for a bill to protect those rights. Alas, he changed. And this point should serve as a reminder for how difficult it is to rely on supposedly original principles in the Constitution. (Rakove, in Original Meanings, makes that point best.)
   
   The book looks at three or so important points: the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Constitutional ratification convention, and the First Congress's effort at passing the amendments that would form the Bill of Rights. The first part, the miracle in Philly, has been covered so much elsewhere that yet another treatment wasn't really so necessary. The Virginia ratification convention was fine, but the arguments were very much the same. The First Congress section was the most interesting. Tidbit of interest: Madison wanted the amendments to appear in the main body of the text. Imagine that! What we now know famously as the first ten amendments could have been scatter shot throughout the original document. Shortsightedness on that point by Madison, though he was forward thinking in most other regards.
   
   Labunski did a fine job and it is perfect for those unfamiliar with the Philly stuff. Otherwise it is still fine.

5 comments about Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution.

1. Strong statement to be sure. Read this book to find out why it is true.
   
   It is a mystery to me why most historians seem to attach little more than a few footnotes to Samuel Adams. Noyone worked more steadfastly to both educate and organize the colonists. In spite of having a wealthy father and a Harvard education, Sam chose a life close to poverty so he could dedicate his considerable talents to the Revolution.
   
   The Declaration of Independence is essentially a rewrite of a 1774 position paper that Sam authored.
   
   This book also makes a valiant effort to present a British perspective on why they believed that taxation (without representation) was viable.
   
   Your knowledge of the revolution is incomplete without an education on Samuel Adams, the father of the American revolution.



2. Compared to the other fundamental founders, hardly any primary sources remain of Adams since he wasn't preoccupied with his place in history and didn't save documents and correspondence. As such, Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution is a short read, but is a relatively concise and well-written account of his political life. Adams himself was extraordinary, and after reading this book, it's easy to see that he is exceedingly underappreciated as one of the greatest American revolutionaries. Adams is a testament to the ability of one man to change the political landscape for the better, and he is inspirational as a one-man harbinger of liberty.



3. No one has articulated it any better than Mark Puls when he states in his concluding remarks that " Americans of his generation came to view Samuel Adams as the spirit of liberty and the patriarch of liberty". Jefferson may have written about the ideals of independence more eloquently; Washington may have acted upon those ideals more directly; and, Franklin may have translated those ideals more concretely abroad to our French allies; however, no one of our founding fathers wrote more frequently, acted more fervently, or lived more fully and focused on the prize of separation and independence than Samuel Adams.
   
   Maybe it's because Adams shunned the spotlight and the attention that others of his era sought so impassionately to grasp, or perhaps, he was content to simply see from the background the ultimate fruits of his prodigious labors. Whatever the reason, Adams emerged as the leading patriot strategist,politician as well as most influential writer in America. The author has truly captured the essence of the man who deservedly is called the Father of the American Revolution. It is a well-witten, if not long overdue, tribute to the mastermind behind the War of independence.



4. Give the author an "A" for producing a very interesting and informative look at an Adams family member who has not received the attention from history he deserves. Give the publisher "F" for not being interested enough to have a proofreader correct the numerous grammatical errors before printing it.



5. When you read about most revolutionary war figures - Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson or Madison - their stories more or less start with the American Revolution. Even Ben Franklin, a member of an earlier generation, did not jump on the Independence wagon very early or very easily. Samuel Adams, however, was the most important figure in the early Independence movement and quite rightfully deserves the title Father of the American Revolution.
   
   Mark Puls brief (less than 250 pages of text) biography shows how important Adams was. From an early age, Adams started thinking of independence from England. In 1764, he unsuccessfully opposed the Sugar Act, but laid the foundation for his battle against the 1765 Stamp Act. Showing both good organizational ability and political savvy, he was able to successfully organize a boycott that forced Parliament to repeal the measure. Although it would take a decade to take root, this was really the first blow for independence; it began harder and harder for the British to deal with colonial unrest.
   
   Eventually, after acts like the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party, the rift widened and reconciliation, though attempted, was clearly impossible. During the Revolutionary War, Adams played key roles behind the scenes. Although not an author of the Declaration of Independence, his ideas permeated the document; he also helped construct the Articles of Confederation. After the war, however, other figures moved into the spotlight, a role he was fine with giving up.
   
   In ways Samuel Adams was an idealist, willing to sacrifice his health and financial well-being to accomplish his objectives. He was also, however, a pragmatist, able to work behind the scenes to meet his goals. Reading his biography, however, is also a lesson on how we determine who are our "heroes." In certain ways, Adams is little different from John Calhoun, who also felt he was opposing an oppressive government. Adams, however, is generally looked on favorably, while Calhoun - a major proponent of slavery and one who helped start the secession movement - has, at best, a mixed reputation.
   
   Puls biography is a positive one that never really discusses his subject's flaws, but doesn't descend into the cloying sweetness of hagiography. Well-written, this book is readable and informative, providing insight into one of the lesser-known figures of the era. For those who enjoy learning about this period, or who seem to only know Samuel Adams from the beer that bears his name, this book will be a good read.

5 comments about Realities of Foreign Service Life.

1. I've bought several books for my study of the Foreign Service and the vast majority are hard to slog through. This one was engaging, written by numerous personalities about their experiences from different relationships with a Foreign Service Officer. I was able to finish it in one evening.



2. This book was invaluable for people interested in joining the foreign service. I was considering doing so myself, but after reading this book - and much, much more information and reading matter on the life of a FSO - I was able to decide that it was just not for me. Then again, someone could read this book and be quite moved by it. I certainly hope so. This book did not diminish the great respect I have for FSOs and their families, and in fact I think it increased said respect.
   
   The one qualm I had with this book should not really be considered as such. I had one issue in that it was heavily weighted towards stories of the wives of FSOs, and that domestic partners of all other kinds were seriously underrepresented. However, through reading this book, its introduction, and numerous websites on the issue, the truth seems to be that this is one of those facts about life in the FS right now: the demographics are frighteningly skewed towards a three to four person family with the husband the FSO and the wife following him and taking care of the children. If that offends you in any way, then read this book and see if you could live with it - this will give you some idea of what the FS experience is.



3. This book is full of relatively worthless and obvious quips about living abroad.
   There is an entire section devoted to grocery shopping and how it is different in various countries.. no duh. There is also a massive section about Foreign Service wives carrying on about their kids.
   Most of the accounts in this book are written by Foreign Service spouses and provides very little insight into the Foreign Service.



4. This book is simply key in helping you understand what a life in the Foreign Service is like. Several essays provide different insights into the ups and downs of living overseas and the unique challenges of the Foreign Service. You simply must read this before considering that career, and more importantly your spouse must read it also. Arguably, the spouse gives up more to join the Foreign Service. Until I read this book I was on the fence but not too far into the text I decided this wasn't for me or my family, which is really a great thing. If I relied on the State Department view I would have exerted significant time and effort only to find out later or too late. Some critics complain the book is too whiny, and it does come across like that at times. But look at it this way: if you read all the negatives and are still motivated, then the Foreign Service would be incredibly dense to NOT take you.
   
   One of the interesting takeaways for me was that your will likely be evacuated sometime in your career. If you or your spouse can't deal with the thought of flying the wife and kids out of a dangerous country, sitting on C-130 troop seats while the other stays in a dangerous situation, the Foreign Service isn't for you. If you don't mind living like a king overseas and living like a pauper in Washington, the Foreign Service may be for you. If you have to have fast access to pop-tarts you may think twice. If the thought of you or your kids contracting dysentery or other crazy diseases with less than great medical care bothers you, think again. If your spouse has career aspirations you need to seriously consider this option. Before you order that subscription to The Economist, get this book first.



5. I found that this book did a good job showing what life in the Foreign Service is like. I am in the military and there are a lot of similarities. Highly recommended for perspective Foreign Service family members, friends and applicants.

5 comments about Lindbergh.

1. I've read parts of this book, and from what I can tell, it is similar to other biographies of deceased controversial figures in which the biographer works too closely with the family of the subject to be objective. In reality, there were three points to Lindbergh's life that everybody should know who wants to know about him. This book covers the first two points well and glosses over the third.
   
   1) Aviation Pioneer: He did much more than become the first person to fly the Atlantic solo nonstop. He was a talented aeronautical engineer, a tireless advocate of air power in defense circles, and an explorer who risked his life again and again to chart new air routes for the world to follow.
   2) Son Kidnapped and Murdered: However, Lindbergh's initial fame had a tragic downside. He was the most famous man in the world for a while, and Time Magazine created its "Man of the Year" award for him. But renown brought disaster on his family when his son was kidnapped - apparently for a ransom, which was paid - and then murdered. This was known as the "Crime of the Century" at the time, and was not eclipsed by any other crime until the JFK assassination in 1963.
   3) Anti-WWII Activist: Lindbergh and his wife travelled to Nazi Germany in the thirties, ostensibly as tourists, but covertly to gather information on the Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering tricked Lindbergh into reporting back that the Nazis had a tremendous advantage in air power by flying the same planes over his head and around in circles to make them appear more numerous. Also on the this trip, he accepted a medal from Hitler's government. Upon his return, Lindbergh became the most famous figure in the movement we now know as "isolationist," which was mottled with anti-Semitic and Anglophobic prejudices. He wrote a number of articles and gave speeches in which he criticized - fairly or unfairly - supporters of America entering the war, most specifically Jewish groups and FDR's government, as selfish and more concerned with the welfare of their demographic group than that of the U.S. This created a tremendous backlash against Lindbergh, who was widely pereived as "defeatist" and, for many, openly pro-Nazi. After this backlash, Lindberg's star fell and never rose again, and this was because of his own political naivete in perceiving the fascist movement as nothing more than a reaction and counterbalance to Soviet communist power.
   
   Berg's book does not deal adequately with this third point, merely presenting basic facts without exploring deeper motives and intentions that, for someone like Lindbergh, were often readily apparent through his statements and actions. I do not mean to endorse the case that this book errs in not presenting Lindbergh as a potential fascist dictator, as Phillip Roth has recently done in novel form, but simply that Berg's book seems to ignore the reality that Lindbergh was an anti-Semite, that he openly espoused fascism as a suitable form of government for Germany, and that the amount of bad publicity his enemies and even neutral observers marshaled against him effectively ended his importance in American history during and after the war.
   
   And if you want proof of how far his star fell, consider the facts I listed above about his pre-war fame, and then count the number of full-length Lindbergh biographies of any modest stature that have been produced. Aprroximately one, this one, and this one simply fails to acknowledge the reality of the magnitude of his fall from celebrity into obscurity over the WWII intervention issue.
   
   Then do an Amazon search for "Howard Hughes," Lindbergh's only competition for aviation fame in his heyday, and see what you get. There are many, many biographies of Hughes, and almost all of them are openly muck-raking works, but still far superior in quality to Berg's book. The fact that this one got a Pulitzer is clearly indicative that that literary honor has become meaningless in the real world, almost as meaningless as Lindbergh became to history after he vacationed in Nazi Germany.



2. ~Lindbergh~ is an astute an well-written biography by acclaimed writer A. Scott Berg. Berg captures the life of this most fascinating character. What unfolds is an amazing tale of the aviator turned adventurer turned statesmen turned war hero.
   
   Aviator Charles Lindbergh, gained acclaim for the first solo, non-stop transatlantic flight across Long Island, New York to Paris, France in 1927 in the famed "Spirit of St. Louis." Not long after, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. At the time, Lindbergh was seen as a man of seemingly impeccable character. He became an American hero overnight.
   
   A. Scott Berg casts light on Charles' complex marriage to Anne Morrow Lindbergh, the daughter of the famed J.P. Morgan investment banker. His marriage had its ups and downs due to his indiscretions, and it was not a fairy-tale marriage by any stretch of the imagination. Though, public perception certainly believed the marriage as a storybook romance in 1927. Berg also illustrates how tragedy hit the Lindbergh family and the whole nation in 1932 with sensitivity.
   
   Lindbergh, being an acclaimed aviator, was invited to Germany in the 1930s, where he subsequently received a medal. It was an opportunity that intrigued him, for the Germans were renowned for their innovation in aeronautics. With the approval of Nazi chieftains Hermann Goering and Ernst Udet, Lindbergh was permitted to inspect and tour German Luftwaffe facilities, and view some of their latest innovations such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Junkers Ju 88. He became enamored of German aviation technology not coincidentally thereafter. He believed that German aviation was superior to that of the Americans and British. Why? Probably, because it was. His trip to Germany, however, soon soiled his reputation, particularly after 1939, despite the fact that Lindbergh returned the commendation awarded by the German government. When misguided historians like Max Wallace present Lindbergh as a Nazi sycophant, he conveniently forgets, either out of ignorance or obfuscation, that Lindbergh came to Germany at the urgent request of the U.S. military attaché at the American embassy in Berlin. The military attaché was charged with learning everything possible about Germany's new warplanes. In other words, Lindbergh was covertly providing U.S. intelligence, and playing off of his reputation as an aviator of international fame to gain a warm reception by the Germans. He might not have brought back stolen 1:6 scale airplane models from the hangar offices and secret James Bond snapshot pictures, but he was doing his country a service nonetheless.
   
   His political odyssey took some strange turns, and it put him at the helm of the American First Committee which pressed the case for keeping the United States neutral and out of World War II with Germany. While his patriotism and motives have been brought into question, Berg gives us a few reasons not to question Lindbergh's sincerity. When the war began, Lindbergh was quick to uphold his honor, and be a part of the Army Air Corps unofficially. Unfortunately, being the bitter partisan, President FDR, stripped him of his opportunity to fly in dress ranks, and he flew unofficially as a contractor. But Lindbergh earned much success dogfighting against Japanese over the Pacific. He was denied his deserved commendations because of politics.
   
   This book is a marvelous journey into the life of aviator Charles Lindbergh. Berg sculptures a sensitive and astutely written account of the life of this acclaimed American. If read, in tandem with Lindbergh's on autobiographical journal "The Spirit of St. Louis," one can certainly get a fascinating picture of his life. The superb prose is matched by the fascinating insights of the author who had direct access to the Lindbergh family's personal archives.



3. This book is extremely readable, which is why everyone gives it 5 stars. But it fails to mention the fact that Lindbergh fathered at least 3 illegitimate children in Germany in the late 50's-60's. In 2003, 3 German siblings took a DNA test vs. one of Lindbergh's legitimate grandchildren and paternity was proved. Lindbergh kept their mother as a '2d family,' and he possibly fathered others. This book was extremely well-researched, so I can't see how Scott Berg can continue to sell this book without an update that talks about this.



4. If you want the most complete look at the life of Charles Lindbergh,then read this book.There are many glowing reviews on [...],about this book.Yet,the section about the famous kidnapping is NOT the full story.You are just getting a good historical account of Colonel Lindbergh,however,from an outsider looking in.I have yet to read a Lindbergh biography that comes as close as to the truth as this book does.Scott Berg did not research enough about the kidnapping,and as well as millions of other biographical book-readers.They just accepted the Bruno Hauptmann guilty verdict. World War Two is long over.And the Anti-German hysteria is mostly forgotten,by modern Americans. Lindbergh accepted Hauptmann's guilt because Bruno was a former Berlin communist,who helped kidnapp the Berlin burgermeister's infant son.And for ransom.When Hauptmann jumped off the 'Friedrich der Grosse',he swam to shore.He married Anna Schuffeler,who worked at Frederiksen's Bakery.Hauptmann invested heavily in the stock market,during the 1920s.And reaped the benefits,of the easy profits.Then Wall Street laid on egg,and Hauptmann's goose was cooked.Hauptmann's business partner ,Isidore Fish,also lost everything.These former left-wing radikals turned American capitalists may have discussed Lindbergh's fortune. Fish may have hatched the plan to kidnapp America's number one eaglet,the Lindbergh Baby. Fish died of TB ,a short time after the March 1st,1932 kidnapping.Hauptmann alone faced the electric chair.His only guilt was that of association with Isidore Fish.Updated-12.Jan.2007.=If the decomposed child's remains had a DNA link to Charles Lindbergh,there may be some truth, to the corpse being an illegitimate child of his.Elizabeth Morrow was believed to be a jealous sister-in-law of his.Did they have an unwanted child that Colonel Lindbergh sadly refused to accept?Lindbergh did have three German children from a secret affair.The mistress was a Bavarian milliner. If Dr.Bill Bass of the Knoxville 'Body Farm', does not have any DNA proof,then he is a "Quack".The story thickens.+Updated=June/10/2007 There is another guy that has been claiming he is the real Charles Jr.His website is 'Charleslindberghjr.com' and he was on the coasttocoastam.com show.He may be the real deal and Harold Olson may be the real son of Charles Sr. and Elizabeth Morrow.The direct Lindbergh children,Jon and Reeve, have refused to do DNA testing for him.The story continues.



5. Excellent. I enjoyed this book because of the ease of reading it. It was very informative and interesting.

5 comments about The Good Fight.

1. With the exception of 1 or 2 chapters early on, the book was a page turner. I couldn't put it down. The book is a worthwhile read whatever your political persuasion.
   
   Jerry



2. "The Good Fight" explains well why Harry Reid is a good Democrat on most social issues.
   
   Growing up in a shack with an outhouse in half-dead Searchlight, Nev., in the New Deal, he learned about the hope and support government programs can offer to people on the edge.
   
   Searchlight is detailed with warts, vivid colors and all by Reid. So, too, are his parents.
   
   Beyond that, the best part of the book was Reid's discussion of his years as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. While he doesn't go into a tell-all of Mob influence over Vegas casinos, he gives the reader enough information to see how much the city needed cleaning up. And, with Reid presiding over the commission at the time non-Mafiosi like Steve Wynn and Kirk Kerkorian started building, he was part of Vegas' transition to the world of today.
   
   That said, the Washington years are somewhat thin. All Democrats are great, as is independent Joe Lieberman on anything besides Iraq. The difficulty of herding cats as Senate Majority Leader is discussed in brief, but not too much on any one issue or vote.
   
   Nor do we hear anything about how Obama-Clinton has played out inside the Senate Democratic caucus. I would have loved to hear Reid drop a few "fly on the wall" comments.
   
   So, this is a three/four star book, but I give it a bump, in part with the context of people one-starring the book for other reasons.



3. There are plenty of rags-to-riches stories in America, but there are few that read with so much candor. Senator Reid's deadpan humor also comes thru. I highly recommend this book - if you're a Democrat, to learn a bit more about your party's unassuming leader; if you're a Republican, to get a leg up one hell of an opponent!



4. I would first like to make it clear that I am not what you would call a political "animal". Though of course I knew that Harry Reid is a United States Senator, I did not buy this book for his political beliefs or stance on current issues. I had seen a couple of interviews with him on TV regarding this book that all centered on his "hard-scrabble" background and family issues, and that's what led to me to buy this book. I don't know of any American today who isn't sick and tired of this "ENDLESS- PRIMARY-ELECTION" with its continuous mud-slinging, back-stabbing, lies and innuendos. Maybe it's just the season, but Senator Reid's political chapters seem to be infected with the same diatribes. BUT...
   
   The rest of the book which entails Reid's personal life is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING! I think maybe the Senator didn't realize how interesting and entertaining his tales of his days as a lawyer and the CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE NEVADA GAMING COMMISSION are. Harry was born in a tiny mining town in Searchlight, Nevada. The leading industry in town when he was born wasn't mining, it was prostitution. Searchlight had thirteen whorehouses and no churches. As a child, Harry learned how to swim at a whorehouse. His parents had problems with alcohol and at times would have physical fights in front of their children. Harry's statement regarding this situation is what starts to endear the reader to this "man" rather than politics. "I AM NOT CONFESSIONAL BY NATURE, SO SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE SURPASSING HARD FOR ME TO SAY. I LOVED MY PARENTS VERY MUCH. THEY GAVE LIFE EVERYTHING THEY HAD. BUT NO CHILD SHOULD BE RAISED THE WAY I WAS RAISED." The house he was raised in was nothing more than a shack made out of railroad ties. His Father was fifty-seven-years-old when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. "The last year of his life, he had been sober-no more masking his demons with alcohol. Harry and his brothers still joke that it was being sober that killed him."
   
   The author shares a number of his legal cases that ranged from "Martinez v. Safeway. This was one of many cases that Harry's firm did not want him to handle, since the client had no money. Harry defended Joyce Martinez a cocktail waitress who was arrested at her place of work for supposedly writing bad checks. She not only didn't write the checks but Safeway thinking it was above the law, skipped steps that needed to be taken during the legal process. Harry won the case and Joyce's award was the largest in history in a case of malicious prosecution. Another case he defended against was entitled: "United States of America vs. Four Machine Guns and One Silencer.
   
   In 1972 Howard Hughes owned five hotels in Las Vegas and no one in Vegas had seen him. As Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission Harry was ordered by the Governor to get Howard Hughes to appear at a meeting, or Hughes's gaming licenses would be revoked. Harry's reaction was: "He had not granted an interview in twenty years. HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN IN TWENTY YEARS, and you want me to arrange a meeting with a man who had refused to see ANYONE for decades. Okay, I would do it." Harry had to track down the "Mormon Mafia", who were a group of loyal employees that Hughes had surrounded himself with. "Hughes felt that because of their devout faith, they were the only people he could trust." They tracked Hughes down in Europe and arranged a one hour meeting in London. The Governor and the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board flew to London and met with Hughes for one hour. Reid never got to meet him face to face but the Governor told him that Hughes "looked emaciated, with sunken eyes, free-range fingernails, and a mop of long, stringy hair." After the meeting Hughes's gaming license was renewed.
   
   There was an incident while Harry was gaming commissioner when he was approached by an underworld character and offered a bribe. Harry became part of a sting operation and when the FBI burst into the room to arrest the mob guy, Harry lost his temper and thought "How could they think they could do this to me? I was so angry I went up to the gangster and said: You SOB, you tried to bribe me! I lunged at the gangster and got him in a choke hold. I was in a rage. The FBI agents had to pull me off of the criminal." Harry and his family started to get death threats and they even tried to bomb his cars. Harry decided then to get into politics.
   
   As I said in the opening of my review, Senator Reid might not fully appreciate how fascinating and engaging his stories are. He says he has many more of them. I would wholeheartedly recommend the Senator write another book fully dedicated to the non-political parts of his life. Near the very end of the book, Harry receives a request from his sixteen-year-old granddaughter, as part of a project in her school to have a family member write about an experience that helped shape their testimony about faith. One part of his response touched me deeply, and I couldn't think of a better way to end my review.
   
   "MY OUTLOOK ON LIFE -MY-FAITH- IS BEST SUMMARIZED BY AN INSCRIPTION FOUND IN A COLOGNE, GERMANY, CELLAR WHERE JEWS HID FROM THE NAZIS WHICH READ, "I BELIEVE IN THE SUN EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT SHINING. I BELIEVE IN LOVE EVEN WHEN NOT FEELING IT. I BELIEVE IN G-D EVEN WHEN HE IS SILENT."



5. I read this book yesterday. This is what, as a child in Canada, i grew up thinking Americans were like. This man is profoundly strong of character and as tough an individualist as you are ever going to find in this life. The word 'inregrity' just doesn't even approach it. The mild manner you see, the soft voice, covers titanium... I am betting that my individual experience would reflect the world's ... this is what the world used to think Americans were like.
   An awesome book about an extraordinary human being.

5 comments about America's Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

1. Jackie Kennedy was the closest thing that America ever got to home-grown royalty. Her birth and upbringing in New York City, refinement, etiquette, and Olympian cool ... Jackie radiated a deep mystery that remains. She was iconic in her need for privacy and protectiveness of it. A woman of another era who remains enigmatic and unique in her persona ... an American icon who seems both American yet not typical of the United States. A sophisticate, debutant of the year, equestrienne, well-manner, posh Park Avenue social doyenne who intrigued the world until she died in 1994. Fluent in several language, a writer of poetry, political wife, patron of the arts, native New Yorker, and poised like any Queen in Europe. She wasn't perfect but she was Jackie. America may never see another quite like her.



2. My comments concern the narrator of the audio cd who felt that she had to change her voice inflection when she read quotes of various people. She talked in a soft wispery tone when quoting Jackie, however, she continued to use that same voice for any of the females quoted. She then attempted a deeper tone for the male voices. Due to all the voice shifting it was disruptive and the reading did not flow. Since it was a narrative and not a play it would have been more pleasing to the ear if the narrator did the entire reading in her natural voice.



3. It was fantastic to be able to grasp a better understanding of the stoic, graceful beauty that was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It was great to see the different facets of her personality from political darling to yacht hopping party girl. Her desire to control and veneer everything that happened in her life was inspiring. Couldn't put it down, was consistantly interesting throughout.



4. such a great discripture on ms Bouvier. Definetly read it if your into grace an poise and want to learn about America's Queen. Sarah gave great description well known facts. The book is just lovely to have around. I being a big fan of jackie O and the Kennedys find this book to be hugely in-sightful.
   
   Loved it loved it. loved it again.



5. This is my first time reading a book on Jackie so I did not come in with certain expectations. I felt it was interesting to get a background on the woman, but I feel that there has to be better out there. My first complaint would have to be the constant name dropping. I didn't need to know who was on every cruise and vacation. Early on there are hints of problems between Jackie and her mother Janet yet the depth of the problems are not reached. The book was also disappoining in the sense that because it spent more than 3/4 of the content discussing her famous marriages, one would think there would be more than the superficial detail. For example, we are told that there are these various love letters but the content is kept under wraps. In the case of her second husband, Onassis is described as being insulting and cold towards her after a certain point in the marriage but any idea as to why is left up to the reader's imagination. Most importantly, her children are mentioned scarcely beyond their births when this is a woman who took great pride in being a mother. The picture just looked incomplete from many sides. Yes, Jackie was a private person but no one is an island. I do appreciate the care in which the author took to structure the book so that even the slow beginning was readable.

5 comments about The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand.

1. I completed this informational biography in seven days during a stay at the Cleveland Clinic. Due to my conservatism and Roman Catholic background, the book held my interest throughout with its references to Bill Clark's faithful devotion to his President and his Pope. Especially enlightening were the passages revealing Al Haig's true personality and the secret meetings with the papal nuncio as the Berlin Wall was beginnning to crumble and the USSR bear beginning to stumble. I would recommend this book to those who are able to uncouple their politics, open their minds and enjoy a vivid look behind the one of the most difficult times of the 20th Century. Good job, Paul Kengor and co-author.



2. Despite all the books written about Ronald Reagan, none reveal the insights into this President and man like this book about his closest friend and soulmate, William P. Clark, "The Judge". Besides learning some new, important and inspiring things about Reagan, we learn a lot about this most amazing, and truly unsung American hero, former National Security Adviser, William Clark. As the book jacket and others have already stated, the reason we are just finding this all now is because Clark seems to truly embody those rare virtues of humility and selflessness not often found in public figures, and he never wanted the light to be shone on him and his incredible accomplishments. He was truly a public servant who went to Washington to serve Reagan and his country, always with his eye on someday heading back west to his beloved ranch. Reagan knew Clark was this type of very honorable man, and thus trusted him completely, and that is why Clark became Reagan's confidante, top adviser and closest friend in those very critical years for our country, and the world.
   Lets hope that those men who are now striving to win the Republican nomination for the next Presidential election and, hopefully, take up the mantle once again of the great Reagan, will read this book and truly learn from it what it means to embody those ideals and deep convictions that Reagan and Clark both held in tandem and lead our country with that same, much needed strong, fearless, and wise moral and just leadership like that of Ronald Reagan.



3. A wonderful look at one of America's unsung heroes. William Clark was indeed a patriot who went above and beyond the call of duty. As President Reagan's key advisor these two great men had a relationship unlike any other political figures in recent history. Almost telepathic in nature they were like brothers united like no other. Elemental in the ultimate "end game" in dismantling the Soviet Union piece by fractured piece to ensure the safety of America and preserve our freedom. It may not ever make the mainstream media's top ten list for obvious reasons and that is a shame. A must read for anyone who grew up during the Cold War.



4. This book showed a different side to Ronald Reagan.One that many people may not have known about.But as always, it did show that Reagan had strong bedrock values and surrounded himself with knowledgable people.



5. 
   A fine study of how one remarkable man added to the strength of another remarkable man guiding this country to a peaceful ending of the Cold War.
   
   A very informative and rewarding reading experience -- somewhat like a good novel, you hate to have it end. Although this book is a biography of Judge Clark, it is extremely valuable in placing before the American public how and why Ronald Reagan was a successful President and led the United States to Victory in the Cold War.
   
   The author's emphasis on Judge Clark's philosophy of "Let Reagan Be Reagan" is so important and in such contrast to other key advisors. Judge Clark's exemplary style of Leadership and Management contributed much to his function as Reagan's "top hand." Clark's humility, loving care and concern for those who worked for him, plus his family and friends, displays great character. The concern and dignity Secretary Clark paid his driver, Joe, is obvious by considering this driver his friend rather than "government chattel." Especially touching is the scene where Clark brought Joe before the President to show off his belt buckle. Joe had served another Secretary for three years who had never bothered to speak a word to him.
   
   References to the "Divine Plan" for Judge Clark and President Reagan, along with their Faith and belief in God, exemplifies what is missing at the top in our government today, something we desperately need. Strengthened by his belief in God and his devout Catholic background, Clark was able to serve Reagan well in various critical and important assignments. Clark's wise judgments added immeasrably to the success of President Reagan.
   
   Authors Kengor and Doerner are to be commended for bringing this valuable Biography and Presidential History to the attention of the American public. Job well done.
   
   James A. Webb, Jr.
   Major, USAF (Retired) and
   Associate Professor of Business,
   Louisiana Tech University (Retired)

5 comments about Blowing My Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy.

1. Oh lordy. That book was bad. Really, really bad. It's taken me a week to stop gnashing my teeth over the fact that anyone can get a book deal if they have a semblance of a story in which the mouth-breathing masses will be interested.
   
   She's a *horrible* writer! No amount of repeating that her Harvard professor told her she'd be doing public service by writing will change that. Nuggets of gold that just drove me nuts include lines such as "The singing, dancing, and hugging multicolored creatures were incongruous, not to mention distracting" or "I half expected to find a flask of Jack Daniels in my own butt crack when I went to bed that night." I'd like to point out the use of the word "incongruous" is incongruous in that sentence! (She was talking about Teletubbies.)
   
   But worse than the bad prose was the terrible structure. Granted, memoirs are difficult to write. And I can only guess that writing them about an something that you need to be somewhat circumspect about can be tricky. But there were gaping flaws in the actual structure. Take, for example, the "nemesis" in the book, Jin Suk. "...I became JS's unwilling nemesis, our polar personalities simultaneously drawing us together and pushing us apart."
   
   Ah ha! I thought when I read this sentence. Now, finally, the conflict will begin. There will be some interesting dialog. Some descriptive language about the psyche of other people. A give and take between two characters. However, the payout never comes. In order for the author to be the unwilling nemesis, she must be someone who cannot be bested or overcome. That would assume that JS is trying to overcome the author. I expect to see fierce competition, hand-to-hand combat, girl fights in the middle of the night in the bathroom. But JS isn't like this. And the relationship, if there even is one, isn't such that even a nasty comment is made.
   
   The author reference's JS driving off the road into a ditch, but not trying to drive the author off the road. She describes JS as going into a meditative state under a tree, another time. Doesn't seem too awful to me. In the end, the author doesn't best JS--she finishes second to her. And later, JS sends a friendly letter to the author, who treats it with sarcasm and disdain.
   
   In the end, the author can only describe JS as "sitting as though she has a teacup on her head." I misread it, however, and thought she said that JS *HAD* a teacup on her head. "Now that's just going too far!" I thought to myself, "It's ridiculous that this perfectly normal person would have a teacup on her head!"
   
   The author sets us up to believe she's going to be someone who can't help excelling beyond her classmate, and that the classmate will be nasty and snarly about it. In all truth, JS is the author's unwilling nemesis. JS seems not to notice the author's jealousy--or, if she does, she doesn't respond to it.
   
   Throughout the book we see just how immature the author is. "I have a hard job and I miss my private life of boozing and carousing, wah!" she seems to complain throughout. Instead of behaving like a mature adult learning how to seriously work towards securing knowledge, she whines about not being able to do what most kids did during their college years. Seriously--she sounds like I did when I was 22!
   
   Anyway, it was a rotten book. It was only because I was sick in bed that I finished it. I figured if I was throwing up anyway, I might as well read it.



2. The reason I bought this book was for the supposed insight on the hiring process and training that DO officers have to endure. In that end, the book does a fine job of detailing it all but with it come the annoying and childish rants of Lindsay Moran. It is clear that her state of mind was not to serve her country but more geared towards "scratching her itch of becoming a spy" as she states so many times. She manages to belittle basically everyone in her class while constantly reinforcing her Harvard greatness. At one point, she even analogizes the work of espionage to "a little boys game" all the while constantly crying over her choice to break up with "Sasho", her loverboy from Bulgaria, and her inability to take drugs like all her friends. It was so obvious from the get go that she was not dedicated but merely exploring a fascination she had. Her degree from Harvard might have gotten her through the hiring process but after about 5 years, it's clear that she's not what legends are made of. You don't apply for the cladestine service and ask the start date of employment to be pushed back 1.5 years so you can go explore yourself. This book actually made me angry.



3. This book is a quick read and very interesting. Some reviewers marked the book down because she did too well in tests and was very physically fit. They should probably lighten up. After all, she never would have made it into the CIA if she were a stupid sloth.
   
   The author has a good sense of humor. Because of the humorous and entertaining writing one hardly notices that lower level spying is really sort of dull. And I notice folks have given the book some really weird tags. Perhaps they didn't read it.



4. Lindsay gives an honest view of training and life undercover - I can hardly believe that the censors let her write this. It's funny, human, and real, and so much more interesting than the usual blow-em-up spy novels that you know are pure fiction. She is one smart - and brave -cookie.



5. I was very excited to read this book, and I did learn some interesting things about the workings of the CIA. As complete outsider, I knew very little about the recruitment process and training, and I appreciated Moran's descriptions. However, her personality was so repellent and her writing so juvenile that I had a difficult time focusing on the message.
   
   As a 20-something who has spent several years working and studying abroad, I am sorry to report that Moran's attitudes and lifestyle are pretty characteristic of young expatriates. Moran constantly references her altruistic motivations, yet she constantly belittles and berates almost everyone she comes in contact with. How can she be as open minded as she claims to be when she feels comfortable generalizing about groups of people such as Mormons? She describes herself as cultured and educated, yet her biggest extra-curricular interests are partying and sleeping with unkempt drug abusers. Why does she like being someone's meal ticket?
   
   After reading this book, there are some questions that I would like to ask the author:
   
   Have you ever dated someone with stable employment?
   Aren't you a little old for recreational drug use?
   Did you use the GRE vocab list to randomly pick words that you obviously don't know how to use?
   After reading your memoir/hagiography, why was I so surprised to see how unattractive you really are? I know that is irrelevant, but it does make me question her grip on reality. How scary are these foreign operatives if they want to hook up with that??
   
   I admit that this review probably wasn't very mature, but I'm way younger than Moran, so at least I have an excuse!

5 comments about James Buchanan (The American Presidents).

1. James Buchanan possibly was one of the best qualified men to assume the office of President. Qualifications don't mean anything if you don't have backbone and belief in principles. Buchanan bent over backward to try to please his Southern friends and it didn't get him anywhere. He tried to be rigid on forcing the North to bend to the South's ways. This didn't help him in the North. He defied the will of the people of Kansas and made more enemies. Finally everybody was fed up with this man. The South suceeded and the North elected the Republicans. The Democrats became a wilderness party for the next twenty eight odd years. James Buchanan played an instrumental role in the downfall of the Democratic Party and the United States.
   
   This is a short quick read. However Baker makes it plain that leadership does not develop from experience. A better leader may have found a way to change and compromise so that the United States didn't not go through a horrible war. Poor leadership by James Buchanan.



2. James Buchanan came to the presidency with a wonderful resume. And he failed dismally. This brief biography, part of the well done "The American Presidents" series, tries to explain that disconnect. In the recurring introduction to each volume in the series that he edited, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. remarked that (Page xvii) "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." And "there's the rub" for Buchanan.
   
   His background was impeccable: Pennsylvania state legislature, U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and England. As Jean Baker, the author of this slim volume says (Page 7): "Critical times often summon forth our best presidents, and it is worth taking the measure of those presidents who, given the opportunity, failed to rise to greatness. James Buchanan was one of those."
   
   The Democratic nomination for president culminated at the Convention. Franklin Pierce (incumbent president), Stephen Douglas, Lewis Cass, and Buchanan. After some maneuvering, Buchanan's supporters helped get him the nomination.
   
   After his election, though, he ran into a buzz saw: a panic (depression), violence in Kansas, and the horrific "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision. Buchanan selected a Cabinet that was very much pro-Southern, some of his closest allies were from the South, and he alienated Democrats such as Stephen Douglas. He did not recognize the danger of the slavery issue and watched as his pro-Southern stance split the Democratic Party, enabling the one thing anathema to him to occur--the election of a Republican in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Why did he fail so miserably? Unreflective prosouthernism is one part of the explanation, according to Baker. Other factors--his arrogant and uncompromising use of power.
   
   So, an interesting essay on a failed president. I think that personality quirks might be overemphasized in this book. Overall, though, a useful volume for those who want a quick introduction to the presidents.



3. There are 72 reviews of this brief and simply-written biography of a President who came to office with superb qualifications and who bungled the job that perhaps no one could have done. I found the book quite adequate as an introduction to the decade of the 1850s. Causes have to precede effects; anyone interested in the causes of the Civil War ought to have a good look at the events that led to Buchanan's election, and the dismal decision Buchanan made in reaction to those events. Honestly, however, you needn't buy the book. Just read the 72 reviews herewith. It will take some patience, and some tolerance for bad syntax, but it will reveal just exactly how polarizing the Civil War was, and still is.
   
   This "American Presidents" series is surprisingly top notch. I also recommend the biography of US Grant, the most underrated and slandered chief exec of American history.



4. So Jean Baker judges James Buchanan. (5 points if you can name the other two members of the triumvirate.) For her, his presidency was a miserable failure. This was surprising because, at least on paper, no man was more qualified to be chief executive. Buchanan had personal contact with every president since James Madison. He'd served as a congressman, senator, cabinet officer, leader of his party (Democrats), and minister to England. Moreover, in a post-Jacksoninan period when the presidency was viewed as a primarily administrative (rather than executive) office (perhaps this goes some way toward accounting for the "feckless triumvirate"), Buchanan saw himself as a wielder of power and an initiator of policy.
   
   But Baker argues that Buchanan, for all his apparent qualifications, was too dogmatically pro-Southern in his views, and too unpragmatic in dealing with sectional crises, to be an effective president. He stacked his cabinet with pro-slavery yes men (a cabinet, by the way, which was notoriously corrupt). He pulled strings behind the scenes to persuade a fellow-Pennsylvanian on the Supreme Court to vote with Taney on Dred Scott. He totally fumbled the Kansas crisis, doggedly defending the Lecomptian slave constitution even when it became clear that the vast majority in Kansas were free-staters. And in the long lame duck period before Lincoln took office, when the states in the lower South pulled out of the Union, Buchanan completely lost his head and became paralyzed with indecision and panic, sometimes unable to get out of bed.
   
   Baker, unlike other more sympathetic biographers, doesn't see Buchanan as a peacemaker caught in a tide of unstoppable sectional conflict so much as a man largely unqualified by temperament (gloomy, pessimistic, fatalistic) and dogmatic partisanship to handle the crisis. Perhaps. I don't claim to know enough about Buchanan to evaluate her conclusion. But I do know two things. First, she's presented a convincing case for Buchanan's incompetence and downright shadiness when it comes to the Kansas crisis, and there's good reason to think that this example is representative of his entire presidency. Second, I'd have liked to have learned more about Buchanan the man in order to be satisfied that Baker's characterization of his temperament was accurate. I know that her volume is in a series that focuses on presidential administrations, and so a full-fledged biography would've been inappropriate. But nonetheless, I didn't actually get a feel for Buchanan the person in reading her book.



5. Over the years the occupier of the cellar of American presidents has changed. When I was growing up, Warren G. Harding held the title as "Worst President Ever", then Ulysses S. Grant seemed to vie for a tie. In more recent years and given a more thorough look, James Buchanan now resides there and Jean H. Baker's excellent short biography of President Buchanan goes into some reasons why that has happened.
   
   Far from being the domestic American Neville Chamberlain of his day, Baker argues that vacillation wasn't Buchanan's worst trait (although it was a pretty bad one) but his pro-Southern views were. As a seasoned politician and diplomat, our fifteenth president was arguably one of the best prepared to take over the presidency in 1857. But, as suggested, things began to heat up fast and Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, got the ball rolling. Buchanan seemed to be feckless at every turn, managing to alienate his own party politicians with decisions that pleased no one in the end. But her chapter on the lame-duck months of Buchanan's presidency is the best of the book, as it should be. This four-month transition is one of the most important in presidential turnovers and has been heavily scrutinized for decades with the author coming down hard on Buchanan. What might have been done to save the country had Buchanan actually moved swiftly and successfully to reinforce Fort Sumter, for instance? We'll never know, but Baker gives the reader some things about which to think.
   
   On the personal side, the author delves lightly into Buchanan's possible homosexuality and concludes, like everyone else, we'll never know. But she does make an interesting point toward the end of the book when she contemplates the reasons for Buchanan's pro-Southern tilt by suggesting that the president preferred the more genteel southern ways to the edginess of his northern counterparts.
   
   The American Presidents series is terrific and I've read several of the presidential mini-biographies. This is one of the best and I highly recommend it.