5 comments about Daughter of Destiny: An Autobiography.

1. Benazir Bhutto, mother, first Woman and two-time Prime Minister, and life-long Pakistani patriot, sets forth her version of Pakistani history here - at least the history during her and her father's reign. Her version is a private chronicling of her public life; her educational years; and her years incarcerated, under house arrest, and in exile.
   
   It is often laced with bitter memories and understandable bitterness expressed towards the murderer of her father, ex-President Zia-ul-Haq; towards those who were responsible for her incarceration, which lasted for a total of about seven years. She also has many equally unkind things to say about the viciousness of Pakistani internal politics, although the role her family played in making it so is carefully omitted.
   
   On balance, her outlook and the book are generally upbeat. She never completely loses faith in, or gives up on the hope and the dream that Pakistan can turn itself around and become the kind of open democracy she envisioned it to be, and which, almost with an obsession, that ended in her death, she seemed bent on leading it to become. Agreeing to an arranged marriage to a Pakistani playboy, she admits to being not much of either a mother, or a wife: politics remaining her primary preoccupation throughout her adult life.
   
   In the wake of her assassination, her autobiography seems to have served as part of the national mourning process, at least for her followers and admirers. And while this book, her autobiography, naturally portrays her as the national hero that she surely is, we all know that her reign as leader of Pakistan was not without its own problems and was itself beset with many intrigues. None of this is mentioned in the book. One hopes, that in due course, a more definitive and a more balanced account of Pakistani history covering the period of her and her family's reign, soon will be forthcoming. Four Stars



2. Benazir Bhutto, on the brink of a political comeback against the odds in several ways, was assassinated after a political rally on December 27, 2007. Bhutto is an impressive figure from a prominent political family, whose history includes several untimely deaths -- her own father, a Prime Minister of Pakistan, was killed in a coup in the 1970s; her brothers were killed in suspicious circumstances. Now Bhutto herself has been lost, and likely the aftermath will continue in different ways for some time to come, both internally to Pakistan as well as internationally.
   
   Bhutto's strongest claim to fame in history will be that she was the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim nation, an accomplishment unlikely to be achieved in any other Muslim nation any time soon (even nations such as Turkey, which are officially secular). Her rise in some ways paralleled that of Indira Gandhi, who also gained political power in large part from the family reputation bestowed upon her initially. Bhutto, however, was no mere figurehead for her family or her party. Educated at Oxford and Harvard, she had a good intellect and a keen understanding of the world.
   
   This book details Bhutto's feelings and memories of her family, her growing years, and the struggle to the point of her first election as Prime Minister (she would go on to be re-elected after being deposed, and then spend many years in exile in the West). This is not dissimilar to the kinds of books that every American presidential candidate feels obliged to publish - part policy, part history, part wish-list. Still, it is one of the rare books we have on Bhutto, and (at least partially) by Bhutto. As such, it is worthy to be read. How it will compare to the upcoming autobiography (due to be released in April 2008) will be interesting.



3. Benazir Bhutto has acquired an eminent place in history of Muslim world. She is the first Muslim elected prime minister of any Muslim country in 1400-year history. This book, no doubt, is part of Pakistan's history now. She talks very eloquently about the atrocities that her family endured during long dictator ship of Asia's model dictator ZIA-UL-HAQUE, who overturned Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto's elected government in a military coup. Z.A. Bhutto had the courage to challenge the WHITE ELEPHANT, and subsequently loose his power and face assassination at hands of undemocratic and tyrant army supported by PNA (Pakistan National Alliance), a group of islamists backed by a foreign agency. Same religious group has gathered some political strength in Pakistan's political scenario, but has now been shunned by the same opportunist foreign agency. Benazir Bhutto talks a lot about the sufferings at hands of military but does not have same heart as ZA Bhutto to challenge her real enemies. This book is however a "must read" for those who are interested in the politics and history of this region. She has art to impress the reader and make her point clear.



4. Benazir Bhutto is a striking personality-she is both hated and loved in Pakistan, very much Indira Gandhi on a somewhat smaller scale. Her autobiography begins with her reaction to her father's death-Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged by General Zia ul-Haq after a military coup and the pleadings of the world community. Throughout the book, Benazir paints Zia as the ultimate devil, the evil that consumed Pakistan and sent her family into prison or death. The book is extremely melodramatic in tone, but to me it was quite appealing-not as a portrayal of Mrs. Bhutto's personality but rather as another testament in the mixed reviews of her reign. The book ends with the votes about to be cast in her favor-and they did. Benazir was elected to two terms, but was dismissed by Pakistan's President and replaced by political rival Nawaz Sharif. She has been accused of financial laundering and at one time had an arrest warrant placed on her in Pakistan. Though her character is now under question, Benazir Bhutto still remains a well-spoken, articulate voice, and there is no better reflection of these qualities than in DAUGHTER OF DESTINY. She speaks without much bitterness-there is only moderate waxing of effluvium about the cruel fates her early destiny went through. Though, not having experienced life in Pakistan under her rule as Prime Minister, I cannot form any political or personal view towards Mrs. Bhutto, one thing is clear to me-she has the ability to make her voice heard. Whether or not she is 'defending' American airstrikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan or speaking of how she believes her brother's shooting death was related to a conspiracy to remove the 'Bhutto factor from Pakistani politics', Benazir has an articulate and clear voice. Now if only her morals and character were so lucid.



5. Exciting book, really interesting story. Just read this book as three different ways (always linked)to target to the power: Ms Bhutto riformist way, the mother's bureaucratic way, the brother's revolutionary. And read Rushdie's Shame before or immediately after.

3 comments about La audacia de la esperanza: Reflexiones sobre cómo restaurar el sueño americano (Vintage Espanol).

1. En su libro "La Audacia de la Esperanza", Barack Obama revela sus pensamientos e ideas políticas, su visión sobre la vida y sus vicisitudes, las expectativas de la gente, empleando un estilo literario que sorprende por lo atildado y agradable, sin dejar de ser profundo por los temas que abarca.
   
   Todo un hallazgo; lo leí y lo recomiendo como lector que gusta de contar con buenos libros en su biblioteca.



2. It is common knowledge that Hispanics have not supported Obama. And that is not likely to change, particularly when you consider such obvious ploys as this one. If a group of voters won't support you...have your book translated into Spanish and they WILL. A nice idea in theory...but it is not working and it will not. Few Hispanics are interested in Obama's message regardless of the language. Another failed political strategy from the crumbling Obama campaign...



3. I am a Republican and plan to vote for John McCain, but this is a great translation--definitely one of the best Spanish books available on Amazon.
   
   Mr. Obama's writing is lofty. The translator has done a remarkable job with this book.
   
   Much of his beautiful rhetoric, unfortunately, will not translate into action if he is elected president. Obama is a great speaker and a fine writer, but he is not a magician.

5 comments about John Marshall: Definer of a Nation.

1. This is a full-length, 500 page biography of the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. It is superb. It is very detailed, yet easy to read. Smith follows the conventional chronological format for a biography, starting with Marshall's birth, and then describing his life sequentially from his childhood, his education, his youthful service as a light infantry officer in the Revolution, his work as a lawyer, his early political career, his rise to national fame as an envoy to France during the time when the nation almost went to war with France during the Adams Administration, his service as Secretary of State to John Adams and finally his long service for 35 years as the Chief Justice who established the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.
   
   What I find most admirable about this book is its balance. It gives you everything that you want in a biography. It is very scholarly, and very readable. It gives you a very good sense of John Marshall, the human being, but it also fully explains the significance of the events in which Marshall participated. As an example of the human side of Marshall, Smith gives us a very moving picture of Marshall's lifelong love affair with his wife, Polly, starting with the dramatic courtship by the penniless young officer and ending with the 80 year old Chief Justice walking twice a week to visit her grave. As an example of how Smith explains the significance of what Marshall did, not only did Smith explain the key decisions, but he gives the facts on what impact they had. In the steamship case, for example, Smith both explains the legal and political issues and gives the economic statistics on what effect the decision had on trade.
   
   I highly recommend this book, both for the excellence of its writing and the importance of its subject matter. John Marshall is one of the most important people in American history. He was instrumentals in making real the balance of the Constitution envisioned by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He was critical in creating the pre-conditions needed for America to be a rich and prosperous nation, with great opportunity for the great majority. Marshall was also a wise and a good man, which shines through on every page of this book. The book is worth reading, finally, as a way to come to know such an extraordinary man.



2. Not all historians are fine, interesting writers. Fortunately, Jean Edward Smith is a superb writer, making Chief Justice Marshall's long life an interesting, even fun, read. Moreover, the writing paralells the substance contained in the Book. I wish all historical biographies were of this quality. Buy the Book.



3. This was one of those books I knew I SHOULD read, but its heft put me off for months. When I finally did pick it up, I couldn't put it down.
   
   John Marshall doesn't have the cache or enduring fame that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or many others have - and it's a shame. He formed the institution of the Supreme Court, and in so doing, shaped many of the ways our country (tenuous at the time, mind you) began its journey, and perhaps why we've endured this long.
   
   The author does a fantastic job of painting a picture of life in the day, John Marshall's life and contributions, and how he and others in his era related to each other and the world at large. The cases that came before the early SCourt were fascinating, if only to illustrate the thorny issues and perils of the time. The extent to which he was able to be brilliant, rationale, and to build consensus focused on the original intent and vision for this country is impressive, and sorely needed today.
   
   Funny story - I finally DID start reading this book on the beach in Mexico. Not quite the fluff one typically carries to the beach. The first day, people remarked as such, and by about day 3 or 4, they are saying "wow, you are really making progress on that!" as the bookmark moved steadily towards the back.
   
   Don't wait for the beach - get started!



4. .....though we can still debate whether he defined it correctly. John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, and remains, one of the absolute giants of our history. Washington fought the battles, Jefferson and Madison composed the theories, but it remained for Marshall to elucidate what it all meant. This is, to my mind, the definitive biography of a titan.
   
   John Marshall was born in what is now Northern Virginia in 1755, the child of a fairly well off family. On his mother's side, he was descended from the famous Randolphs; his father was a surveying associate of George Washington. His dad taught him a love of education and good books that continued all his days. Before embarking on a career in Law, Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, serving with Washington in several major battles. After marriage to young Polly Ambler, he was a law student of the great George Wythe [also the law teacher of Jefferson, and of Spencer Roane] at William & Mary. Successful practice, and politics, soon followed...Marshall served on the Governor's Council, and was the leading advocate for Constitutional ratification in the Virginia convention; his battles with Patrick Henry are the stuff of legend [though they served as co-counsel in several cases]. He was a constant supporter of Washington, served as one of Adams' three ministers to France in the XYZ affair, and was briefly a Congressman and Secretary of State. He it was who said of Washington "First in War...", though he let Light Horse Harry Lee speak the words, and get the credit. In 1801, John Adams made a "midnight appointment" of Marshall to be Chief Justice, preventing the incoming President Jefferson from making his own choice...
   
   For the next 34 years, Marshall solidified Federal power, freely interpreting the interstate commerce clause, and the clause which allows Congress to make enabling legislation. Marbury v. Madison asserted the right of judicial review, and further cases expanded it. He wrote the judicial opinions that remain the basis of Federal centrilization of power to this day. Smith gives great detail of individual cases.
   
   One of Marshall's great strengths, and we shouldn't make light of it, was that he was a nice guy. A sociable host, his friends loved him, but even total strangers could find him thoroughly modest and charming. Quoits, and good Madiera were real passions. Even his enemies [with two profound exceptions] liked him. His basic decency certainly aided his consensus building.....
   
   ...the two exceptions were Spencer Roane and Thomas Jefferson. Roane was the son-in-law and political ally of Patrick Henry. A long time neighbor of Marshall, and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, Judge Roane believed completely in States Rights and held the US Constitution to be a voluntary compact of free and independent states that could be broken at will. What Spencer Roane proposed, Jeff Davis disposed... Alas, where Marshall was a prince among men, Judge Roane was of such acid, unpleasant, temperment that even his friends and allies couldn't stand him...
   
   ....and then there was Mr. Jefferson. The feud between Marshall and Jefferson is one of the absolute central themes of American history. It was multidimensional...personal, familial, political, philosophical...for about 40 years, the conflict was one of cordial, respectful, dislike; after the Aaron Burr treason trial of 1807, it turned into blind, unreasoning hatred. Part of it was rivalry between branches of the Randolph family; part was Jefferson's civilian service during the revolution while Marshall was in the field; part was publication of a letter to Jefferson from his daughter stating "Mrs. Marshall is insane" [sadly, true]. Mostly, the problem was that Marshall and Jefferson had totally different theories of government and visions of America. [They agreed about religion, though Marshall was a founder of, and regular attender at, Monumental Church in Richmond]. In 1807, Aaron Burr was charged with treason, accused of wanting to set up his own empire. He was tried in Richmond, with Marshall sitting as trial judge. Marshall's friend, neighbor, and occasional law partner John Wickham served as defense counsel, along with the drunken genius, Luther Martin. In what is today generally considered a rigged trial, Burr was acquitted. During this trial, an incident occured that is the only evidence of improper conduct on John Marshall's part that I can find; while Burr was out on bail, Wickham threw a grand dinner party for him. Marshall was invited [not improper], went, and stayed the whole evening. You can well imagine the spin that sympathetic Jefferson biographers put on this; Smith doesn't mention it.
   
   John Marshall was a great and brilliant man; he was also a good and decent man. He had his problems; Polly was an invalid with a combination of physical and mental problems for years...one of his sons was essentially worthless. Thru it all, John Marshall was faithful to both his public and private duties. Now, I'll get personal....my copy of this wonderful book was a Christmas present my wife bought me at the John Marshall House in Richmond. Located at 9th. and Marshall, near the Capitol, it is lovingly maintained by a fine staff of really nice people [the Director even helped me with research for a small biography I wrote of Spencer Roane]. The house, and Marshall's grave in Shockhoe Cemetery a few blocks away, are cared for as monuments to greatness, which they are. The house is nice, but not spectacular; Marshall was a modest, unassuming man [John Wickham's house, two blocks away, IS spectacular]. At the John Marshall House [yes, I contribute financially], and at his grave, I feel awe, intellectual interest, and profound respect; at Monticello, I feel reverence. Maybe I think Jefferson was right about the issues, but I can still look up to John Marshall. If you want to understand America, you need to read this book.
   
   This is the best available biography of Marshall, maybe the best ever. If all you want is case histories, read Hobson; if you want a highly technical biography, read Newmyer; if you want to understand the great cases, AND the great man who decided them, start right here. Newmyer and Hobson wrote fine books, but any intelligent person [not just specialists] can read this one.....



5. I think it can be argued that, next to Washington, Marshall was the most significant of the whole colonial group, and fortunately, this excellent biography rises to the occasion, telling the story of this truly remarkable American. The best proof of my enthusiasm for the book is that I have already purchased four copies for friends with more undoubtedly to come

5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.



2. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



3. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



4. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.



5. For the many people who admire Theodore Rossevelt for his belief that corporations have a civic responsiblity to American citizens, new books on this icon of progressivism are always welcome. It is important, however, to temper one's affection for TR with expectations of scholarship, and when one does so, Donald's book fails to satisfy. Compared to the Morris two-volume biography, Donald's book lacks sufficient detail to be classified as a legitimate biography; instead, it seems to be a simple encomium. Serious readers will not learn anything that they did not already know about TR, and they may be offended by the book's shallow treatment. This book might be suitable for a junior high student as an introduction to TR, but it has little merit for a more adult audience.

5 comments about The Book of Honor : The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives.

1. As much information as this book provides, it only scratches the surface. We lost my Uncle in Angola in 1989...he was close enough in age to me to be like an older brother. As heart-wrenching as his untimely, unwarranted death was for our family, it was compounded by the secrecy surrounding the crash (even with other family members in the Agency, it was a nightmare to piece together any semblance of the truth regarding what happened, even over a decade after it happened). While we are well-aware, and totally respect and understand the imperative to maintain control over the flow of information to protect other operatives on current missions, surely there is a way to give the family more truthful, accurate information specific to their loved one, without risking others or leaving us to imagine even more horrifying scenarios, especially after the sacrifice these men and women make. Most Americans have no idea of the sacrifices being made by these agents and their families every day, and if they are killed in the line of duty, their funerals usually can't even feature appropriate honors due to the need for secrecy, so you have even less closure because you are left to grieve, but also expected to maintain a fictional story regarding the death. Anyway...I hope this book will give people a little insight into some of the sacrifices made on their behalf every day without their knowledge. I know many people think this sort of thing doesn't really go on at this or other agencies, but they need to understand just how much they don't understand about everything that goes into making their world as safe as it is (though it doesn't always seem so safe, they should realize how much worse it could be).



2. By far the best book that I have every read. Ted Gup does an excellent job of painting the picture of the lifestyle and dedication of the people that worked with or for the CIA.
   Within the book, he tells various accounts of those that sacrificed all for love of the country and not recognition or money.



3. The problem is that this book is biting off more than it can chew. (There also happen to be at least a couple of factual errors in it, though that may not be the fault of the author, I wonder about some of his sourcing.) Gup is trying to give us real insight into the lives of these fine folks who died in the service of their country and the world.
   
   But, try as he does, he is missing critical context around many of the stories. The context is key to filling out what ends up otherwise as flat. The author's bias seems to be towards enlightening the world about convert operations - as if that in itself is a higher good. Unfortunately, while I must admit that at times the "government" paints with a broad brush when it "secretizes" things, nearly everything that has to do with clandestine service needs to be kept in the dark.
   
   The fact is, that these men understood the "deal". They volunteered. They were heroes because they went willingly to do harder work than most people can imagine because they believed in it. They understood they might "win a goald star". They knew what it meant to win a medal only to have it stored it in a box at HQ.
   
   But they didn't give a damn about the kind of recognition Gup wants to give them. Is it hard on the families? You're damn right it is. That's why the families are true heroes as well - sacrificing so much for something bigger than themselves. But that is also besides the point.
   
   The context is where it's at. Tell the story of each of these people by explaining what THEY understood about the life and death of the geopolitics in which they operated - and WHY they chose to operate in it, Guppy, and maybe YOU'LL earn another star.
   
   By the way, both the Agency and a reviewer got the quote out of context: It does say, "Know ye the truth and the truth shall set you free" but what follows is, "I am the way and the Truth and the life. Whoever believes in me shall not die but shall have eternal life." It is a quote from Mathew's Gospel. The truth is always more complex than it may seem.



4. When imagining the deaths of those CIA employees fallen in the line of duty, each symbolized by a star engraved in the Book of Honor at Agency Headquarters, images conjure up of Hollywood-style gunfights between shadowy figures in a European capital or of a heroic American spy being tortured to death by his Russian captors. The reality of the matter, however, is that these fantasies couldn't be further from the truth.
   
   In a stunning feat of investigative journalism, Ted Gup reveals the powerful, untold stories of the lives led by these nameless stars and their less than glorious deaths. Some were victims of terrorist atrocities, others lost in plane wrecks while covertly participating in proxy wars, and one was even left to rot away in a Chinese prison for almost two decades. What is most surprising, however, is that so many of these deaths were due to simple accidents and nothing more.
   
   Gup also tells the stories of those family members left behind, of those grieving spouses, parents, and siblings who were often told fairy tales about their relative's death. In most cases, the CIA publicly disavowed all knowledge of their existence, and family members were left to mourn in silence.
   
   This book serves as a somber reminder of the risks involved with intelligence work overseas, and how those affiliated with the security services must accept the possibility of being "left out in the cold" should the public reputation of their country be put on the line as a result of their actions.
   
   On a side note, Ted Gup brags about previously uncovering "extremely sensitive" government secrets and publishing them in the Washington Post, specifically, that of a "top secret government installation... [where] Congress was to go as a kind of government-in-exile in the event of an impending nuclear war." The last time I checked, jeopardizing national security was a treasonous act, and I therefore see no reason why he should feel proud to have damaged our nation's ability to defend itself. While I fully understand and support Gup's argument about combating unnecessary government secrecy, there must be limits about what can and cannot be revealed (like conservative columnist Robert Novak's politically motivated publishing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in a major US newspaper).
   
   All in all, this is definitely a book to be examined and kept in any quality collection of literature dealing with intelligence history. Well worth the read.



5. I haven't read the book but the 6 hour audiobook was fairly slow for what could have been much more interesting considering the subject matter. It seemed like the author really has an axe to grind against the CIA. The stories seemed overly focused on any mistakes the CIA made. The author lost credibility with me when he said he was the one who revealed the presence of the secret nuclear bunker that was to be used by the US Congress in the instance of a nuclear strike.

5 comments about Profiles in Courage (P.S.).

1. This book is well written, engaging and tells stories of courageous political leaders. Once you pick this book up you won't be able to put it down, and it will stick with you for years. He won the Pulitzer for a reason; we all need a reminder that doing what's right but unpopular leaves a far richer legacy than making decisions that win short term allies.



2. 
   I read this book quite a while back and found some great food for thought. One of my primary takeaways was that be careful when judging others motives.
   
   Kennedy (or whoever wrote the book) poses a primary question: Which is better...the man who will not compromise at all, or the man who bends but does not break?
   
   The argument is that the man who does not compromise may be considered true to his cause, but may get little done. The man who compromises to get things done may not be 100% true to his cause but is able to forward some of his ideas.
   
   The author(s) leave it up to the reader to decide (judge) if the path is right. Or, are both paths right? This is good food for thought for a critical thinker!
   
   What the author(s) is pointing at is that each man and woman must choose their own path in a situation according to their beliefs, values and morals, even if it may cause political and/or other ruin.
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



3. John F. Kennedy makes an excellent contribution to history with this book. It describes the lives of several distinguished Americans who, in the course of history, have shaped the face of the United States. All these biographies are interesting. History becomes very much alive with this book, and Kennedy does an excellent job in showing how men can contribute to the life of a nation. What is even more noteworthy is that that is what he himself did. This new edition of the book has an excellent preface by Caroline Kennedy, herself an eminent legal scholar.



4. It's the 50th anniversary of the publication by John Kennedy of the book `Profiles In Courage' and its subsequent winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. The non-fiction political tome features Kennedy's interpretation of eight U.S. Senators who placed the interests of the country and what was morally right regarding some momentous decision over the wishes of their political party and own potential self-advancement to higher office.
   Is there anyone presently in the Senate with presidential aspirations who can offer the same courage and moral convictions to do what's right in the manner the eight figures from history the future 35th president chose to write about to further the public trust at the risk of their own political career?
   Kennedy began the book in 1954 while in his first term as a U.S. Senator but undergoing convalescence from a surgery on his back to relieve stress from the injuries he received in combat during World War Two. There's still debate on how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy or what part was researched and prepared by underlings of his staff. But most experts agree that the senator supervised the editing of the material and selected which of those who were to be profiled.
   The book was positively received and it helped place Kennedy into national prominence. The Massachusetts senator used that notoriety to offer his name as a vice-presidential candidate at the 1956 Democratic Party convention. He then became one of that party's frontrunners for the 1960 presidential election which he ultimately won.
   It's apparent that when JFK served in the Congress he had contempt for the workings of the political patronage system when trying to obtain a consensus to solve the nation's problems as a congressman, then as senator. Most historians agree that he disliked the `good ol' boy' networking that future running mate Lyndon Johnson used as the Senate Majority Leader in making deals to please all sides on a matter and wanted those in that legislative body to take the moral high ground when debating the issues facing the nation to get legislation passed. That's why Kennedy decided to write the book for the next generation of politicians who would come after him to feature those who had taken a courageous stand as an inspiration to the succeeding groups of leaders.
   Kennedy acknowledges the responsibilities felt on any politician, especially one who is a senator, to keep everybody happy. He cites three specific pressures put on all leaders, including himself, to keep everyone satisfied.
   He writes that all senators want to be liked by the voters, they have a desire to be re-elected and feel the enormous pull of special interest groups seeking legislation that is favorable to their specific cause that can adversely affect the tough decisions they must make.
   So who did Kennedy select as standing up for principles and not continuing the status quo that ultimately wrecked their own political aspirations for the betterment of the country?
   They were John Quincy Adams for breaking away from the Federalist Party, Daniel Webster for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the start of the Civil War, Thomas Hart Benton for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to slavery and Sam Houston for opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
   Also included were Edmund G. Ross for voting against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lucius Lamar for his attempt to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, George Norris for coming out against arming U.S. merchant ships before the U.S. officially entered World War One and Robert Taft for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted high-level Nazi war leaders under what he considered ex post facto laws that were forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
   It's obvious the eight senators Kennedy selected decided to make a courageous, yet unpopular choice on an issue to put the interests of the nation and world over their own political aspirations at a time of crisis. How come we don't have any leaders like those eight today?
   The United States Senate is called the last great place for oration and debate as the issues facing the nation and world are discussed by one hundred of the nation's political elite. But can a U.S. Senator be elected from that office today directly to the presidency by taking a potential career-ending stance on today's hot button matters? No one has successfully done so since John Kennedy did in 1960.
   That doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama and any other potential future candidates from that legislative body as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Many have tried since JFK's triumph and all have failed, the most recent being John Kerry in 2004.
   It's going to be extremely difficult for this current brood of senators, be they male or female; Republican, Democrat or independent; to exhibit the same virtuous characteristics of those Kennedy profiled to get elected as our next president under our current political structure of stalemate government gridlock that forces them to refrain from taking any courageous stand on the issues that need immediate resolution.
   That's a loss for all of us.



5. What President Kennedy shows in this book is a series of examples to all our modern politicians. It's a book to read and keep in mind.

5 comments about Churchill: A Study in Greatness.

1. this book by geoffrey best will rank as one of the greatest book ever written about churchill full of wise summations and not too long thi work is recommended by the churchill society . for sure one of the very best one volume work



2. Best nos presenta una panorámica de la vida de Churchill. Algunos capítulos están mas inspiradoa que otros. Trata de mostrar una perspectiva imparcial del personaje aunque claramente se comprueba que le admira grandemente, pero no tanto como a su esposa Clementine. La extensión de la parte que corresponde a la segunda guerra mundial es mucho mas amplia (quizás la mitad del libro). Casi no responde las preguntas o dudas sobre asuntos controversiales que existen sobre la vida de este personaje.
   
   Como se comprende, al escribir sobre Churchill es necesario mostrar una parte de la hisoria de GB y del mundo pero esta se queda corta a veces para ayudar a comprender a cabalidad la circunstancias que rodearon a los hechos.
   
   En general el texto es bueno, muy bien redactado, fácilmente comprensible. Algunos artículos mas inspirados que otros pero todos interesantes.



3. A very readable book that provides balanced and insightful coverage of the whole of Churchill's life. I would highly recommend this book either to those who have not previously read much about Churchill or equally to those who have read other Churchill biographies or war histories and wish to take a fresh look. Of particular value is the way that the author take the occasional opportunity to dispel certain myths and revisionist ideas about Churchill.



4. Not a true biography but more than just a compilation of essays concerning Churchill's life and times, the author provides us with a 300+ page synopsis/chronology with a sprinkling of his thoughts, insights and conclusions. I found nothing new or "earth-shattering" here. On the other hand it makes a nice supplement, (i.e. much like Meachem's book on FDR and Churchill), to biographys/books I have read. If you are looking for a full-fledged bio start elsewhere, (Manchester or Gilbert), and if your interest is piqued as mine was, come back to this one.



5. A compact biography (384 pages) by Oxford Historian Geoffrey Best is far and away the best I have read on Churchill. The many facets of Churchill's life are covered in a series of essays from the author. Best summarizes Churchill's life with clarity and high degree of accuracy.
   
   If you're looking for a comprehensive study on Churchill, this isn't it. You won't find page after page of stilted verbiage here, but you will find a well written presentation of this fascinating man, perhaps the savior of England. If it is possible to write a detailed account of such a varied figure within the brevity of such a small volume, the author has done so admirably.
   
   Though the author clearly admires the subject, this isn't just another "I love Churchill" book. Best gives a fair and balanced account of many areas where Churchill may have erred, such as Gallipolli. The book is fair, and it is no-nonsense, to the point, without a lot of ambivalent inflection.
   
   I have a number of volumes on the life and times of Churchill. I may go to other volumes for research purposes, but this is probably the most enjoyable read I have encountered on the man.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com

5 comments about The Voice of Hope: Updated and Revised Edition.

1. Now in an expanded second edition including an interview with U Gambira (a leader of the All-Burma Monks Alliance that organized the protests of September and October 2007), The Voice of Hope: Aung San Suu Kyi Conversations with Alan Clements is an extensive interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Laureate, mother of two, and practicing Buddhist who led the pro-democracy movement in Burma in 1988. The movement was harshly crushed by the military junta that renamed Burma as Myanmar. Alan Clements, the first American ordained as a Buddhist monk in Burma, met with Aung San Suu Kyi after her release from her first house arrest in July 1995. She delivered her perception of engaged compassion and spoke of how she maintained her hope and optimism despite continued governmental oppression. "You must not forget that the people of Burma want democracy. Whatever the authorities may say, it is a fact that the people want democracy and they do not want an authoritarian regime that deprives them of their basic human rights. The world should do everything possible to bring about the kind of political system that the majority of the people of Burma want and for which so many people have sacrificed themselves." A singularly powerful and also deeply spiritual testimonial on behalf of a troubled nation.



2. In this book, as in "Freedom from Fear" and "Letters from Burma", Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi exposes to the world the grim realities of her land and her people, seen through her very eyes. As always, she is able to jump with great ability from more personal and sentimental accounts of the situation, to hard data, from recollections of her childhood, to perspectives on Burma's future. Always filled with thrill and dense with emotions, her writings are for the expert and the ignorant alike, easy to understand, yet of high value historically and academically. For anyone wishing to know more about Burma and the struggle of her people for human rights, this is must reading.



3. I have always been fascinated by Burma in all its aspects and I wanted to be more informed on the current political and social situations. The subject is certainly very interesting but I personally found the book itself very boring and repetitive: The concepts and ideas are repeated dozens of times in different chapters, over and over again. This book would have been much more powerful and appealing with 100 pages instead of 300.



4. This book shocked me awake to the realities of countries where freedom is not enjoyed as in the United Sates. The government's repression and horrific inhumantiy are just unbelievable. But, more amazing is the dedication to nonviolence which Aung San Suu Kyi and her party follow in their democracy movement. Her manner in speaking of Burma's serious situation is so calm, hopeful, and loving that it makes one reinterpret and recast their interactions with their own worlds. One may also reflect on one's place in humanity and see that Burma's tragedy, Burma's fate, is our own and we must act now. Aung San's hope and strength are qualities we would do well to adopt as our own. I do not think it is possible for one to read this book and NOT feel urged to take some form of real action (via letter writing, publicizing the issue, etc).



5. I have been intrigued with the situation in Burma since watching the movie Beyond Rangoon some time ago. It was therefore with great interest that I ordered this book as soon as it was available. In "The Voice of Hope" Alan Clements brings us into the present with this tragic situation through the person of Aung San Suu Kyi and her incredible life. But what sets this work apart from histories, biographies, and oddly enough even self-help material - is the powerful integration of beliefs and action found in Aung San Suu Kyi's life and philosophy. In reading chapter seven alone, ("Saints are Sinners who go on trying") I was personally and deeply moved by the clear connectedness described between her experience with a repressive government and the need for thinking people everywhere to courageously fulfil our potential as thinking, "questing" individuals. The repressive government in Burma is shown to be an extreme and yet still relevant metaphor for intellectual repression in all its forms. And Aung San Suu Kyi's message offers specific insight together with believable emotional support for those who struggle to reconcile what we discover and know through our own searching with what we are expected to believe by others. If it helps anyone who is deciding whether this book is worth the money - I can only say that as one who buys and reads more than 100 books a year - this book has earned a unique place in my library and in my heart. I would trade every other book I have read this year for Alan Clements' latest contribution. Thank you.

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 Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield.

1. It has often been remarked that the only thing new under the sun is the history one has not read yet and this book is proof of that old adage. Kenneth Ackerman has provided the novice reader with a primer on the dynamics of Gilded Age national politics.
   
   It is highly unlikely, with the exception of Grant, that any of the participants in this book will ever be the subject of an uncritical adoring biography. Garfield and Arthur do come off as ultimately honorable men, but the real protagonists of the book are James G. Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, two titans behaving badly. Ackerman places the nomination of Garfield in the context of battle between these two national figures who played an important role in politics in the years following Reconstruction.
   
   While the behavior of some of the founding fathers is often so honorable as to defy imagination, this manner of operating does not have appeared to have occurred to Conkling and Blaine. Both are bare-knuckled operators who are frequently petulant as children arguing over a soccer ball. No marble men on Mt Rushmore were the politicians of the Gilded Age.
   
   In a way, because Conkling and Blaine are such scoundrels, the book is rather fascinating, almost like a sequel to "Democracy" by Henry Adams (Conkling is supposedly the inspiration for one of the characters). However in this version, circumstances elevate both Blaine and Conkling to the status of Greek Tragedy.
   
   The book opens with the origins of their feud which began on floor of the US House of Representatives. Because the wise old men of congress decided not to intervene, the two men grew to hate with a fervor that lasted until death. The hatred between the two men reached its crescendo at the Republican National Convention of 1880. Blaine was making his first serious run for the presidency and Conkling was sponsoring the third run of General Grant who represented a return to government free of the meddling of reformers.
   
   A deadlocked convention lead to the selection of Garfield who was present to back his own candidate, Secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman. Of all the candidates Garfield seemed the most reasonable choice since he had yet to have made any serious enemies. This would change once Garfield was elected president. The selection of Conkling's crony, Chester Arthur sealed the deal. It appeared that Conkling's Stalwarts and Blaine's reform minded "Half Breeds" had unified around a single candidate.
   
   Garfield was sworn in as president in March 1881 and died less than six months later. The focus of his brief presidency was an argument over the appointment of a Conkling foe to the plum position of plum positions, collector of the New York customs house. This obscure position today was the most lucrative in the Gilded Age. For the senior senator of New York, this was an impossible blow to Conkling's honor. He resigned his seat in a fit of pique and never was significant in politics again.
   
   This argument at the center of US political life so unnerved a Stalwart supporter, Charles J. Guiteau, that he shot Garfield in order to ensure that Chester Arthur would be president. Ackerman's ability to move between the world of the White House, Congress, political smoke filled rooms, and the shabby world of Guiteau is a credit to his skills as a writer and an historian.
   
   Along with bringing back this lost world of Gilded Age politics, Ackerman's story serves to illustrate that while civil service reform (or "snivel service reform" as Conkling dismissed it as) and other changes have taken place, the dynamics that sustained US politics then, with its larger than life personalities seeking advantage over rivals continues on now much as it did then.



2. On the morning of July 2, 1881, Garfield was preparing for a trip to New England. While waiting for his train in Washington's Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station, the president was felled and gravely wounded by the shots of an assassin. Garfield was carried to the presidential mansion, the White House. For weeks he was nursed there. Later he was moved to Elberon, New Jersey, to be with his family. Garfield never left his sickbed, and on September 19, 11 weeks after the shooting, he died.
   
   Garfield's assassin was Charles J. Guiteau, a religious fanatic and a Stalwart, who was apparently angered because he had been refused a government job. He stated that he shot Garfield in order "to unite the Republican Party and save the Republic." Guiteau readily gave himself up after the shooting, certain that the people would understand the high-mindedness of his purpose. He was found guilty of murder, however, and was executed in 1882.
   
   Vice President Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as president. A member of the Stalwart faction, he had sided with Conkling in the dispute over Garfield's appointments. He gradually replaced all of Garfield's Cabinet with Stalwarts, but picked them for ability rather than loyalty to Conkling. The shocking nature of Garfield's death fueled a movement in Congress for civil service reform, which had been started but stalled under the Hayes administration. As a result Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which President Arthur signed into law in 1883. It established the Civil Service Commission to ensure that federal jobs would be awarded according to qualifications rather than connections
   
   Several hundred pages of text on Garfield and the politics of his day may seem a stretch, given the gray, hyper-partisan, issueless politics of the Gilded Age. But in Ackerman's hands, the story of Garfield's presidency and murder comes brilliantly alive. Ackerman (an attorney who has worked on Capitol Hill and in the White House and written about Gilded Age scandals) relates with gusto and fizz the story of Garfield's unanticipated nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1880, his election by a whisker, the travails of his few months in office, and his assassination. It's a story mostly of the struggle for spoils and patronage between two wings of the post-Civil War party of Lincoln. In fact, the lonely, unstable assassin, Charles Guiteau, was a resentful partisan of the wing that Garfield didn't fully reward. Soon after the president's death, and largely as a result, Congress enacted civil service reform. Ackerman brings to life all this and the colorful political figures, mostly senators, who strode the nation's public stage. The trouble is that, like so many works of history these days, it's long on narrative and short, very short, on analysis. You wouldn't know that the political deadlocks of the 1880s deeply, and disastrously, affected the lives of freed slaves, nor do readers learn of agricultural and labor crises, industrial growth or financial shenanigans-the very matters that factional fighting and political murder kept under the rug. It's a pity that Ackerman doesn't apply his skills to such central matters of context and significance.



3. Can't praise Ackerman enough for a detailed study of late 19th century political machinations - if you've ever wondered how local politicos could control the nation's power base, this superb effort makes it perfectly clear and understandable. How few people truly understand the power of a relatively unknown figure such as Roscoe Conkling (even if you already knew of Boss Tweed's legacy.....and yet Ackerman's magnificent research and analysis opens this character for the reader's astonishment. Outstanding reportage of the dealings involved in the 1880 Republican convention power-brokering, the desperate struggle between the Stalwarts of Conkling and Arthur versus the Half-Breeds of James Blaine and Garfield, the defining battle for the NY Customs House appointment. Garfield's early bio and in fact his assassination history are not the focus of this book, but who cares? The incisive political intrigue of a mere 8 or 9 months of our presidential history makes for both a terrific read and a wonderful expose of a truly watershed milestone in the evolution of the American governmental system. My highest recommendation for anyone who thinks he knows the Gilded Age, but wants an eye-opener with the readability of an indulgent summer novel.



4. I enjoyed this book so much, I sent this letter to the author:
   "Dear Mr. Ackerman, I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed your fantastic book, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield. I feel it is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for History. I found your writing style to be engrossing as, even though I knew much of the history you recounted, I read each page of the book most eagerly. I had just finished Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century and, as much as I enjoyed it, I found your book to be a more compelling tale. Your character development is superb and I love how you tied the thread of the Conkling/Blaine feud of 1866 to events throughout the book. The final weaving together of the tale in Chapter 15 is a beautiful closure to a moving story that, as you accurately captured, impacted and captivated large numbers of Americans. Your research and documentation were extremely thorough and quite logically incorporated into the chronological flow of events. Your footnotes are pure joy for a politics and history buff (like me). I didn't really feel I had finished the book until I read the endnotes, as they added to my deeper understanding and appreciation of the events. Having lived through the Kennedy assassination, the comparisons with Garfield's demise are most intriguing and the distinctions also profound. Both were younger presidents who had won narrow victories to gain the White House. Both were succeeded by vice presidents who were clearly 'ticket balancers.' But Kennedy's assassination has forever been plagued with conspiracy theories, while Garfield's had no doubt as to the assassin. Alas, to pursue this line of thought would invite rambling on my part, but these ideas do cross my mind. I think your book would make a great movie, except for the sad reality that Hollywood would inevitably destroy a great story. Also, most likely, it isn't the kind of story that would capture much interest among our populace, at least in my judgment (keeping in mind the kinds of movies that seem to proliferate theater complexes these days). If only I were wrong about this! Your recapitulations of future developments of each of the prime players in the book (Chapter 15) are tailor made for the closing of a great film. I found particularly touching the telling of Mollie Garfield having married Joe Stanley Brown. Some minor observations, suggestions, and thoughts I have are as follows: - A table of the results of the 1880 Presidential Election and a national map of the results (as I have attached) might have been a good addition to the book. I did thoroughly enjoy your tables of the key convention ballots. (Obviously, my bias as a mathematician and cartographer is showing.) - I am working on a book (well, it is really more of a tutorial) of the History of Partisan Representation in the United States Congress. As you are well aware, the story of the evenly divided 47th Senate, in and of itself, is a fascinating one and your accounting of the battle for control of the Senate is most illuminating. Your description of the tie-breaking (precedent setting) votes of Chester Arthur is great drama. -- In this vein, while you point out that one of Arthur's first actions as President was to call the Senate into special session to choose a President Pro Tempore, you never related who they selected for this position. My research indicates that Thomas F. Bayard (D-DE) served from October 10 to 13, 1881, David Davis (Independent-IL) from October 13, 1881 to March 3, 1883, and George F. Edmunds (R-VT) from March 3 to December 2, 1883. Perhaps with the Senate evenly split, this particular tale was too complex and off the focus of your storyline to include. - Not to nit-pick, but in case your book is ever reprinted, some minor points: -- on page 205, last line of paragraph two, the spelling of 'ungentlemanly' missed the editors gaze, -- on page 234, end of line 15 should probably read 'In fact' instead of 'If fact.' -- the last endnote 'I am a poor hater' should be attributed to page 453. - If space had provided for it, including the White House family portrait on the cover of the book would have been wonderful. Just viewing this photo (in the context of the murder of Garfield and all you shared about his wife and children) truly conveys the personal tragedy that occurred, separate from the great loss to our country. - Indeed, as you note, we do need a solid, contemporary biography of James G. Blaine. Equally, I would welcome one of Chester A. Arthur. While a product of machine politics, as you described him, he showed character, spirit, decency, and integrity that made him attractive. I would enjoy reading more about him. Again, please accept my thanks for your superb work and for sharing this wonderful tale. Sincerely, R. Bruce Telfeyan"
   --By the way, he did write me back a substantial note of thanks. As did other reviewers, I subsequently visited the Garfield NHS in Mentor, OH, and his burial site (really a beautiful shrine) in the eastern part or Cleveland, OH.



5. This is a fascinating look at a little known president in American history. It covers the convention that nominated Garfield where he was not even a contender. Garfield was a representative for General Sherman who was against General Grant and James Blaine. This convention was one of the most interesting in our history and shows how the freedom of delegates can result in a compromise that gives a candidate acceptable to many. While none would wholeheartedly jump behind Garfield he was able to take a nomination. The New York crowd who backed Grant was particularly bitter. Roscoe Conkling who is made out to be the great villain in this story provides an interesting foil. Chester Arthur is shown to be a man even more unlikely than Garfield for the presidency and it is telling that after his term is up he is hardly even considered for another. The election process also proves to be interesting showing a time before TV and radio when stump speeches reigned supreme. Garfield's assassin turns out to be one of his campaigners who want a political appointment. He feels that by killing Garfield he will be rewarded with a patronage position. Garfield's election seems to bring about a divide in the country that is already distrustful after the election of Rutherford B. Hays. Ironically it is the death of Garfield and the unlikely ascension of Arthur that will heal the nation. This dark horse unified the country in his death and paved the way for civil service reform. For those who have an interest in the Gilded Age this is a must read. For those who are fascinated by political history they will find this a riveting tale that cannot be put down.