3 comments about Don Benito Wilson: From Mountain Man to Mayor Los Angeles 1841 to 1878.

1. A key player in Los Angeles History, very informative book with enough human interest to keep those of us who are more interested in people's stories than just dates and facts, interested.



2. Benjamin Wilson lead an astonishing life, and was the perfect man to arrive in Mexican California. Though he is largely known today only through the eponomous "Mt. Wilson", he created much of what we now see in Southern California. This book is a spectacular vista into that world, and on one of the men who shaped it.
   
   Having to leave home as a teen, he became both a merchant and a mountain man, learning both commerce and the trapping skills of the Indians. Fleeing Santa Fe at age 30, he arrived in California with the first overland settlers in 1841. Intending to become a merchant in China, he failed (thrice) to make the boat from San Francisco, and instead bought a ranch near the San Gabriel mission - owning what we now call Riverside, California.
   
   His adventures do not merely parallel the development of California; largely, they MAKE the development of California. He spanned both the Mexican and American eras, in marriage, politics, agriculture, commerce, railroads, Indian affairs, and especially real estate.
   
   Though never taking Mexican citizenship, he married the daughter of a local don, became alcalde of the Riverside area, and finally joined the last Mexican government of Los Angeles. He was elected the first clerk of the new American Los Angeles, and its second mayor. As a state senator, he represented ALL of Southern California -- only a few thousand people.
   
   The state was unbelieveably tiny. Many of the few hundred that voted in his elections in Los Angeles were drunks and Indians, rounded up the night before and paid (liquor or coin) to vote (as many times as possible). The center of the state popultion was *north* of San Francisco, as men poured in to the state to mine gold, and the few ranchers of Southern California raised the cattle to feed them.
   
   On the land that B. J. Wilson owned, one million people now live. He created the first "gated community" in California -- when he fenced in the ranch that we now call Beverly Hills. He made much of what is now Pasadena, Altadena, and San Marino, both establishing the his vineyard at the foot of Lake Avenue, and dividing and developing his property for both Huntington (San Marino, Huntington Library) and for the Hoosiers (Pasadena). His real estate hands were in San Pedro (with Banning, owning the landing, developing the railroad, providing the US Army barracks), the Ballona marshlands (Marina del Rey), and downtown LA (especially the 12 acre site on the central plaza where Union Station now is). The road he cut up "Wilson's Mountain" for timber has later led to hotels, a major astronomical observatory complex, and to the home of nearly all Los Angeles's TV broadcast antennae.
   
   His legacy is largely California itself, as his son failed into suicide, and the son-in-law to whom he turned over his vineyard lacked Wilson's imagination and vision. His one famous descedent was his grandson, Gen. George S. Patton, a man who shaped twentieth century events with the same gusto his grandfather had in the nineteenth.
   
   Wilson's true legacy was the bussling city he helped create, developing it from dusty backwater adobe to thriving market town, atwitter with telegraph lines and railroads.
   
   This book is not so much a single, chronological, narrative story as it is a collection of vignettes, anecdotes, and short stories about all the aspects of Wilson's life, with chapters on his mountain days, politics, the vineyard, Pasadena, San Pedro, the Mexican-American War, properties, railroads, etc. The material was extensively researched, from both first- and second-hand sources, and extensively footnoted. (Much of the research was done at the Huntington Library, just east of where Wilson's vineyard ranch-house stood.) This will be, for the twenty-first century, the definitive biography of a creator of nineteenth century California.



3. This is a beautifully crafted narrative which describes the struggles associated with California's coming of age through the lens of one of its first mayors. Don Benito lived a colorful life, and the author presents it in a series of vignettes and carefully researched anecdotes. By providing context to Don Benito's personal story, the author presents a concise history of California, from the first Spanish settlers and their missions up to references to modern L.A., and how it was shaped by the movers and shakers of the 19th century. Although it is hard to put down, you can pick it up again, easily, without fear of losing your place in the story, since the chapters are short and self-contained. The writing is clear and compact, and it is a fascinating historical document. This is the perfect book for anyone who loves a good story.

5 comments about My Life: The Presidential Years Vol. II (Vintage).

1. As a long time follower of Bill Clinton, I have enjoyed his books. Clinton's time as President was overshadowed by his sexual encounters, which is disappointing. In my opinion, Clinton was an excellent President. Clinton gives insight in to his adminstration and the condition of the political world during his time in office. It's an unknown fact that we have only had two Presidents who did not have mistresses or affairs at some point in their lives. As Nixon had to face the music for Watergate, Clinton faced the music for his sexual indiscretions. Both became poster children for actions that neither were the first to participate in, nor the last, leaving their legacy's forever tarnished. Politics is a dirty business and for those who manage to endure the mud slinging and back stabbing, I take my hat off to them. Bill Clinton is a survivor who has managed to shake off past negativity, to reemerge as a strong and trust worthy leader. I highly recommend this book for any Clinton follower looking for insight in to the Clinton administration, as it is a very detailed, honest accounting of his life.



2. Most interesting of all is reader reception. For some reason, hundreds of readers commented upon the first volume of My Life. Yet, on the second volume, I am the fourth to make any remarks. So, why do people pay such great attention to the "developmental" volume and so little attention to the "consequences" volume? That is the question of prime importance, in grasping how Americans, in particular, have been overly receptive to issues of character and less attentive to more critical issues of policy formation, in the crucible of current circumstantial events. People would rather cling to some indefensible opinion of the man than explore the interleaved nuances of public necessity and private interest that we call politics. [Perhaps, volume III will draw our attention better to the stories we ought to read, of American public values processes!]



3. A homecoming of sorts, as much for Clinton as his readers---it's a weaving together of philosophy, religion, sex, and a deep love of country. Book was not what I expected, but in a word it was, compelling. Mr. Clinton explains the stress in those years in a manner that leaves the Clinton gang, I'm sure, wanting less compassion for those who tried their best to destroy him and his family. That's the difference between a politician, any politician, and a human being.
   
   I too felt stress in those years. It was impossible to find employees--everyone who wanted a job had one. Even more stressful was what to do with the huge surplus of money in our national treasury. Then there was that fulltime worry about Bill's sex life. That wouldn't have been an issue for me had I had a sex life. Then there was all that training and money we were spending on our armed forces who were not out there earning their keep invading oil rich countries so the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton could exploit their natural resources.
   
   Life has been worry free for me during the Bush years. It's the minorities and middle income whites who are doing the worrying now--about things like where to bury their war dead, employment and paying the bills. I confess, I'm not sure how these people are going to handle the national debt with me getting a tax cut and them without a job. But Mr. Bush said not to worry. What a relief! I'm Bob Miller, a registered Republican.



4. As someone who has written a lot about Bill Clinton over the years I was disappointed by his book. This was a chance for him to set the record straight on both the good and bad in his administration and he did neither. He talks about a lot of the issues but not how he approached them. He talks about what his administration looked at but not what he did and did not solve. He allows Yassir Arafat to get off completely free for his rejection of the Clinton plan the book is very well written and is still worth reading if nothing else to understand Clinton's perspective on what happened but overall it could have been far more enlightening.



5. As a Clinton Democrat, I grew up with issues like Social Security and welfare in my mind. I found out more about Clinton from this book then watching him for the last 14 years on TV. Clinton uses easy to understand words yet at some points he uses more complicated rhetoric. A fun book to read and will test what you know about Clinton's term in office.

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton, American.

1. I had originally purchased Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton but I found I wanted a quicker read and something easier to carry while traveling to and from work. Mr. Brookhiser's book was exactly what I was looking for, interesting and gave me plenty of insight into Alexander Hamilton's life and character. I'm sure some people might prefer "more" but I'm basically a "cliff note" type of reader. I would recommend this book to someone short on time but still likes to read about fascinating characters by a good author.



2. To preface this, I gave this book 5 stars due to the splendor of Alexander Hamilton. For as George Washington is the Father of America, Alexander Hamilton is his son cementing the United States into a nation.
   
   Not enough credit is ever bestowed upon what Alexander Hamilton earned. The same politics of today, banking problems, debt and war are the issues Hamilton solved as a Federalist or Conservative Republican of today at odds with socialist reactionary Democrats creating the same obstacles.
   That is the truest gift of Hamilton and the intriguers of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in setting up a conflict which is still ripping the United States apart.
   Other Federalists like Theodore Roosevelt would appear in the historian mode and castigate Madison and Jefferson for their shoddy leadership in attacking the very foundations of a strong government, standing military and strong finance, but yet even now these same reactionary individuals have followers today who have yet to learn the lesson Thomas Jefferson learned when at past age 70 he finally admitted to John Adams that he was wrong.
   
   That is what is remarkable about Alexander Hamilton in he stood alone, first as President Washington's advocate in American principles and later as John Adam's entire cabinet much to Adams jealous dismay.
   Hamilton would create a long line lone leaders in John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan whose leadership and financial policy reflect his.
   
   The problem with this book is the historian Brookhiser. I rarely ever read biography or historians as they always get in the way of the person. Brookhiser starts out by stating "he is no superior to Alexander Hamilton" and then in the entire book stomps in mugging for the camera like a faux grade Bill Buckley speaking Greek philosophy trying to compete with Hamilton's genius.
   It is not that bad until he reaches the end of the book when Brookhiser then attempts to disect Hamilton as some kind of Freud without ever understanding the simplest of point. A reader does not have to know the DNA function of Raquel Welch to know she is beautiful........and a reader does not need to have Brookhiser placing his own psychopathy onto Hamilton to try and explain him.
   Hamilton might just be a God inspired genius set down to guide the founding of a nation and not a boy tusseling with demons of abandonment and issues of a dead mother.
   That is the greatest problem of books like this in historians can never just allow Hamilton who wrote over a million words in public during his life to just tell his story. No Brookhiser has to jump in front of the mic and like Dan Rather tell moronic Americans what Hamilton was really about which he might not have been.
   
   I do recommend this book even if Brookhiser is boorish too often and is like Benjamin Franklins company and fish after 3 days, because even in the "rummage of musty words dusted by a fresh historian the light of Alexander Hamilton shines through".
   
   Plutarch in his Lives understood the biographies were about the person in telling who they were in a story of their life. Historians need to emulate Plutarch in knowing he was not the story, the great man was made great by the common thing he did which was great.



3. As the title of my post states, this is an excellent primer for those interested in learning more about one of the greatest and least appreciated Founding Fathers.
   
   This book provides and easy to read and yet thorough review of Hamilton's life and provides a good foundation and understanding before you read some of the more in-depth biographies and studies.
   
   I love this book.



4. The author has done a very good job of researching and reporting to us on one of the great icons of American history.
   
   There were a few times when writing on the machinations of government, politicians, and legal maneuvering got a little tedious but it was probably necessary to give readers a full perspective.
   
   At the end of the day, the author has done us a favor by giving us a detailed and historical perspective of Alexander Hamilton. Thank you!



5. Brookhiser presents the man, not just the life of one of our brightest and most ingenious founding fathers in "Alexander Hamilton, American." If you're unfamiliar with Hamilton, this book should acquaint you with the man whose career is a necessity for understanding the founding of this nation. Hamilton lived an extraordinary life which not only makes an fascinating and educating read but also presents us with little known and exclusive details of his private life. His works remain immortal and accomplishments highlight his brilliancy but remain essential in comprehending United States history from the genesis of independence to the infancy of statehood.
   
   Leaving no aspect of Hamilton's life untouched, a reader becomes acquainted with his highly-publicized milestones and triumphs to the regrettable hardships and misfortunes experienced throughout a turbulent but ultimately successful life. Coming from a tumultuous childhood, Hamilton rose to become prominent American public figure in colonial America as a successful Revolutionary War commander, Lawyer, and the first US Treasury Secretary. Brookhiser's examination of Hamilton's life is one of both reverence and cynicism. Unhampered by the author's personal views, this heavily researched, highly detailed and accurate narrative of a profoundly influential and inspiring American's life is of invaluable importance in grasping the fundamentals of the early American democracy, liberties, and economy.
   
   Possibly vying for the title of "America's First Great Success Story", surviving the tumult of childhood and successfully completing a demanding education, have undoubtedly shaped his character from an early age and serve as a testament to his success shown throughout this chronicle of Hamilton. Although probably not befitting as a biography in the strictest sense; as you read Brookhiser's recital of Hamilton's life, you become not only familiar with Alexander Hamilton but also with many other important Founding Fathers. Whether be political adversaries, Federalist proponents, Revolutionary War comrades, and even the country's first President. A perspective from the eyes of a fellow statesman intersecting the achievements of fellow prominent early Americans delivers an interesting and fresh examination of our first President; as well as the many other Forefathers from his generation who were instrumental in shaping the country.
   
   Without question, Alexander Hamilton's life is among the most important biographies of primordial America dignitaries. Shaping the new democracy, composing forcible works which withstand the test of time and remain essential in the politics of contemporary America are among the contributions of knowledge to a student of his career. Brookhiser's purpose is to bring to life Hamilton's experiences through the pages of his book, fostering an intimate portrait that accustoms a reader with the factual, unadulterated figure enduringly steeped in American history.

2 comments about Mandela: The Authorized Portrait.

1. I hate leaving a book less than 5 stars, I really do. The book has lots of information and important facts about Mandela, but the problem I have is "ease of readability." There were so many things I just couldn't understand due to the author's extremely large vocabulary and phrasing. I suppose maybe that's my fault on some level, but the phrasing was so difficult I only grasped a small percentage of the book. Yes, there are lots of photos. Yes, there are handwritten pages Mandela wrote from his cell (none of which I could legibly read), as well as tons of dates and credits to acknowledgements. Unfortunately, I've decided to leave this book on the shelf.



2. Nelson Mandela stands as a Beacon in South Africa, Africa, and the rest of the world as an example of what a political leader should be. Not only was he largely responsible for the 'one person one vote' changes in South Africa, but then after he was elected president he served one term and retired. This is very un-politician like. Especially in the third world politicians seem to stay in office until they die. Then again, there was FDR in this country.
   
   This is a splendid book. It is profusely illustrated, and not quite a biography so much as a tribute. There are dozens of comments, interviews, documents from the time, historical reports and so on that record his struggle.
   
   Mandela did marvelous things, great things. I wonder though what will be the story of South Africa after he and his legacy are gone. There are political movements afoot there who preach that the whites should all be kicked out, that their property should be confiscated, and that South Africa will be like the rest of Africa in poverty and misery.

5 comments about Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.

1. I've read this book twice, and came to the same conclusions as Mr. O'Neil (before reading his review). Bix seems to almost bend over backwards to paint leftist and communists in idealized light, akin to the current vogue iconization of Che' as a liberating hero. Never understood why most intellectuals can't see communism/socialism as the same thing as facism - move far enough to the left and you meet the far right.
   
   Anyhow, to provide an Abstract for the books thesis: Factions in the US governement - lead by left-hating McArthur - used Hirohito after the war as a tool to suppress communism in Japan and help Chaing-Kai-Shek fight against Mao. This was accomplished by white-washing the evils of Hirohito, who was a key architect of not only WWII, but also of brutal suppression of communist liberators seeking only democracy for Japan.
   
   And don't forget to throw in unreferenced purgoratives that support your thesis ... my favorite is this one: a government minister said "Hirohito wept when he heard the judgement against Tojo." No reference is given, no name, no context or location. Its just a cheap shot akin to Michael Moore journalism. And there are NUMEROUS such examples of this in the book.
   
   A better title of the book would be .. "Too bad Mao's revolution couldn't have spread successfully into Japan: Darn that Hirohito and his right-wing enabler McArthur."



2. Perhaps I had too many expectations of this book, because it won a Pulitzer Prize and other awards. I enjoyed the wording and style employed by the author; the sentences and paragraphs were both very fluid and readable. My main complaint with this book is that I do not feel that I learned much by reading it, i.e., I do not believe the factual information to words ratio (facts/words) was high enough for me to recommend it to someone else. In some parts of the book, it seems that the author attempts to employ a written form of filibusters. Usually after reading a few pages or chapters of a non-fiction book, I have to sit back to take in all the information. This book never necessitated such a pause in my reading. In short, I believe this book may be interesting to those few people extremely interested in Hirohito's role during and after World War II. But, I believe most people will agree that the best one-word summary of this book would be as follows: Overrated.



3. I actually found this one in a bookstore while I was in Japan, then bought it over here in the states. Hirohito is probably not read about much here, but he should be because his life impacts Asian thought and politics to this day.
   
   While everyone knows that Hitler was responsible for the death of probably 12 million during the holocaust, few people realize that Hirohito was responsible for the death of 20 million people. Therefore, Korea, and China still harbor feelings due to WWII.
   
   Bix explains how Hirohito escaped war crimes trials. This is what makes the book somewhat controversial. Bix maintains that Hirohito played an active role in the Asian agression by Japan before and during WWII, rather than just being a mere figurehead. He also spends quite a bit of time covering the contributions that McArthur made in rebuilding Japan after WWII.
   
   Bix's writing style is pleasant. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan seems very well researched. This book is the place to start if you want to understand U.S. - Japanese relations.



4. This book explicitly tells of Hirohito's life from a newborn Crown Prince to an Emperor on his deathbed. It shows how his upbringing had a serious impact on his decisions in the war and how he dealt with the consequences of those decisions after the war. As a child, he was given the best education according to Japanese custom. He spent most of his life away from his father and grandfather, since they were both busy men. He witnessed the glorious aftermath of the Russo-Japanese war and believed that this was the standard that should happen for the War of Greater East Asia.
   In the war, most people perceived him as a puppet being operated by a group of military advisors. This is blatantly wrong. He played an active role in what happened and didn't happen in the war. He knew about the treatment of POW's and Chinese civilians but did little to stop this. The delay of the surrender was also his fault, as he sought a way out that would leave him and his regime intact.
   After the war was concluded, The Japanese people felt as though they had to protect their emperor's innocence even after all that he had done. As the blame was placed on General Tojo, who accepted his death as willing as anyone else in history, and his cabinet, Hirohito escaped with no blame placed on him. The emperor then began to rebuild and recreate Japan as a peaceful nation with economic power to rival the western countries. This book is an excellent account of Hirohito's life and what influenced him to do what he did. I recommend this book to history or Japan fans so they can learn the emperor's story.



5. Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine houses the souls of 2.4 million Japanese soldiers, most of whom fell in the Pacific War in the service of the late Emperor Hirohito, the subject of this rather acrid biography by Herbert P. Bix, who was a history professor at Tokyo's Hitotsubashi University when he published this tome.
   
   The book has a simple thesis. The late emperor Hirohito was centrally involved in planning and prosecuting the Pacific war and should be held accountable even now for it. As part of this process, Bix would also like Yasukuni Shrine, one of Japan's three most important Shinto shrines, stripped of whatever militaristic and nationalistic symbolism it possesses. Bix is undoubtedly a good historian. But is he right? And is he fair? Probably not.
   
   When 360 Japanese planes sank 90% of America's Pacific fleet moored in Pearl Harbour on Sunday, 7 December 1941, the Japanese bit off more than they could ever chew. The attack, which was modeled on the British attack on the Italian fleet a few months earlier, sank five battleships, two cruisers, three destroyers and two other naval vessels moored at Pearl Harbour. A further one hundred and seventy five planes were destroyed on Hickman Airfield. Only 28 Japanese planes were lost. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Pacific Fleet's three aircraft carriers had not been in port and were not hunted down afterwards. These three aircraft carriers, joined by two others, eventually spearheaded the American counter attack. Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto's string of early successes ended only six months later at the Battle of Midway.
   
   Even though Japan's navy was in the ascendant for only six months, the picture, even in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbour, was bleak. An early attack on Ceylon was repulsed by the wily cat and mouse tactics of the largely obsolete British Far Eastern fleet under Admiral Sir James Somerville; he engaged in hit and run tactics against a superior Japanese flotilla. As a consequence, Britain only had to defend India in Burma. Japan, in other words, was already getting boxed in. They would have to fight the war on ground chosen by their enemies. The war, even then, was unwinnable.
   
   Unlike the Allies, Japan did not have a viable strategy. Despite Bix's attempts to paint Hirohito out as Nippon's supreme commander, he was no Eisenhower or MacArthur. He was the Emperor of a nation run by a bunch of feuding fools, who rushed headlong into a war they could never hope to win.
   
   The Japanese of that generation paid a terrible price for their leaders' folly. Over 100,000 Tokyo citizens were incinerated from March 9-10 1945, when the United States Air Force carpeted the city with incendiary bombs. Even as Truman announced Japan's unconditional surrender, Tokyo was flattened by a further 1,000 planes, just, one supposed, to let the world know who was boss - unsurprisingly enough, given the scale of Japan's devastation, all 1,000 planes returned safely to base to celebrate VJ Day. By then, a third of Hirohito's surviving subjects were homeless, 65% of all Tokyo residences were destroyed - 89% of Nagoya was in ruins. Over 500,000 Japanese troops had been dragooned into Siberian slave camps. Some 2 million others had also died - Yasukuni houses a goodly number of those sad souls, whose lives were cut short by the madness that then gripped Japan's leaders. But at least the madness of that war ended.
   
   Hirohito's surrender was a cruel awakening for himself as well as for all his subjects and only a fool would say that the trauma is over for the relatives of all the fallen. The protests by Japan's wartime victims, which rocked Britain on Emperor Akihito's recent visit, is evidence enough of that. Korea, China and the Philippines provide plenty more.
   
   Bix is not a fool. He is a Harvard-trained historian, who includes almost 100 pages of largely superfluous footnotes in this massive tome. Yet the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal report was much bigger. And, unlike Bix, most historians and lawyers agree that it was a travesty of justice. Bix produces plenty of well-worn evidence against Hirohito, as well as some new findings as befitting his scholarly calling. But does it matter? Probably not, unless you are a professional historian. And if you are, you should probably give Stalin's judge a more prominent role than Bix does. You should also extend to the independent stance adopted by Radhabinod Pal, India's representative, more respect than Bix does. You should also give the British - and the Poles - more credit than Bix does for Hitler's defeat. They, not FDR, were Hitler's most implacable enemies; they were the only two nations which engaged in the fight without stint from start to finish. One only has to recall Churchill's most famous speeches to agree that no one was more implacably opposed to Hitler than he was.
   
   Perhaps that is a mere quibble to be expected from reading a book as vast as this one. However, there are several more. Although, for example, Bix presents a strong case against Hirohito, the author's most striking snippet of evidence favours the defense, not the prosecution. His first picture of the former emperor shows Hirohito as a brave and bonny babe waving the Rising Sun flag on his first birthday. That flag was to haunt the little boy ever since. It was to be almost his only companion.
   
   He had few others. When he was only three months' old, he was taken away from his seventeen-year-old mother. He had no childhood games or friends. He was not allowed access even to his own brothers. His only companion was General Nogi Maresuke, the hero of Japan's formative 1905 Russian war, who committed hara kiri when the little boy was only seven. Aside from his wife, the Empress Nagako, his only social outlet was reviewing his assault troops from his pedigree white charger. Because the little boy grew up to have a strange, long, lonely and somehow unfulfilled life, perhaps he should be allowed, like those in Yasukuni, to sleep in peace. He'll be doing somersaults if Bix has his way.
   
   Although Bix has done a good stitch-up, it is akin to another book on Diana or the Queen Mother. There is nothing major here that John Dower or other historians have not already told us. Although the book does shed valuable light on the past, throwing stones, however deservedly, at a revered emperor does not lead to parity of esteem. The challenge is to rise above the partisan venalities of history and to put an end not only to all wars but to their causes as well.
   
   The Japanese, Hirohito's direct descendants included, have a key role to play in that process. Japan's challenge is to make amends for the grave mistakes of the past. Japan's politicians must chart the future. And to do that, they must learn the lessons and dynamics of history so that Japan and her neighbours never have the nightmare of war revisit them. This big book will be a very small but very important help in that regard.
   Following Bix' award, this book was widely available in Japan. Whi says the Japanese do not have a sense of humor?

2 comments about El pais bajo mi piel.

1. Gioconda is another magnificent representative of the Latin American generation of authors that emerged in the seventies and eighties amidst social turmoils. Gioconda's artistry of words and poetry are evident throughout this book. Also the book arrangement, i.e. two threads set at two different time periods of her life, if not innovative fits nicely to convey her passionate, powerfully feminine message. This is perhaps the strongest point in this autobiography: the utmost defense of "las compañeras" in her struggle for equality and respect.
   
   Other little jewels are Gioconda's experience with iconic men like Torrijos and Fidel. These two anecdotes deserve to be in a study of the human condition: even in an egalitarian or progressive mind, machismo can be present.
   
   My 4 out of 5 star rate for this book is related to the author's ambiguous political position after the collapse of Sandinismo. In the last part of the book her message comes forth blurred by Gioconda's comfortable upper middle-class life in a serene Californian homestead. Suddenly, all that life-commitment with the revolution becomes a Sunday afternoon TV movie on "Oxygen" or "We". Then several pages, filled with apparently extensively meditated explanations, try to justify why she chose comfort to revolution. Personally, I think she closed the circle (as she likes to repeat through her book): she came back to her cradle in a solacing environment. Eventually, she goes back to Nicaragua to plunge back into "people's struggle" while being aware that she can always return to his Californian refuge. Not exactly a revolutionary life.



2. I've read the book (in its extremely sensitive and emphatic German translation immediately after my wife finished reading it and told me that it was a must for me to read!)

   The "must" was worthwhile because of the incredible breadth of Belli's writing expressiveness and intensity of the emotions expressed. In this respect I felt with her and for her in all her moods, life situations, her frustrations and her moments of joy.

   Reading it in that way, it is truthful, self-critical, just fascinating.

   But....and the BUT is my critical BUT.....where Belli, whose dairy-like autobiography this is (because otherwise whe would never have been able to reconstract the three decades of her life she talks about in "The Country Under My Skin" where she recalls all those names an situations with the accuracy as she does), the political aspect being portrayed in the book is strikingly unfair
   and is in severe contradiction to what is known to have actually happened between the terribel '72 earthquake and the end of the millenium as regards the Sandinistas and their revolution and the latter-day developments.
   The political stance Ms. Belli takes throughout her narrative is heavily lop-sided, if not naïve. Ms. Belli, who has in many ways "run into her hated enemy's arms" by living in the US, and does not really appear to have had any qualms about it, nor about passing on pure hear-say about political intrigues and movemements, acribically puts down dates and names and improper behaviour of the so-called enemies of the revolution, but she does not find any need to set right the warped political picture her Sandinista ideologists have slyly - and successfully - embedded in her mind.

   Ms. Belli should stick to writing her very beautiful prose - and stop loving her country by lashing out at phantoms, and painting a halo of "libertador" on irrespressive revolutionaries like Castro at al.....Nicaragua has not stopped suffering from the aftereffects of power-obsessed personalities, much as as it had been suffering from the Somoza nightmare.
   To be sure that I am not just blowing off steam for the sake of criticism, I have once again taken time and consulted credible sources on the actual facts of Nicaraguas transition from Somozism to Sandinism-Tercereistas and the years that followed....and have tried to do this without being blind on one eye...

   What I have finally found to be a representative truth does certainly not identify with many aspects Ms. Belli sets forth in her autobiography.
   Personally, I love South America. My mother tongues were English and Spanish, having spent my childhood in Venezuela, Argentina, Perú and Colombia.

5 comments about All too Human.

1. In this moving look into the White House, Stephanopoulos carefully treads the line between worship for his idealized boss who embodied all the dreams and hopes Stephanopoulos had for his country, and distraught disappointment at the human flaws that caused this man to dally with a certain females and to lie to his aides about it. For Stephanopoulos, the crime here is not the actual act, but the fact that his boss let his people lie for him - without even realizing they were lying. This lack of trust and respect was crushing to the young idealist and it shows through in every page of the book. He mourns for what could have been, but wasn't; he hangs his head for the mistakes made by his "all too human" boss. He does not, however, descend into mudslinging - he obviously still adores his former boss, even if he did turn out to be a little less large than life.



2. This book is interesting in two ways. The first is the rise of a working class immigrant's son to the position of political advisor of the world's most powerful statesman. The father of Stephanopoulos was an working class immigrant yet his son was able to become a Rhodes scholar and reach the position in politics he did. The American success story. It is also interesting, from a much more cynical perspective, in that Stephanopolous' political advice was all politically motivated and absolutely none (with emphasis on absolutely) had a basis in the actual non-political benefits or costs (or efficacy). Extremely cynical. One comes away wondering whether it is even possible for the political process to produce socially beneficial policies instead of just politically expediant solutions.



3. First, my standard disclaimer: I am a political moderate and social conservative. This book is an average look at what happens in political inner circles, specifically the Clinton white house. I was a little disappointed that Stephanopoulos did not take more risks to write about subjects that the general public did not already know. It seemed that much of the reason for the book was for the author to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing.



4. George Stephanopoulos' memoir of working in the White House during Bill Clinton's first term in office makes you feel like a fly on the wall of the Oval Office. Written in that hypersmart, jargon-fluent style familiar to "West Wing" viewers, "All Too Human" is an engaging, candid companion to readers of any political stripe, in part an impassioned defense of one of America's most infuriatingly bipolar personalities, in part a cautionary tale of power trumping principle.
   
   Among the best and brightest that made up Clinton's 1992 campaign staff, no one burned brighter than Stephanopoulos, a senior advisor to the President at the tender age of 31 whose charge included Congress (he formerly worked for House Majority Whip Dick Gephardt) and satisfying Clinton's critical liberal base.
   
   Stephanopoulos makes no bones about being a true believer. He likens his work with Clinton to being an altar boy for the Greek Orthodox priests of his youth. "It's Nazi time out there," Clinton explodes when the Republicans campaign against him in a special congressional election in Kentucky. Stephanopoulos seems on board with this Hitlerian characterization of the GOP.
   
   Yet Stephanopoulos' passion is tempered by a cool calculating side that finds much common ground with the president, too much, he comes to find. "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason," goes the Eliot verse Stephanopoulos keeps on his desk, in a cramped room he coveted for its proximity to the Oval Office. Even when he manages to get the president to save affirmative action or appease other liberal concerns, it all comes back to a base sort of pragmatism. Is Clinton doing it because it's the right thing to do, or for the political benefit? What about George?
   
   Stephanopoulos' candor is this book's greatest asset, candor about the calculating Clinton, his prickly wife Hillary, and especially himself. He recalls a moment in the first campaign when he caught himself telling a small child that her father is "a bad man" for lying about Clinton. Stephanopoulos wants us to see him, and his boss, as good people, but like the title suggests, with some intrinsic flaws.
   
   While the first half of the book is marginally more interesting as a whole, as the Clinton team finds their way into the White House amid bimbo eruptions and fights its own party to pass a budget through Congress, the second half has the book's most interesting figure, the one man Stephanopoulos paints in entirely black hues: Dick Morris.
   
   Morris could be a Dickens character, "a small sausage of a man encased in a green suit with wide lapels, a wide floral tie, and a wide-collared shirt." As unctuous as Uriah Heep, Morris twitters on about his access to the president, all the time sizing our narrator's back for a place to stick his knife. Stephanopoulos, who views Morris as nothing less than a Republican mole, does likewise.
   
   "I have no home. I have no one left to talk to," Morris tells Stephanopoulos at one point.
   
   Get a dog, Stephanopoulos finds himself wishing he had the nerve to reply.
   
   Morris has claimed Stephanopoulos misrepresented him, but I find the depiction very close to the bone from what I've seen of this fellow commentating on Fox News.
   
   There are flaws in the book, like Stephanopoulos' shorthand with the facts. He seems to assume the reader is as well-versed as he is about the Clinton years, which has him skirt over a lot of material or peripherally refer to things like Tammy Wynette being upset with the First Lady as if we all will know the rest of the story. There is also a fatal Yuppie self-absorption in how Stephanopoulos whines about his trials. A lot of people deal with mega-stress. Not so many have a movie actress ready to draw them a bath.
   
   But "All Too Human" is a good read, and buttressed by Bob Woodward's "The Agenda," one gets an immersive sense of life around Bill Clinton in his first term, a time of great possibilities, hopes, and, inevitably, more than a bit of frailty.



5. The subtitle of this wonderful memoir taught me more about politics in 400 pages than I'd learned in 40 years. A diehard liberal and a political fanatic, someone whose views would normally make me sneer and scoff, Stephanopolous paints a picture of the stresses, ins-and-outs, spin, activities and the vital scope of the world inside the Oval Office. Every newsworthy event or program is canvassed for its political ramafications; the very definition and refinement of the word "politics" is reinforced on every page; the mistakes that lead to triumphs, and the feel-good preparations that lead to disasters are all here in stark detail. Stephanopolous proves himself a very sensible man, and even his staunchly liberal views are sidenotes to the greater energies, arguments and preparations that occur inside the White House. I occasionally disliked S's speaking his own platform (which he did sparingly), or telling how political parties are constructed to blunt the other even when their plans are sensible, but all in all I learned more from this book about the workings inside the White House than from all my prior readings and public education.

5 comments about Life of the Party: The Biography of Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman.

1. "Pam," as she was known by her friends, trading on her beauty, inquisitiveness and instincts, more than on her morals: again and again parlayed her feminine wiles into higher and higher orbits of class, wealth, international intrigue and a seat at the very table where high stakes policy was being shaped and made. Even one of her many lives would have been enough for an ordinary person to kill for, but being able to do it over and over again points to her very own special gift: being perfectly situated to marry older men of influence and then making them like it, as she "traded up " the ladder to better and better situations.
   
   Just her wartime activities alone, is worth the price of the book.
   
   Here, behind the scenes where the post-WWII world order was being shaped and fashioned, she played an important if unsung role as one of the king pin (or is it queen pin?) deal makers, that helped solidify the ties between the U.S. and UK, ties that eventually were responsible for bringing the U.S. into the war. She did this all the while being married to the notorious "bad boy" and son of Sir Winston Churchill, Randolph, and while "bedding down" one of her "husbands-to be," Averill Harriman. And she did this, all the while, if not with the full knowledge, certainly with the tacit knowledge of her father in law, the British Prime Minister.
   
   Just this part of the book alone is worth its price, but there is much more: all with the ring of truth, not with the ring of mere salacious gossip, which I admit, is all that I was really looking for. In the book "Nemesis," it had been reported as fact that Joseph P. Kennedy had raped Pam while she was an overnight guest of her friend the then Ambassador to the UK's daughter, Kathleen. I was unable to confirm this fact in this "unauthorized" version of her life. This omission, however, certainly does not mean that it did not happen, just that it could not be confirmed in this version of her life story. And even though I did not find what I was looking for, this is still easily five stars.



2. Reading this, more than decade after its publication when Pamela's primary skills were already passé, it was clear how much things have changed.
   
   Pamela came out of the 19th century British aristocracy where only the first born male was entitled to inherit the family's property and power and to call it what it is/was - human rights within a family. Pamela could not expect familial affection or support. Her family turned her over to nannies and decreed that education, no matter how great her ability or curiosity, would hinder her marriage options.
   
   Pamela made her own match (did not wait for family negotiations) and married what history made the ultimate commodity, a link through a male namesake, to Winston Churchill. She used this "child" and followed the cultural and psychological patterns of aristocratic women by supporting and living through her man with a modern twist--- he did not have to be her husband.
   
   WWII put a chink in the armor of the British class system and affirmed the American ideal of social equality. The super wealthy European men paid in cash and friendship for all she willingly gave. She wanted commitment, which due to European social codes, would not be forthcoming. No wonder Pamela was seduced (in the pure sense of the word) by America. In America she was able to achieve far beyond what her family or country c/would ever provide for her.
   
   She was Darwinistic about men/marriage. If a man's wife was not as fit as her, Pamela had no qualms about the wife, Pamela should have the "position". Her sympathy for her second husband's mother (over that of his children) who had abandoned her family may be testament to an understanding of her emotional situation.
   
   One can salute Pamela's achievements, but her treatment of others is too cold for sympathy. As presented here, her mothering of "The Child" and her stepchildren replicates that toward her in her own nuclear family. Her treatment of staff and other women is pure 1950's sexism and a workaholic's view of the world. She rose above the rigid role of her family and society had given her. Unfortunately, within her intimate family (birth and blended) she could not break the chain of creating emotional liabilities.



3. I had known one women who said: "Its better you ask for what you want,then to except what others offering to you."

   This can be related to biography of Pamela Harriman. SHe lived in extraordinary circumstances but what I find most compelling is the fact that she succeed to manage her life. Although, it was not always easy for her. She left and she was left. The biography is most interesting written and I read it very quickly.
   She maybe was in some way courtisan, but I think she wanted to enjoy in life nad she was led by it. SHe knew what she want and she was persistant. However, I did not manage to figure out was she open hearted as she was presented in some moments or little bit cold caculated as in the part regarding children of her husband Hayworth. But, for sure she was woman in complete sense of that word.




4. One can tell just from the photograph chosen for the cover of LIFE OF THE PARTY that author Christopher Ogden has constructed a fun read. Though his research is thorough and scholarly, LIFE OF THE PARTY flies by easily. (The title itself is a pun, alluding both to its literal meaning and to the fact that Harriman's generous donations gave new life to America's Democratic Party.)

   In crafting the biography of America's late Ambassador to France, Pamela Harriman, Ogden also provides a social history of the international "Jet Set" of the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's. Pamela's journey through the decades was complete with English aristocracy, French nobility, Italian racing car drivers, South American polo players, Arab sheiks, Greek shipping magnates and members of America's monied elite. The link among them is that Pamela Harriman slept with members of each of these groups!

   In her own, less liberated day, born to obscure English nobility c. 1920, there is no question but that then-Pamela Digby would have been considered a--ahem--loose woman (to use a mild phrase) by those who knew her. Not only did she sleep around, apparently with blatant calculation of how her liasons would benefit her financially and socially, but she also conspicuously went after married men. With the exception of her first husband, the single thread connecting the men she chose was that they were not merely rich, they were filthy rich. And her first husband was the son of Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England at the time of their marriage. Thus, that match was socially advantageous to Pamela, and she would use the connection as her entry into highest levels of the world's interconnected rich. Nonetheless, despite her apparent rapacity, it is obvious that her men found her... appealing, to say the least.

   Some of the affairs that Ogden documents were with the fabulously wealthy Frenchman, Elie de Rothschild, with the fabulously wealthy oil sheik, Aly Khan, with the fabulously wealthy Italian auto manufacturer, Gianni Agnelli, with a fabulously wealthy American, Averell Harriman and another fabulously wealthy American, William Paley. Yet she married the merely wealthy theatrical producer, American Leland Hayward, whose daughter openly despises Pamela to this day. (It seems clear that Pamela settled on Leland due to an urgent need to wed quickly as a matter of financial salvation.)

   Of course, Pamela was a serial bride. Decades after she first began her affair with him, Averell Harriman finally tied the knot with Pamela. He had been middle-aged when they first had met, and she had been a very young woman. By the time she captured him, she was middle-aged and he was old. Conveniently, he died soon after their marriage and, even more conveniently, he left her his huge fortune.

   She immediately put that fortune to use in inserting herself as a valuable player in the United States Democratic Party and as an early and generous supporter of then-candidate Bill Clinton. After he became President, Clinton rewarded Pamela by making her his Ambassador to France.

   Truly, if this book were a romance novel, it would be dismissed out-of-hand as being too implausible. As it stands, it is an examination of an exploitative and greedy woman, yet a woman whose lifestory makes for entertaining reading. For the major events of the mid-20th century, when Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman was not present, she probably was waiting in the bedroom.




5. What an interesting woman. Okay so she may have slept her way to the top and made a few bad personal decisions. A saint she was not. For all that she was determined to enjoy life and make the best out of what talents she had. She used her friends as we all do to better her causes and even berated her children when she disagreed withj them. As if she was the first mother to do that. She gave her total devotion to the men she married, apart from Winston, and expected the same.The irony is that had Pamela harriman been a man all her negative aspects would have been overlooked and she would have been remembered more for her her political and social acumen rather than the men she had slept with. A very interesting read about one of the more interesting characters of the 20th century. It will be a while before her like is seen again. She will be missed.

5 comments about Counselor CD: A Life at the Edge of History.

1. What a disappointment. There is lots of interesting material here but it is so saturated with Sorenson's towering ego that I found it hard to finish. He takes credit for nearly everything and blame for very little.
   
   At one point he describes one of his adversaries as not liking him much - [...]
   
   Surprisingly - he takes on a new skin at the end of the book when he discusses his personal health issues and his aspirations and expectations for America as a country. That part was a good read.



2. An intriguing insight into the Kennedy presidency. Mr. Sorensen writes a very compelling account of known crisis of that time, and many accounts of happenings only known by one who was there. It is an excellent historical book.



3. Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History I was very disappointed in Sorensen's book, primarily because about the only thing he gives JFK credit for is his hiring him! It is as if he believes he was the president himself. Most offending is that clearly he does not connect his speechwriting rules "less is more" to his biography. After almost every description of a positive development in JFK's, Sorensen adds a paranthetical note crediting himself or noting how he predicted the outcome, making it an aggravating read. Sorensen has forgotten that he was part of a team and should have left the credit with the subject that is interesting; JFK and his administration (and subsequent relationships).
   
   His opening comment is completely disengenous about his being uncomfortable about too many "I's". This is a man that is so full of himself...
   
   Sorensen deserves credit for his service to the country, as I am sure he is a phenominal individual and was instrumental in shaping policies to the benefit of his sponsor and the US. But he is not an individual that one should devote the first 90 pages about his upbringing and background about...he simply is not that interesting...he was not the president of the United States...and this book is not that interesting because of it.



4. Few would disagree that John F. Kennedy was one of our most inspirational presidents and that it was a tragedy that he was assassinated. Since the 1950s, it was well known that some of the most memorable words that Kennedy inspired us with were drafted if not written in total by Ted Sorensen, Kennedy's dedicated staffer who played many roles in addition to helping write speeches, books, and articles. Speculation about Sorensen's role was fed by Mr. Sorensen's humble deflection of praise that others aimed in his direction.
   
   Imagine what it would have been like to talk to JFK every day and to see him most days. Imagine, even more, if you were walking on history's stage in your role: You weren't just pouring him coffee.
   
   You could re-title this book as "Dream Job" and you wouldn't be far off.
   
   In Counselor, Mr. Sorensen reveals more than in the past about his personal relationship with President Kennedy, who did what and when, his views about Kennedy's decisions and legacy, and what the lessons for historians are from that era. In letting down his hair, Mr. Sorensen is a loyal heir to the Kennedy legend: He doesn't criticize more than an independent observer would who knew the surface facts. Naturally, he also defends where many would not (he's gentle on Kennedy for increasing the number of military advisors in South Vietnam and letting the military leaders there murder the country's political leader). Further, he seems to have amnesia about what any president did before Kennedy who was not a Democrat (he writes as though there was no space program before Kennedy took office).
   
   One of the most interesting episodes in the book comes long after President Kennedy was killed in the description of Mr. Sorensen's nomination to be CIA head by President Carter. The contrast between Kennedy and Carter could not be clearer in reading how this was handled.
   
   I think we should be generous with Mr. Sorensen. It's been many years. He's almost the last of those who served in those years who knows the inside stories. He also suffered a substantial stroke that affected his vision and made writing this book extremely difficult. I commend Mr. Sorensen for making the effort. There are many lessons here that new administrations can learn from.
   
   I also honor him for his service to the nation, to John F. Kennedy, and to my youthful idealistic dreams by inspiring them with his timeless words. Many will always remember him as a speech writer, but he was truly more . . . especially during those potentially deadly days during the Cuban missile crisis.
   
   Thank you, Mr. Sorensen.



5. This is the most moving, realistic depiction of JFK I have ever seen. Many will forever rant and rave over his personal peccadillos, but this man was a leader. His speech at American University, which was his way of dealing with Soviet & American feelings about nuclear war included the following. "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet; we all breathe the same air; we all cherish our children's future; and we are all mortal." I heard that speech as a young man. I am now 82 and it still rings in my ears. I was raised an avid republican, but I am proud to have helped vote him into office. His like hasn't been seen since.

5 comments about The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power.

1. I find myself enjoying non-fiction more and more as I grow older, but books like this make me stop and think, maybe I should stick to biographies, standard historical texts and of course fiction. That of course is what I wish this book was, fiction. I never knew much about Karl Rove, and never really thought about the man behind the man type of political animal. I'm aware they are more into the "game" than anything else, and that winning is all there is - just like ambitious coaches. Isn't that what Rove is, essentially, a coach. If so his personality and the way he goes about the business of creating an image, decimating opponents - with bald faced lies more often than not- is disturbing.
   
   This is a very well written book, easy to follow and organized so that following the progression and development of the story Moore is telling is comfortable. Obviously there was a lot of research done and it is well used, not over used. I checked a few of the texts referred to and could find nothing objectionable as "out of context", and the opinions of the author is controlled and not intrusive. As a reading experience it was pleasant enough even if the material was oh so disturbing.
   
   In the last four years I have probably read more political books than the previous thirty. Maybe because they are everywhere and being talked about constantly. Certainly they are no more interesting than say, "The Making of a President" from the 1960s. Most of the best sellers in this category are extremely divisive and in many cases, just by their titles, mean spirited (case in point the savage diatribes of Ann Coulter such as "How to talk to a Liberal, If You must".)and of little real value.
   
   That said, "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power" is very, very disturbing. Here is a man who has decided that ulra-conservative thought must rule for the next century, and who does he pick as his standard bearer but George W. Bush, a man with little experience, proven ineptitude and incompetence inbusiness, a draft dodger who doesn't even take his commitment to the air nathional guard seriously and a former drunk. Few people now will deny that as President - an office he didn't even win by popular vote - George W. Bush has remained true to his character and blundered his way through his first term in such a horrible way that no one with an ounce of sense would have voted for him for a second term - which he likely did not win legitimately either - but with a man like Karl Rove there to lie about his opponents, distort the truth about them and deny the absolute irrefutable truth about his candidate's own back ground and lack of moral character he remains the president for four more disaterous years. Karl Rove is a mastermind when it comes to duplicity. He saw to it that true American heroes who served during the Vietnam conflict were degraded (John Kerry, John Murtha, John Mccain, etal) and then promotes Bush as a man who has high regard for the military. What monumantal hypocrisy. The sadest part is that with all the facts before the American electorate Bush still remains president. Perhaps the contempt Rove expresses for the average American voter is the hook he has so effectively used, proving not once, but twice that an inept, incompetent, lazy, anti-intellectual, pretend evangelical christan can be a winner if the man behind him has no ethical standards, or moral compass and is willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve his nefarious results.
   
   Sadly, he is very, very good at it as this book shows. Sadly the voters buy it, and even more sadly we all loose in the end and worst of all the America of ideological moral standards and a reputation for care and concern for the down trodden is lost, and perhaps never to be regained.
   
   Karl Rove has created the absolute worst world leader in the history of our great democracy and he is actually proud of himself. At the risk of repeating myself, how sad for us all.



2. Even before the results of the recent midterm elections were in, "The Architect", a superbly written narrative about the life and actions of Karl Rove, would have been a big hit. Since last week, however, James Moore's and Wayne Slater's book must be viewed in a more substantive and profound light. After all, Rove was one of the big losers on November 7 and we can now read this book through a prism of recent events.
   
   "The Architect" hits the ground running. After terrific chapters about the connection with Rove and the Christian right, the book lands on what Rove does best. By promoting the wedge issue known as "gay marriage", Rove succeeded in disarming then actually arming Evangelical Christians to rise up against this issue. Rove rightly looks at this group as "absolutists" and ramping up support for anti-gay marriage amendments with the help of the religious right is made all the more curious when one finds out that he was raised in a non-religious home and had a gay stepfather to boot. It must take great disassociation yet immense focus to achieve what Rove did on just this issue alone. It is also a wonder as to what could have been achieved had Rove recast his forces for the common good and not for divisive ends.
   
   While "The Architect" is a very good book, it stumbles occasionally. Chapters regarding labor unions and trial lawyers have less of a direct Rove fingerprint. However, when Moore and Slater return to the sheer political power wielded by Rove, the book regains its clarity and interest. This is where the authors are at their collective best.
   
   If one has read "The Architect" before last week it would be good to give it another read. For now we see that the whiz kid-cum-guru can't win them all and this lack of recent political success signals the beginning of the tide away from Rove and Co. I highly recommend this book for its revelations and the authors' ability to see their subject from so many different angles.



3. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's Machiavellian methods behind George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential election victories have garnered a begrudging admiration from conservative politicos and pundits. Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater know their subject quite well since they are also responsible for the incisive book upon which the 2004 film version of "Bush's Brain" was based. The fiery documentary detailed Rove's tactics in orchestrating the successful 2000 presidential campaign. Moore and Slater's new book goes much further in showing a man who has made himself even more indispensable as a virtual Iago figure to Bush's Othello.
   
   The co-authors assert that nothing is sacred to Rove, in particular, founding democratic principles and the U.S. Constitution, when it comes to attaining victory and that in fact, the amoral gamesmanship he feels is required is what motivates him. It's a scarifying portrait but one that comes across as far more textured than one would expect due to some surprising disclosures from the co-authors. They fill in details of Rove's background with his long-standing affiliation with several neo-con organizations, which in turn, shaped his drive toward dismantling unions, privatizing Social Security and diminishing those he saw as his political enemies, homosexuals and anti-war activists. However, the most publicized disclosure is the personal account of how Rove's beloved stepfather revealed himself to be gay and left his mother for another man. It is debatable whether this perceived act of betrayal was the lightning rod for Rove's aggregation of anti-gay sentiments.
   
   At the same time, his persistent efforts to smear opponents appear to have this common thread, and the co-authors effectively show us to what degree he was willing to use this tactic. It is not a new campaigning approach, but it's one that Rove has elevated to an art form in 2004. Targeting the Christian fundamentalist conservatives that constitute the largest cross-section of the Republican base, Rove used whatever means necessary to convey the conviction that Democratic opponents were dominated by a significant homosexual lobby. The most egregious maneuver was how he purportedly orchestrated a campaign of automatic telephone messages to be placed to thousands of numbers nationwide. The infamous message stated it was from the Kerry campaign and that if elected, gay rights would be a top priority. Moreover, beyond the presidential campaign, the Republican machine under Rove's direction managed to put anti-marriage equality referenda on eleven state ballots under the guise of groups like the Traditional Values Coalition, which were fronts for the religious right.
   
   While anti-gay paranoia was his linchpin, Rove was not limited in his arsenal of weapons, whether it was vote suppression in Ohio where Bush won by a slim margin or pressure placed on members of Congress to support controversial bills. Moore and Slater detail the smear campaign developed against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame to cover up the truth about Bush's rationale for invading Iraq, as well as the connection to Jack Abramoff and the resulting corporate corruption scandals. While Rove's hypocrisy is fiercely documented and obviously reviled by his opponents, his supporters are ambivalent about his methods. Moore and Slater provide a comprehensive portrait of a man who based on his record, illustrates a total disregard for democracy. He has amassed a fearsome respect among the White House inner circle for the past six years, and one wonders from this fascinating book whether a possible dismantling of the Republican hegemony in the House will diminish his standing.



4. Perhaps people should not judge a book by the cover--but they do.
   
   "Bush's Brain": Great title.
   
   "State of Denial": Great title.
   
   "The Architect": Terrible title.
   
   Who is going to read this book? Only those who already have contempt for
   Karl Rove and George W. Bush and nobody else. No Republicans and no swing voters.



5. "The Architect" reports that Karl Rove's ambition is to build a right-wing dynasty that can dominate American politics for decades, and that ultimately he will be remembered for figuring out how to game the American political system.
   
   The politics of deception has become a conventional political tool for Rove-aided Republicans. His history is to use surrogate organizations and third-party operatives to attack opponents - without leaving either Rove's or his candidates fingerprints.
   
   Rove's special talent is achieving synergy - pleasing moneyed and/or voter-rich coalitions while undermining Democratic party strengths. For example, lanugage inserted into the Homeland Security Bill restricting TSA employees' ability to unionize pleases big business, while reducing Democrats' ability to derive strength from government unions; a "special bonus" was achieved through also offering a means to attack Democrats rising to unions' defense as "weak on defending America" --> defeat of at least one Democrat senator (Max Cleland). Similarly with vouchers and the "No Child Left Behind" act - this helps motivate the Christian Right, homeschoolers, and anti-government conservatives to the polls, boost Republicans' image as pro-education (even among African-Americans), while undercutting teacher union strength and their ability to support Democrats. Privatizing Social Security obviously would bring increased revenues for Wall Street (and more Republican donations from them), boost the Republican-leaning "investor class," and loosen Democrat strength among the elderly.
   
   Early on Rove realized that politically conservative Christian evangelicals were easy to organize - they were already organized into churches. Rove saw Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition leader) as an asset, and thus "parked" him at Enron as an energy lobbyist, awaiting Bush II's candidacy. From others Rove also recognized that traditional Catholics and Orthodox Jews were similarly inclined to be politically conservative. Emphasizing support for Israel served to further bring conservative Jews and Christians together into the Bush camp (the latter hoping to bring about biblical prophesies about "end-times"), and siphoned off funds from Democrats.
   
   However, analysis of the 2000 election convinced Rove that over three million of these groups had not voted. Thus, to invigorate the group he launched an emphasis on attacking homosexuals - despite the fact that his father was a homosexual, and most also believe the Republican Party Chairman is as well. (Rove had used this ploy earlier in Bush vs. Richards in the '94 Texas gubernatorial race, taking one of Richards' strengths - her inclusiveness - and turning it into a weakness. Similarly, he launched a whisper campaign against an Alabama judicial candidate well-known as a benefactor of troubled youth - spreading suspicions that he was a pedophile.)
   
   Attempting to sell Social Security privatization, Rove's "signature approach" also appeared vs. AARP, the leading opponent. Ads were taken out claiming that AARP supported same-sex marriages, based on the organization's objection to wording in the Ohio anti-gay marriage amendment (it feared the wording would also ban elderly heterosexuals living together).
   
   Meanwhile, the Bush II administration, instead of working out effective solutions to terrorism, Katrina, the economy, etc., focuses on weakening enforcement of regulations against businesses and the wealth, while increasing same vs. unions.
   
   Bottom Line: Rove and Bush II decsion-making is dominated by political manuevering, instead of what's best for the nation - this explains Bush II's reliance on cronies rather than experts. Worse, Rove has probably irrevocably changed American politics for the worse. In doing so, he has taken advantage of the overwhelming complexity and extent of government today that prevents citizens from adequately following and analyzing events. Rove's actions show that he lacks a decent moral compass; unfortunately, Bush's retention of Rove doesn't say much for him either.