5 comments about Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream.

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Johnson is not a lengthy tome, and it covers the life of one of the most interesting, practical, effective, troubled and troubling figures in American politics sometimes in too cursory a fashion. Anyone who has read what Caro has written (so far!) in his multi-volume biography of Johnson will naturally wonder how some critical events are almost completely absent from this biography, and others get only the slightest attention. But you can't be brief without cutting. Prof. Goodwin's insights into Johnson's character seem a little shallow compared to Caro's--sometimes, they sound a little too much like Johnson's own rationales. On the other hand, the book's rather positive tone on its subject is a worthwhile contrast to Caro's strongly critical take, and there must have been much to the charm, humor, and charisma of Johnson which is absent from Caro but reflects better here. Finally, in the absence of Johnson's years as vice president and president from Caro's epic--can I wait another ten years?--Goodwin's strong focus on those years is very useful. Of course she is an excellent writer and the book is a fun read; her understanding of the mechanics of the executive branch and the presidency's interaction with Congress benefits very likely from her close association with Johnson, and provides much illumination into how government can be utilized in the hands of a powerful, determined, energetic, and strong-willed leader. For anyone interested in Johnson, the successes and failures of the era, or the history of American government, it's a must-have and it is certainly an excellent, enjoyable read.



2. Goodwin takes on Lyndon Johnson in a biographical sketch that has a very familiar and intimate attachment for her. She served as an aide in his administration, 1967, and then later after him leaving office was asked to worked on his memoirs. There is no question that she liked and was fascinated with Johnson. Within her book she examines the power and coercive nature that moved him from small town Texas to the power halls of Congress, Senate and the Office of the President. Within the Congress and the Senate, Johnson's natural abilities really come to fruition allowing him to gain control over the Congress then the Senate. This allowed him to move legislation through faster and more efficiently than had previous been accomplished. Goodwin shows how, at this time and place, these branches of government were ripe for this kind of leadership to flourish. I'm not sure that this kind of individual control could or would happen again. Stalled in the Vice-Presidency under Kennedy, Johnson moved into the doldrums. After the Kennedy's assassination, he was brought quickly back into action and with decisive steps would bring the Nation back from mourning. His work on Civil Rights was tremendous and would have insured his place forever in the history books as one of the great Presidents but for Vietnam. Vietnam consumed him and Goodwin explains how the abilities that helped him in the Congress and Senate turned on him and would eventually run him from office. Out of office, with only the Texas ranch to occupy his time, he would deteriorate mentally and physically. Finally Johnson would succumb to death on January 22, 1973 after Nixon announced the dismantling of the "Great Society".
   
   The book is a fascinating look at the political arena of the turbulent 60's and what was happening within the walls of the White house. It is an interesting look at the endless pursuit of power and decisions that created the roller-coaster ride of Lyndon Johnson. The one area that I felt that Goodwin lingered too long on was trying to psychoanalyze Johnson. She tries to determine what made this tremendously talented man function as he did and why he made such good and bad decisions. However she does the good biographer approach of not holding back the good or the bad but letting the readers see the man as he was. The book is well worth the read and addition to the history shelf.



3. I liked this book and learned alot about 'the man' LBJ that I did not know. Is it over analyized from a 'psychology' standpoint - I dont know. I think it is important to understand the inner workings of a persons mind - even from that persons early childhood - to fully understand how a person will act later in life, especially in very difficult situations.
   
   BTW I did not see anyone write in their review that this book was originally published in 1976 - only 3 years after LBJs death. Im not sure if the 1991 edition is revised. Interesting as well in the original 1976 edition the author has her name as Doris Kearns (not not Doris Kearns Goodwin) although she was already married to Goodwin.



4. When I bought this book, I was warned by a cousin of mine, who teaches history at GW, that the book would contain a lot of phsycology, and he was right.
   
   Now, this is still a very good book, second only to Master of the Senate in terms of biographies about LBJ, but I found the phsycology a little bit boring. That is the only thing that prevents me from giving the book 5 stars.
   
   There is a lot of interesting insight, helped along by the fatc that Goodwin knew LBJ, and interviewed him repeatedly. I would advise everyone interested in LBJ, the Presidency, Civil Rights, or Vietnam to read this book. It is great.



5. An amazing biography of a man who might have been one of the best presidents in our history had he not been seduced into the disaster of Vietnam.
   
   Goodwin had unprecedented access to Johnson and weaves her personal insights into a well told story about a fascinating man.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory.

1. This is a truly *massive* work, equal parts scholarship and artistry. Though volume one runs close to a thousand pages (counting notes, sources, etc.), I finished reading it this afternoon after an off-and-on reading of about two weeks, and it just flew by. Manchester crafted this with such precision care that I fell into the narrative from page one.
   
   The greatest strength of the book itself-- aside from it's subject-- is Manchester's gift of narrative. WC was the quintessential Victorian, as Manchester points out time and again throughout both volumes. It is only appropriate, then, that the author should give some feel of what it was like to live in the British Empire at the time of Queen Victoria. Some of the very best passages, in my opinion, deal with life during the last quarter-century of Victoria's reign. These are not mere digressions. These fascinating glimpses into WC's era help the reader to better understand Churchill himself, who was born a Victorian and remained one to his dying day.
   
   Manchester provides insight into British colonial administration, life in the British Raj at the end of the 19th century, and the upper class's attitudes toward sexuality and marriage. While this is fascinating in itself, Manchester goes even further and weaves a vivid tapestry of politics, history, and culture through his use of personal correspondence. It is his exhaustive use of personal correspondence-- between WC and his parents, WC and his wife and children, WC and Members of Parliament, and between all sorts of people talking about Churchill and the events in which he was caught up--- that this gives Manchester's work the feeling, not of history or even biography, but of a life too large to have been lived by one man.



2. well this is the first book i read on winston churchill . bought it in 1983 . the foreword is unforgettable but historical mistakes in it makes this work not the very best on the luife of sir winston. great prose nevetheless.same can be said of book number two.



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



4. Winston Churchill was not a likable or even an admirable man.He was dishonest,childish,ruthless and disloyal.Perhaps worst of all,he was a megalomaniac-he knew that he was a Great Man,and that some day he would fulfill a magnificent destiny. But when war and catastrophe came to England he was perhaps the only politician psycholigically capable of inspiring continued resistence and defiance to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.Given that England had already lost the war,that was a breathtaking achievement.
   
   James Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson",published in 1791,is generally considered the finest biography produced in the English language.However,Manchester's work is perhaps superior. Boswell was of Johnson's world and therefore conveyed it to his reader only incidently;that is,he naturally assumed that his reader would be familiar with the things and events with which he was familiar.Manchester,writing of the past,appreciated the necessity of re-creating Churchill's world for the reader.He was brilliantly successful.The world which Churchill inhabited would have been amazing even to most of his contemporaries because of his social class.As Manchester points out,in over 90 years of life Churchill never drew his own bath;one of his relatives,visiting friends without his valet,sent down word that he was having trouble getting his toothpaste to "froth properly".He'd never applied toothpaste to a toothbrush himself.It isn't just the story of Churchill's life that is so engrossing.It is the wonderful recreation of Churchill's world,of the people he knew and the conversations he had,the events which occurred and the way that Churchill and his friends and enemies reacted to the events.
   
   As Boswell loved Johnson,Manchester worshipped Churchill.Indeed,Churchill was in some ways a lovable man.He was devoted to his wife and family(happily married for almost 60 years-how many men can say that?) He revered his father (a syphlitic,who depised him,)and he was loyal to his country and the Empire it ruled.Personally,I doubt that I'd have been able to spend more than ten minutes in a room with Churchill.But this book is one of the finest I've ever read.I was honestly sorry to read the last of its almost 900 pages and I'm opening the second volume tonight.In the forward to the second volume Manchester quotes a definition of biographer.The biographer is judged "by his ability to suggest the sweep of chronology and yet to highlight the major patterns of behavior that give a life its shape and meaning."Boswell did that. Manchester,I believe,did it better.



5. This is William Manchester at his best. This is fascinating reading and fascinating writing. Of course Winston Churchill was quite a character but to be honest I didn't know that fact until I read this book and its companion volume.
   After reading this book I put it to my mind that I would read everything that Manchester wrote. I've got a couple more to go. You can't miss with this purchase. A great story, great writing, and good history. What more could you ask for?

5 comments about The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq.

1. Long before the United States thought of invading Iraq, Bassam Tibi, a Syrian political scientist, wrote that Arabs are not interested in democracy. This was restating the obvious, but not everybody noticed.
   
   And shortly after the invasion was declared a "mission accomplished," a newspaper columnist, Mark Steyn, rented a beat-up Toyota in Jordan and drove around Anbar and many other places in Iraq for a week, unmolested.
   
   What if instead of unarmed Steyn, Anbar had been occupied by several regiments of American (or Italian or even Spanish infantry)?
   
   Rory Stewart spent nearly a year in Iraq, as a "governate director" of the Coalition Provisional Authority. A more honest title would have been "satrap."
   
   He observed a lot, although he does not seem to have learned much. "The Prince of the Marshes" is his story. The title character was not the most important or even the most interesting of the Iraqis that Stewart tried to govern, but a book entitled "the quixotic Muslim cleric" or "the superannuated illiterate sheikh" or even "the addled seminary dropout" might not have sold as well. "The dishonest general" might have served but Stewart admired the dishonest general (David Petraeus) and does not understand where Petraeus failed in his military duty.
   
   The book is well worth reading, and not only for its easy charm. Whatever one thinks of Stewart's capacity to analyze (in my case, not much), his year in the marshes and few days in the Green Zone was rich in incident and adventure.
   
   The insurgency had not started when he arrived, as early as August 2003, and it was just ramping up by the time Paul Bremer handed over "authority" to an imaginary "Iraqi" "government" and Stewart went off to Harvard to reflect (not too deeply) about his experience.
   
   Scare quotes are needed everywhere. There is no Iraq, nor any Iraqi government, never has been. And authority, as even Stewart figured out, was non-existent.
   
   Although Stewart knew only a few words of Arabic, he brought some experience of Islam, and in particular rural Islam, to his job. A Scot raised in Indonesia, he tramped through Afghanistan and wrote a book about it. He writes that he was "very suspicious of theories produced in seminars in Western capitals" as they might be applied to nation-building in rural parts of the Muslim world. Well, fine, that's obvious, but what theory does Stewart think is appropriate? He never says.
   
   This sounds very much as if he was hoping something would turn up, a famous principle of British public policy.
   
   If any Arabs should have been happy to see Americans and/or Britons, it should have been the Marsh Arabs. Their strange way of life -- and many, many of them as individuals -- was exterminated by Saddam or by the Iranians, or by both. To western ways of thinking, Anybody but Saddam and Anybody but the Mullahs ought to have been preferable, and especially if that Anybody was bringing tens of millions of dollars into an area that had no real economy.
   
   Well, Marsh Arabs don't think like westerners. Duh.
   
   They are, among other things, mightily aggrieved about "colonialism" and "imperialism." To hear an Arab moan and curse about colonialism and imperialism leaves me ROTFL, but Stewart took their complaints at
   face value.
   
   As a Briton, though working for a multinational system, he sort of held the title of "political officer," equivalent to a job held by another Briton, a Colonel Leachman, who was shot in the back by an Iraqi patriot in 1920 during a revolt against "colonialism."
   
   Note the date.
   
   The Arabs in Iraq had not shot any Turks in the back -- not in the name of national political sovereignty at any rate -- during 500 years. The amount of "oppression" they had suffered under the English could not have been very great since until 1916 there were no English.
   
   Arab Muslims really do hate us (that is, western infidels) and everything we stand for (including most relevantly here, democracy).
   
   Even if they didn't, that doesn't make Iraq a nation. One of the joys of reading Stewart is his naïve restatement of the obvious. Early on, he decided that the approach of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- trying to deal with and amalgamate various former underdog factions (few of which had any higher ambition than being overdogs for a while) -- was wrong. Stewart thought the CPA should have worked through the sports leagues, the only organizations in the area that cut across all factions.
   
   Do I have to say that if the only thing you have in common is soccer, you don't have the makings of a nation?
   
   Besides, it ought to have been the policy of the United States to support a free and independent Great Kurdistan. Sympathy for, and even occasionally support of, national aspirations of real nations was an American characteristic until the administration of Woodrow Wilson.
   
   It would be worth returning to. Creating a Great Kurdistan would require breaking up Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey - a win-win-win-win situation if ever there was one.
   
   I wouldn't want you to avoid reading "The Prince of the Marshes" just because its author is a fool. There is too much lively incident, too much there between the lines to savor.
   
   Last point: Stewart is an admirer of Petraeus and Odiorno, who were just divisional officers when he saw them in meetings with the civilians of the CPA, for whom he felt deep contempt. (Stewart is not an utter fool.)
   
   Here's the problem with Petraeus. As even Stewart figured out, the foundation of any policy had to be security. It doesn't take a genius to know that security required more infantry. That was the reason for the surge, too little and too late.
   
   President Bush said, publicly, that his theater commanders could tell him if they needed more men. Never mind that there weren't more. It was the duty of Petraeus and his predecessors to tell Bush the obvious: A bigger army was required.
   
   What would have happened after they told him? Only one American politician called for a bigger army, Mitt Romney, and the voters didn't want to hear it. That, however, was not the generals' problem. In a civilian-directed system, they had a professional duty to offer professional advice to the civilian government.



2. item arrived after a long wait but was in great condition. i love this book, WOW.



3. Rory Stewart (British equivalent of a US FSO) went to Iraq as the war was kicking of and supported the CPA in the province of Basra. Rory does a great job of telling his own accounts of how he attempted to support the local government in the area he was responsible for and the difficulties that he had. A book that may have only occurred during a certain timeframe his lessons and experiences are valuable throughout Iraq and in other countries where a government is trying to vie for control.



4. This book is an honest, intelligent insight to the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the efforts by many - albeit should be all - to do bring those countries to stability. Everyone should read this - politicians (or so called politicians); servicemen/women; leaders and thinkers alike. This is my second title read of Rory Stewart and I hope to read more of his works.



5. Rory Stewart, educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, joined the British Foreign Service after a stint in the British Army. At the age of 30, and with at best limited Arabic, he was chosen to govern an Iraqi province - Meysan and then Nasiriyah - during the time of transition when the Coalition Provisional Authority ruled Iraq before handing power over to the elected Iraqi government. This is Stewart's account of his time in office.
   
   Suffice it to say mistakes were made, and though Stewart spares us any tiresome analyses of what he - as a participant hardly impartial - felt should have been done better, it's clear that there was room for improvement, particularly in the lack of understanding of different cultures, and the expectation that a country that had never known democracy would eagerly - or even willingly - adopt it after the deposal of its tyrannt.
   
   Perhaps the most eye-opening detail in the book is when Stewart, chosen for his many travels through Muslim lands, his knowledge of Farsi and Islamic cultures, and more, repeatedly describes seeings Arabs with their "Rosaries." Praying the Rosary is a devotion limited to Catholics and some Anglo-Catholics; what he saw were "Misbaha", the "prayer beads" on which Muslims count the 99 names of Allah as a devotion of their own. Neither Muslims, who deny the divinity of Christ, nor Catholics, whose list of prophets doesn't coincide with the Muslim one, would be too thrilled by this confusion. Compare this to the anecdote about Sir Anthony Eden, who studied Farsi and Persian literature at Oxford, who, when he sat down for negotiations with the Iranian leadership about their intent to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, found that his Farsi and knowledge of Persian literature was better than that of at least some of his counterparts, to the point that he reportedly needed to simplify his speech. O tempora! O mores! O imperia!
   
   Those seeking a sardonic and insightful book into Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath need go no further. Iraqis - and the Anglo-American tax-payer - deserved better.

3 comments about Golda.

1. When I got this book, I was hoping for a personal look at Golda, the person. Having read it, I feel I learned more about Israel's long complicated history than about Golda as a person. Maybe that is because the woman did not have much of a personal life and her story was tied to that of her country. She lived and breathed politics and the book's lengthy description of Israeli politics (with countless parties and coalitions) is confusing and doesn't tell us much about her.
   
   It is as though the author couldn't find enough information about Golda's private life (which Golda guarded) and so the book becomes a history lesson in Israeli and Mid-East politics. No maps included which would have helped the reader a great deal in understanding some of this stuff.
   
   The author should have gotten more material from Golda's children, who didn't think much of Golda as a mother (she was MIA when it came to parenting).
   
   Time to read: It took me a little more than a week (with a lot of free time)



2. I heard the author discuss this book on my local NPR station. GOlda had always fascinated me so I purchased the book. I have almost finished it. It is very readable. GOlda was a complex woman, fiercely devoted to Israel, much to the detriment of her family. She was probably Israel's number one fund raiser, which enabled the country to assimilated hundreds of thousands of Jews from all over the world. Israel was also able to purchase the military hardward needed to defend itself against its hostile neighbors. She was the first woman head of state in the western world. Although she was flawed she managed to hold Israel together in trying times. I loved this book.



3. Burkett, Elinor. "Golda". Harper, 2008.
   
   Remembering Golda Meir
   
   
   Amos Lassen
   
   I doubt there are many people that do not recognize the name of Golda Meir. Many say she was more of a man then many men, others remember as the Prime Minister of Israel, some blame her for the disastrous Yom Kippur War in 1973. One thing is that there are few who have neutral feelings about her. She was quite a person and I have my own memories of her as she was Prime Minister for many of the years that I lived in Israel. In fact, when I lived in Tel Aviv, she lived right around the corner and we shopped at the same mini-market. Yes, Golda did her own shopping.
   Pulitzer Prize finalist, Elinor Burkett takes a look at Golda in her new biography of the former world leader. Golda Meir was the first female head of state in the Western world and without question a woman who exerted a great deal of influence. She was a founder of the State of Israel, helped to develop the infrastructure of the tiny country. She defended Israel as if it were her own child and she was utterly and completely devoted to keeping Israel safe. She changed the face of the politics of the Middle East in ways that are still felt today. She had the stamina of a bulldozer and when her mind was made up she did what she felt was the right thing to do. She also baked cookies and cakes and steeped tea She was the first to make the world aware of international terrorism and she could hold her own against powerful men like Henry Kissinger and others. Even as she pleaded for peace, she led Israel through the bloodiest war in its existence. Golda had the ability to raise funds and even while she, herself, was battling cancer, was able to steer Israel's ship of state.
   Burkett looks at the life of Golda (and she was always Golda) and writes of her victories and her disappointments, of her wins and her losses. We read of Golda as an idealistic girl in Milwaukee as a product of an immigrant family and we read of a woman who is what legends are made of. Golda had almost no definition unless we define her by her own contradictions. She was hard as nails and as sweet as sugar. She was the personification of the Jewish mother to a nation of people and she was also their leader She was tough and she was kind but most of all she loved Israel even though the populace did not always love her.
   Burkett has done serious research here including interviewing members of Golda's family who had never agreed to be interviewed before and she provides us with a picture of the woman who changed the course of history. I do not agree with all she writes but I find the book to be as honest as it can be. It is stylishly written and I t makes its point. The problem is that the legend of Golda Meir has been tainted by the terrible losses of October, 1973.

5 comments about Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire.

1. Overall it is a pretty good book. It provides an insight into the decades leading upto the Indian and Pakistani Independence and into the personalities who were involved in the independence movement.
   For an Indian it provides a different point of view than the ones provided by text books in schools.



2. A fascinating tale of exactly what happened, politically, socially and economically, during the summer India gained her independence from Britain, focused on the lives (and loves) of Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten, Nehru, Gandhi, and Jinnah. Readable, although detaile, the author could have delved more deeply into the complex personalities of the leading characters.



3. I enjoyed this book a lot. The writing style is excellent and the story is fascinating. I've read a few books about the amazing story of Indian independence. This one is focused on the personalities involved, particularly Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru. As a book about people and personalities, it is more approachable than some of the history books; some of it is downright gossipy, although never in a lowbrow way. So it's very pleasurable and easy to read. Enjoy!



4. i found this book very interesting in providing readers with the insights of the transfer of power from the british to the indian government and prior to the transfer of power, the author was able to bring us to the time of the maharajas before the europeans came. there's certainly no innocent party with what happened in india at that time and what resulted today.



5. The charm of this book is its readability. The author begins with metaphoric images of a backwater England and a rich India... in 1600. What follows is a brief but engrossing anecdotal background to bring the reader up to the dramatic events of the summer of 1947.
   
   The book focuses on the people who brought forth the new India, and helps you to know who they were and to care about them. For instance, the last Viceroy could have been described through a recitation of his long and prestigeous lineage, but the author gives a more personal account of his youth and how his father's losses shaped his goals. The reader learns, not of the celebrated Ghandhi, but of the personal man and his effect on his all too real and abused family. Edwina Mountbatten's life as a playgirl gives way to a woman of strong character and compassion. Nehru's youth is well drawn, but the later years are sketched, and the portrait becomes more mythical than clear. Least described of the key players is Jinnah who stays in the background of this narrative.
   
   The focus on people comes at the cost of other areas. For instance, the pressure from England to act quickly is covered but not in a blow by blow manner, The pressure on England from the US is mentioned but not described. It isn't it clear how all the political subdivisions were courted and won over to the new India. Who did the talking and how did they present their case to the local rulers? The issues of the partition are not expored, such that the vehemence and duration of the subsequent riots is not fully understood.
   
   The book's high interest readability is due to its descriptions of the humanity of the key players. More nuts and bolts of how policy was developed and carried out may have created a less engrossing narrative.

5 comments about Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate.

1. Webster Tarpley is a conspiracy theory nut and nothing but a clone of Lyndon LaRouche.



2. This edition has two new articles that are not in the June 2nd first edition . Because of different typesetting it has fewer pages, but it has more material than the first edition.



3. Lyndon LaRouche is the guy whose supporters show up on college campuses to harass other college students into dropping out and joining this fantastic cult that has been spreading the gospel of an imminent world crisis since, oh, the mid-70's. Having read what I have of this book, I can tell you that it's an absolute waste of time and is crudely capitalizing on this historic election to hook more people into LaRouches' idiotic cause.



4. Wow. Probably one of the most paranoid text I've ever read. If you believe Tarpley, Obama is truly the anti-Christ. Which is also a ridiculous idea. Much of the book focuses on the Trilateral Commission and how they have brainwashed Obama. However, if you look at a list of the Trilateral members, you will find John McCain's name on the list.



5. The INTIMATE connection between Obama and Trilateral founder/Rockefeller vassal Zbigniew Brzezinski is WELL-DOCUMENTED. Don't be suckers simply because you worship this man the media is putting forth as the new messiah. It should raise at least a few eyebrows that this maverick upstart singing a song of change is closely allied with crusty old white men who have have directed foreign policy from their councils and think tanks for decades.
   
   Obama got in HOT WATER with the Israel lobbies (who have allied themselves with the Iraq-invading, Iran-hating Neocons -- supporting Tarpley's analysis) because of his close ties to Brzezinski. Before dismissing this "conspiracy theory", google "obama brzezkinski" and read the DOZENS of MAINSTREAM NEWS ARTICLES. Here's just one.
   
   [...]
   
   To those who are new to politics, welcome to being lied to by your heroes. Get used to it.

5 comments about Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different.

1. The chapters on each of the founding fathers Woods wrote on included a lot of detailed character information in this book. The book provided background information on each person as well as information on their character. It was interesting to read about the contributions these men made that still affect America today such as the banking system, election policies, etc.



2. Read "Revolutionary Characters" in combination with "Founding Brothers" for an excellent duo, and compare and contrast the two in their approaches and content. This is not a history of the revolution or a detailed analysis of our form of government. Wood has done what he claimed - a look at the character of the subjects, how that influenced their work, and how they were a reflection of, or an exception to, their times.
   
   Wood's work combines expansive praise and cold analysis. Each of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison) is portrayed as a "great man", which of course each deserved, as well as a flawed individual or thinker. The praise and the more negative comments are done with a suitable tone, neither being excessive. For example, Wood describes how Washington was not an intellectual and how that affected his role and strategy, but not in a demeaning way, as Washington obviously contributed greatly in other ways.
   
   To me, the freshest perspective was on Madison, as Wood questions Madison's actual contribution to the Constitution, with an end result that bears little similarity to Madison's intent. Wood also tackles the apparent changes in Madison's thinking about the relationship of the government and the people. In fact, elite thought vs. public opinion is one of Wood's recurring themes.
   
   Hamilton comes across as the most modern of the founders, which is hardly original, so Wood points out some areas where Hamilton may be overrated in claims regarding his vision. Hamilton obviously outshined the others in his ability to turn vision into governmental reality.
   
   Jefferson gets the least positive treatment of the six. Wood recognizes TJ for his brilliance, yet Wood considers Jefferson overrated in American culture, as his vision of the American future was hopelessly impractical and outdated.
   
   Aaron Burr takes his lumps in a succinct assessment that will be familiar to readers of Chernow's Hamilton bio. Wood includes Burr as a counter-example to the positive character of the others, with Burr as a schemer void of known intellectual political thought or vision. No detachment for the good of society for Mr. Burr.
   
   The unexpected chapter on Thomas Paine was a surprising plus, explaining why Paine is not considered a true "founder". Paine was not the gentleman or the politician that his cohorts were, instead being an early modern intellectual and professional writer according to Wood. The chapter also served as a hint of the analytical final chapter, which emphasized the transition from the brilliant gentleman founders debating among themselves to the rise of the general public as part of the political process.
   
   As Wood said in his apt closing sentence, "In the end nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise."
   
   4.5 stars



3. First, this is more of an academic work than a popular one. If you are looking for a collection of engagingly told short bio's of some of the founders, this is not it. This is more of an academic work. It contains analysis and summary of scholarly opinion. For what it intends to be it is nicely done. Due to its nature, I found it less interesting in places, but it was beneficial to see what the current ideas are on these men.
   
   The book is largely a collection of previously published reviews or articles and it shows in places. For one, the choices of whom to include seems odd in places. Why include Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr but neglect Patrick Henry? Sure Paine was a key figure early on but in the end he was not much of a "Founder." Aaron Burr's chief qualities are negative ones as Wood points out. Henry, however, was perhaps the key early voice calling for independence- his resolutions reprinted throughout the colonies defined the issue and galvanized support. In addition to other examples that could be given of his oratory his role as governor of Virginia- the richest and most populous colony- during the war and his efforts in supplying Washington's troops were very significant. He is typically neglected due to his opposition to the Constitution, but this is actually another significant contribution to the shaping of the country since his criticisms helped to produce the Bill of Rights.
   
   In the end, if you want an engaging synopsis of the lives of the Founders, this is not it. If, however, you want one historian's analysis of their life and work this is a fine one. A good supplement on the issue of which Founders are most remembered and why is Daniel Dreisbach's essay "Founders Famous and Forgotten" in The Intercollegiate Review 42 (Fall 2007): 3-12. For just as scholarly but more positive assesment of Washington see Patriot Sage: George Washington and the American Political Tradition (ISI Books, 1999).



4. I read Dr. Wood's work as a graduate student in the 1970's and my daughter had him as a professor at Brown University several years ago. Consequently, I have an elevated sense of respect for the man. Dr. Wood has an extraordinary understanding for the Revolutionary Period. This book is for anyone who wants to peek into the heads of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr. I highly recommend this book.



5. Eminent revolutionary era scholar, Gordon Wood, brings clarity to the profound question of why the revolutionary period produced the greatest set of public leaders that this nation has ever seen, and why it will never happen again. The men profiled here were of the Enlightenment where learning, rationality, and social adeptness were ardently pursued, but only by those with sufficient leisure, in other words, by social elites. They were not the multi-generational profligate aristocracy of England, instead basing their social standing on the merit of self-development. But with elite status came the expectation, if not requirement, of serving the public with disinterest (not for personal gain) regardless of any personal impositions. They were the leading intellectuals of the day, but in the context of being social leaders not as adversarial social critics of the modern era. With the exception of Paine and Burr, all of these revolutionary characters, as elite members of society, sought to shape the direction that the fledgling nation would take in a manner consistent their extensive learning and judicious understanding of social forces.
   
   These revolutionary leaders were not "small d" democrats, but were "small r" republicans. They had the notion that society, at least those that mattered, did or could consist of so-called virtuous citizens, public-minded and interested in the social good. It was an optimistic, if not fanciful, view based more on interacting with their fellow elites than any actual dealings with the general public. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton had become disillusioned with the self-interested machinations of the general public; only Jefferson and Paine continued to place faith in the wisdom of the common man. As the author points out, the decade of the 1790s was one of the most highly contentious in our history as the need for a powerful central government to constrain popular sentiments was counterpoised against the self-governing capabilities of virtuous citizens.
   
   All of the men are profiled in terms of their understanding of their social position and their need to project a refined and educated public image, and of their recognition of social forces that were eroding the privileged position of so-called gentlemen and elevating the influence of the often raucous, ill-informed common man. Washington's rectitude and concern with his public image is undoubtedly unmatched in our history. Franklin, though perhaps a manipulator of his public image, is regarded by the author as the most effective diplomat in our nation's history for his efforts in obtaining the help of the French. The chapters on Hamilton, Adams, and Madison are very insightful examinations of the subtle and complex, yet different, political thinking among the founders. The chapter on Jefferson is least satisfactory as he has become the whipping boy among modern historians (not the author particularly) for his lack of progressive thinking in the revolutionary period concerning race and gender issues. On the other hand, Jefferson's democratic utopianism is noted, which has endeared him to many through the ages. Paine, alone, was not among the social elite. His willingness to be forthright in his writings served him well in his advocacy for independence in Common Sense, his pamphlet of 1776, but less so when condemning Christianity in The Age of Reason. Such awkward sentiments among elites were generally confined to private correspondence. Burr, the only true aristocrat among the founders, was condemned by his fellow founders precisely because he refused to serve the public in a disinterested manner, seeking to benefit himself and friends.
   
   As the author shows, the revolutionary period and many of the men he profiled undermined the social world dominated by elite gentlemen. The constant extolling of the virtues of the common man was empowering. The proliferation of newspapers filled with popular sentiments overwhelmed the meager output of elite gentlemen. The Sedition Act of 1798 was a last gasp by social elites to curtail mass public opinion. Even Jefferson, became disheartened by the passing of control by cultured elites perhaps best exemplified by the election of Andrew Jackson.
   
   The author is most assuredly correct to assert that a disinterested, cultured, and knowledgeable elite will never again rise to the top of political circles in the US. In lieu of that, the American political system has gravitated to electing highly self- and class-interested, mostly business, elites, of no particular refinement or knowledge, to our most important political offices. The contrast with the founders profiled in this book could not be greater.

5 comments about Barack Obama in His Own Words.

1. This book is a good mirror into the thinking of Mr. Obama. Much of what is in the book is what he says on the campaign trail, which makes him a very credible candidate for President of the United States od America.
   
   Quotes are taken from printed and electronic media which gives one insight into his personal and political life.
   
   I would recommend this book if one wanted to have a "hard copy" of many of his words given during his political career.



2. Barack Obama In His Own Words is interesting and would be useful as a research tool for anyone writing about Obama, but it is nowhere near as interesting as his own books, all of which are insightful and fascinating.



3. good book about his thoughts and gr8 book to read and to inculcate leadership skills.



4. The previous reviewers assertion that Barack Obama is a Muslim is blatantly false! It is but one of several variants of the same tired story of twisted facts whose implication is that this good and decent man, a true shining star in American politics, is somehow intent on fooling the voting (and reading) public, sneaking into the Whitehouse, once there to don a turban and wreak havoc on the whole of Christianity and the standards of American decency it alone purports loudly to define, and itself apparently responsible for sooooooo much goodness in the world at large. What amazes me about the aforementioned ridiculous "review" is not so much that it appears here in the first place, but rather that the reviewer is obviously more willing to embrace this nonsense than to spend even a few minutes checking the facts to quickly disprove it. The book is good, the man is even better, the previous conspiracy-peddling reviewer is an idiot, and symptoms abound as Christian Nationalism is alive and well in America!



5. This is an "easy read", but very informative. I would like to see this type of publication for every candidate for public office. I finished the book in one session. I found out a lot about Obama that I did not know.

5 comments about Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him.

1. This is a great book by a great man. John McCain's humor, style, and love of life are inspiring in this read. His honor, patriotism, and his words of those who have inspired him, make him one of the most inspiring public figures of his generation. He has a loving awe of what is best in America, and in ourselves.



2. When the 2008 GOP primary began, I was not a fan of McCain. I didn't dislike him. I just had a different preference. I'd always wanted to read Faith of My Fathers and read that one first. It took the reader from McCain's grandfather, to his father, and finally to McCain himself and his experience in Vietnam, where it concluded with his homecoming.
   
   This book picks up with John McCain's return home. He is atypically candid for a politician and presidential candidate. He admits faults where necessary. He takes responsibility when demanded. He defers credit where due. He takes the reader into his personal struggles, in particular the Keating 5 affair. He touches on his failed first marriage -- and takes full responsibility. The reader has the privilege of being a "fly on the wall" as McCain learns from his mentors and teachers. I can't imagine an author being much more transparent. The reader does not come away with a messianic vision of John McCain. Rather, one develops an understanding of whom he is and what influenced him. There is also much history to be learned as he explains how historical figures have influenced him in his career. I was a bit surprised by the profanity used in the book, but it's a part of who he is -- part sailor, part rebel, part patriot, part leader, part humble student, part aspiring executive, part competitor -- and full time, 100% himself.
   
   If you have an interest in politics and/or history, and want a better understanding of who this potential President of the United States is and may be as president then this is THE book. Straight from his own mouth -- warts and all -- leaving it to the reader to make their own educated decision regarding McCain's worthiness for the most powerful job in the world. You may not finish the book as a supporter -- and you may go from pro to con -- but you will have a greater respect for the man.
   
   Highly recommended.



3. "Worth The Fighting For" is John McCain's political biography. In it he briefly discusses his naval heritage and the acquaintances he made through his father, an admiral in the U.S. Navy. He mentions his time as a POW, but most of the references to his naval career involve his service as the naval representative to the U.S. Senate.
   
   McCain does a good job at weaving tales about his heroes into his own story. Generally the book involves a section about a friend whom he admired or an historical figure on whose example he modeled his life, alternating with sections pertaining to political challenges which he has faced. Among the friends whom he discusses are Scoop Jackson, John Tower, Moe Udall, Barry Goldwater and Ted Williams. Among the historical figures he emulates are Billie Mitchell and Theodore Roosevelt and a character in the movie "Zapata."
   
   In the sections relating to his career, McCain talks about issues with which he has struggled, including the Senate Select Committee on POW-MIAs. There he became a friend and admirer of John Kerry, with whom he worked to clear the record on missing POW-MIAs and to normalize relations with Vietnam. Perhaps this was the origin of the proposed Kerry-McCain ticket. He also defended his positions on Social Security, Campaign Finance reform and the Marine deployment to Lebanon. The insight into his 2000 presidential campaign makes for interesting reading.
   
   McCain does not shirk the hard times, providing detailed explanations of the John Tower confirmation hearings and his own involvement in the Keating 5 investigation.
   
   McCain does not mince words in expressing his opinions on people with whom he comes in contact, be they other Senators, witnesses or lobbyists. He is open in discussing his own failings. In this he demonstrates a refreshing approach rarely seen in autobiographies.
   
   Through much of this work, McCain is defending and explaining his own actions. At times he seems to be more overtly self defensive than is found in many autobiographies. Is this a continuation of the "Straight Talk Express" on which he campaigned, or just another campaign biography? I will let each reader decide that for himself. I will say that it makes an interesting read of a type rarely found from active politicians. I am glad that I picked it up. I am confident that you will also.



4. As a long time admirer of John McCain, I wanted to read further about his life after having read "Faith of My Fathers". His first memoir chronicled the military experiences of both his father and grandfather, and the time that McCain spent in Vietnam as a prisoner of war. While that status has helped him in his political career, McCain has never used the term 'hero' to define who he is. In "Worth the Fighting For" he chronicles his career in politics, interspersing his recollections with portraits of men he has admired and whom he considers heroes.
   
   After ending his Navy career, John McCain moved to Arizona and began his assent in the political arena. He moved up the ranks to state senator and has served in that capacity for twenty plus years. His writing is candid and often almost too honest for a man still practicing politics as he recounts fights over legislation and his run for the presidential nomination. But John McCain is about laying every card on the table. He doesn't hide anything and he never shirks from anything - even if it means fighting for an issue that goes against the Republican party politics. McCain seems to be one of the rare politicians who can put partisianship aside and truly work for what is best for America and the American people. He acknowledges his triumphs, as well as his failures, painting a portrait of a man who has spent his life in service to the country he loves.
   
   An interesting blend of memoir and political science, McCain has crafted a read that extends beyond party lines. Whatever your political preference, you can admire John McCain for what he has achieved throughout his life. The title "Worth the Fighting For" is an apt description of McCain's naval and political career, but it more importantly applies to what is at stake in American politics today. For the government to truly serve the nation, there needs to be less fighting between the two main parties. And for Americans not in government to make a difference, they need to be active citizens who realize that democracy and freedom are things that are worth fighting for, (even when they come at a high price).



5. John McCain is a Republican Senator of Arizona - he is currently serving his third term as Senator. This book was written in 2002. It documents his life: during the Vietnam war, after the war, and during his terms as Senator, also his 2000 bid for the Presidency. McCain offers a lot of introspect into his life and his decisions. I sometimes get upset when I see the decisions Senators and other politicians make but after reading this book I see that there are so many different types of people and special interests that politicians have to please. They are constantly walking on a thin line.
   
   McCain's father and grandfather were both members of the military. His ancestors also fought in the civil war. McCain's family has a rich history. After reading this book, I can see McCain has a deep love for this country. I liked how McCain takes accountability for his decisions and tries his best to be honest.
   
   I liked McCain's feelings about how he feels poor people fought in the Vietnam war while rich privileged kids got to stay home safe. McCain feels that this country belongs to the poor people - because they have fought all of our wars.
   
   I'm by no stretch a Republican (I am conservative though), however, if McCain was President right now - I would feel this country has an honest, patriotic American as the President. This is an inspiring book and is also well written.

5 comments about The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill.

1. A good review and background of famous quotes of Churchill. It also showed him to be a good husband and sober man, despite the rumor otherwise.



2. I am a long-time admirer of Sir Winston Churchill. As a leader he had few (if any) equals, but I have always been impressed with his sharp wit and stinging retorts. One can learn much about the man from what is found in this little book, not only from the quotes attributed to him, but also from those zingers hurled his way by friend and foe alike.
   This book is an easy read. It can be picked up for a few moments' pleasure without distracting from the greatness that is Sir Winston Churchill.



3. You do have to think about many of his quips, most are very funny in a dry, perhaps a bit cynical manner. It is sometimes difficult to place his statements in the context of WW-II (I was born in 1944 and I do have a memory of that era because it was the biggest event in my parents lives - they talked about it all the time).
   
   After a session with Mr. Churchill, I often wish American politicians had a bit of his prespective (though I reall doubt they would ever get elected).



4. 
   The wise and witty words of Winston Churchill ring throughout the 20th Century.Any that knew him personally or had anything to do with him must have waited with anticipation of hearing what he would say anytime he opened his mouth.This held true for Kings,Presidents,Generals and yes even for his family,including his grandaughter.At times, his use of silence could be as cutting
   a reply as anything he could say.No doubt, he took as much enjoyment in his words as anyone he was aiming them at.It wasn't all one way either,he seemed to love a well delivered line,even if he was the object.
   He neither claimed to be nor in fact was an'educated man',he
   was similar to Mark Twain,in that he could cut to pieces,people of much greater formal education,if they tried to engage him in 'a battle of words'.
   In his book "My Early Life" he said."It's a good thing for an
   uneducated man to read books of quotations" and described how he read "Bartlett's Quotations".It is obvious that he often used and modified others quotations.
   His friend Lord Brinkenhead quipped,"Winston has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches."
   "One of Churchill's most famous speeches is that of June
   1940:'We shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills...' It is said that,as he paused in the great uproar that greeted these words,Churchill muttered to a colleague next to him,'And We'll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that's bloody well all we've got!"
   A great little book reminding us of the words of one of the great voices of the 20th Century.



5. I received this book as a birthday gift from my lovely wife. I loved this book so much I bought is twice more as a gift for a departing superior and for a friend of 10 years. Anyone who has a love of history (particularly this era) will love this book, anyone in possession of a sense of humor will appreciate this book as well.
   
   Recommended for a quick, witty read and as a gift for anyone you know with an 'off' sense of humor. We all know someone like that, are related or married to them, or publicly disavow any association with them. Regardless, buy them or yourself (ii case its you who is openly disowned) this book.