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.

No comments about Letters to My Mother: A Message of Love, A Plea for Freedom.

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.



2. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.



3. Mein Kampf is an interesting and powerful book to be sure. The book is not solely about the Jews, but I am writing my review in reference to Hitler's assertions therein, mostly because I am extremely disturbed by the content of many of the previous reviews. Hitler was a powerful figure, and obviously powerful still.
   
   I was patently shocked how many reviewers were taken in by Hitler's ongoing method of argument. Throughout the book, he makes his points by randomly refering to various notions, texts and occurences to prove his own inaccurate points. Because he stipulates various references, he manages to appear educated and convincing. This is particluarly true the case in Hitler's discussion of the Jews where he randomly refers to Jewish ideals and texts for his own end. What I found most interesting was precisly how little Hitler understood Judaism (although one uneducated reviewer asserts the oppposite), a faith, a philosophy, and ethnicity but not a race. What I found most alarming about many of the reviews was that people, even after all that has happened, bought into his various lines of reasoning on so many subjects, even those outside Judaism. His assertions, particularly about the Talmud, are are vague and highly misconstrued. Judaism is a philosphical religion, an as such is open to ongoing debate at all times even in the 21st century. I was floored by one reviewer who uses Hitler's own tactics to his make outlandish statments about the work of Talmud and Maimonedes, a topic on which he has no keen undertanding.
   
   For sure, Hitler is right about the Talmud in one respect: it is about life today, this moment and how to live it respectfully and well (although Hitler interprets this as a defect). While Christianity focuses on resurrection, Judaism focuses on the now, for tomorrow is uncertain and may not exist; for Jews, the afterlife, at best, is a shadowy thing.
   
   The fact of the matter remains that Judaism is the only religion in which God accepts ALL people so long as they are good; Judaism does not define goodness by Jewishness, but by goodness itself; belief in Judaism is not required. You do not have to be one of "The Chosen," a term which Hitler throws around in incite his readers, to be worthy. (To be "Chosen" in Judaism actually means that you are one who has accepted the burden 613, often contradictory, laws. Those who are not "Chosen" must only accept 7, very easy and innately human laws of behavior.)
   
   Mein Kampf is an important book and is hard to rate because it's can't be subject to "good" or "bad;" it stands outside such clear distinctions. It simply IS. While reading Mein Kampf I can only suggest that you read critically and take his assertions on all subjects with a grain of salt. It is arduous, self-serving and covertly incomplete. If you are at all interested in Hitler mind, this book is an obvious go to. It has people repeating and thus validating his injustices even now.



4. Hitler was a grand socialist. He proposed state control (regulation) of industry, economic interventionism, universal healthcare, and:
   
   "We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. "
   
   Oh, wait, that is just good old fashioned welfare statism a la Paul Krugman and H. Clinton.
   
   The fact that we universally recognize Hitler's racism as evil, while adopting the same collectivist welfare statism, speaks to our ignorance.
   
   Until individualism replaced collectivism, we will continue to see injustices against the individual from both the Liberals and Conservatives.



5. It seams odd, VERRY odd to have purchased this book. I am neither a Nazi, Neo Nazi nor simpathiser of ANY sort or degree!!!! You have NO idea
   how much bull I have recieved for just haviiing it, especially from my jewish aquaintances, but I think it is IMPORTANT to learn from the past. "You Know Who" was a MONSTER, a mad MONSTER, undeniabely!!!!!!! He was, however unfortunately, also a genius!!!!!
   I felt compelled to read this book in an attempt to find some degree of understanding and insight into how ANYONE could be SOOOO TWISTED, even EVIL!!!! For one man to do such things to another, let alone hundreds of thousands. His existance was a tragedy on ALL of humanity, a scar which can never be erased!!!! If humanity doesn't learn from it's mistakes it will be condemned to repeat them!!!!!!! There is knowledge in ALL things, no matter how horable and/or tragic!!!!!! LEARN!!!!!!!

5 comments about The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

1. David Holmes seems to be on a mission to disqualify our Founding Fathers as Christians. He picks a few names, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Monroe and Madison as if these were the only ones who had any influence in our early government. Further, he wants to make each of them a Deist when, in fact, most of their writings lead to a very strong Christian base. Like any person in public office, some speeches and writings can be taken out of context and you can easily make the writer or speaker appear to be something they are not. An in depth study of any of these six men will prove they lean far more to a Christian base than Deism. In addition, Holmes leaves out more than 30 other Founding Fathers who were very strong Christians. Somehow, many authors today have a goal of trying to convince us that our country was not founded upon Christian principles. A good source to confirm our country's foundational basis is David Barton's book, "Original Intent". I think Holmes book is slanted and short on factual information.



2. This book was very well written. The author made the case that some of the founding fathers were not necessarily Christian, but Deists. His conclusions stem from letters written to, and from, various people that had contact with them (friends, family, clergymen, etc.) - which makes sense; however, some of the author's assumptions (i.e. the language the "fathers" used in writing and speeches) about how they referred to God (the Almighty, Nature's God, etc.) is not necessarily the best way to prove that the founding fathers were not Christian.
   
   It certainly shed some light, although not definitive, on the faiths of our founding fathers and their families.



3. Shortly after Washington's death, certain writers began trying to depict him as a devout orthodox Christian. Mason Weem's book of 1800 was representative of this group and was reprinted regularly with newly added tales about Washington the pious man of prayer. The memorable story about the cherry tree came in the fifth edition in 1806 but the disreputable Weems was easily discredited. Jefferson, Madison, and many others disputed all these efforts. "Sir, he was a Deist," one of Washington's pastors declared upon discussion of the question.
   
   Franklin and the first five presidents were All Deists, a minimalist religious belief system without an organized hierarchy that sprouted from the Enlightenment. For the straight story about their beliefs and the varied Christian denominations of the colonies, this book can't be beat.
   
   The excellent reviews already on this site say it all. I'll just add that "Faiths of the Founding Fathers" is well organized, authoritatively researched, extensively documented, and unusually readable. History buffs and the general public will like this book.
   
   DB



4. A concise primer on the faiths of our nation's founders. Fair assessments, avoiding any kind of dogmatic revisionism (be it evangelical or secular). Holmes deals with each figure individually, avoiding sweeping claims, and appreciating nuances. Avoid Meacham's _American Gospel_; it is simply an amalgam of anecdotes with no thesis other than "America has a public religion" driven over and over again. Stick with Dr. Holmes!



5. David Holmes writes a very informative study regarding the religious beliefs of America's Founding Fathers. He examines this diverse eclectic group in a opened balance perspective. Today there is a desire to better understand the relationship between the founding of America and the influence that Christianity played within that founding. This has been made apparently clearer as the religious right and the liberal left want to place the Founding Fathers into their respective camps and use them to make some political statement. Holmes reveals the religious views of several of the leading Founding Fathers. He shows that men such as Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were more Deist in action and thought than orthodox Christian. These early US Presidents maintained a low religious profile during their presidency and didn't advocate personal religious beliefs upon the new nation. The influence of the Enlightenment from Bacon, Locke and Newton were spreading a new school of religious thought called Deism throughout England and into the Colonies. Having come from Europe where church and crown were extremely intertwined, the Founding Fathers had no strong desires to continue this tradition. As the First Great Awakening was growing into American's belief system, the foundations were beginning to be laid for a Nation to be built upon religious freedoms and personal liberties. Throughout history there have been individually great men and women, but at no time has there been found together, in one place and time, this collection of the truly wise and noble men such as the founding fathers. Men that "appeared less devout than they really were"..and "valued freedom of conscience and despised religious tyranny." It is near impossible to understand or even know an individuals private religious thinking. The best possible way of understanding this is, as Holmes shows, is by their writings and the lives they lived. Holmes' book challenges us to remember that the founding fathers were remarkable, even noble men and that we need to keep their background and ethos in proper perspective.
   
   This book gives an informative look at the men and the religious feelings that were spreading throughout America during this remarkable period. Holmes reveals to us the great and noble men who laid life, liberty, and property on the altar of freedom and never apostatized from it. Well worth the read and addition to the history shelf.

5 comments about Journals: 1952-2000.

1. Unless one is a scholar, those under 60 will not find this book of great interest. For someone my age (71) who's also a political junky with still-vivid memories of the 1960s forward, this book is an artistic and intellectual treasure. The editing--and there was obvious a lot of editing--results in jewels on virtually every page. Schlesinger undresses everyone of consequence he ever worked with, no holds barred, including the Kennedy family.
   
   In 1969 (maybe 1970) Lloyd Norman, dean of the Pentagon press corps, addressed a class I attended at Fort Benning, GA. He claimed before the so-called Cuban missile crisis, he was given a briefing about how the crisis at sea would be orchestrated, so there was never a real chance of armed confrontation. I could never get verification of this, and none of the popular or historical accounts mention it. Yet, on page 176 Schlesinger mentions an October 1962 letter from Khrushchev to Bertrand Russell about "his instructions to Soviet ships to avoid confrontation..." When Schlesinger heard about the incident from Averell Harriman, he sent a memo to the President describing the Khruschev letter. Kennedy, according to the book, "called Harriman the next day and asked him questions about it." Is this validation of Norman's account? Maybe.



2. Anyone who has read Schlesinger's books on Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or John and Robert Kennedy knows how partisan he was. He viewed American history as a perennial struggle between noble, idealistic, intelligent liberals and selfish, materialistic, moronic conservatives. This is not my interpretation of his views. It was explicit in his meta-historical cyclical conception of American history, which he adopted from his father. Indeed, his partisanship was so obvious that it was harmless. These journals are no exception. Those people who opposed his heroes were not only wrong, they were morally and intellectually corrupt; and even, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, borderline insane. The only exception I could find was Henry Kissinger, whom Schlesinger usually described with respect. The same is true of events. The American involvement in Vietnam enters his journals only in 1966, with regard to Robert Kennedy's opposition to it. There is no way of knowing from these journals that John Kennedy was responsible for it.
   Nevertheless, these journals provide many interesting and important insights into the events and people that shaped American political history in the last half of the twentieth century.
   Moreover, among their most valuable passages are those in which Schlesinger's liberal bias itself is illuminating. For example, on page 363, he attributed George McGovern's catastrophic loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election mainly to racism, which he says was "the all-pervading issue of the election." According to Schlesinger, it was "the belief that Nixon can be relied upon to keep the blacks down" that caused large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters to vote for him. Schlesinger acknowledged that Nixon's supporters did not say that that they were racists. Schlesinger claims that instead of admitting their racism, Nixon's supporters used code words: welfare, crime, busing, schools, quotas. However, it should have been obvious that these were real and serious grievances. At that time, the rate of violent urban crime was rising by more than ten percent a year; children who lived a few blocks from a public school were being bussed for hours each day; etc. McGovern lost so terribly because he and his supporters thought like Schlesinger. They dismissed these real and serious grievances as expressions of racism.
   Another example is on page 437. There Schlesinger makes the interesting observation that Carter was the first Democratic president of the twentieth century whose programs did not have a label, like Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society. He attributes this to Carter's defects. (Schlesinger loathed and execrated Carter.) Schlesinger could not see that the reason was that the Great Society completed the New Deal. (Completing the New Deal was Johnson's purpose, the dream he had had since he entered Congress as a fanatical Roosevelt supporter in 1937.) After the Great Society, there were no longer any new, broad, governmental economic programs that could gain the support of most Americans. Schlesinger regarded McGovern as the last Democratic candidate who represented the true Democratic tradition. But anyone who now reads the 1972 Democratic platform will be stunned by its vacuous phrase-mongering and shameless racial posturing. (Most Americans were revolted in 1972 also.)



3. Historian/columnist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was the last half-century's most prolific, eloquent liberal voice. He served John Kennedy's administration as "special assistant to the president," wrote best-selling biographies of JFK, RFK, and Franklin Roosevelt, advised, wrote and edited speeches for Senator Ted Kennedy and most major Democratic leaders, and had working friendships with most of recent history's most influential political, literary, even entertainment figures. His exhaustive life journals numbered more than 6,000 pages; Schlesinger approved their publication before his 2007 death, and they were edited by two of his sons and Penguin Press to a still-formidable 858 pages.
   
   Yet amid Schlesinger's power lunches, society parties, and foreign trips seeming the setting for each page, he writes compelling, honest looks at friends and loved ones (wife Alexandra and children, the Kennedys, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Kissinger), enemies (Roy Cohn and Caspar Weinberger but chiefly Richard Nixon as the comic villain Schlesinger calls "Tricky") and loyalty to FDR/Truman/JFK liberalism.
   
   Schlesinger's opinions and observations fascinate, whether from inside as cabinet member or distantly as seasoned political observer. He called political gamesmanship his "favorite spectator sport," and his election year entries (especially those involving a Kennedy as late as 1984) are especially savory. Not to mention his disappointment at reduced roles in Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter's administrations. (Schlesinger even paraphrased Gerald Ford describing Carter's 1980 defeat.) His year 2000 entries even echo into this year's election race with frequent positive references to Hillary Clinton (in her First Lady and Senate campaign roles), John McCain, and a haunting closing sentence on then newly-elected President George W. Bush.
   
   Schlesinger's brief period as Nixon's next-door neighbor (years after placed on Nixon's "enemies list.") reads hilarious, as do some of the more pithy presidential cracks at predecessors (JFK on Eisenhower, Ford on Nixon).
   
   Yet even in these informal settings, Schlesinger's chronicles 1963 and 1968's horrific events with mastery and mourning for friends and political heroes. He repeats a generation's feelings on November 23, 1963, when wrting, "I still cannot believe this man (JFK)...of such intelligence and gaiety and strength, is dead. The wages of hate are fearful."
   
   Schlesinger's June 9, 1968 entry is possibly even more saddening. He speaks of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination with personal heartbreak associated with losing a younger brother: "There was for me such a poignancy about RFK," he wrote, "all the greater now that they killed him before he had the chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation and the presidency; Jack had at least 2 ½ years." These events shadow Schlesinger throughout the rest of his life and journals, from Ted Kennedy's presidential campaigns to tourists on the Kennedy front lawn.
   
   In his recent hit album, "Memory Almost Full," Paul McCartney writes, "When I think that all this stuff could make a life/it's pretty hard to take it in." It can be argued Schlesinger stood too close by one political family to keep an historian's objectivity. Or his Washington-New York social life (chronicled endlessly) cost him understanding of how Americans lived and viewed their history. But his was an important voice and seconding motion for the post-World War II years, and this well-edited collection of observations and perspective cement his niche in history behind the political giants he advised, chronicled, and befriended. Highly recommended.



4. The man saw most everything, often from the inside. His chronicle over 40 years or so is a rich stew of inside stuff, history and gossip. Compulsive reading.



5. Schlesinger had to be one of the coolest people who ever lived. Urbane, self-confident, intellectual , insightful and incisive. He taught college and worked for his country by day and partied with high society at night. This book is filled with candid and sometimes cruel assessments of such notables as Marilyn Monroe, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Gary Hart, Nixon, Vidal, Buckley, Hillary, JFK, Jesse Jackson, Lauren Bacall, Joan Didion, both George Bushes, Adlai Stevenson and countless others. A great read!! Especially if you are a political voyeur.

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 The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin.

1. This is perhaps the best biography I have ever read for the following reasons:
   The author has the wit, ironic tone, and command of the language that is worthy of Ben Franklin the writer.
   The prose is beautiful and is seamlessly interwoven with quotes from letters, articles, contemporary commentaries, and Ben's own memoirs.
   This book reads like a novel, tells a great story about a brilliant, admired, and patriotic man who lived an incredible life. He was a true renaissance man whom Brands has captured in all his many facets.



2. Hands down, one of the best books I've ever read. This book is wonderfully detailed without getting lost in the minutia. It was the first book I read on this era and has compelled me to read everything I can get my hands on about the founding fathers.



3. This, without doubt, must be considered as one of the finest and most thorough work done with regards to paying full tribute to the biography of Benjamin Franklin. You may learn many things you didn't know about this remarkable man as well as being refreshed on the things you had partially forgotten since history classes of your school days. He was to be considered a Founding Father of our Country, but his influence began long before the seeds of Revolution began to form, and his bright and steady, surefooted approach to diplomacy without submission or compromise of principals was nothing short of the genius we knew he possessed.
   
   His humble beginnings, which he was never ashamed of, did not hamper him, but rather enriched his understanding of the human condition in his continual search for truth, justice, science extraordinaire; and a philantropic desire to further higher education for youthful successors. Feet of clay, he undoubtedly had, as do we all; but they were lovable feet from start to finish. We have heard it all before about this most famous of our first citizens, but it is well to begin again to pay tribute to him, especially in this age of uncertainty, bizarre political events, the lack of leadership.
   
   Perhaps the most amazing element about Franklin was the apparent lack of ego. He did not do things for personal gain but rather for the overall good of the people, a goal he genuinely seemed to embrace above all else. His sense of humor was also unique for such a man; his penchant for penning controversial ideas under the guise of pen names was nothing short of genius in itself. It was a safety valve attached to a desire to effect change - you tentatively "test the mood" before admitting authorship. Waiting a decade for public opinion to soften is often soon enough if the ideas are sound enough to claim later as your own! Let the seed be sown, to rise not during the winter chill, but later, afterward - when the spring sun warms the soil and brings it to life under more suitable conditions.
   
   Moreover, not only were his covertly penned arguments gems of far-reaching vision, but this most excellent, prudent strategy was developed at the age of.....of....16!
   
   We need him to come again to the service of this country, which will always be his; but I fear there was only one of him made. Thankfully, we were able to have such a man in the right place at the right time, especially at the end of his career, when he was such heartwarming support for our Revolutionists as they "committed with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor".



4. This book was an excellent review of Revolutionary War history and of a true founding father. The prolific references in this book to primary sources domonstrate what an inspired inventor and early American Benjamin Franklin was.



5. H.W. Brands has created a stunning insight into the life of Benjamin Franklin. It is a classic of our times and should be required reading for anybody interested in how and why America came about. Brands is a scholar of immense quality. In a time when biographies of the founding fathers have become fashionable, Brands stands out as one of the strongest historians around. Not only is he a better writer than the more populist David McCullough, he is a better historian. Brands' analysis is clear, crisp, and powerful. A must read.

5 comments about Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography.

1. Though it feels like something of an awkward format for what is intended as the REAL word on Fidel Castro, and even though it will more than likely still be a very long time before we can really sum up the era of this man's Cuba, one alas must try to. This was after all one of history's most truly dynamic eras, one that changed not only the life of Cuba but of the world.
   
   He may come off tacit and allusive at times, but he observes the major events of his life and history with remarkable aplomb, and very rarely contradicts himself.
   
   When speaking about the development of his interest in politics during his University student days he explains how his original utopian ideas led to the firmer ground of Marxism as the scientific formula for the emancipation and liberation of all people... "Marxism taught me what society was. I was like a blindfolded man in a forest, who doesn't even know where north or south is. If you don't eventualy come to truly understand the history of the class struggle, or at least have a clear idea that society is divided between the rich and the poor, and that some people subjugate and exploit other people, you're lost in a forest not knowing anything."
   
   Even more politically moderate readers will be surprised at his encyclopedic knowledge of history, in particuular that of his native island, and all of Latin America, and his attempts to explain the TRUE ethics behind the egalitarian society he inspired so many people to aspire for. He observes that "As in all Western thought, Marti's philosophy contains a certain amount of Christian ethics" and the idea that even with the teachings of Christ you can "formulate a radical Socialist programme, whether you're a believer or not."
   
   He calmly and even logically explains his justification for mounting a guerrilla uprising to take state power rather than the long-broken electoral process in Cuba, and the summary trials and executions of traitors in their midst during those adrenaline-pumping days in the Sierra Maestra. He points out that "At that time, with a war being fought, it was unavoidable and it was effective, because from then on... a tradition has been created. And an ethics was born out of it: total respect for the populace."
   
   Answering the criticisms about his alliance with the former Soviet Union during this time of Cold War politics, he refers to the innumerable attempts by the "neighbor to the North" to sabotage this little island's right to self-determination. Objective and subjective factors accelerated the revolutionary process.
   
   Where his critics want so very badly for the ailing Castro to come off like a dogmatic dinosaur, a relic from history no longer of any significance, what you instead find is an idealistic, truly passionate and cultured human being, one who vigorously denounces the accuastions that a "cult of personality" exists in Cuba, and instead points to the patriotic fervor that runs through the island standing up to the great Goliath for all these years. And convincingly at that. He admits even that "the most difficult, most important fight that anyone with power faces is the fight against himself." Astounding coming from the man so oft-portrayed in the role of tyrannical dictator.
   
   "I work from the position of a tremendous confidence that this human being, with all his defects and limitations, has enough smarts, if you will, to preserve himself," Castro states, "and has enough intelligence to improve himself. If I didn't believe that, there'd be no reason to fight to the death."
   
   He interprets capitalism as "the creator of all sorts of germs," and Socialism as a society in which not necessarily are you devoid of those germs of corruption, but you rail against them harder and on a broader level, through a propaganda of education i.e. planting values and rigorously promoting them.
   
   What Western so-called "democracy" advocates call political repression, the Cuban government sees as stopping acts of treason from forces attempting to break the people's will. And its fairly common knowledge the long list of overt and covert attempts by imperialism to do just that for all these decades. Fidel announces "All we need as justification is that exactly that sort of felony has been perpetuated against us in the past."
   
   He answers 'freedom of press' critics with "our dream is of another freedom of the press, of a country that is educated and informed, of a country that has a holistic general culture and communicate with the world". One need only watch a couple hours of American television, whether news or entertainment, to realize how much culture digresses and decays in a capitalist society. Maybe there are no erroneous truths, but Fidel is right on much more than a few points in this book.
   
   "Socialism is constructed by free men who want to make a new society," he says. Thereby it is an instrument of liberation when weilded by a like-minded people. And force imposed is justifiable when used to keep a long-exploited people's will from being divided.
   
   As I said from the start, I don't think there can yet be a final word on the Castro era in Cuba today. Fidel is someone who will have to be judged by long history, the character of his and Cuba's work will grow clearer as it recedes from view. Build, resist, or be destroyed by the invading tentacles of imperialism.
   
   As Che Guevara famously said "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall." That is the current of thought that runs through the revolutionaries of the Cuban Revolution and its era on the world stage. And in here lies the foundations of a world that the militant working class dream of. A world where every human being, through the unity of diversity, can stretch out their hands to one another and heal, and work together for a better world.



2. Fidel is a fascinating man and very controversial figure, to say the least. When you look at how long he has been in power, it is absolutely amazing. So it is nice to finally be able to read about events and ideas from his perspective in his own words. And don't skip the Notes in the back of the book that further explain his comments. These fill in a lot of blanks.
   
   In this interview/autobiography, Castro makes a lot of valid points. Their literacy and health care on the island, and their medical assistance to other countries is commendable. Plus, it is a colossal feat to withstand an embargo for almost 50 years by the "evil empire", the most powerful country in the world.
   
   The US was so paranoid about the spread of communism, that it was intent on destroying the revolution that freed Cuba of Batista, just as the US intervened in Chile and Guatemala by assassinating Allende and Arbenz. Documents even support Castro in the numerous attempts on his life and the US's involvement in undermining the Cuban government, and even harboring terrorists acting against Cuba.
   
   The explanations of the Bay of Pigs and the "Cuban Missile Crisis" alone make the book worth reading.



3. Fidel Castro will always divide opinions and some people will think this autobiography "self-serving." But which autobiography isn't self-serving in taht it puts the writer's views across from his own perspective? And which anti-Castro exile in Miami doesn't express self-serving opinions? And is our own Government's constant anti-Castro propaganda not also self-serving?
   For me then this book isn't propaganda by Castro but at worst counter-propaganda. And for that I recommend it as a definite buy.
   As other reviewers have commented it's the insights from Castro's perspective rather than the American one that make this book so interesting.
   Castro is a great man whether you like him or not. A visionary who didn't allow his country to be intimidated by the States like so many other Latin American countries. Bottom line: with Castro Cuba is still an interesting nation with a soul. Without him it would be just another Reno or Las Vegas.



4. This is the same man who after gaining power outlawed the possession of HIS OWN BOOK "La Historia Me Absolvera". Why? Well, because everything was basically a lie, an opportunistic farce. This was the same man who orchestrated a rebellion against a corrupt president and promised the reestablishment of clean elections after four years of gaining power. Yes, the same man. The same man that took the most affluent, fastest growing, and developed nation in the Caribbean also containing the highest middle class per-capita in Latin America, and totally ruined and destroyed it in the most capricious and pathetic way ever seen and then calls it paradise. The same man, who forces poverty on people and by the way is a billionare.
   
   After half a century of being a farce holding himself in power by extreme stalinist oppression and intervention into the minimums aspects of peoples lives, state slavery, and forcefully pimping Cuba as a Soviet satellite nation; should this book written by the man himself carry much weight now after 50 years OF THE SAME? Do we not know who he is, even better than how he (an egomaniac) could know himself and definitely want to perseave himself? Is half a century of careless destruction, cemented corruption, and slavery not enough?
   
   Is more, why should we in the capitalistic world be buying the book of a man who in his own slaved system prohibits free publishings and freedom of press. Even more, this book brings him monetary profit from the capitalist market. Why should we buy from a man who in his own slaved state prohibits private property, private business, and monetary freedoms.
   
   Today he's trash of accomplices are still in power thanks to the miserables of Canada and western Europe who dedicated themselves to maintain his cancerous presence over Cuba after the fall of the USSR, and later came the other wacko commi of H.Chavez to finance him even better at the expense of the Venezuelan economy. Rather read the books by Humberto Fontova on the matter, tremendous books, you will really know who Castro is after that.



5. This review is an introduction to parts of Chapters 10 and 11 of Fidel Castro's spoken autobiography by Ignacio Ramonet. Following its First Section, the Second Section consists of four questions which Ignacio Ramonet asks Castro, and Fidel's answers to them. These questions and answers concern occurrences within Cuba after the triumph of the Revolutionary War on December 31, 1959, and prior to April 17, 1961.
   
   The book moves from Cuba's internal affairs to its international affairs in Chapter 12. My view is that with the US-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17, 1961, even formerly "internal matters" in Cuba inevitably took on "international aspects." The invasion violated Cuba's sovereignty and hence the UN Charter, and thereafter the world, at least outside America, entertained no doubts regarding the lengths to which the US would go to overthrow Cuba's revolutionary government.
   
   First Section.
   
   The most impressive thing to me about the first nine chapters of Ramonet's book is how understandably Castro conveys the fact that the Cuban Revolutionary War eschewed terrorism (defined as executing captured, non-uniformed combatants or using random violence against civilians.) Fidel considered such terrorism immoral, but more to the point, he considered it immoral because unnecessary. Terrorism would have been highly counter-productive where the soil for revolution vis-à-vis the imperialistic United States was seeded more widely and far earlier than in Vietnam, for example -- where the Vietcong did employ terrorism in a war against an invasion by America essentially indistinguishable from its unprovoked attack on Iraq in 2003.
   
   Similarly, Fidel invoked Che Guevarra's medical skills (and those of other revolutionary soldiers as the revolution gained momentum) to treat wounded Batista soldiers on the battlefield, once the non-fatally wounded revolutionary soldiers were evacuated or cared for. And not infrequently, these cared-for Batista forces, after returning to health, joined the revolutionary forces in the war against Batista.
   
   Chapter 1 is an introduction by the book's author, and it should be read first and carefully by anyone largely ignorant of the facts regarding Cuba since 1953, which is to say by 99.9% of all living Americans. Chapters 2 through 4 concern Fidel's childhood and growing political awareness, before 1953. Then after a brief philosophical diversion in Chapter 5, The Backdrop of the Revolution, Chapters 6 through 9 mainly describe the revolutionary war in Cuba from July 26, 1953, to December 31, 1959. These four chapters are simply riveting, and no one can read them without astonishment at how close, twice, Fidel and his inner core of revolutionaries came to being wiped out. But finally and most important for non-Cubans interested in understanding the Cuban Revolution, Chapters 6 through 9 hammer home the fact that the revolutionary war was just that: A War. And as such, it was an exercise in military, to repeat military, genius and leadership on Fidel's part and on the part of his soldiers.
   
   Second Section.
   
   THE DEMONSTRATION EXECUTIONS. Q. When the war ended, you and your followers had promised to bring to trial and eventually put to death members of Batista's repressive forces, and you created `revolutionary tribunals' that carried out a purge that many observers characterized as excessive. Do you think that was a mistake? (p 220.)
   
   A. I think the error (was) in ... allowing the proceedings to be attended by a great number of our countrymen....But I'd been in Venezuela (in 1952) ... and (I knew that) ... (w)hen Machado fell, (his) people were dragged through the streets; there were lynchings, houses were invaded and attacked, people sought vengeance, revenge....(W)e ... did not want to see ... personal vengeance (in 1960 in Cuba)....
   
   DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS. Q. One of (the) criticisms...against the Revolution was that...there ... were internment camps that homosexuals were sent to, locked up and repressed. What can you tell me about that subject? (p 222.)
   
   A. There was no persecution of homosexuals, or internment camps for homosexuals .... (However) ... (o)bligatory military service was instituted... (Reviewer's note: with three exceptions: educational deferments, conscientious objectors, and homosexuals.) ... Homosexuals were not called up (because) ... machismo was ... very much present in our society, and ... rejection of the idea of homosexuals ... in the military (was widespread).
   
   (We created) Military Units to Aid Production ... we tried to raise the morale of people ... sent to the camps, (to) present them with an opportunity to work, to help the country in those difficult times" ... (But) I can't deny that there were prejudices ... (that) homosexuals were most certainly the victims of discrimination ... Today a much more civilized, more educated population is gradually overcoming those prejudices.
   
   DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE BLACK POPULATION. Q. Did you have to fight, too, against discrimination against the black population (p227)?
   
   A. For us revolutionaries, fighting racial discrimination has been a sacred principle.
   
   THE MIAMI CUBANS. Q. ... against Cuba, Washington was able to tap anti-revolutionary Cubans for help? (p256)
   
   A. That's right. Listen, I'm going to tell you something: ... many of those who were involved in terrorist activities were not actually planning to ... bring ... down the Revolution....
   
   (Many of the rich and privileged who left Cuba and abandoned their homes and ... everything - it's not that we expelled them and took their homes away - they said: "This will last four or five months, how long can a revolution last in this country?")
   
   But the counter-revolutionaries also had the conviction ... that their despicable cause would win out in the end ... (because their fight was joined with that of the United States) ... They expected the United States to step in and bring the Revolution down.
   
   (This review will be continued)

5 comments about Witness.

1. During a recent vacation, I was able to finish reading Whittaker Chambers' startling eight hundred page autobiography, "Witness". And I must say that I feel both well informed and somewhat disturbed by the experience. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain.
   
   Whittaker Chambers is the name finally employed by the very strange character, born as Jay Vivian Chambers. This man was raised by a rather odd set of parents, his father, a failed artist and bisexual, and his mother, a never launched actress. Now despite the failings of his parents at their chosen professions, they nevertheless had the audacity to look down upon their economic peers, among whom the Chambers boys grew up. And, though much of the personal information included in the early chapters of this book, relative to Chambers' formative years, is excruciatingly boring, it is also instructive.
   
   Chambers was a diffident, slovenly young man, though evidently somewhat gifted academically. As a consequence, he was able to gain admission to Columbia University. There, his academic career was singularly unsuccessful. First expelled for publishing a blasphemous play about Jesus Christ, he later returned, but was unable to complete his basic degree. With this, we see a very odd, but recurrent aspect of Chambers' unique personality. Though unable to complete even a bachelor's degree, due to lack of discipline, he had the audacity to style himself as an intellectual. He began then, as his parents had done before him, to sneer condescendingly at those more disciplined and accomplished than he was. And, finally, he found a rationale for his rejection of discipline and orthodoxy in the writings of Marx and Lenin. Chambers became then a "dedicated" Marxist.
   
   Our "hero" then went to work for a number of Marxist journals, and pursued a deviant lifestyle. Finally, he joined, quite willingly, the communist underground, and became an asset of Soviet intelligence. In this role, Chambers recruited numerous government officials, including the noteworhty Alger Hiss, and was associated with such men as Soviet agent and US Treasury Department official Harry Dexter White.
   
   The cowardly Chambers eventually "broke" with communism, ostensibly on the occassion of the Soviet Union's treaty with Nazi Germany. In any case, Chambers then turned on his former colleagues. This turncoat behavior of the traitor brought him finally before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and enabled him to establish a strange professional relationship with a hard charging young congressman on that committee, Richard Nixon of California.
   
   Having charged Hiss, and others, with that which he had been guilty of, being a communist, Chambers spent years as a cooperating government witness. Hence, we have the title of this book. In a stunning admission in this, his autobiography, Chambers allows that he perjured himself before a grand jury on the question of whether he had personal knowledge of espionage activity done in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union. Hiss was later convicted of perjury on essentially the same set of facts. But Chambers was spared conviction, as a cooperating government witness.
   
   Given the above, it is stunning that the bisexual, cowardly, and deceitful Chambers has become a hero of the American "right". But perhaps this represents an essential aspect of the dialectical materialism of the "left/right" dichotomy of top level American politics. The despicable Chambers "broke" with communism. Hiss, equally despicable, never renounced this hideous ideology. American "conservatives" have since made a fetish of comparing Chambers to Hiss. To this reader, this comparison appears rather like trying to determine which is the taller of two midgets.
   
   Despite the above, the book is worth reading. It is overly long and terribly turgid. And the author is surely no hero. But the history contained within this account is well worth knowing.



2. This reads like a great spy novel, but (of course) it is true. After one has finished the last page there is a feeling of loss ... where are giants like Chambers these days?



3. I read this book when it was first published. I was fourteen or fifteen and in high school. It made a profound impact on me. Besides being beautifully written, its tale of a man who leaves what he calls the winning side (Communism) and joins the losing side (God) in the great conflict of the 20th Century influenced the course of my life.
   
   I am now 69 and still have memories of reading Chambers' autobiography. I became a lifelong anti-Communist even before I became a conservative. I come from a family of blue-collar Irish Democrats but even at a young age felt the call of the other party and when I registered to vote at age 21, I immediately registered as a Republican.
   
   Read this book and be astounded (as I was) about Chamber's life first as an overt Communist writing for the Daily Worker and then as an underground Communist working with cells in our nation's capital. We meet Alger Hiss and other important figures in the Roosevelt administration who led other lives as traitors and spies for the USSR. Doubtful as to those individuals? Then read the many books chronicling the findings in the Soviet archives after the fall of the Soviet Union (the Venona Project).
   
   My only regret is that Whittaker Chambers did not live to see the collapse of the USSR. He would have been pleased.



4. Witness is among the most haunting books that I have ever read. The reader who picks it up expecting only a combination spy story and courtroom drama is likely to be as profoundly surprised as was I.
   
   I had somewhat absent-mindedly placed Witness on my birthday gift list, in deference to the frequency with which it is cited as one of the indispensable political books of the 20th century. Upon receipt, I assigned it to the "to-read" stack, failing to note that it was a daunting 800 pages long. Shortly after I began it and realized its length, I feared it would prove too dense for me to enjoy. How wrong I was: when I at last closed the book a couple of weeks later, I knew that it would haunt me, possibly for all the years I have left.
   
   Many conservatives regard this book as a seminal founding charter, a characterization that not only underrates its literary quality, but which also erects a needless barrier before others who would appreciate it. This book is must-reading, regardless of political persuasion. I myself differ from Chambers in several fundamental ways: I am as predisposed to optimism as he was to pessimism; I relished elementary school as greatly as he was tormented by it; and I do not share his religious faith. But these and other differences do not inhibit a reader from appreciating this magnificent book.
   
   This book not only tells a riveting story, it does so with a poetic, melancholy beauty reminiscent of a great Russian novelist. Something about his writing reminded me of Nabokov (an inexact comparison, given that the style exhibits none of Nabokov's exuberant, puckish wordplay). But Chambers's fluid, graceful sentences, and his gift for reconstruction of sensory and emotional states, are comparable to those of the brilliant Russian emigre. Suffice it so say that this book does not read like a bestselling memoir, but rather as a great work of literature.
   
   The story of Witness is of a man originally alienated from his society, and of his struggle to find good and meaning in his world. Chambers's account of his early life is deeply saddening. One suspects that the entire family was genetically predisposed to depression, considering his brother's suicide, the narrator's own similar attempts, and his parents' many self-destructive actions.
   
   Attending school only accentuated young Vivian's (later Whittaker's) sense of isolation. One story he relates is hard to forget: on one of his first school days, he witnessed three boys urinating on a lollipop, and then tricking a later-arriving fourth boy into putting it into his mouth. (The incident itself is gloomy enough; equally so is the fact that Chambers later remembered it as emblematic of his school experience.) Young Chambers is traumatized by the pervasive cruelty around him. He struggles through the ordeal of school - the mockery of his name Vivian, the taunts of being a "sissy," and being compelled to fight.
   
   One is hardly surprised that such an alienated, secretly intelligent, unappreciated youth, convinced of the intractable injustice of the world, would be seduced by communism. In the central section of the book, Chambers details his gradual descent into that world, first as an open party communist, later as a practitioner in espionage. It is in this section that he meets Alger Hiss, and collaborates with him in betraying his country.
   
   This middle section of the book is probably the most arduous reading. At points, many of the figures and spy escapades seem to all run together. But stick with it, because the final 300 pages or so, detailing the Hiss case, are among the most gripping you will ever read.
   
   Chambers at some point realizes that the actions and amorality of communist agitation offend his still-living conscience. He finally responds to that conscience, and begins a further personal journey to where he locates the spiritual comfort he previously lacked: in truth, in family, in working the land, and in religious faith.
   
   Ultimately, Chambers's break with the party compels him to inform on Alger Hiss and others during a Congressional investigation of communist infiltration of the executive branch. Chambers chooses his title of "Witness" advisedly, meaning "witness" in quite the literal, religious sense - a moral compulsion to testify to what he knows, in spite of the danger to himself, in order to help save the world around him. Indeed, Chambers is convinced that he is defecting from the winning to the losing side when he makes his break, but feels he cannot rightly do otherwise.
   
   Popular memory of this period in American history has been, unfortunately, blurred by the excesses of Joe McCarthy. McCarthy's crude and reckless actions have made him a convenient whipping boy for subsequent Hollywood treatments of the Cold War. It is too little remembered that prior to the McCarthy debacle, it was revealed that in fact, there were many communists who had ensconced themselves in the highest levels of the American government, where they practiced a treasonous espionage. The Chambers-Hiss case, much more than the buffoonery of McCarthy, is the truly dramatic and relevant parable of the age.
   
   Much of the final chapters of Witness is told through transcripts of the Congressional hearings. Reading them, one can only wish for a skilled Hollywood treatment of these scenes. The events included every dramatic turn one could hope for - the steady unraveling of a senior State Department official as his lies are exposed on the witness stand, the relentless and skilled probing of Congressional investigators, dramatic personal confrontations, the discovery of critical evidence midway through the proceedings, and even the secreting of classified material in a hollowed-out pumpkin.
   
   What is sobering to realize is that the case would be likely to play out in much the same way today: the press reflexively sided with the urbane, politically-approved Hiss, while the slovenly, seemingly-shady Chambers was subjected to every calumny imaginable. But it turned out that it was the schlub who was actually the man of intelligence and integrity. Appearances are often deceiving.
   
   One thing that leaps out from these pages after the fact is just how pathetically incompetent a liar was Alger Hiss. You follow him weaving and revising and hedging, and not very convincingly. But so blinding were the ascendant political assumptions of the time that he was the one who was initially believed.
   
   One needn't share Chambers's views on politics, religion, or even of the mind of the typical communist subversive, to find his memoir to be a story of surpassing poetry and haunting resonance. Few people have had such an important story to tell in their memoirs, and almost none have told them so lyrically. Few are the books that are virtually impossible to forget. This is one.



5. Ask a group of graduate students, "who was Whittaker Chambers", and the answers range from blank stares to vague memories of someone associated with the witch hunt for communists in the US Government. One of a hundred might remember that the man he accused of being a communist agent was found guilty of perjury, Alger Hiss. As a high ranking official of the Roosevelt administration Hiss was very involved in the tragedy of postwar Europe, the forced return of peoples to the territories now controlled by the Soviet Union and in the formation of the United Nations.
   
   Only decades after the hysterical defenders of Hiss, Rosenberg and others have passed from the stage have serious academic researchers accepted the reality that yes, there was a large group of communists within the United States government and at the top level of the nation's nuclear program.
   
   Surprisingly to many Chambers' involvement in the historic conflict was not related to his position as a senior editor of Time Magazine but rather to a much earlier time when he was the editor of the letters to the editor of the Daily Worker, the magazine of the American Communist party.
   
   Chambers leaves us with an incredibly eloquent autobiography of his travel through these troubled times. The book is a worthwhile acquisition for its introduction alone which is in the form of a letter to his children. Chambers captures the void felt by so many dedicated young people as they leave their parents and complete their higher education. In Chambers' case it was during the turbulent years of the depression when everything relating to our form of government and economic foundation was brought into question.
   
   The author believed he had found his calling in the Communist Party of the USA along with so many other intellectuals. Contrary to the predictions of Marx and others the Party's recruits came largely from the most privileged campuses, not from the most struggling workers both here and in Europe. The struggle that ripped though the movement in the 1930's culminating with Stalin's liquidation of thousands of "unreliable" party members including Trotsky, shook Chambers' faith to the point of his departure from the party.
   
   Chambers's, aware of the many Communist Party faithful working in the Roosevelt administration, attempted a quiet approach to the government and only after 5+ years of its refusal to respond did he take the story public. That triggered famous Chambers / Hiss showdown in the Congressional hearings.
   
   Witness is important as a historical work and a treasure as a personal journal of a man of tremendous conflict, intellect, literary skills and courage. Highly recommended.

5 comments about A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Vintage).

1. Hillary is hard to hate. She is also hard to take. We owe this author and now Mr. Obama for exposing Hillary more fully than we ever thought possible. By golly, she can't hide now. The primary season seems so prolonged and such a waste of money but in some weird way, it works. It shakes the candidates down, shakes them up, and shows them for who they really are. I have never been a fan, but I know that many admirers finally saw her for what she is. I happen to have some compassion and a little sympathy for her, but I can well see that our nation has been very lucky indeed to escape her projected presidency. Much is due to this biography, all well-known facts, but as collected here by an admirer, we see how clumsy and arrogant this woman really is. What an incompetent woman. Isn't it hilarious that she has tried to run as an experienced professional; here we see her as the ham-fisted bully she is.



2. Her US presidential campaign for the 2008 election turned out to be a disaster for her, simply because a dark-horse (Barack Obama) ran much faster than she could. However, she will not give up her life dream. I am sure she is now gearing-up for the 2016 election where this "dark horse" would no longer run after the presumed successful two terms of his US presidency at White House. She could greatly contribute to his cabinet, serving as his VP (vice-president) or Secretary of State or Health with her great expertise. So I trust this 2008 book would be very useful for readers who would follow her foot steps beyond the 2008 election.



3. I bought this book because, as a former strong supporter of the Clintons through all of their thicks and all of their thins, I was alarmed at how angry I am becoming now at their current behavior in the primaries.
   
   It was described as "sympathetic," and I was hoping to find things there to admire in order to take a more moderate view of her and what seemed to me to be an almost pyschopathic campaign designed (at worst) to bring down the Party and or (even at best) to position herself to be the candidate in 2012 by destroying the man who might win in 2008.
   
   That didn't happen. I became more frightened than I was before of what might occur if she is elected president.
   
   There is instance after instance of REALLY bad judgment on her part (for example, when the 1994 loss of congress (considered to be partly due to the highhanded way she treated members of congress and others) forced her to back off from her role as Bill's main advisor, she turned the job over to (guess who?) DICK MORRIS.
   
   And she threatened Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan with dire consequences if they even dared to question her healthcare plan. Then, she refused promising-looking compromises with Republicans that might have given us at least some kind of viable plan. And we have gone almost a decade and a half now with NO PLAN. Bernstein makes a strong point about her refusals to compromise and her arrogance about her own positions being above criticism. Can we really afford 8 years of that.
   
   The scariest part for me was the account of how she took charge of the "bimbo erruptions" by trying to paint Bill's mistresses as "stalkers" so as to dilute the possible effects of eye-witness accounts from people who had seen them together. It is hard for me to believe that feminists aren't disturbed by this bit of doberman-like behavior.
   
   The book is very interesting as a case study of an ambitious flawed woman who has expoxied herself to the fortunes of an equally ambitious, equally flawed man.
   
   But there was NOTHING in it that made me want to live throught 8 more years of wondering when the next shoe was going to drop and questioning how many of my doubts I would have to repress in order to defend them. Again.



4. I found this book to be one of the best written about Hillary Clinton. Carl Bernstein gives a fair and unbiased view of the Senator of New York. It has helped me decide who I will voting for in the presidential election.



5. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1I5MBGRHZYXY8