1 comments about The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. According to its title, the book compiles documents from 1933-1945, the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the contents are strongly tilted toward the 1933-1941 period. Maybe that's justified, given Polenberg's clear focus on domestic social and political issues and given, of course, that the New Deal period consituted more years than World War II. But I felt more than a little disappointed by the brief treatment the war effort received. And the documents pertaining to the war focused largely on Japanese internment and the issue of bombing the concentration camps. These are both important topics and worthy of attention, particularly the latter which I fear is sometimes overlooked (and which is in many ways a telling issue). FDR's Four Freedoms speech is not included, nor the Atlantic Charter, nor the Pearl Harbor speech. The book would definitely have profited from inclusion of these documents and perhaps also of documents pertaining to strategy or military policy.

   Nevertheless, the book has three strong points that make it worthwhile. One, Polenberg includes a wide variety of primary sources: speeches, photographs, Supreme Court decisions, letters, posters, poems, songs, press conferences, etc. The sources also come from a range of people, left and right, "large and small." This makes the book particularly useful as a teaching tool for showing students how to tackle primary documents of all types.

   Two, in the book's imbalance lies its strongest element--it covers the Depression and the New Deal thoroughly, offering new perspectives and carving new dimensions. We hear from the Roosevelts, both Franklin and Eleanor. We read the views of writers John Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair, and of Roosevelt opponents Charles Coughlin and Huey Long. Administration officials provide their opinions on New Deal legislation (including the frequently ignored Federal Theatre Project). Dorothea Lange's photographs depict the misery and poverty of the Depression. Mexican-American, African-American, and Native American viewpoints also receive attention. Polenberg successfully draws documents to paint a multi-dimensional, in-depth portrait of the 1930s.

   And three, Polenberg concludes with a fine bibliography for further reading on the various topics of spanned by the documents.

   All in all, despite the weak coverage of World War II, the book is eminently useful for readers interested in the period and especially for teachers and students. Had Polenberg covered the war years in the same detail as the Depression/New Deal, this would be a thoroughly excellent sourcebook. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile book and could function quite well in an AP history course, or as a complement to reading, say, David Kennedy's Freedom from Fear.

5 comments about My Life: The Early Years.

1. Even though I had the chance to live through the years that Bill Clinton was president, I cannot believe how much of the Clinton years I had forgotten. Bill has a great sense of humor and is a great storyteller with compassion, grace and style. He is one of my favorite presidents of all time. A great read. It made me want to know more about his early years growing up in Arkansas.



2. As someone who has written a lot on Bill Clinton I eagerly awaited the release of his biography. It met most of my expectations although at times he put in far more than I needed to or cared to know. Nigel Hamilton does an excellent job in his early years biography and it matches most of what Clinton talks about here. The need for Bill Clinton to please everyone around him really comes out in his own biography and while I feel he skirts around his disagreement with Carter and does not express the anger that most sources say he felt it is a very honest attempt. I would have liked more details about his college years and meeting Hillary which he jumps past fairly quickly and gets into their political relationship. It is very well written which is to be expected from someone as educated as Bill Clinton.



3. As I said to my fellow authors earlier, Bill's one of us. He's a writer. This isn't about agreeing with his politics, by the way. It's about, as the book title implies, his life. Which, as luck would have it, does feature a whole lot of politics. I can picture professors building courses around this book, and I think that'is probably a good thing. In China we use FORREST GUMP, which is quite good, but in the US let's go for the gold. MY LIFE goes way below the surface.
   
   Bill Clinton has an amazing memory, in addition to detailed notes and journals and such, and he takes us on a very candid journey. It's almost like being an imbedded journalist. We start with a country boy and many southern tales, then move through some "small town hick in the big city" tales that include Oxford and the soul-searching of the Vietnam War years, then finally through his lengthy political career, one year at a time. Campaigns for others, then for himself. A lot of politics when he's in office.
   
   Politics doesn't simply bore me. I find them downright painful. But I must admit that I've wondered where presidents come from. When I was a little boy, I wanted to be a writer, a teacher or perhaps a cop. Or an NFL quarterback, but I realized early on that might be a tad unrealistic. But president? It never occurred to me. Why did it occur to the poor bumbling fat kid from Arkansas? Read his book and you'll know the answer.
   
   I admire anyone who can pull together a wide variety of seemingly contradictory influences into a consistent whole. You've seen me try to do it in this newsletter, and you can see Bill Clinton do it in this book. Those who equate "thinking" with "waffling" just don't get it. Quite probably they quit subscribing to THIS rag ages ago, if they ever found it at all. So I don't write for them. I write for you.
   
   I'm reaching the age where it's getting very hard to find a non-fiction writer older than me writing about events that I find interesting. Bill qualifies. It's very good to watch history unfold through his eyes. The events I lived through and remember, the ones that preceded those, the ones I just plain missed because I was too busy with other things. One of life's little ironies is that I missed some of Bill's efforts to unburden the lower class because I was too busy shouldering that burden.
   
   This is a 957-page monster, folks. It's a big-un, and it's largely narrative. I've been at it for maybe two weeks. There's no law saying you can't take longer. Stop to read something else, come back to it later, whatever. I'm glad I'm reading it. I think you will be too. (It helps to be American.) Heck, I think you already have read it and I'm just preaching to the choir over here. But hey, Mikey likes it.



4. I like a story that takes its time and give me the details to make my own conclusions and that is just what Bill Clinton has done with his book. I didn't vote for him either time he ran for national office and I still enjoyed this book.



5. Okay, so the man didn't exactly need redeeming in my eyes. I thought him a kind of hero before I picked up this book and think of him that way still, though now I have better reasons for it than his public humility, esteem on the world stage, and deft financing of public schools across the country. In his biography, Clinton plies his stock-in-trade, or better, his skill in spades, charm, to his life, both private and political, early and late. When was the last time a public figure acted with such transparency regarding his motives, failures, and frustrations? If he is guilty here of recasting his life favorably, as most biographers eventually are, it is not the usual kind of favoritism that has a large figure becoming mythic, larger-than-life. It is rather that he is uber-authentic, having been born of an alcoholic dad, and living aside an estranged and drug-addicted brother; these snapshots tend to emphasize his claim to the title "the nation's first black president," a street kid who made good through excessive pulling of bootstraps. Larger-than-life is precisely what Clinton is not in this story, but endearingly and precisely life-sized.

5 comments about Churchill.

1. I didn't finish this book. Jenkins just throws his note cards at the hapless reader. The editor was awol. Stick with Gilbert. Alternatively, start with Manchester's unfinished bio (to 1940) & then switch to Churchill's memoirs.



2. This is too long - all biographers should read and learn from Lytton Strachey.
   
   But Churchill's life was so over the top that its nevertheless an enjoyable read; more so with two provisos:
   
   1. You have to be at least constructively disposed to Winston. Better still if you downright adore him, as Roy plainly does.
   
   2. The most lovingly recounted incidents are those that took place in and around parliamentary life, the life that Roy Jenkins himself knew best. Its very, very well told, but if you didn't happen to be an MP yourself you might find it a little too detailed, in the sense that what others might consider to be the main story seems to be lost sight of, sometimes.



3. For several years I have wanted to read a biography on Churchill. This past summer I finally broke down and purchased the 900+ page book written by Roy Jenkins.
   
   It has only taken six months to finish it. True, I had a dissertation to write and exams to study for. But regardless the book was slow going.
   
   The author is a politician and a writer - much like Churchill. Consequently, Jenkins focuses the book on the intricacies of Churchill's political and journalistic careers. Fair enough.
   
   Churchill's political life and to a lesser extent his various literary endeavors are key to understanding Britain's greatest prime minister. But the details, though interesting, slowly wear down the resolve of the reader.
   
   For example, the beginning and ending of the book flows well as Churchill's family heritage and retirement are explored; in other words, the parts of Churchill's life which are the least political and literary.
   
   Yet by the time we reach his parliamentary career and the two world wars the book descends into minute detail. Minute details about his toast filled summits with Stalin - interesting. Minute details about his administration of the Admiralty - not so much.
   
   Further, he dedicates a surprisingly small amount of space to some very important events - such as the Battle of Britain.
   
   Yet, to be fair, Jenkins provides an excellent overview of Churchill's life. It is also inevitable that certain areas of interest to the reader will not coincide with that of the author.
   
   Indeed, the biographer's experience in British politics provides rare insights: the great PM's great ambition was getting power, using power and retaining power. So, the way Jenkins skillfully dissects and interprets Churchill's various power struggles makes the book worth reading.
   
   Summary: The book is a great introduction to Churchill, with a special focus on his political and literary careers. Yet the combination of the books length and the author's devotion to great detail could prove fatal to the unmotivated.
   
   I would recommend the book to anyone interested in 20th century history, modern British history and of course Churchill. But I would recommend that the reader take long breaks between each of the six sections.



4. Think Robert Kosowsky's review is pretty much on the mark.
   
   Historical events are not presented except in relation to timing and political positioning by Churchill and others. For example, if you don't know about the Dardenelles operation of WW1, this book will not help you. Despite the final line of the book, this is not uncritical of Churchill and at times makes him appear to be motivated by politics as much as anything else (the author was a MP and in the Cabinet so was a political animal too). This does not ring entirely false as it makes it easier to understand his switching of political parties. And this makes it a good counter to Churchill's own books which are at times clearly self-serving.



5. This was a fine biography on Churchill. At its heart, this book is a comprehensive political summary of one of the world's best politicians. Jenkins does a great job of surrounding the moment with context and analysis. His mastery of British politics is unreal.
   
   With all that said, the book did have a few flaws. First, it was hard to grasp the ins and outs of the British political process which Jenkins discusses at great lengths (this could be my fault as I am an American). Second, there was not enough character development. Jenkins references countless people, but does not take the time to highlight, or bring about, who ultimately has a major role. To this end, I feel there was a certain extent of "name-dropping" in the tome. At times, this made the book harder to navigate through with ease. Finally, I don't know French or Afrikaans, or Latin. So those phrases in foreign languages fell upon deaf ears (or perhaps blind eyes is the more appropriate description).
   
   Overall, a great book. I enjoyed Jenkins mastery of the subject matter, and his writing is fantastic. I have not read other Churchill bios before, but would certainly recommend this to a history buff.

5 comments about Jacqueline Kennedy : The White House Years: Selections from the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum.

1. 
   Oh let me count the ways I adore this book! It has large pictures in full color of Jackie's dresses and the details about the occasion she wore them to. I really like how it shows one dress on each page letting you take in the beauty of each dress rather that multiple pics on one page. I think it is a superb buy if you enjoy pretty things like I do. Perfect coffee table book.



2. Beautiful photographs of the dresses, suits, coats, hats and gowns worn by Jackie before and during the White House years. Descriptions of the fabrics and the construction of each garment reveal the thought and attention to detail that this most stylish of our first ladies gave to her clothing. No fashion victim was she. It is clear from the narrative that Jackie had a perfect sense of who she was and a definite idea of how she wanted to look. Amazing when one considers she was only 31 when she entered the White House. Truly deserving of her iconic status.



3. Presented as a fashion journal, this book is surprisingly insightful of Jackie's personality, charisma and intelligence. It is a presentation of her poise and strength as an influence on the nation (and the world,) both politically and artistically. Personally, looking back on those years, I am able to see and understand the changes within our society based on the Kennedys aesthetic. I highly recommend this book as a review of the times when we as a nation were in Camelot.



4. A refreshing look at Jackie Kennedy through the White House years when her unique style mesmerized a nation. Oleg Cassini may have helped create the distinctive looks but Jackie did have a knack of making herself her very own style masterpiece. A collage of images that celebrate the colors and clothes of Camelot.



5. Excellent EVERYTHING!!!
   A must for jackie AND caroline fans...i figure she did a lot for this and chose some GREAT photos...esp. the last one, in my humble opinion.
   THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY!!!
   I LOVE IT!!! and was shocked when i actually saw it after the few not-so appreciative reviews.
   TOP SHELF BOOK/TOMB.
   THANKS to everyone who was behind putting this out. As my grandmother would say about such a great book, "It lifts you up." (she said that about the Sotheby's Auction catalog of JBKO's Estate.
   THANKS and LOVE TO ALL!!!

5 comments about The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives (Penguin Classics, L286).

1. This is a wonderful book. The translations by Prof. Scott-Kilvert are lively and interesting, especially for undergraduates. But the book is a pain in the neck to use because the editors have not thought it necessary to include an index. I have had to do one myself on the life of Alexander for my students who are using the book in tandem with Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander and Quintus Curtius (both of which are your books, Penguin, and both of which have indexes!).
   
   Penguin, you have tarted up all your other books with new covers, and you have jacked up the prices accordingly, so when you get around to Alexander, who, after all, is the selling point of this eponymous tome, please include an index so that the book will become useful as well as entertaining.
   
   Thank you.



2. The biographies of nine Greek statesmen in this book are perfectly representative for the eternal battle between tyranny (oligarchy) and democracy, between oppression and freedom, between the few and the many, between the haves and the have-nots. The fighting took place within the Greek city States, but also among themselves and in foreign countries, because the oligarchs (tyrants) tried to export their political system. To make things worse, the tyrants fought among themselves, for `greed is the congenital disease of dynasties'.
   This relentless fighting was a disaster for Greece and its population: `Alas, for Greece, how many brave men have you killed with your own hands.'
   After all those suicidal wars, at the end of the book, Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, is confronted with a new and formidable imperial power, Rome.
   
   This book contains some astonishing historical corrections. E.g., not all Spartans were killing machines: `those who had shown cowardice in the battle ... had become so numerous that it was feared they might stir up a revolution.' (!)
   It shows us Plutarch as a severe critic of the few (`kings set an example of bad faith and treachery ... and believe that the man who shows the least regard for justice will always reap the greatest advantage'), on the side of the many (` (`it s wrong both in human and political terms to try to raise the standard in one section of society by demoralizing another') and as a `dove' (`expansion is superfluous to the well-being of a city').
   All in all, it was a period of extreme barbarism. `Dynasties are full of men who murdered their sons, their mothers and their wives, while the murder of brothers had come to be regarded as a recognized precaution to be taken by all rulers to ensure their safety.'
   The mother of Alexander the Great, Olympias, took revenge on another widow of his father by roasting her and her infant son.
   
   This book is a must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.



3. Although Plutarch saves his best energy for the Romans, as a Greek citizen of the empire he could not help but produce some very fine essays on the great men from his homeland's glory days. In this Penguin volume some of the best are collected together. These are all "lives" from the period of the "Diadochi," the military successors to Alexander's legacy. There is one special feature this volume has that others in this valuable series do not: a dramatis personae of the main players in the dynastic struggles surrounding the death of Alexander. While the life of Alexander is the centerpiece to the collection, the lives of his generals who carried on after him are just as compelling reading. Filled with obsevations on character and moral philosophy, as all Plutarch's biographical writings are, these are some of the most entertaining stories in classical Western literature. As an example, the "Life of Pyrrhus" is absolutely priceless as a portrait of the fierce but frustrated warmonger with his weird visage and his penchant for performing miracles by placing his foot on the spleen of sick people. Plutarch employs humor and a sense of irony as he describes this brilliant general's character and career, the meandering leader who took on the early Romans for control of Italy. He provided an enduring lesson in the rise of the great republic, a lesson we all can learn from, in his all-too-hollow victories. As a matter of cultural literacy, this volume is full of information that educated people should know, and so I strongly recommend it to history students and literature students as well as philosophy students.



4. Plutarch in his "Lives Of The Noble Grecians And Romans" written around 100 C.E., sheds new light on Greek and Roman history from their Bronze Age beginnings, shrouded in myth, down through Alexander and late Republican Rome. Plutarch is the lens that we use today to view the Greco-Roman past; his work has shaped our perceptions of that world for 2,000 years. Plutarch writes of the rise of Roman Empire while Gibbon uses his scholarship to advance the story to write about its decline. He was a proud Greek that was equally effected by Roman culture, a Delphic priest, a leading Platonist, a moralist, educator and philosopher with a deep commitment as a first rate writer. Being a Roman citizen, Plutarch was afforded the opportunity to become an intimate friend to prominent Roman citizens and a member of the literary elite in the court of Emperor Trajan.
   
   Plutarch's influence and enormous popularity during and after the Renaissance is legendary among classicist. Plutarch's "Lives", served as the sourcebook for Shakespeare's Roman Plays "Julius Caesar", "Antony and Cleopatra" and "Coriolanus". By the way Plutarch is even the only contemporary source of all the biographical information on Cleopatra, whom he writes about in his biographies of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid. In fact all the founding fathers of note had read Plutarch and learned much from his fifty biographies of noble men of Greece and Rome. When Hamilton, Jay and Madison write "The Federalist Papers" they use many examples of good and bad leadership traits that they read in Plutarch's work. His biographies are a great study in human character and what motivates leaders to decide and act the way they do, this masterpiece has proven to be still prescient today.
   
   If you are truly interested in a classical education, put this book on the top of your list! I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.



5. Plutarch was a Greek scholar living in the Roman Empire. He was not a historian, per se, but rather a biographer who used the lives of famous Greeks and Romans to illustrate strengths and weaknesses of character, how they impacted events, and how events impacted them. He wrote his biographies in pairs, matching a Greek and Roman whose lives, in his view, exemplified common traits or themes. His pairings being generally rather superficial, Penguin has chosen to publish the individual "Lives" in chronological groupings. The nine presented in "The Age Of Alexander" include Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great along with those of eight famous Greeks from the same period.

   Writing during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, Plutarch was already dealing with people from hundreds of years in his past. Fortunately for us, as his writing shows, he still had a lot of evidence to draw on. Frequently mentioned are contemporary accounts and, in the case of Alexander, letters written by Alexander himself, which apparently still existed in Plututarch's time. Sometimes he cites more than one source in cases where accounts disagree. The richness of Plutarch's sources is valuable because so much of that ancient source material is now lost.

   Plutarch is at his best in describing dramatic events and when commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of his subjects. As reading material, this book could hardly be called a "page-turner" in the contemporary sense of that term, but you don't have to be a student of history to appreciate the dramatic, and often violent, nature of the times and of the lives of the men covered in this collection. Only one of them died in bed. Life was often violent and short, and the violence was gratuitous. A man whose deeds were out of favor might well be treated to the sight of his family being executed before being dispatched himself.

   Personally, I'm more a fan of Roman history than the Greeks (although Alexander is certainly a fascinating character), and the Greeks covered in this book are generally much less familiar to me than those of the Romans contained in other volumes. Nevertheless, this is classic literature of a high order. Plutarch is a great storyteller, and his insightful and anecdotal style is never dull. Further, his work is one of those rare examples of ancient writing and scholarship that have survived, and in that sense alone his "Lives" are a treasure. "The Age Of Alexander" isn't the easiest reading you'll find, but it is both interesting and rewarding. It's probably not everyone's cup of tea, but give it a try. You may just find it as enjoyable as I do.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.



2. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



5. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

2 comments about One Man Great Enough: Abraham Lincoln's Road to Civil War.

1. A basic history of Abraham Lincoln's political journey from Illinois to Washington, D.C. Nothing in this book will be a surprise to dedicated readers on the Civil War era.
   
   The author writes in a folksy style, sourcing quotes from local press accounts of the time, memoirs, and early Lincoln biographies. Mr. Waugh uses the Little Giant, Senator Douglas, and his long-time and somewhat unusual relationship to the up-and-coming Lincoln as a common thread throughout his book.
   
   Not broad or deep scholarship, but worth reading for one in need of an introduction to, or reminder of, the greatness embodied in the one who finally ended slavery within our land.



2. There are a raft of Lincoln books published seemingly every year. Each author has a slightly different take on the Great Emancipator, seeing him in a slightly different light. Most think him as great as the name implies, nad I tend to agree. So does the author of this current book, who takes a look at Lincoln's political philosophy, especially as it relates to the issue of slavery. Author Waugh spends only a little time dealing with incidents in Lincoln's life: his marriage, the death of his son, and so forth are all dealt with very cursorily. His father's death is only mentioned in passing, when the author is recounting something that happened a decade later. The majority of the space in this book follows Lincoln's transformation from a Whig who had only vague opposition to the institution of slavery into an abolitionist of sorts who had very definite views about pretty much every aspect of the issue.
   
   I've never read a book by John C. Waugh before. On one or two occasions, people have recommended books by him to me, and I think I have a copy of one of his books floating around here somewhere, but I never did get to it. This book crossed my path, and the time was right so I read it. I have to say I think I'm going to have to find that other book, because this volume is very well-written and interesting. I really enjoyed it.

1 comments about Public Pillars/Private Lives: The Strengths and Limitations of the Modern American Presidents.

1. An outstanding work that is both engaging and readable! Historians will value its accuracy and scholarly analysis, while average Americans can appreciate its interesting explanations and insights into historical events surrounding presidents FDR through George W. Bush. It is unique among presidential treatments because its authors treat each president through biography, positive assessment, and negative assessment separately. Thus, its genius is the "balanced approach."
   
   Particularly noteworthy is the exceptional chapter on Nixon that captures the tension between a highly apt yet paranoid leader. There is an additional, special study depicting both the drama and the background of the 2004 presidential election. A great "read" for any interested in these modern political figures or just interested in reading about America over the last 70 years.

5 comments about Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President.

1. I hate George Bush almost as much as I hate my ex wife, venereal disease, child rapists, Nazis, litterers, termites, cancer, real estate agents, collection agents, rich people, stupid people, dishonest people, and graffiti "artists". I always have since the first moment I ever saw him. I could tell this was a spoilt, rich brat that would never be asked to do anything at all difficult, yet would have all. My god, I cannot believe he became president. But of course, he had more than just a little bit of help. (thanks to Choicepoint, Diebold, and the US Surpremely stupid court - "but, if they have the recount and it shows more voters preferred Gore, it will be difficult for Bush to retain the presidency" - Scalia)
   
   Anyway, I love to read anything that confirms my biases, just as everyone else who is a lazy reader/thinker (I am not always lazy, but I am sometimes). I did not find that to be the case for this book. I found that I was starting to like "W" as I read it. I was very surprised. He is a human, after all. This is not a book for the bush haters.
   
   I would love to see a movie, or maybe a made for TV mini-series about the Bushes. People need to know in a way that will make them care and understand how we let this guy get away with everything, short of murder (that is if you exclude murder-by-proxy of millions of the poor and dark skinned, here and abroad). The financial stuff is really compelling. How did he invest $200K in the Texas Rangers, and take out $130M? Was that not really just a bribe? Just how stupid do you think we all are? How about his double insider trading with Harkin Oil? He scooped all the insiders by knowing that daddie was going to start his war and that the oil leases would be valuless, out he sold, not even any of the other insiders knew about. Man, you and I would be in prison still if we pulled those things off. Raiding the University of Texas trust for $400M. That is classic. A great crook to have working for you. To bad, he is not nor did he ever work for anyone except his own trifling self and his elite circle. America? Hah! Well, it is all clear to everyone now. Let's not make this mistake again.
   
   Enough of that, this book will improve your opinion of Bush, no matter what you think. You will be surprised. Well written, we researched, well balanced. Now, where did I put my Molly Ivins book?



2. I was impressed with the fact that this book reported positives as well as negatives. Although the forward was over the top, the actual book is pretty balanced and believable. A documentary about the author (who later committed suicide)quoted him as saying that Karl Rove was his major source. The fact that they managed to get this book not just taken off the market, but burned (!) shows the power of the machine that originally got Bush elected. Long may they stew.



3. This book caused a big controversey when it was released. Neo-cons said it was a smear job, but strangely enough mainstream type liberals didn't over do it with their enthusiasm and Bush bashing when this came out. The original publisher ended up balking at releasing it. The author was smeared, attacked and after a while turned up dead under very shady circumstances. Knowing what I know about the Bush families history I expected a lot more because after reading this I was shocked at how LITTLE dirt there was on Bush in this. You really get nothing more than Bush was a mediocre student, he had a drinking problem for several years, he MIGHT have went awol from the National Guard and he MIGHT have done a lot coke. There was so much that was left out of this that I don't even know where to begin.
   
   Overall this book is worth checking out from the library and reading but I wouldn't buy it. Webster Tarpleys book about Poppy Bush and American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips would be better choices if your researching the Bush crime family.



4. This Book is great, I am very much into politics and I find that this book kept me on the edge of my seat. The Amount of coruption that this family has is astonishing. To think that someone of George W. Bush's stature can be our leader leaves hope to just about anyone. In the book it explains that President Bush's Grandfather had connections to Nazi camps and I find that to be awful. The book is well written and contains some valuable information about President Bush. Read it for yourself You won't be disappointed.



5. To my great surprise, this was not at all the "Bush bashing book" I expected and had been forewarned it would be. Hatfield is (was) a very mature professional, who carefully backed up all of his facts, and appeared to have no personal animus towards GW (as say a Molly Ivins does). He lets the facts fall where they may, and when they fell, we see a rather unflattering picture of our 43rd President.
   
   I for one do not care whether the President used cocaine or abused alcohol at some point in his life. Nor do I care that Mr. Hatfield was an ex-con and drug addict. I do care whether the law treats him and the President the same as anyone else who commits a crime, and whether or not he (or the President) is a solid respectable human being willing to carry his weight as a private citizen and as a patriot.
   
   As best we can tell, the evidence is that the jury is still out on this question about our President. There is a consensus among writers that the young Bush was headed down a path to self-destruction, one that would have undoubtedly consumed a less "fortunate son" -- especially if he had been one of color.
   
   Now, it seems that GW is trying to "live down" his past, as we all have to do to some extent. But he squandered so much of his own personal and intellectual development during his hell raising years, that he has no resources left to draw on as President and thus has had to fall back heavily on his staff to rescue him. So now, he is "winging it," and it is excruciatingly painful to watch; and our nation is paying a heavy price for his "youthful indiscretions."
   
   Hatfield's rendition of Bush's lacksidasical approach to life as a young man, foretold what he would be like as a president. In my view, this is one of the most important benefits and the greatest value of the book. And if one thinks about it, its prescience is in fact the best evidence of its solidity and honesty.
   
   The subtexts of this book are many. One is that taking the shortcut down the path of privilege is no panacea even if you are white and privileged in racist America. For sure, privilege has many advantages, but it has some very distinct disadvantages too. As is the case in nations with monarchies, if you walk down the path of royalty, then you carry the responsibilities and expectations that go with being a royal.
   
   Unlike his father, GW's flaws are all on display for everyone to see. He has nowhere to hide and Hatfield called his life just as it is being played out. Sorry Hatfield had to be "committed to suicide" for being honest in democratic America.
   
   Five stars.

5 comments about Grace and Power: The Private World of the Kennedy White House.

1. Grace & Power has to be one of my favorite non fiction pieces. I originally borrowed it from my local library, and once finished, decided I wanted a hardback copy for my own collection. Grace & Power walks its reader through almost every day in the Kennedy Whitehouse paying close attention to detail. One begins to feel like a fly on the wall of every ball, press conference and tete-a-tete. For anyone who has a fascination with the Kennedy family, or politics in general, this is a must read. Thank you Sally Bedell Smith!



2. Don't look for an in depth analysis of policies or events. Instead, look for in depth analysis of the parties and the social scene. The book does give slightly more insight on some of the key interpersonal relationships. It also carves a picture of Jackie as being much stronger than others. You get more of a sense of her grace, intelligence, and grit.



3. Although Sally Bedell Smith's "Grace and Power" cannot compete with Arthur Schlesinger's "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House" nor with Theodore Sorenson's "The Kennedy Legacy," the author makes absolutely no pretensions of doing so. Far from a political history of the Kennedy years, Ms. Smith has drawn on private letters, personal papers and 142 interviews with those close to John F. and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy to illuminate the personal lives of the martyred president and his First Lady. Her take on the couple's complex relationship, including his compulsion to take numerous lovers and her manner of coping with this problem, are mainstays here.
   
   The book reads like an upscale Kitty Kelly bio. It is filled with sensational gossip, character sketches of glorious personalities, and fascinating anecdotes of the people and events that made the Kennedy years so exciting. Ms. Smith is an excellent raconteur who has done her research and written a nonfiction "tell all" that reads like a best-selling novel. But it is not what I would call a serious biography.
   
   Sally Bedell Smith has also written biographies of Princess Diana and Pamela Churchill Harriman and has been a contributing editor at Vanity Fair for about ten years.
   
   If you are a "Kennedy junkie" and want to read about the 20th century Camelot, this is a book you will love. If you are looking for excellent political history, go elsewhere. I did enjoy "Grace and Power: The Private World of the Kennedy White House," and though I was an adolescent during the magical time JFK was in office, it brought back memories of the president and first lady I idolized. On the other hand, there are things I wish had never been made public. And it is all made public here!
   JANA



4. What a unique way to weave the story of the politics, history, friendships, relationships, marriage into one finely written work. It's as if you can pick any day from January 1961 to Nov 25, 1963 and there, as if opening a long forgotten datebook, is the gem containing an intimate picture of a special family party, a state dinner, a cruise on the Honey Fitz, Jackie's White House school--name it, if it's personal and human (yet without judgement) you'll find it in Sally Bedell Smith's cultural/social history of the Kennedy years. It's not all fine dining and socializing because important history and the toll it takes is playing out all the while--a deft tapesty!



5. Washington insider and biographer Sally Bedell Smith opens the doors to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the Kennedy administration. This is a revealing look at the private passions, joys, griefs and lives of those people who were stars
   in the Kennedy court. We also get a good look at Jack Kennedy and
   his wife Jackie. Those readers expecting a tabloidish perusal will be disappointed. This is a serious book and deals with
   the major obstacles faced by Kennedy in his short term prior to
   the tragedy of Dallas. We learn:
   how Kennedy dealt with Khrushchev; the Bay of Pigs and Cuban
   Missle Crisis; the burgeoning furor over integration and the
   relationship Kennedy developed with his staff and Congress.
   We learn about the lives and opinions of such key Kennedy loyalists as Bob McNamara; LBJ; Dean Rusk. We are invited to
   the Kennedy compound where we become better acquainted with that
   fascinating family. US involvement in Vietnam following the overthrow of Diem is also discussed with intelligent commentary,
   Jack Kennedy was brilliant. He was also ill with many problems most notably his Addison's disease. Kennedy was a notorious womanizer who was amoral! The press of the day did not reveal his many affairs with everyone from Marilyn Monroe to White House secretaries. Jack Kennedy was not a nice man!
   Jackie was a jet setter who loved to spend money on clothes, travel and shopping sprees. She was also highly intelligent, engineered much needed White House renovation and was a plus on
   diplomatic jaunts abroad. In Paris she talked fluent French with De Gaulle and represented the US well in trips to such places as
   India.
   This is a fine book for those seeking more knowledge of the Kennedy White House. Along with the book by Richard Reeves it is a good introduction to John Kennedy and the 1000 days this modern day Prince Arthur and his Guineviere reigned over America.