5 comments about Eisenhower: Soldier and President (The Renowned One-Volume Life).

1. This is a great biography on an underrated president, and a very easy read. Ambrose is wonderful in being able to pick out the key incidents and describe the Ike's policies without delving into the everyday details that bog down Robert Caro's biographies. Also, while Ambrose doesn't hide his admiration for Ike, he does reflect critically upon his subject, particularly his slow reaction to civil rights and McCarthy, and his inability to stem the arms race.
   
   Part of Ike's genius was projecting a reassuring calm, while acting to keep all of his options open. For example, he never ruled out using atomic weapons against China in the Korean War or Quemoy Island dispute, but because he kept this option open the Chinese backed down. He was tough, but always left a way out for opponents to back down and save face. Some have wondered whether he truly ranks as a great president because he had no major crisis to face, but I believe Ambrose is right when he says preventing war and managing crises well is perhaps an even greater achievement. I have read many presidential biographies, but have rarely felt that any other president matches the maturity and self-confidence of Ike (George H.W. Bush is another president I think had Ike's maturity in managing the presidency). The difference between Ike in Ambrose's book and the childish pronouncements and discussions of the current Bush administration is startling.
   
   Having said that, I would have been interested in a bit of a longer biography, particularly more details on Ike's use of the CIA in Iran (very relevant today). This has been a very controversial aspect of his presidency and seems somewhat out of character for someone who opposed Israel and Britain during the Suez Canal crisis. Also, we get very little of the cabinet, perhaps because Ike relied on them less than other presidents did - even John Foster Dulles is discussed only where necessary. Ike seems to largely have used his cabinet to give him information, not make decisions. (can you imagine a book about Johnson without a central role for McNamara or Nixon without Kissinger?)
   
   Overall, this is a great book, and will hopeful get more Americans to ponder the presidency and whom we want to sit in the Oval Office.



2. This is a very good biography of one of our greatest generals and our 34th president. It begins with Dwight Eisenhower's upbringing in turn-of-the-century Kansas. Ike attended West Point, but did not see combat in World War I. His commanding officers in the Army during the interwar years saw that he had great talent, and Eisenhower was ultimately given command of the Allied forces in World War II. The sense of confidence and optimism that Ike was able to engender in those he commanded helped make D-Day a success.
   
   After the war, he became president of Columbia University. He was elected president in 1952, and gained an armistice in the Korean War six months after he took office. While he was in the White House, Ike presided over many years of peace and prosperity, maintaining a growing economy while avoiding budget deficits and inflation. He instituted the Interstate Highway System, but did not act as strongly as he could have on civil rights. Ambrose believed that Eisenhower's caution was an asset in foreign policy but was problematic for his domestic policy.
   
   The book relates that after he left the presidency, Eisenhower was hawkish on Vietnam and advised LBJ to be more aggressive in his attempts to win the war.
   
   Ambrose made no secret of the fact that he was an Eisenhower admirer, but managed to cover pretty fairly both the strengths and weaknesses of Ike's service as general and president. Americans should be grateful for Eisenhower's hand in ending the sinister Nazi regime and for keeping America safe and prosperous during a decade, the Fifties, that was far more dangerous than most members of Generations X and Y realize.



3. Unless John McCain wins in November, it will be too long before we have our next military hero turned president. They used to all be this way, especially following the Civil War---Democrat and Republican.
   
   Not sure about those reviewers who deemed this a hagiogrpahy or the writing "pedestrian"; the book is thorough, balanced and erudite. I commend the late Mr. Ambrose for such a wonderful portrait of one of America's great leaders in the two most important places: the battlefields and the Oval Office. They surely don't make 'em like Ike anymore (Barack H. Obama?).
   
   The book is long but not exhaustingly long, goes through his humble heartland childhood, early military life, wartime commands, presidency and beyond. Ambrose looks deep into Ike with letters and meetings never read or seen before. What more can one ask for, especially for me as a military historian? Even the descriptions of battles in WW2 are dead on.
   
   I also admire Ambrose for dedicating this book "TO THE MEN OF D-DAY." Again, if even a professor alive today could scribe so eloquently, these losers would be more likely to dedicate a book to Malcolm X or some Hollywood leftist who fought for "the rights of the oppressed." No respect for America or the military, but I digress...
   
   Read the book. It's objective, analytical and important. I will pass it on to my friends and family, so they can better understand our world and thus make the correct judgments and decisions down the road.
   
   Some Americans like to forget history. Shame on them. As Peggy Noonan said of Sen. Obama recently:
   
   America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.



4. Informative and easy to read.
   He looks at the subject from many angles and delivers a complete picture of the realities in IKE's world. I personally learned a lot not only about Eisenhower but about WWII, about the times at which he served and about the Cold War. A great book.



5. Stephen Ambrose is certainly among the finest contemporary historians in print. And while he has authored several very good biographies, in my opinion, his best work has been chronicling historic events as opposed to the lives of the participants. His works on the Lewis and Clark expedition and the construction of the transcontinental railroad far surpass any of his biographies. Perhaps this is merely coincidence, though there is certainly a difference in each endeavor.
   
   This particular work is a condensation of an earlier two volume effort. In that respect, it is perfectly adequate and probably more enjoyable than the longer and more detailed work. I can't imagine anything that was not included that I would need to know.
   
   Ambrose is certainly an Eisenhower fan, however this does not prevent him from clearly pointing out many of his mistakes and errors, both in the context of his life as Army general and as President. But, while he points out these instances, and many are quite glaring, he nevertheless, unhesitantly, seems to give him an over all pass.
   
   Leadership is a word used quite often by Ambrose in describing Eisenhower. However, in many instances, it is not leadership, but effective administration that proved to be his strongest suit. His ability to serve effectively as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was more a reflection of his ability to compromise and placate the many different factions involved than it was an indication of leadership, though leadership was certainly involved.
   
   This differentiation became more stark when Eisenhower became President. Leadership becomes more difficult when the followers aren't required by law and army regulations to comply. As President, Eisenhower many times not only failed to display leadership, he quite clearly abrogated responsibility entirely.
   
   In my opinion, Eisenhower's most lasting legacy was steering the country through some of the most turbulent periods of the Cold War without ever having to resort to military power. This at a time when many, if not most, of his advisors were counseling nuclear attack!
   
   It was in the area of civil rights, however, that Ike was most suspect. I try to be very careful in judging historical personages by current standards. To do so is usually unfair. In this case, however, at a time when very many political and social contemporaries were taking stands, Eisenhower disappeared. A case can be made for finessing the issue during the 1956 Presidential campaign, but his failure to "lead" thereafter can only be a tacit endorsement of segregation. Instead of "leading", Eisenhower tried to compromise and bring the parties together, using the same methods that had worked for him in Europe. This was not "leadership", it was abrogation of responsibility.
   
   Perhaps the most distasteful areas of he book are those that attempt to whitewash Eisenhower's relationship with his Army secretary Kay Sommersby. No intelligent human being can doubt that Eisenhower had a sexual relationship with Sommersby, however Ambrose goes through great pains and historical gymnastics to argue that though Ike was infatuated with Sommersby, had multiple opportunities to pursue her sexually, that she was undoubtedly willing and that all the officers around him were conducting extra marital affairs, Ike was innocent of adultery. One of his most laughable assertions was that he simply didn't have time or opportunity to have sex with Sommersby. Shortly thereafter, he documents a train trip to a Mediterranian resort on which Sommersby and several other "army girlfriends" accompanied the staff. At one point, he cites as proof, the fact that he attempted intercourse, but was "flaccid". Please. Simply acknowledge the fact and move on. I don't think any less of Ike's achievements because he had a girlfriend while at war. Ambrose seems to believe that doing so would somehow diminish him in the eyes of many, when instead it would more likely paint him as more human and subject to the same desires and faults as everyone else. I suspect very few will swallow Ambrose's assertions in this area.
   
   Nevertheless, if you're interested in a comprehensive biography on Eisenhower, this is a very good place to go for it.

5 comments about Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship.

1. As noted by author Jon Meacham, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt's first meeting at Gray's Inn in 1918 was not a success. Roosevelt, 36 at the time disliked Churchill's brusqueness.
   It wasn't until 21 years later when Roosevelt wrote to the Lord of the Admiralty in reference to the German invasion of Poland that we see the start of a long friendship and political alliance.
   As Meacham states, Roosevelt was indeed the supreme politician. Winston was the warmer human being. This is a friendship of great magnitude. Both men were addicted to tobacco and favored strong drink, battleships, pageantry, high office and were great orators. Both of them possessed large egos, They both demanded nothing but the best from their subordinates.
   In the end Roosevelt held all the cards and was able to get the desired results of the War. Great Britain despite their loyalty to the Allied cause became in the end a second tier power in the postwar World. Roosevelt passes from the scene in 1945. Winston goes on to fight the demons of the Cold War.
   Meacham goes into depth in this rather awkward relationship. It is a friendship which should be studied and in the end respected for the results it gave. I commend Mr. Meacham on a perceptive analysis of a remarkable political alliance which affected mankind. Great job! Five Stars.



2. Jon Meacham has woven a beautiful account of these two great characters from a most human and emotional perspective. Meecham doesn't just historically replay events, he gets us inside these two great men and allows us to share in their emotional connections with the war, their families, politics, and each other. Doing this on two men at the same time is a special treat afforded by the voluminous resources available on these particular men and their interaction with each other. The ability to peer into the inner workings of two great minds during the same shared experiences is like having special powers that Franklin and Winston, who were always wondering what each other was thinking, would have enjoyed immensely.
   
   WWII is unquestionably a dramatic current that keeps the pages turning but this book is, as the author clearly states, not an academic history book on the events of WWII or even the historical conferences between Franklin, Winston and later Stalin. This book is about humanity. I found myself shedding tears at the death of Franklin because Meecham exposed the personal sense of loss Winston (and others) felt in a way that even Winston could not convey in tributes to Franklin.
   
   This book wasn't written to expose historical events, historical event collectors will be disappointed. The book exposes historical thoughts and emotions, courage and insecurities, uncertainty and stubbornness, loneliness and the joy of making genuine connections with others. This a different kind of history, one that might seem inherently speculative if it weren't for Meecham's extensive reliance on reliable sources. His references are almost 1/3 the book and are primarily Franklin, Winston, or friends and family that were immediately present and close to subjects. I'm extremely uncomfortable with whimsical author speculation and always felt comfortable with this book.
   
   I came away with little new knowledge about historical events, but a much closer personal understanding of these two men. Well worth the trip.



3. Knowing how WWII was one of the greatest upheavals of human history, I've been a buff for years and recommend this great book to all who are also fascinated by this period. Getting a "behind the scenes" glimpse of world events is a special treat; theirs was truly a unique relationship and one arrives at a better understanding thanks to this excellent use of source materials and narrative, by Jon Meacham. I hated to come to the end of the marvelous book.



4. These were this century's two most powerful wetern leaders. One had already dragged his country out a terrible financial morass and was faced with a looming conflict which would have terrible consequences for the world. The other had served honorably in opposition to appeasements offered up by misguided politicans more eager to avoid conflict than to stave off War. It was a time of giants. This book helps us understand how these two giants related, the one to the other.



5. This well written but superficial survey of the FDR/Churchill relationship, is most disappointing. For anyone who has read independently about FDR and about Churchill, there is nothing new here, no interesting new facts, no interesting new insights. Unfortunately, this felt like a book written just to write a book. It is possible, I suppose, that for a reader entirely ignorant about WWII and the role of the two English speaking leaders, there may be some value here.

5 comments about Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (Eminent Lives).

1. If you need an extremely well-written, concise, sympathetic, balanced and reasonably complete introduction to Thomas Jefferson, Hitchens has produced just the thing. Hitchens does particularly well where Thomas Jefferson's views mesh with his own - namely on religion and the disestablishment thereof. Hitchens does not hide Jefferson's many flaws but rather emphasises that first and foremost Jefferson was a man, not some disembodied icon. What others might see as Jefferson's hypocrasies, Hitchens sees as inconsistiencies or as a willingness to be opportunistic. Hitchens lauds Jefferson's victory in separating church and state and in establishing the United States as a continental force.
   
   Hitchens sees Jefferson as an extraordinarily talented writer and a man attuned to the longer view. Less clear is Jefferson's failure to grasp the realities of the emergent US economy and his personal stakes in a slave-fueled plantation economy. The brevity of the book (and perhaps Hitchens own blind spots) leaves this subject and Jefferson's own profligacy largely unexplored.
   
   The great tragedy Hitchens highlights is that for all that Jefferson transcended in helping to establish a republic based on human rights and natural law, he was unable to or chose not to deal with the wolf of slavery. He sees Jefferson's handling of slavery issues, especially when he was in a position to do something about it, as a deep flaw.
   
   Overall, I think Hitchens is too forgiving of Jefferson's flaws as a person, a politician and as an aristocrat but he leaves the reader plenty of room to have a conversation about this intriguing and paradoxical man.
   
   One aside: Hitchens uses none of his famous acid writing on Jefferson but he does remind us of what he can do when he lets himself go. The most obvious victim is Dumas Malone and his 6 volume biography of Jefferson. Hitchens describes (p181) Jefferson's creation of a philosophic bible, as Jefferson's "profane exercise of cutting up the holy book with a razor blade and throwing away all the superfluous, ridiculous, and devotional parts." Then adds paranthetically, "This is an exercise that I have long wanted to repeat in the case of the multivolume hagiography of Jefferson himself, penned so laboriously by Dumas Malone." I guess Hitchens simply couldn't resist.
   
   There is no bibliography or index, but the acknowledgement provides a good summary of Hitchens' sources.



2. In his excellent book concerning Mother Teresa titled "The Missionary Position," Hitchens expertly compiled a wealth of shocking facts pertaining to that demagogue's less than admirable history that made for an exciting and informative read. Writing of one of America's finest founding icons, Hitchens has considerably less of note to convey, and there are no astounding revelations to be found in this rather slim volume.
   
   As usual, Hitchens' prose is quite fine, if unexceptional. His appreciation of Jefferson's character and accomplishments is equally capable, and nothing of his depiction of the man's tumultuous personal life or distinguished political career is particularly inaccurate or insulting. To the contrary, he places Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings into a far more accurate and complimentary context than is widely known, and he sees fit to explain the great man's faults and mistakes from a perspective that renders them forgivable.
   
   This otherwise adequate text is marred by Hitchens' almost obsessive concern with the topic of slavery, and how it affected Jefferson's life. To be certain, Jefferson's ownership of slaves was an act of hypocrisy in consideration of the man's ideological convictions and the institution was and is surely as unjust as any can be. But Hitchens writes of the subject constantly, exhaustively, even nauseatingly in so many chapters, that in some of these, one can barely find a paragraph wherein this topic isn't mulled over. Grim, tiresome moralizing can be found throughout nearly the entire book, and it makes an otherwise decent read quite burdensome from time to time. It should also be noted that Hitchens regards the subject of Jefferson's offspring with Hemings as absolute fact rather than the extreme probability that it actually is. I wouldn't quite suggest that Hitchens has become a full-blown sophist since he converted to the neocon faction, but he is hardly as closely acquainted with the truth as he used to be. Both this and his recent "God Is Not Great" are fine examples of how the man is more concerned with pushing ideological agendas than with acknowledging nuanced truths and possibilities.



3. This little fluff contains not a single note or attribution. Many statements are presented as fact, with no attribution. As no effort is given to a balanced account, either, one must conclude that this is a personal rant. I had hoped to read more about the mind of Thomas Jefferson, not just that of the 'author'.



4. This book I was slightly disappointed in. I am no English Major or book maven, but the style of the writing is so bland and can be very hard to follow. Although there are some VERY interesting facts and stories, it was just a hard read.



5. ...and this one is not among the top ten. That should be a helpful enough review for most readers. May I recommend my own listmania--Jefferson's Shadows--as a better starting point for learning about the Sage?

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times.

1. Unique amongst most presidential biographies, which devote the majority of their pages to the pursuit and practice of the presidency, Brands' biography is more personal, devoting only 125 of 525 pages to Jackson's election and presidency, the rest to his full and violent life. This quote from Brands, spoken in context of the nullification (States Right) fight during Jackson's term, could well be his life's epitaph: "Jackson lived in a world of struggle. And the struggle never ended."
   
   Jackson's continuous struggle as an adult was for the preservation of the Union, during a time when the preservation of the Union was often tenuous and its eventual dissolution in the not-distant future assumed by many. Jackson's repeated mantra, as he expressed in a toast in defiance of the states-rights nullifiers: "Our Federal Union--it must be preserved." His policies and actions, vilified or praised, must be viewed through this prism.
   
   With only 125 pages to cover the highlights of Jackson's two-term administration--the nullification crisis, the Bank of the United States war, the (aborted) annexation of Texas, and relocation of the Southeastern Indian tribes across the Mississippi--the details are brushed over in summary form. But Brands captures the heart of the progression of American political leadership from republicanism to democracy, from federalists to Whigs to Republicans, from anti-Federalists to republicans to Democrats, from Washington to Jackson--and Lincoln, the connection Brand makes in the final paragraph.



2. Although it is 550 pages, this biography served as an excellent introduction to the life of our seventh President because I started the book almost wholly ignorant of this fascinating American patriot. This is the second H.W. Brands bio I have read. His bio of Benjamin Franklin was a better book but Andrew Jackson is, by no stretch, a disappointment.
   
   Jackson was the first of many Presidents to realize that one doesn't have to know a thing about politics or even like politics to rise to this nation's highest office through popular vote. Actually, that makes sense. After all, the average American neither likes nor understands anything about politics. He spoke as the man of the people while simultaneously placing himself far above them & ruling with an iron will and fist. As a retired general who was renowned for his fearsome temper, he was used to being obeyed or else. Old habits die hard. Jacksonian Democracy seems to be: democracy is great as long as I'm in charge or, to paraphrase Jefferson "all men are created equal but some men are more equal than others." Jackson was a self-made man through considerable leadership and intellectual talents. He not only knew he was more capable than the next man, he had proof.
   
   Politics is the art of compromise and Jackson was never a compromiser. A smart man of strong passions, he brooked no insult & did not suffer fools kindly. He seems to have considered anyone who disagreed with him in the slightest a fool. Jackson had that peculiarly abrasive personality that brought out the worst in anyone who disliked him & even caused much hesitation in those who supported him. Jackson's epitaph could fairly have read "loved, hated but never ignored." As a younger man, Jackson repeatedly demonstrated a singular lack of self control manifested in a hot-head and itchy dueling finger. He also seems to have unhesitatingly relished killing "the enemy" whether the enemy of was the misbegotten Indians or the wicked British. A slaveowner & expansionist, Jackson squarely alligned himself with the furtherance of American interests, whatever the collateral. Ignorable orders and bendable laws were hardly impediments to his goals. The ends justified the means. As an older man, he seemed to mellow and become more thoughtful but the lion could still roar and his claws, though usually retracted, were still very sharp and powerful. He was never a very intellectual nor spiritual man but had a surprisingly compassionate side to his personality in regards to his family. He was a strict Literal Constitutionalist and struggled incessantly against Interpretationalists. For a supposed common man of the people, he was strikingly conservative in his policies and Presidential demeanor.
   
   Brands spends a tremendous amount of time on Jackson's pre-Presidency life and not nearly enough on the contentious elections that sent his rival, John Q. Adams and then himself to the Presidency or on Jackson's two terms. Now I need to read a book or two specifically about Jackson's political career. A long, rewarding and unhesitatingly recommended read for anyone looking to familiarlize themselves with Old Hickory.



3. Complete and truthful. Jackson was a onery old coot and a great president and military hero. Brands does a very good job of covering his life and times. A good read.



4. H.W. Brands writes a detailed, fact-laden biography that treats Jackson with sincerity, but not excessive bias. The book is serious as well as alluring in that it maintains elements of the sweeping myth of the West - so relevant to Jackson and early America.
   
   More than half of the book deals with Jackson's life prior to his inauguration in 1821. While this may seem excessive, the context is critical to understanding Jackson and evaluating his legacy. As the first congressman for the newly formed frontier state of Tennessee, Jackson seems unfit for the laborious political maneuverings of Philadelphia and more apt to lead by the sword. With draconian discipline he succeeds brilliantly on the battlefield, crushing the Creek Indians and defeating the British in New Orleans in one of the most lopsided victories in American history. The people revere him as a fearless hero and maverick who is less inclined to listen to the Washington elites than to follow his own code forged from frontier experience - an experience rooted in dueling, drinking, slaves, Indian slaying and horses as well as in initiative, courage and persistence through immense hardship, of a sort unknown in the East.
   
   Jackson's fame, and infamy, ultimately propels him to the South Lawn where he hosts a raucous inauguration party, in stark contrast to his presidential predecessors. Again, Brands largely explains the most important acts of Jackson's presidency - the tariff, the bank crisis, Indian policy and western expansion - in terms of the lessons learned on the frontier as well as Jackson's instincts to preserve the Union at all costs - which fills the void left by his own deceased biological family.
   
   The end result is erudite and entertaining - a scholarly portrait peppered with stories of the frontier - that leaves the reader with a fuller understanding of Jackson and, despite Old Hickory's glaring flaws, at least a grudging respect for Jackson's courage, emotional devotion to the Union and embodiment of the hopes and fears of the American people. "His strengths were their strengths, his weaknesses were their weaknesses," writes Brands. More than anywhere else this was true of the American West.



5. Since I live close to the area where Andrew Jackson was born (while I am a native North Carolinian, South Carolina seems to have the most evidence for claiming him as a native born son since one of the pieces of evidence was that Jackson himself claimed to have born in South Carolina), I had natural interest in reading about his life.
   
   Overall I would say the book is a good read - the story gets off to a good start in describing Jackson's early life but does seem to drag on in other periods.
   
   Among the areas covered by Brands include:
   
   1. Jackson's early life and how he was orphaned at an early age.
   2. Participation in the American Revolution.
   3. Training and experiences as a lawyer.
   4. Move to Tennessese.
   5. Military experiences with Indians and the War of 1812.
   6. Political alliances and his many political enemies.
   7. Marriage to Rachel Donelson.
   8. Later life.
   
   I would have like to have seen some more maps that pertained to his travels and military battles - doing so would have made it easier to follow some of the narrative.
   
   Still, a good read on "Old Hickory". Recommended.

5 comments about Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 2).

1. The book is exceptional. Caro's central thesis with LBJ is that power not only corrupts, it reveals. LBJ's lust for power and his determination to run over any and all in his way is never more evident than his stealing of the 1948 Democratic nomination for senator from Coke Stevenson. Caro parallels LBJ and Stevenson as a contrast between the modern vs. the primitive, the unprincipled/corrupt vs. the principled/honest. And, yet, Caro is not entirely unsympathetic to LBJ. He gets to the heart of LBJ's genius in manipulating people and the political system to his advantage.



2. Means of Ascent traces Johnson's career from a rather lackluster legislator (i.e. in passing national legislation) in the U.S. House of Representatives, to his all or nothing gamble on the 1948 Texas U.S. Senate race. In between these years, we learn of Johnson's "war service", his wife's role in her husband's congressional office, their business dealings with a radio station in Austin, and other events. All of this is integral to Johnson's story and his political ambitions. As Caro discussed, these were not Johnson's happiest years as he seemed unsatisfied with his position in Congress and his perceived lack of power.
   
   Caro introduces us to another key political figure in this book, Coke R. Stevenson. This was the man referred to as "Mr. Texas". Caro's portrayal of Stevenson offers a stunning contrast to the portrayal of Johnson. Coke Stevenson's life journey seemed to be the stuff of legends. He was a self-educated man who lived the outdoors. He reluctantly joined the world of Texas politics to get what he saw as a job that needed to be done done. He served as a state legislator, speaker of the house, lieutenant governor and governor. Stevenson seemed to represent what Texans liked most about their state and themselves. His popularity was perhaps unrivaled by any other state political figure. Perhaps Caro's portrayal of Stevenson is a bit too laudatory, but if Caro's task is to set the differences between Johnson and Stevenson in terms of their character traits, their personalities, their politics, etc., then he has succeeded brilliantly.
   
   Once again, the Johnson that emerges in the heat of another major campaign is the same tireless, unstoppable man who will go to any and all lengths to win, as seen in Caro's other books. During the 1948 Democratic Primary, Johnson even utilized a new mode of transportation, the helicopter, for his campaign stops. Stevenson, in contrast, simply drove to different towns and county courthouse squares to meet and greet people, with little press attention. Stevenson, according to Caro, trusted that Texans already knew his record and where he stood and therefore he didn't have to respond to Johnson's attacks.
   
   But once again, the nasty side of politics evinced itself. Large amounts of special interest money were used in the campaign, especially on Johnson's behalf. Votes were bought, especially from ethnic voting blocs from border counties where political bosses like George Parr reigned supreme. Additional voter fraud issues like stuffing of ballot boxes and the likes would come to light as well.
   
   Many people, even in Johnson's inner circle, knew the hurdles they faced in defeating the popular Stevenson, a man regarded as unbeatable. In the end, Johnson would win by 87 votes, made possible no doubt by the hundreds if not more than hundreds of votes added to ballot boxes such as in the infamous Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, and probably from other counties too. Parr's right hand man Luis Salas confessed this later and even said that Stevenson votes had been counted as Johnson votes.
   
   Stevenson didn't give in without a fight. A Federal District Court judge took up the case and things began to appear bleak for Johnson's electoral "victory". Johnson's men, however, proved skillful in their legal maneuvering to halt the judge's order to open the disputed ballot boxes from Precinct 13 and possibly from other areas. With the assistance of Abe Fortas, they secured a hearing in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who decided in favor of the Johnson team to stop the opening of ballot boxes. This decision ended the dispute and Johnson became the Democratic nominee and eventual winner in the fall election.
   
   Johnson had indeed staked everything on this senate race and had won. But though he won the battle, it seems almost irrefutable that his victory was tainted by real voter fraud. Caro's treatment of both Johnson and Stevenson has earned some criticism. The portrait of Johnson that emerges is not flattering. Johnson certainly had some undesirable traits, but the nature of the politics and corruption seen at that time also contributed to the unflattering picture that is presented here, though they were often connected to his campaign. Stevenson is portrayed as a rock solid character who seemingly possessed very few flaws, though Caro did briefly touch on part of his record as governor of Texas, especially concerning the lynching of a black man during his tenure, as well as other elements of Stevenson's very conservative philosophy. Whether the character portrayals of either one of or of both is totally fair and accurate, is not for me to say, but I think Caro has done his homework and his evaluations seem solid in many ways.
   
   Caro excels in presenting the human dimensions to his narrative, especially in the quest for power. The thrill of the campaign also comes to life. If you're a political junkie, you'll love this book. Overall, a great reading experience and great insights into Lyndon Johnson's life and times.



3. The second in Caro's amazingly detailed, trenchant, fascinating, truthful, insightful and heartless multi-volume portrait of Johnson. What did anyone -- even Lyndon Johnson -- ever do to deserve a biographer like this? Not that I fault Caro: His tenacious and scrupulously accurate determination that the truth be told is journalistic history at its highest level of professionalism. But under, or alongside, the chicanery, the narcissism, the shameless expediency of his subject's persona there also was a charisma, a thoroughly human drive to assert himself and make an imprint on an indifferent universe that also is breathtaking, and the sheer wonder and humanity of Johnson is not given enough due. But enough of the cavil, because this book is a supreme accomplishment, of research, writing and psychological insight. It is fascinating to see Johnson's vast inflation of his military "career," and the way he continued to lie about it to people who knew he was lying, and who he knew knew he was lying. And the account of the stealing of the 1948 Senate race is so gripping, so suspenseful even though one knows the outcome before the book is opened, that it defies the effort to put the book down. I had read the book in fits and starts until about page 210, then picked it up at about 9:30 p.m., and could not stop until I finished, at 2:15 a.m. This book will be richly rewarding for anyone interested in the 1940s, and/or in contemporary American politics.



4. I recently read the second volume of Robert A. Caro's magisterial biography of LBJ, entitled MEANS OF ASCENT, and from that book I learned to loathe one man, Lyndon Johnson, whose signal accomplishments in civil rights and social justice are difficult to reconcile with his profound character flaws; to admire another, Coke Stephenson, who, for all the baggage of racism and reactionary ideology that came along with his frontier conservatism was, by all accounts, an outstanding, even heroic human being; and to hold in the very warmest regard one woman, Lady Bird Johnson, who, in spite of her paralyzing shyness and the outrageous abuse heaped upon her by her husband, was not only steadfast in her love and loyalty, but also took infinite pains to remake herself, agonizingly, into a successful businesswoman, canny politician, eloquent speaker, pioneering conservationist, important philanthropist, and accomplished public figure of the very first rank.



5. This book begins where Path to Power left off. It does give a quick recap so you can pick up here if you did not want to read the first one (although I recommend reading it as it is spectacular). The lies of Johnson's military service are almost too much to believe. His desire to retain elected office and achieve his goals remain unmatched as ever before. This book yet again shows how Johnson would lie and cheat his way to power. The Texas politics are truly among the most disturbing that you can see anywhere. The corruption is rampant and with an election where Johnson wins by only 87 votes the corruption was rampant. The race for the senate seat against governor Coke Stevenson who was one of the more principled Texas politicians is famous in Texas history. This book is wonderful at recounting that event as well as giving further insight into Johnson. Caro's writing is superb and the desire to find out what happens next is unmatched in other biographies. This is a must read for anyone interested in political history, biographies, or politics.

5 comments about Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson.

1. Yes, there are a lot of books about Thomas Jefferson, and most of them deal with his political years. Twilight at Monticello concerns Jefferson's post-political years as he deals with his garden, his family, and his crushing debt. I found it fascinating and one of the better books on Jefferson published in the last decade. Highly recommended.



2. In Twilight at Monticello, I was looking for an accessible portrait of Thomas Jefferson the planter, neighbor, and family man. I got exactly that while simultaneously revisiting Jefferson the politician, history-maker, philosopher, and visionary. The great man was always there facing the mundane, the day-to-day difficulties of clashing personalities, mounting debt, and the inescapable effects of aging.
   Crawford's prose is relaxed, yet precise - a pleasant balance between hard facts and evocative descriptions. He's an incredibly efficient storyteller, deftly drawing dozens of characters, while steadily revealing Jefferson himself.
   Crawford's organization is fundamentally chronological, pausing from time-to-time for a story or discussion, such as Jefferson's philosophical struggle with the institution of slavery contrasted with his relationship with Sally Hemmings. Other "subplots" are skillfully and dramatically carried across the book - like the gruesome story of Jefferson's nephew Isham Lewis or Jefferson's relationship with the thoughtful and determined Edward Coles.
   Monticello, Poplar Forest and Albemarle County come to life as well -- from the fog rolling over the Blue Ridge mountains, to the terraced gardens, to the charged excitement of Court Day in Charlottesville.
   Jefferson the intellectual is never lost in this look at his later years. The reader finishes with a good grasp of Jefferson's world view and how it impacted his relationships with friends and family members. Irony fills Jefferson's old age, yet tragedy and pain can never really dampen his extraordinary vision.
   Crawford paints Jefferson and life at Monticello with a swift, broad stroke, still the book is rich with detail. It is an engaging springboard to a wealth of Jefferson scholarship. Crawford left me wanting more, which in this case, is a very good thing.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Being retired and elderly my self I am interested to see how others reach closure on their lives.
   
   What interested me is the consistency of Jefferson's response to the ebb and flow of his life. Denial was his main ego defense and he honed its use till there was barely a pause between the event and his response.
   
   You realize you are dealing with a good man beset by what he wanted and his ability to deliver for himself and his family. You are saddened by the life he dealt his grandson Jefferson Randolph, then self protectively blaming Jeff for not finishing his education.
   
   Reading about his son in law and his grand daughters husband, Charles Bankhead one wishes that AA had been created 200 years earlier. Jefferson was remarkably insightful in his realization that Alcoholism was a medical illness.
   
   Jefferson spoke to me when he wrote,
   
   "When you and I look back on the country over which we have passed, what a field of slaughter does it exhibit! Where are all the friends who entered it with us, under all the inspiring energies of health and hope? As if pursued by the havoc of war, they are strewed by the way, some earlier, some later, and scarce a few stragglers remain to count the numbers fallen, and to mark yet, by their own fall, the last footsteps of their party. Is it a desirable thing to bear up through the heat of action, to witness the death of all our companions, and merely be the last victim?
   
   I recommend this thoughtful book to you.



4. Bought the book thinking I would learn more about Monticello but discovered so much more about Jefferson. What an interesting man but also full of faults. I had only known about his presidency and his various inventions but this book had fascinating information about his personal life, his family and all the troubles they all encountered over the years.
   
   I enjoyed the book so much I emailed the author to tell him so and he responded. I waiting for the delivery of a second of his books. Can't wait because he writes the kind of book you can't put down. And you come away learning a great deal as well.



5. An interesting perspective on Thomas Jefferson at the end of his life and his belief in his entitlement.

5 comments about White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.

1. Abraham Lincoln, probably the finest presidential speech writer of them all, allegedly said, "For those who like this sort of thing, they'll like this sort of thing." Well, I think Abe and anyone with even the slightest interest in US politics won't just like this book, they should be very impressed with it. White House Ghosts is a powerful, interesting, entertaining read.
   
   As a keynote speaker (business, humorous, cancer - quite a juxtaposition I admit), I am enthralled by the art of good speech-writing. Schlesinger takes us on a journey from FDR to George W. Bush with some very entertaining anecdotes and commentary in a lengthy book which I am just about to re-read.
   
   Presidents who valued their speech writers have been well served by them, probably none more so than JFK who was much beholden to Ted Sorenson, the doyen of modern speech-writers. One of the reasons why Sorenson was so effective is because he was in general allowed a clear run to craft the final words which Kennedy would speak. He once said, "The boldness and strength of a statement is in inverse proportion to the number of people who have to clear it." Most sane people would agree with this, but it is a rule that is all but ignored in today's Washington.
   
   Schlesinger provides a brief overview of the development of Kennedy's inaugural. This is material that has been covered in depth in Sorenson's Counselor and two recent books on the topic, Thurston Clarkes' Ask Not and Tofel's better book Sounding the trumpet.
   
   The commentary on Nixon is interesting. This man will never be regarded as a great speaker, but I find many of his speeches - as written, to be really powerful and excellently crafted. This might not be surprising given that his writers included William Safire, Pat Buchanan and David Gergen, but what really intrigued me is that Nixon wrote much of his own material and that he very often spoke without a written text, but according to one speech-writer he was "painstakingly prepared."
   
   Presidents Ford and Carter had little time for speechwriters and knew even less how to utilize them, thus ensuring the writing process was confused as indeed was the message in many cases. Reagan, the great communicator was rarely involved in speech development. Indeed Peggy Noonan, the author of his much acclaimed Pointe du Hoc speech did not have her first meeting with Reagan until six weeks after the celebrated speech!!
   
   This and many other interesting insights are what makes this such a compelling book. If only more politicians would pay attention to what Kennedy and Nixon learned as they tried to understand what makes a great piece of communication - that the best speeches in most cases were the briefest ones.



2. Schlesinger reviews each of the Presidential speech writers, from FDR through W. I found the book became increasingly engaging as he approached the modern presidential speech writers though that may be because they were the Presidents that I grew up with. The chapters on Reagan, Clinton and W are particularly interesting in that they provide a glimpse behind the idiosyncratic personalities that shaped much of our modern policy.
   
   Of the Bush team, he writes, "The troika [Skully, Gerson, McConnell] gathered to prepare the State of the Union. For eight, nine, ten days running, the routine would be the same: The three sequestered themselves in McConnell's office and word-by-word, line-by-line, wrote the speech. After several days, McConnell's office resembled, as he put it, 'the back of a cheap restaurant' - coffee stained papers piled up, books of food, half-full coffee cups and water bottles lying around. McConnell, who kept a supply of Wet Ones towelettes on hand, endured the chaos with good humor". (p. 476)



3. It was quick, easy, amusing read; lots of historical anecdotes from each White House since FDR....but apart from that, I can't say I know much more about what makes for a good speech, a good speechwriter, or a good Presidential speaker now than I did before I read the book.
   Apart from figuring out that speeches written by committee don't make for memorable prose, the anecdotes don't really add up to much--- not much insight as to what FDR, JFK, and RR shared in common, if anything, that made them great in this department, versus what Carter and the 2 Bushes shared, if anything, that made them so mediocre....
   Look for a fun read, but don't look for any analysis or depth of understanding...



4. as a speechwriter, this book was manna from heaven for me. there are few books around that look at modern presidential speechwriting in depth. it also has a broader appeal as a presidential history that gets you right inside the inner circle of modern presidents. the book is well written, excruciatingly researched and filled with funny, inspiring and humanizing anecdotes.



5. 'White House Ghosts' seeks to answer the questions of who wrote the best Presidential speeches and lines, which President gave the speech, and who came up with the ideas at the core of those speeches. Often times, other than who said it, those questions are not easily answered but Schlesinger still weaves a great historical accounting of presidential history, communications, and policy development since FDR. At its best, Schlesinger makes clear that speechwriting is a collaborative effort that brings together a President's vision with the wordsmithing of a talented writer with the time to spend on a speech. At its worse, speechwriting appears to drive policy development and changes because a good line was created, so the policy must follow through. Perhaps even worse is when a line has no relation to policy at all (see President George W. Bush's second inaugural). Schlesinger's exhaustive research brings you into each presidency, shows you how the President interacted with the speechwriters and how some of the most famous, and important, words of the 20th and early 21st century came about. A must for any student or fan of presidential history.

5 comments about Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago.

1. Royko's a solid writer in the old mode of honest journalists. He takes any bias or subjectivity out of his work, which is good. That makes this book eye-opening.
   
   Dick Daly, like his son and the preponderance of Chicago Democrats was a lying, corrupt, racist man who'd do anything to continue his dominance over the Chicago political machines. And Royko explains this, having viewed the entire era from a local angle.
   
   If you like stories and insight, look here.
   
   Noteworthy is how little things have changed four decades later. His son is now the mayor, racists like Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright are still relevant and spewing hatred (and getting away with it) and now they have "their" candidate---of "hope" and "change."
   
   People think Barack H. Obama is a new face, but he's the consummate politician. He's the same corrupt guy that most Chi Dems are.
   
   By now all of America should fathom the truth: Obama made a devil's bargain with a number of racists to establish his own street credentials in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. And here he is today.
   
   Those who ignore history repeat it---and vote for this Empty Suit at their own ignorance and peril in 2008.



2. Book came quickly. It was just a little bit more weathered than I expected, but it's an old book so I'm not complaining



3. Yup, I too was alive and kicking during most of The Mayor's reign, and I have to agree, it's got the ring of truth to it. This book was intended as more of a verbal portrait of Daley and the city he helped shape than as a political analysis, although Daley's administration is effectively dissected. Civics classes AND journalism classes should be required to read this since not only is it an outstanding example of what is known in some circles as "Literary Journalism" but because it's more than just political theory,it illustrates the real life nuts and bolts workings of a big city. This is right up there with Caro's "The Power Broker" What's really wild is that I read this book right after I read "The Godfather" and both of the titular characters operated in much the same way!



4. A great read (though dated) of the political machine Richard J Daley enhanced in Chicago. Though Daley himself never pursued the money end of the corruption, his machine enhanced their wealth and Daley's power in their almost total control of the city. Daley was a great politician, turning set backs to political advantage. Daley tolerated crooked cops, until he was forced to hire a reformer. After awhile he took out the reformer, and hired an enforcer as police commissioner. This is a great read about the machine that controls Chicago. This gives an interesting look into the mind of the political machine of Chicago.
   
   This is a great book. If one wants to read further on the Chicago Democratic political machine or Richard J. Daley, American Pharoeh is another great book. This should be required reading for those who live in Illinois.



5. This is a serious and ambitious coverage of the internal workings of Chicago government. This book didn't make me laugh as Royko's "Sez Who? Sez Me!" did, but is so insightful and well-written that this reader, not too knowledgeable about politics, thoroughly enjoyed it.
   
   The story is important because it uncovers a truth otherwise overlooked by the media (for example, what really happened at the police riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention). Amazingly, despite the ugliness of the politics portrayed, Royko's writing is not too judgemental; any judgement of Daley is left to the reader. As Royko describes the rise of Daley's Machine, it becomes clear that the motivation behind most of Daley's actions was simply to keep his enemies powerless and keep the Machine's dominance intact, even when it means promoting inept allies to positions of power or neglecting the needs of Chicago's most struggling people.

5 comments about James Madison: (The American Presidents Series).

1. James Madison is often one of the least remembered founding fathers. However Madison was very important in the early years of the United States of America. Known as "the father of the Constitution" he was influential in the convention and is one of the best legislators of all-time. The book also reminds readers that George Washington asked for Madison's advice on Constitutional matters because he knew he would be setting precidents that would be followed by other holders of the Executive office.
   
   The book quickly addresses his pre-Presidential years but mostly focuses on his time in the Executive office. The book gives a good quick look at the interesting if lackluster Presidency. The war often referred to as "Mr. Madison's war" dominated his Presidency and he deserves some of the blame for beginning the war, even though the country was completely unprepared. His embargos were disasterous and left the U.S. economy in ruins for a short while.
   
   The book does a very good job at showing that Madison was a very good legislator perhaps one of the greatest in US History, but Madison was not made for the Executive office. He had the political knowledge, but lacked the size, leadership, and ability to stand up and announce what was going to happen (in an authoritative voice, perhaps because of his stature). Overall Madison was a very important man to the founding of the country although his 'flip-flops' are also shown throughout the book. Overall this is a good quick introduction to the Presidency of James Madison.



2. James Madison(1751 -- 1836) is revered for his role as one of our nation's Founders. Madison played a major role in organizing the Constitutional Convention, in drafting the Constitution, and in securing its ratification through cowriting "The Federalist" (with Hamilton) and through winning a difficult debate with Patrick Henry which led to the narrow ratification of the Constitution in his home state of Virginia. Madison also worked valiantly for the separation of church and state.
   
   Madison's accomplishments as the fourth President (1808 -- 1817) are less well remembered. Madison's presidency is the focus of this brief book by Garry Wills as part of the American Presidents series. Wills tries to explain why Madison's presidency was less successful that his brilliant earlier career. Wills points to Madison's provincialism, shyness, lack of executive experience, and tendencies toward idealism rather than practical politics to conclude that Madison's talents and prodigious learning made him better suited for a legislative, behind-the-scenes role than for a position as the nation's chief executive.
   
   After brief consideration of Madison's earlier accomplishments and his roles under the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson (he was Jefferson's Secretary of State), Wills examines Madison's two terms as president. Early in his administration, Madison showed poor judgment about people in selecting his cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, and military leaders. He also displayed weaknesses of leadership and administration in coordinating the efforts and minimizing the feuding of his subordinates. Even thought he came to see the wisdom of the Bank of the United States, (he had opposed Hamilton on the formation of the Bank) Madison foolishly allowed its charter to lapse, when any sort of endorsement on his part would likely have saved the bank in Congress. This mistake haunted Madison throughout his administration.
   
   Most of Wills's study of Madison's presidency is devoted, as it must be, to the War of 1812. If Madison's presidency is little-known, the War of 1812 remains our country's most confusing, obscure, and little understood conflict. The War had its roots in the conflict between England and Napoleon as Jefferson tried to steer clear of war. At the end of his presidency, at Madison's urging, Jefferson imposed an embargo with near disastrous results.
   
   Wills traces the complex course of events that led Madison into war. Some of these events were due to misunderstanding and to slowness of communication (Britain had repealed the Articles in Council to which the United States had taken offense in declaring war. The ship bringing the repeal to the United States crossed the Atlantic at the same time as the United States ship sailing to England with news that war had been declared.) But, Wills argues, Madison was active in bringing on the War, in part because he had grandiose visions of annexing Canada. The result was a conflict for which the United States was ill-prepared. The country had a weak army, only six frigates built during the Washington administration, no generals with military experience, and, with the end of the First Bank of the United States, no money to conduct the war. It was a harrowing conflict for the United States.
   
   The United States and Madison were fortunate to be able to end the War of 1812 without loss of territory. For Wills, Madison led the Nation into an unnecessary war for which it was ill-prepared. But Wills praises Madison for conducting the war without treading upon the constitutional rights of Americans. This was an important and difficult accomplishment which partially redeems Madison's presidency. And the United States came together as a nation following the conflict for the first time in its history.
   
   Wills's book is both more reflective and more detailed than most of the works in the American President's series. Indeed, Wills has written extensively about this period of our history. Readers of this volume may wish to turn to Wills's study "Henry Adams and the Making of America" which examines Henry Adams' monumental history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Wills' short study is heavily indebted to Adams's history. Ambitious readers may want to explore Adams's history of this period for themselves. It is available in a two-volume set from the Library of America.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. Garry Wills, eminent author on the American mind, writes a literate and compelling political biography of James Madison, "Jemmy" as he was called earlier in his life. Here was someone whose resume seems made to become president. Yet this man, "the Father of the Constitution," was not near the success that one might have guessed from his background.
   
   His pedigree includes: key figure in the Constitutional Convention--from getting George Washington to attend (a coup) to helping structure the agenda (from amending the Articles of Confederation to trashing the extant constitution and replacing it with something very different); to serving as a major figure in the early Congress (including helping to produce a Bill of Rights), to organizing the first political party (along with Thomas Jefferson, although it took Martin Van Buren and his circle to perfect the arrangement).
   
   Wills begins by observing that there is consensus that (Page 1) ". . .Madison, though one of the nation's greatest founders, is not one of its greatest presidents." Wills suggests that one can account for this by (a) bad luck falling Madison's way (which Wills discounts); (b) his temperament (he had more legislative than executive talent--more apt an explanation in Wills' view); (c) errors (a very poor reading of the British Empire, leading to foolish foreign policy and the War of 1812).
   
   As with other in "The American Presidents" series, this begins with a brief sketch of the future president's youth, his early career, and his rise to the presidency (from the Constitutional Convention to Congress to Jefferson's Secretary of State). Trivia is included: Madison was the shortest American President ever.
   
   This represents a standard, literate Wills' work. His literary approach is as expected (what a wonderful command of the language!). The work nicely lays out why Madison was not as good a President as one might have guessed--as well as his later life.
   
   All in all, an estimable addition to this valuable series.



4. Garry Wills is an exceptional documentarian, and this effort is a fine example. A very comprehensive review of the formative years of this Founding Father is provided, those years that helped define the political system and policy of early America. Madison's contribution to the constitutional constructs of Virginia and the U.S. are well-woven, even if his presidency is less a focus of Wills energies. Portrayal is of a deeply insightful humanist who performed best as a thinker than an administrator, WIlls has captured the essence of the man himself.



5. As stated in the Editor's Note, the American President series, of which this book is a part, aims to ".... present the grand panorama of our chief executive in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for the scholar." At 164 pages of text, this book is certainly compact. It is quite lucid and it is surly authoritative. The book is not, however, an analysis of the life of James Madison, or even a comprehensive presentation of his whole life. It discusses the many facets of his life in terms of his contribution to the United States. As the man considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", a co-author of The Federalist (the series of essays that were instrumental in getting the Constitution ratified), as a leader in the first Congress, Secretary of State (under Thomas Jefferson) and then as a two term President, Madison made immense contributions to the founding and early government of the Untied States. All these facets of his career are discussed, but given the compactness of the book they are only discussed briefly.
   
   The primary thing that I came away with was the feeling that Madison was an enigma. I guess that this just shows my ignorance of the finer points of American history, as historians have been trying, largely unsuccessfully, for the last two hundred years to explain the enigma that was James Madison. Indeed, Madison was also vexed with the difficulty of trying to explain his many contradictory actions. In working on the Constitution he unsuccessfully tried to give the federal government the power to veto state laws. Yet he later was secretly the author of the Virginia Resolutions that promulgated the idea that the states had the right to nullify federal law. He opposed Hamilton's Bank of the US, but then tried to renew the charter and when this failed he supported the formation of the second Bank of the US. He opposed war, yet he led the US into a war with Britain for which it was completely unprepared. Garry Wills tries to come to grips with these, and other contradictions, but I do not think that he was completely successful, but then again neither has anyone else. For me, just realizing that this conundrum exits was worth the price of the book.

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

1. This is a great book. You learn a different side of Castro that is depicted in the media. He is a very intelligent and interesting person. Whether you ageee with his polices or not, this is a good read.



2. 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.



3. 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.



4. 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.



5. 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.