2 comments about Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary.

1. On April 4, 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. came to Indiana to campaign for the Indiana Democratic presidential primary. En route, Kennedy learned that civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been shot and had died. Despite the Indianapolis police department's warning that they could not guarantee his safety, Kennedy chose to address an outdoor rally amid the city's African American community. Kennedy delivered one of history's great speeches, breaking the news of King's death and stressing the need for compassion amid violence. Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary commemorates the fortieth anniversary of Kennedy's passionate speech, and examines the characters and events of the 1968 primary, in which Kennedy rose from underdog to victor. A fascinating close study of a great leader's power to console and inspire.



2. The Washington Post on March 25, 2008 reported that the Indiana May primary between Obama and Clinton may make the difference for the Democratic nomination. Forty years ago this was also the case. Every political reporter, blogger and junkie needs to read this book. Indiana politics are quirky, but there are similarities between 1968 and 2008, especially over the race issue. Obama is Bobby Kennedy. Hillary is trying to figure out if she is Gene McCarty or the machine candidate represented by Gov. Roger Branigin.

No comments about Yeltsin: A Life.

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

1. 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



2. 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!



3. 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.



4. 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. Royko's classic portrait of Daley and "his" Chicago is perhaps most distinguished by its narrator. While the facts remain the same between this book and others such as American Pharoah, the profound attachment and understanding of a man who spent his professional career writing about the same city that shaped Daley creates a much more colorful and intricate perspective on mid 20th century Chicago. Presented as a journalistic piece rather than a heavily footnoted history or political science text, Boss engages the reader on a more narrative than statistical level. Through personal stories of machine "grunts" and smoke filled rooms, Royko accomplishes more in just over 200 pages than the statistical tome American Pharoah does in over 600. It comes down to one necessary and incontrovertable fact: only a Chicagoan can truly understand and synthesize the experience and leadership of his or her city. East-coasters can write about the "City with Big Shoulders" until their knuckles seize up, but they will not be able to truly appreciate the subtleties of Chicago's culture and psyche. As a highly respected voice in Chicago journalism who was at loggerheads with Mayor Daley on numerous occasions, Royko presents an honest and faithful version of Chicago and its mayor.

5 comments about Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security.

1. This was a gift for my father. Didn't get a chance to read it, but per his review, it was a great book. Highly recommend for anyone wanting to get a better insight into the Clintons.



2. It's also very interesting that after I bought this book, when I looked for it in the store later, it had disappeared! I still look, and it's still not there.
   
   And to think 1/2 the democrats in this country want to give them another four years!



3. Do yourself a favor before buying this dishonest piece of political propaganda and lies...click on the authors name and look at the titles of the other extremist junk this wacko has written. He's a paid political propagandist as bad as Limbaugh or Hannity. He's an embrassment to legitimate authors. This kind of political propaganda is dividing America and ruining the country.



4. This book provides concrete examples of the Clinton's lack of respect for, and understanding of, the US military. From sexually improper behavior to "gays in the military" decisions, Patterson does a good job of showing how Clinton's poor character traits and questionable judgement weakened our national security. The first lady's behavior was, by Patterson's accounts, worse than her husband's. Read this book before you consider voting for Hillary for president.



5. Definately read this book. He tells his readers throughout the book that he did not write dereliction of duty as a personal bash against the president. Buzz Patterson wrote this book to inform readers of his accounts while serving the president as a military aid. This book is very informative and interesting which made it a fast, easy read.

5 comments about Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship.

1. 
   I began with a prejudice. Winston Churchill is one of my greatest heroes.
   Another prejudice. Martin Gilbert is also one of my favorite authors. Gilbert writing on Churchill could be nothing but wonderful.
   The book was up to my expectations, and then some. I have read volumes and volumes on the life and activities of Winston Churchill, but found many new facts in insights. I was totally pleased and highly reccomend this book to any one . Admirer or critic.
   Herschel Sennett



2. Winston Churchill, for as long as he can remember, has been connected with Jews. Coming from a family with close Jewish ties, though not through blood, he has always had friends from this ethnicity. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill was often rebuked by the English aristocrats about his many Jewish friends. Learning about the biblical characters in his school, he was often fascinated with their stories and with their lives.
   
   Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, draws on letters, speeches, newspaper articles and other resources to provide a clear depiction of his friendship with one of the most persecuted races in the world: the Jews.
   
   Reading this book was very eye opening. I have always heard about Churchill through his famous quotes often featured at graduations and other ceremonies-and through those I had developed a certain respect for him. However, after reading this book, I consider him one of the greatest men who ever lived. Sure he had faults; he would be the first to admit that. But what set him apart was the fact that he was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even when popular opinion was against it. He was an ardent supporter for a Jewish state and played a key role in bringing that to pass. Many considered his love for Jews one of his major faults; however, he was not swayed by what others thought him.
   
   Martin Gilbert's portrayal of Churchill and his relationship with Jews is very enlightening. It explores this often-neglected topic, captivating the readers from the very beginning as it traces his first Jewish friendships to his Jewish friends he had during the time he was Prime Minister. I really enjoyed this book that also includes photographs that chronicle his relationship with them.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: Highly recommended to any history buff!



3. The 20th Century produced many astounding men, many of them evil. One of the few great democrats of the age was Winston S. Churchill. Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Churchill, has produced one enthralling volume after another.
   
   Churchill's involvement with public life and, more importantly, his impact upon it never ceases to amaze. To read of everything Churchill was involved with - some of the most momentous events of the century that still reverberate today - staggers the imagination.
   
   In this volume, Gilbert examines Churchill's relationship with Jews in general and his involvement with the Balfour Declaration, Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel.
   
   Churchill's first 'political involvement in Jewish concerns" occurred in 1904 when he stood for election for Manchester North-West, where a third of the population was Jewish.
   
   From that point on, Churchill's career often came into contact with Jewish concerns or, conversely, concerns about the Jews. He long supported the aspirations for a Jewish homeland. He protested mistreatment of the Jews by the Russians, Germans and others. He was deeply offended by the radical Jewish terrorists who sought to hasten the creation of Israel. He believed there was a need to turn Jews toward Zionism and away from Bolshevism.
   
   Churchill, indeed, considered himself to be a Zionist.
   
   Churchill's humanism, tolerance, foresight, classic liberalism and just plain decency are all on display in this wonderful volume. By concentrating on this one small aspect of Churchill's many interests, the magnificence of the man is brought into sharp relief. Others, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ernest Bevan suffer in comparison to Churchill in this particular area.
   
   All in all, this is a wonderful book, typical of Gilbert's skill as a researcher, historian and writer. It is also necessary reading for anyone who wishes to be more fully informed about the seemingly intractable problems we face in the area today.
   
   Jerry



4. This is an exciting account of Churchill's relationship to the Jewish people from the earliest phase of his political career. He developed a strong bond with the developing state of Israel, and it seems unlikely, without his brilliant supportive speeches in parliament for several decades that we would have a state of Israel today. Gilbert does a superb job of bringing us up to date on Churchill's contributions, from the time of the Balfour declaration to Israel Statehood in 1948.



5. This smart, well researched and readable book makes an often controversial subject easy to understand and easier still to be sympathetic towards. Famed author and historian, Sir Martin Gilbert offers us through direct sources, a simple yet profound road map in which we see Mr. Churchill navigate his way through his many relationships with Jews, and those opponents in his own political party, as well as the minefield which is Middle East politics. I for one, though a student of the Middle East never knew just how close Mr. Churchill was to the Jewish people, Zionism, and his continued support through out the decades for a Jewish state in the region.
   
   "Some people like Jews and some do not, but no thoughtful `person' can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world" Winston Churchill
   
   I strongly recommend this book for your reading pleasure, education, and enlightenment. It is an outstanding historical document.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.

1. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3KMX3LR39IF00 This is an oldie but a goody indeed. How McCain makes us long for Ronald Reagan the Great!



2. In a way, I always thought that authors who write about Reagan have it easy. How hard could it be to write interesting and inspiring words about a man who was both?
   
   However, the author of this book has taken a bit of a different approach with this book by focusing as much on the "Reagan movenment" as he does Reagan himself.
   
   History is going to be very good to Reagan and it will be because of the movement he created - it spite of the spineless Republicans of today.
   
   I really enjoyed reading the book. It flows easily through the Reagan years and, if you are a Reagan fan, you will close this book, sigh, and say, "God I miss Ronald Reagan!"



3. Most biographers who attempt to write about Ronald Reagan typically get frustrated at some point in their effort and throw up their hands saying, "I can't get to know this man!" Indeed, the man that some many of us felt close to without ever having met him was apparently a very tough nut to crack if you wanted to get close to him in person.
   
   As a result, many biographies supposedly about Reagan offer very little insight into the man and what made him succeed and fail. They talk about his life and history, his advisers and their ideas, but they don't capture anything about the man that you wanted to learn about when you picked up the book in the first place - D'Souza does and that's what makes this book different and better from the rest.
   
   D'Souza was a young aid in the Reagan White House and maybe that gives him a bit of an advantage in capturing the essence of Reagan, but I think most of the credit has to go to something far more fundamental; D'Souza hasn't lost the ability to see Reagan the way most Americans saw him, he hasn't lost sight of what America was like before Reagan compared to what it's like now. That gives D'Souza a perspective on Reagan that most academics (which D'Souza is) neglect. It makes all the difference in this book.
   
   D'Souza really captures a man guided by a vision and a philosophy rather than by polls, a real leader rather than someone who went whichever way popular sentiment carried him. Reagan's ideas about America and its relationship to the rest of the world were positive, contrary to popular thoughts and, as it turns out, right.
   
   If you like Reagan, you will love the way D'Souza articulates how the man accomplished everything he did. If you don't like Reagan, D'Souza's look at Reagan offers the best argument I've encountered that you'll have to counter in order to sway his supporters to your way of thinking.
   
   Highly recommended. A great book about a great President.



4. Very informative. This book will give you a new appreciation for our recent history.



5. D'Souza does a decent job in his biography on the character of Reagan. My biggest complaint with this book is that it does not actually tell us anything about Reagan and his presidency. So much times is spent on the character that by the time you are done understanding Reagan's moral values the book is over and I felt I learned nothing about what Reagan did and how these values played out. For those who have really studied Reagan it is a great addition but if you are looking for only one book try Richard Reeves.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. The 2008 Presidential race is in full swing, and interest in the contest runs high. In order to keep my own bearings, I wanted to try to take a short but broader view of our Presidents and our nation's history. One way to do this is by reading some of the volumes in the recent "American Presidents" series edited by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Each volume in this series offers, in short compass, the life and accomplishments of an American president together with an evaluation of his achievement.
   
   I chose Sean Wilentz' biography of Andrew Jackson (1767 -- 1845) because of our seventh President's role in broadening the basis of American democracy and because of the controversy he inspired and continues to inspire. Jackson was a flamboyant, larger-than-life figure with great virtues and as many faults. He was orphaned at an early age and bore for life the physical and emotional scars inflicted upon him by a sword gash to the head by a British officer during the Revolutionary War. Jackson fought off poverty and his own impulsive nature to serve an early term in Congress and in the Senate before the 19th century. He became a lawyer, a judge and a large plantation owner of the Hermitage in Tennessee. He became famous as an Indian fighter in wars against the Southeast Tribes such as the Creeks and Cherokees and against the Florida Seminoles. Jackson won a great victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, (the War of 1812 was officially over at the time) which secured his fame.
   
   Jackson ran for President in 1824 but, following a close election, he was denied the presidency in the House of Representatives as a result of what he claimed was a "corrupt bargain" between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams, inauguarating what he and many American people believed was a new age for American democracy. Wilentz describes the themes of Jackson's presidency as including:
   
   "robust nationalism on constitutional issues tempered by a restraint on federal support for economic development and a strict construction; a distrust of what Jackson called the corrputed power of 'associated wealth'; and a celebration of what one pro-Jackson newspaper called 'the democratic theory that the people's voice is the supreme law." (p. 112)
   
   In his biography, Wllentz reminds the reader that Jackson's age was not our own. Thus, the issues Jackson faced cannot be transferred directly to our current situation with the label of "liberal" or "conservative". Jackson was an enemy of big government. But in Jackson's time, this position made him a foe to the power of wealthy and powerful people and businesses who had a close relationship to the government and who, Jackson, believed, were gaining too much privilege at the expense of the people. Thus, a major activity of Jackson's presidency was his destruction of the Second Bank of the United States, a private bank which had been chartered by Congress and which exercised strong power over the American economy.
   
   Jackson thought that American government up to his time had been the province of the leisured and elite. His avowed goal was to make the government responsive to the will of the majority and to expand the basis of democracy. He did so, in part, and at a terrible cost. Jackson's democracy was formed by a coalition between Southern planters and northerners. This coalition inevitably led to compromises with slavery and to sectional tension. Jackson censored the mails to prevent anti-slavery tracts from flooding the South and opposed attempts to curtail slavery.
   
   In his younger days, Jackson had been a cruel Indian fighter, and in his Presidency he set in motion the removal of the Southeastern Tribes across the Mississippi over what became known as the "Trail of Tears." Wilentz, together with many other scholars, has some sympathy for the goals of the removal policy, but he emphasizes the cruelty and carelessness with which it was carried out, resulting in the death of thousands of Indian people.
   
   Jackson was a strong, even autocratic, excecutive. Perhaps his finest hour was in defusing, with a mixture of strength, compromise, and cunning, the "nullification controversy" resulting from South Carolina's attempt to set aside a Federal tariff with which it disagreed. Jackson was also an expansionist president who foresaw the acquition of Texas and the West even though no new territory was added to the United States during his two terms.
   
   Wilentz praises Jackson for his democratic vision and for his early version of egalitarianism even while he recognizes that, in its treatment of Indians, African Americans, and women it was quite different from our own ideals. Wilentz is favorably disposed towards Jackson's economic policies, including his war on the Bank. Many historians have different, less favorable views of Jackson. Those readers wanting an in-depth view of the period might want to compare two lengthy studies: Wilentz' own "The Rise of American Democracy" (2005) with the more recent study by Daniel Walker Howe "What hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848", which takes a less favorable view of Jackson and a more positive view of his predecessor in the presidency, John Quincy Adams, and of Jackson's opponents, the Whigs.
   
   Those readers wanting to reflect upon the history of our country and on where it may be going during this election year will enjoy reading this short study of Andrew Jackson and its companions in the American Presidents series.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. Nice book and an easy read. Not very much depth, but well written and informative. I would recommend to the casual reader, but not any historian.



3. Today's historians are still in a quandary on why Andrew Jackson, the Seventh President of the United States and one of this nation's greatest leaders, was a man of complete contradictions in his public life.
   
   Was he the populist politician who championed the rights of all citizens in the growing republic, yet owned slaves to do the hard work on his own property?
   
   Was he the grandiose dictator who tried to crush his political enemies whom he viewed as elitist or just a man from the working class battling those seeking to dominate the masses?
   
   Was he the brilliant military genius who defeated the British in the War of 1812 for America's only major victory in that ill-conceived conflict against England? Or was he the racist extremist who conquered the Indian Tribes and removed them from their homelands in the south because it was good for his own political career?
   
   Was he all of that and more?
   
   Sean Wilentz is a Professor of History at Princeton University and has written a new examination of Jackson in `The American Presidents' series that are published by Times Books which are edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Schlesinger had previously written about the famed chief executive sixty years ago in the Pulitzer Prize winning biography `The Age of Jackson.'
   
   Wilentz tries to explain in the brief 195 page tome those many contradictions of the Tennessee military commander nicknamed `Old Hickory' for his toughness who is generally accepted as one of our nation's top half-dozen greatest presidents.
   
   Jackson served as chief executive from 1829 to 1837, when America was transitioning from having leaders who had participated in the Revolutionary War and the immediate years after to those politicians who would serve in the two decades leading up to our nation's civil war. Jackson was a soldier in America's struggle for independence against the British in his early teens, earning a scar on his head when he was struck by a sword belonging to a British officer and is the only American president to ever have been a prisoner of war.
   
   His greatest military triumph came in January, 1815; albeit two months after the War of 1812 had officially ended with a peace treaty signing, when troops under his command defeated an invading force of British soldiers twice their size landing near the southern port city of New Orleans, Louisiana. He then spent a few years in battle with several of the Indian tribes in the southern states which culminated in those tribes' relocation to the Midwest part of the country that came to be known as `The Trail of Tears.'
   
   Jackson first ran for president in 1824 and got the highest tally of popular votes in the election. But none of the multiple candidates running that year were able to get a majority of the Electoral College votes to claim victory. The contest was then decided in the House of Representatives where runner-up John Quincy Adams was selected as the new chief executive after he made a deal with third-place candidate Henry Clay to gain his votes in exchange for Clay being promised the job of Secretary of State.
   
   Jackson was livid on what happened to him that year and vowed revenge against what he considered to be the thievery by those politicians belonging to the New England aristocracy he so hated.
   
   He ran again in 1828 and soundly defeated Adams in a re-match. But that victory turned bitter sweet when his wife Rachel died a few weeks before the March, 1837 inauguration which the president-elect believed was caused by stress when his political enemies spoke ill of her and her marriage to Jackson before her divorce to another man became final.
   
   Wilentz writes that once in office, Jackson was a champion of the concept of the republic, meaning the will of the majority ruled while he attempted to re-structure the functions of national government into how he believed it should operate.
   
   Modern pundits complain that today's politicians can be nasty and uncivil towards each other in their rancorous discussions on the issues of the day. But today's media sound bite zingers are tepid and restrained compared to how those of the different political parties and viewpoints treated each other two centuries ago when many disagreements ended with the two participants settling their feud with a duel.
   
   The political opponents of the president referred to Jackson as ruling like a king or dictator, since the new chief executive did his best to re-tool the government into a bureaucracy of his liking such as making multiple changes in his cabinet to get those advisors he desired and would do what he wanted. The colloquial phrase `to the victor goes the spoils,' refers to Jackson's selection of those political supporters of his choosing into specific national government posts to do his bidding.
   
   Jackson considered himself to be a man of honor and believed his words and those spoken by others to be a reflection of their firm beliefs. That's why he terminated the relationship with John Calhoun, his own vice-president, in 1832 when he determined the South Carolina politician had crossed him when Calhoun supported that state's desire to secede from the union in seeking nullification of certain laws over keeping the union together.
   
   Calhoun resigned as vice-president, the first national officer to do so, got himself appointed as a senator from South Carolina while that state made plans to secede from the union if the federal government continued to demand its share of taxes through tariffs. Jackson mobilized federal troops to send into that state and let it be known that he would publicly hang his former vice-president if cessation plans went forth.
   
   They didn't.
   
   Compare that to today's politicians who say or do anything to keep their particular electorate happy, even it will hurt the nation in the long-term as long as it keeps them being re-elected.
   
   Jackson also hated bankers and the concept of paper money that's not based on gold or silver. He closed down the Second Bank of the United States, (today's version of the Federal Reserve) and paid off the national debt in 1835 which endeared him to the masses. So it is with much irony that his image ended up on our twenty dollar bill, the most popular American paper currency that is issued by today's Federal Reserve Bank which is privately owned and makes a profit from the public debt that increases every year and has no chance of ever being paid off.
   
   Wilentz states that Jackson put the nation on the road to true democracy for all the people, although the democracy he believed in is not what we have today because that process evolved over time with the work of the many presidents who would follow.
   
   By the end of Jackson's second term, his popularity and large group of supporters across the country helped to start the creation of the modern Democratic Party and he was able through his influence to get his second vice-president, Martin Van Buren, elected to the presidency in 1836. Jackson's own political beliefs also led to the formation of the political parties movement when the Whig Party, mainly composed of those politicians who opposed Jackson on just about everything during his time in office, was created in 1834. They lasted for twenty years until it was replaced by the Republican Party in 1856 for the continuation of the two major political party system this nation still has today.
   
   Can it be considered unfair for those of us now alive two centuries later to judge Jackson and the other early 19th Century presidents on their stands regarding personal liberty when slavery was still prevalent to today's standards of freedom for all citizens? Yes. But that's not Jackson's fault. He made the decisions he believed on what was best for the country's long-term survival without compromise to any special interest group seeking favors for their particular cause to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
   
   What politician of today can make that same claim?



4. Clear and consise prose; well documented; theories of future effects well substantiated.



5. 
   He's on most lists of our best presidents as well as our $20 bill. Democrats hail him as a founder. After reading this book, and attempting a few others, it's still hard to understand why Jackson has been accorded such respect.
   
   I started both the Brand and Remini bios. Through them I came to understand his childhood and how the American Revolution shaped his character and views. The psychological toll of losing his nuclear family at a young age had to be enormous. His mother's heroic search and rescue of him in a very abusive British POW camp illustrates the love and family loyalty he lost.
   
   Wilentz quickly outlines the child/youth/military and plunges into the presidency, which was what I was seeking when I started reading the others.
   
   Wilentz cleary states the complicated facts of Jackson's war on the bank. To Jackson it was a war on the aristrocracy. It is not within the scope of Wilentz's book to editorialize, but were Biddle and his cronies really controling the US economy? Could the land issues have been settled with (Lincolnesque) homestead acts, which undoubtedly would have been very popular? Could he have fought for legislative mini-changes (Clintonesque) to curb certain powers, such as bidding out government banking needs. Jackson and Biddle were clearly obstinate equals, but as Pres, it would seem that there were other paths to take leadership on this since he deemed it important. How necessary and/or effective was this bank war? Did it really save the "little guy" in the short or long run?
   
   In his tooth and nail fight on nullification, Jackson may have been as instrumental as Lincoln in holding the union together. Jackson's stand against nullification not only solidified the sentiment for his day, but also built precedent for future times. This and stopping the British in New Orleans, may be worthy of his stature among historians, Democrats and currency commemoration but, they don't explain the genesis of the phrase "Jacksonian Democracy".
   
   From admitedly limited knowledge, I still don't see enough to assign this man's name as an adjective to democracy. The author alludes to the changing of executive staff and to a future unfolding of more direct elections of public officials. I assume, in the nature of things, appointment prerogative would have evolved, but where is the chapter on how AJ worked on behalf of more direct election? Are not the Trail of Tears and his actions on behalf of those supporting slavery anti-democratic endeavors? I still don't see how the war on the bank, which admittedly has "little guy" overtones, balances all this out.

5 comments about A Life in Secrets: Vera Atkins and the Missing Agents of WWII.

1. I loved every second of A Life In Secrets. It was like reading the best mystery, spy novel, espionage thriller, personal history, and WWII fact-finding book all in one volume. In it Sarah Helm tells several stories and unravels many mysteries. The obvious story is that of Vera Atkins and her "missing agents", the women (mostly) and men who were dropped into France and other countries by Britain's Special Operations Executive, formed to help assist underground resistance movements in Nazi occupied countries. These agents were civilians who were hand picked and trained to blend in and do their job, and it was Atkins' job to communicate with their families and make sure they were okay.
   
   The obvious aim of Secrets is Helm's biographical telling of the life and career of Vera Atkins, which partially involves interviews with Atkins herself as well as surviving relatives, co-workers, and friends. Just the recounting is fascinating, as Helms travels all over East and West Germany, Roumania, France, Canada, and England, tracking down her tale. Then we have the chronicles of the missing SOE agents and Atkins' dogged pursuit of their fates, however tragic, made even more interesting when Atkins gets approval to travel to France and Germany. Her stories of attendance at war crimes trials, testimonials from concentration camp leaders, guards, and inmates, and her search for closure amongst the wreckage of post-war Europe are detached enough to be clear and objective yet connected enough to be horrifying.
   
   But the deepest and most interesting mystery turns out to be that of Atkins herself. How did Vera Rosenberg, a Roumanian Jew, become naturalized British citizen and SOE leader Vera Atkins? Why was she so interested in Nazi Germany? What drew her to this work, and especially to her dissection of the ends of the lives of her agents? What secrets was Vera Atkins hiding?
   
   The answers to these questions are surprising and a bit disturbing. The lines between good and bad, collaborator and enemy, friend and enemy are blurred. But in the end I had not only a great respect for Atkins and how she did her job (in more ways than one) but for Helm, who solves several deeply buried mysteries. Highly recommended!



2. The extraordinary life of Vera Atkins- the woman who parachuted female secret agents into occupied France during the war, and then in 1945 made it her personal mission to track down the missing agents and find out the awful truth of what had happened to them. Sarah Helm, the author of A Life In Secrets: The story of Vera Atkins and SOE's lost agents, tells the whole story about the underground and dark side of political intrigues, spies and beyond. A most fascinating book.



3. Numerous interviews with family members and friends, aggressive pursuit of declassified documents and old letters, allow secrets to be revealed in this book. A LIFE IN SECRETS traces the history of special agents parachuted into France during World War II and their fate. The bravery of these people, and especially of the women, should always be remembered.
   
   Secret organizations are secret, their files restricted, purged, and hidden. That makes it especially difficult to trace decisions, responsibilities, and fates. To place credit for the actual heroic achievements and to place blame for mistakes and over-developed egos is exceedingly difficult.
   
   This book is meticulously researched and reconstructed and reveals the facts of agents in World War II yet it evades being tedious. The reader is left to decide the personality and motives of various responsible cadre members and who may be a traitor or not.
   
   There is no doubt as to the achievement of the agents or the author of this superb book. It is an extraordinary book about courageous people in monstrous times.



4. It's one thing to be a trained trooper, heavily armed and supported by your comrades. It's another to be a young female civilian, clandestinely landed or air-dropped into enemy occupied territory. Sarah Helms has written a very personal biography, a page-turner that helps today's interested reader access a facet of the war that hasn't been forgotten because it's never been widely known. The portal is Vera Atkins, the woman behind F section at SOE, who was personally responsible for recruiting, training, dispatching and managing civilian female agents in occupied France. It's an inspiring and byzantine story that takes the reader back to the roots of the 20th century. More immediately it makes you shake your head when you realize that many of these young heroines, idealists all, risked and lost their lives owing to the incompetence and betrayal of their colleagues, as well as the twisted and bestial treatment they received from the men and women they faced in German uniforms. It's comforting to know that at least one person - Vera Atkins - felt a personal responsibility to discover the fate of her female agents. Vera's motivations are sometimes questionable and murky, and the tapestry of her roots and experiences are as complex as the war itself. It would have been useful to read more about the specific training of the agents and have more details of their actions in the field. It's not entirely clear what they were supposed to do and what they actually accomplished. More attention on the issue of whether these women were legally considered spieds or not would have helped. Overall Helms book succeeds because it makes an important chapter of the war accessible to today's reader/student. It makes you want to go out and continuing reading on the subject, but one already suspects that her book is one of the best.



5. When I think of secret agents from the United Kingdom, normally I think of MI 5 or MI 6. Another agency was created during World War II--and disbanded at its end--called the Special Operations Executive or SOE. This book is about one woman, Vera Atkins, and her work within this branch of covert operations that sent patriotic men and women spies into France to help bolster the work of the French Resistance prior to the 1944 D-Day invasion at Normandy.
   
   It is obvious from the start of the book that author Sarah Helm has done extensive research on Ms. Atkins, piecing together not only her work for the SOE, but also Ms. Atkins' personal life. For example, Helm was tireless in trying to find exact locations of photos taken during Ms. Atkins' childhood in Romania. At the very beginning of the book the author talks about the one and only encounter she had with Vera Atkins.
   
   At the time of the interview, Ms. Atkins was but a few weeks from her 90th birthday, and chose to speak little of her involvement with the SOE. With that as a backdrop, the author used her skill and connections to interview anyone who had worked with or knew Vera Atkins to put together a very interesting story. The book is written in narrative form, but at times Helm drops into the text a snippet from one of these various interviews with survivors from that era. Most of the book is about how Vera Atkins tracked down leads on the agents who didn't return or were presumed dead, because Ms. Atkins felt responsible to give an accurate accounting to the families that were unaware their missing family members were agents.
   
   When reading this book, you are aware that you are reading about British history by a British author. One of the ways that this is evident is by the author's liberal usage of French phrases, some of which are not translated into English. For a British audience this may not be a problem, but for the average American audience, it can be troubling at times.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: A fascinating story about World War II and well worth the time to read.

5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963 (Dynasty).

1. Robert Dallek's biography is commendable for its honest approach to a biography of the 35th president. While some biographers may gloss over less flattering facts, Dallek is unflinching in his analysis and claims to have the most complete documentation of Kennedy's medical records. In this, he may have composed one of the most valuable records of the life of John F. Kennedy.
   
   The book begins with the early history of the Kennedy family including the merging of the Fitzgerald and Kennedy family which molded the political dynasty. Though Joe Kennedy modeled his oldest son Joseph to be the future president, his dreams were shattered when Joseph died in World War II. The burden was then placed on the initially unwilling second son John. With the use of his father's wealth, John experienced a meteoric rise through the House and Senate before he ran for president in 1960. Though some would suggest the Kennedy money and Chicago mayor Richard Daley "delivered" Illinois, and as a result the presidency to John, Dallek's evidence suggests otherwise.
   
   Though Kennedy is remembered as one of the great presidents in history, his work is suggested to be somewhat overrated in the broad scope. Kennedy's finest hour may have been the Cuban Missle Crisis. However, this may never have happened if Kennedy had not failed in the Bay of Pigs. Movements in civil rights were influenced by the political climate only until his conscience could not negotiate the price of political gains relative to the turmoil in the south.
   
   Relatively little time is spent on the assassination. This is a good thing in that the book is intended to focus on Kennedy's life. Ficticious or not, there are already too many books that focus on the assassination.
   
   No part of this book is more staggering than the documentation of John F. Kennedy's medical records. Even as an adolescent, he endured numerous medical issues. By adulthood, he took a drug regiment which will never be completely known. "Dr. Feelgood" was very secretive about what he gave the president. Testerone and steriods were among the drugs he took for his back and may also explain his womanizing to some degree. Even if Kennedy had not died in 1963, one must wonder how long he would have lived. One may even doubt whether living through two terms was possible.
   
   While some are far more interested in the scandals, Dallek's delightful account is detailed and reveals previously unknown facts. As a person that has difficulty staying interested in longer reads, I had no difficulty with this book. In terms of American history, this book is a must.



2. Dallek does a very fine job of presenting a balanced look at his subject; he obviously thinks a great deal of Kennedy, but this is no hagiography; when there are mistakes or missed chances by Kennedy, he gives them as much attention as he gives the successes. Those who wish to cannonize Kennedy will be disappointed, as will those who think he is overrated, with the best reputation that his father's money could buy, as well as those intent on believing any and all conspiracy theories about his assassination. But anyone wanting an evenhanded view of the man will find this book a treasure trove of information.



3. The esteemed author of a two-volume biography of LBJ takes a hand at a "comprehensive" bio of JFK, drawing on all that went before, and adding some new research.
   
   A lot went before. More books have been written about JFK than any other presidents except Lincoln and FDR. If you don't want to wade through them all, this is a good one-stop choice.
   
   The main new information comes from Dallek's first-ever access to cartons of unsorted medical records from Dr. Janet Travell, JFK's official in-house physician. These and other records reflect much more, and much more serious, medical problems than was known during JFK's life. In particular, he had severe intestinal problems as a teenager, which were treated with corticosteroids, then a new treatment. The steroids caused osteoporosis of the lower spine and vertebrae, leading to lower back problems as early as 1940. In addition, he suffered from rheumatic fever and, later, prostatitis, urethritis, ulcers, and malaria.
   
   Over his life, he took an astonishing quantity and variety of drugs, including hormones, amphetamines, codeine, cortisone, Lomotil, paregoric, penicillin, procaine, Ritalin, antidepressants, and testosterone. During the campaign, he was followed everywhere by a "black bag" containing his medications. This was once lost, to his distress, lest the severity of his problems be disclosed.
   
   He was medicated during critical times, including the Vienna summit with Khrushchev and the Cuban Missle Crisis. Dallek opines, with expert assistance, that the medications did not impair his performance, and indeed, that he could not have functioned without them.
   
   Dallek also uncovered some five hospitalizations between 1955 and 1957 that were not previously known, raising the implication that there were others, and reconfirming Kennedy's adeptness at cover-up. Dallek's judgment on this is two-pronged: first, that JFK recklessly endangered the country by seeking and accepting the presidency in such fragile health, and was devious in covering it up; second, that he was nevertheless even more heroic than we imagined in coping with it.
   
   Dallek's most publicized revelation was of "Mimi", a nineteen-year-old intern that Kennedy had an eighteen-month affair with ("Kennedy's Monica"). The episode is mentioned only in passing in the book, but was the lead story in the press when the book was first out.
   
   On Vietam, Dallek dug up a brief oral statement taped by Kennedy days after the Diem coup in November, 1963 (just weeks before his own assassination). In it, Kennedy refers to the extreme division there had been in his government over whether to support the coup, and the regrettable murkiness of a cable sent to Ambassador Lodge, setting him on a course to which "he was already inclined". He also expressed shock at the death of Diem, and concern about whether the new government would be stable.
   
   Dallek cites this tape as evidence that Kennedy was going to order a pullout of the 16,000 U.S. advisors then in Vietnam, and that he would never have escalated as Johnson did. Other evidence consists of an order to Defense Secretary McNamara to prepare a plan to withdraw "by 1965", an order to the State Department expert on Vietnam to prepare an analsis of "all options, including withdrawal", a statement in a September, 1963 TV interview that "it's their war", and one or two "think-aloud" private remarks.
   
   Dallek is not convincing. The actual record is sparse and ambiguous. Robert Kennedy himself said later that he did not know. Against Dallek's view are Kennedy's commitment to containment of communism, his "bear any burden" rhetoric and mentality, and his professed belief in the domino theory. The one concrete action he took was to order the increase from a few hundred advisors to 16,000 in the first place. And his main advisors--McNamara, Rusk, Taylor, and Bundy--were also LBJ's.
   
   Like Johnson, Kennedy obscured the U.S. role from the public. By the time he died, the issue had not yet come onto the general public's radar screen. Even viewing his actions cynically, he was too much the politician to simply abandon Vietnam to the communists.
   
   The truth probably is that Kennedy was conflicted, that the increase in advisors was a "buy time, split the baby" measure, and that he had in fact not yet decided what to do. In all things, he was more of a reactor and improviser than a large strategic thinker.
   
   Like the LBJ books, this one is written in plain English rather than that dreadful academese that many professional historians are captives of. Apart from the disclosures above, there is little that is new. It is mainly a distillation and re-presentation of the vast prior literature. As such, it is an admirable job, worth a solid B+ if turned in by a graduate student.



4. What you will like about this book:
   
   1) The apt title: it's a nice little turn of phrase which both recalls and overturns the biographical genre. Also, it reminds us that JFK's life was unfinished in two respects: he died young, and he died without completing his term in office.
   
   2) The sober treatment of the subject. Dalleck neither sensationalises JFK nor does he excoriate him. There is an admirable even-handedness in his assessment of JFK's achievements and fiascos.
   
   3) The slow, patient accumulation of facts upon facts, which might make for a long book, but which help to build up a thorough picture of what exactly happened. Especially useful if this is you first Kennedy biography or if your knowledge of this era is a little hazy.
   
   4) The sheer drama of the events that unfold. Kennedy's tenure was brief but the crises he had to deal with were of monumental proportions. Especially engrossing are his confrontations with Kruschev during the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
   
   What you may not like about this book:
   
   1) I never thought I'd be tempted to put away a book about Kennedy, but I almost did. The first 200 pages were especially hard going. Most exasperating were the overlong, involved discussions about Kennedy's medical problems. Of course these are relevant to his life-story, but they are interesting only up to a point. Then they become tiresome and spoil the pacing of the narrative. One can safely skip these parts and move on to the "story".
   
   2) Dalleck's writing style: Now don't get me wrong...Mr Dalleck is a fine writer and his expositions are very clear and sometimes brilliant. I thought the epilogue was especially well-written. But his style is too deadpan to generate any excitement in the reader. I think a life as colourful and portentous as Kennedy's deserves a narrative with more panache and perhaps a little flamboyance.
   
   3) Whatever happened to Kennedy's private life ? There is adequate treatment of his growing up years and of his relationship with elder brother Joe. But his relations with women, with his wife and children, what he did when he was not being "political", all this gets only cursory treatment. The omission is especially glaring after Kennedy assumes the presidency. From then on the book is almost entirely political. This means that it falls short of being a complete biography.
   
   4) As an old hand at reading biographies -I've recently read books on Mao, Hitler, Gandhi, Lincoln, Napolean, Indira Gandhi, Darwin, Einstein--I know that one of the most effective things a biographer can do is to provide a sort of leitmotif, a common thread running through the book and at various lifestages, that helps to explain and understand the character. Without such a device, the reader doesn't get a satisfying grasp of the protagonist. The only recurring theme is Kennedy's medical problems and how these might explain his actions. There are others, but they are not explicitly stated. Dalleck tries to do this by rounding things up in the epilogue, but it's a case of too little, too late.



5. This is the first full-fledged biography that I've read about JFK, and it certainly was informative and educational. Robert Dallek's access to the official medical records provided for an extremely enlightening tome. Certainly we gain appreciation for the intense physical torment which Mr. Kennedy must have felt while he was in office, and also the way that his back must have plagued him on the campaign trail. My one fault with the narrative is that I think Dallek gave short-shrift to Kennedy's affairs and sexual conquests. I do not bring this up due to a need on my part for more "juicy" details but due to the realization that his assignations were a political liability--such as when they were possibly used against him in the selection of his Vice President. It's hard to know what ever happened beyond closed doors but his relations with so many women undoubtedly jeopardized his ability to lead (due to blackmail concerns). I also felt that Mr. Dallek was rather naïve in regards to the 35th President's motivations. Did he have an overwhelming need to serve the public? Perhaps, but this, assuredly, was secondary to his need for power and status. We see here, in retrospect, how absurdly ambitious this young man was and how much his drive offended some of his contemporaries. One Senator said, "Why not show a little less profile and a little more courage?" Indeed. If he wanted to only to serve the public then he could have done so by less flamboyant means. At any rate, I still admired JFK after reading this biography, but the factual accounting of any person always tarnishes their veneer. That is inevitable as we are all human.

5 comments about Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams.

1. Ellis' biography of John Adams, one of the earliest published portraits of the Founding Fathers by the author, is well suited for those who want a shorter, crisper account than the longer ones produced by other biographers (e.g., McCullough). Though it does not include some important material unearthed since its appearance, it honors Adams' essential brilliance and his determinative role in both the success of the American Revolution and the country's endurance while a Federalist president.



2. Ellis again does an excellent job of making public figures who are seemingly lost to history real again. While not as flowery and readable as McCullough's work, I believe Ellis' effort to be more substantive. Following only Adams' post-presidency years, Ellis explores Adams' core political principles and beliefs through the struggles and battles of his sunset years.
   
   Through Adams' fight with long-time friend Mercy Otis Warren over his legacy, to his arguments with Mary Wollstonecraft in the margins of her own books, Ellis is able to show an aging John Adams at his best (or worst): outspoken, irreverent, fiesty, and more often than not, correct. The reader is led through Adams' opinions on government, law, the French Revolution, and more. The curious reader would do well to compare Adams' and Jefferson's opinions of the French revolutionaries, keeping "track of score."
   
   I only wish that Ellis could have written more. This book, while dry at times, will hold the reader's attention and leave them wanting more chapters.
   
   Recommended to the general reader who has already read through a full-length Adams biography.



3. Joseph Ellis has taken upon himself the task of bringing the relatively unknown 2nd President of the United States out of obscurity and making him relevant to today's industrial America. Surprisingly, Ellis finds a way to make this shadowy figure between Washington and Jefferson every bit as memorable and important as his predecessor and successor; no simple task, given that Adams was forcibly shoved from the pantheon of American heroes over a century ago.
   
   Passionate Sage reveals Adams as he would have liked: Contrarian in every respect, an irritating mixture of sanguine and volcanic, pessimistic and hopeful, witty and reserved. More importantly, though, Ellis reveals Adams for the master of political thought that he was. No longer is Adams a footnote between the Great Leader and the Republican - in this slim tome, Ellis finds a way to enlighten readers to Adams' unparalleled contributions to Constitutional and American history. As history has shown, few men did more for the American cause than the underappreciated John Adams, and even fewer living Americans are aware of the monumental accomplishments the Sage of Quincy achieved in his nearly nine decades in America.
   
   Though Passionate Sage falls victim to the dry definitions of a professional academic, these drudging pages do not occur with great frequency. However, the slim size of this volume does seem cluttered with pedantic and tangential discussions that distract from the subject himself - ironically, the same slight Adams suffered in his own time.



4. Great book that I shared with friends at Christmas. John Adams, an extraordinary intellectual who, thanks to Joseph Ellis, history has not forgotten. Fascinating, one that you want to read word for word, slowly.



5. This book by Joseph Ellis covers the post-presidential years of John Adam. It discusses his renewed correspondence with Thomas Jefferson after many years of silence because of partisan politics. It reveals a picture of a brillant but misunderstood founding father who Ellis calls "the voice of the Revolution" and Jefferson "the pen of the Revolution." A well-written and insightful book! A must read especially for those who read McCullouch's book on Adams.