5 comments about JFK: Reckless Youth.

1. In the description of this book it says, "-a book that will astonish, entertain, and inform all those interesed in the life of America's thirty-sixth president." John F. Kennedy was the 35th president not the 36th. I was doing a report on JFK and when i saw this i decided i obviously should not use this book!



2. Excellent book...Still waiting for Mr. Hamilton to come out with his second volume. I highly recommend the movie starring Patrick Dempsey. Mr. Hamilton we are still waiting for volume 2...



3. Our fascination with JFK continues. Even now, there are still aspects of his life and career which remain hidden from public view.
   
   This book relies on meticulous research and avoids speculation. It acquaints us with a brutal and psychotically competitive family, an aloof and cold mother of too many children who accomodates her husband's self-centeredness by a peculiarly Catholic form of emotional abandonment. This remove, however, strikes her own children as collateral damage from her intended assault on her husband.
   
   A family of highly competitive people, with singular ambition. The theory is not hard to establish: the ambition is to attain mom's love (which is unattainable) and to impress dad.
   
   The story is archetypal of American in the mid-20th century. We achieved so much because of qualities of competition, ruthlessness and self-interest. We also learned to worship glamour and celebrity. Wasn't Kennedy the best-looking president by far?
   
   I never understood him better than after reading this book. I also believe that he was addicted to sex, and that we knew way too little about how to treat that addiction back then.



4. Anyone who truly loves John Kennedy (as I do) owes it to themselves to delve deeper into the formation of the character of this fabulously flawed human being. Nigel Hamilton's minutely-detailed "JFK: Reckless Youth," which recounts Kennedy's early through his first run for Congress, is one helluva place to start.
   
   The myth of Camelot has suffered death by a thousand cuts -- shredded by the disclosure of presidential affairs, murder plots and political machinations. But while other celebrities have generated renewed interest and sympathy by openly airing dirt and scandal, the Kennedys have endlessly recycled the Camelot myth of the heroic young president slain before his time. Hamilton's book is the antidote to this pious tripe, serving up a John Kennedy fighting against (and sometimes embracing) forces that should have destroyed him. Young John Kennedy suffered from a mystery ailment that landed him in the hospital countless times. He courted disaster and scandal with a string of amours. He chose to fight the Japanese on a "plywood coffin" known as a PT boat rather than sit out the war in a safer place. He was saddled with a father whose pre-WWII appeasement policies undercut the national interest. Kennedy, from a young age, was one familiar with the knife's edge between life and death, learning to skate the blade with grace and aplomb. Hamilton exhaustively chronicles these episodes using interview material and an extraordinary trove of personal letters to and from Kennedy himself.
   
   It's a shame that the Kennedy family blocked Hamilton's access to additional JFK material. The next volumes would no doubt have shown the moral excesses and almost suicidal risk-taking increasing as JFK grew older. While this material might have threatened the maudlin serenity of Camelot, I would have welcomed the change. Paradoxically, my love and admiration for John Kennedy did not wane as I read the incredible details of his life. Instead, I was amazed that such an extraordinary, compassionate and visionary man arose from the chaos of a life lived as a constant roll of the dice.



5. JFK RECKLESS YOUTH has only one drawback: It covers only the part of his life up to his election to Congress. Hamilton has promised two more volumes, but they have so far not appeared. That said, it is the only negative that can be said for this remarkable volume, for my money the best JFK bio anywhere (including the new but hardly impressive JFK: AN UNFINISHED LIFE by Robert Dallek). There isn't an aspect of Kennedy's life that goes unexplored. Hamilton, however, did not have the access to JFK's medical records that Dallek did -- therefore he probably did not realize how very serious JFK's health issues were. (Of course, he is writing about JFK's early life, when he was obviously a lot healthier than he was later.)

   What is made painfully clear here is that JFK became president not because of his parents, but frankly, in spite of them. It was the force of his intellect and personality, more than his father's money, that made him who he was. Hamilton spends a lot of time in comparisons between Joe Jr. (the heir apparent) and Jack, the second son. According to him, Joe Jr. was ponderous, prejudiced, hardworking but abrasive and often nasty, and in general, simply did not attract people to him as Jack did. Jack, on the other hand, for all his natural rebelliousness (almost certainly fed by his parents' endless hectoring and marital issues), had enormous charm, warmth and endless humor. Hamilton even uncovers evidence of a surprisingly tender heart and his attempts to hide his concern for his friends with sarcasm and wit. His friends note that he constantly looked for new friendships and never lost a friend, even when the friends treated him with less than kindness and respect. He was loyal to a fault.

   Hamilton does reserve tremendous ire (and who can blame him?) for JFK's parents, two of really the most awful parents it's possible to imagine. Rose was a mother who constantly went off and left her children with the help, never home even when her oldest children were babies, and was never, never affectionate or even perhaps very interested in them, due to her unending though silent opposition to her husband's abuse and philandering. While she inspected them daily for missing buttons or loose threads, she was completely uninvolved in their interests, games and problems. Their father Joe was, as Hamilton makes clear, good at only one thing: manipulating stocks in order to steal himself a fortune. Every other thing he tried, including banking, shipping, movies, politics and diplomacy, was a failure. (Joe was so unscrupulous that even during his stint as Ambassador to the Court of St. James, he had people buying stocks he had inside information about. It says something that when FDR appointed him the first chairman of the newly formed Securities and Exchange Commission, and FDR's cabinet protested vigorously, FDR's answer was, "Set a thief to catch a thief.") What made Joe rather insidious (and this only in comparison to Rose) is that if he did have a good point, it was his genuine love for his children, misguided as his childrearing experience was. Unfortunately, he taught them to win at any cost and that women were to be treated with contempt and used like tissue. But because he expressed affection and care for them, even dropping his own work schedule to appear at their schools when Rose wrote letters but never bothered to visit her sons even when Jack was deathly ill in boarding school, Joe comes off as, ironically, the much better parent. He was loving and affectionate, though his affection came with a price: That they think as he thought and do as he did, which Jack simply rebelled against.

   Hamilton has to be commended for his sense of balance. While never shirking his responsibility to point out Jack's flaws, he is careful also to show from where they sprang -- the terrible, dysfunctional union of his parents and their awful sense of what raising a family meant. The children were socially isolated (partially because of his parents' desperation to enter Boston's WASP society while being Irish Catholics themselves), turning to each other for comfort and thus becoming close, but then separated when Rose decided she couldn't handle them anymore and sent them to boarding school, some as young as age eight.

   There is so much in this book that has value, but what I personally appreciate the most is Hamilton's constant underlying (though silent) thesis that Jack's gifts were so many that had he been born to different parents, he still would have been remarkably successful, yet probably been a less tormented and far less complex personality. For Hamilton sees his sexual yearnings as nothing less than looking for the love he missed in his mother, yet unable to express his need for it because of her coldness during his formative years and what that coldness did to his ability to express and receive affection.

   I could go on and go (actually, I have), but I do heartily recommend this. It's an absorbing read about the formation of a remarkable and pivotal personality in American history. I'd love to see the next volume -- imagine what he'd do with the marriage of Jack and Jackie? -- but must wait till he gets there. Meanwhile, this volume is a five-star, fifty-carat gem. Don't miss it.

5 comments about JFK: Remembering Jack hc*OP*.

1. I first happened to see the book at a local grocery store. It was so small and thin that I didn't even give it a second look. Even though I am a great Kennedy fan. However, at Christmas, my youngest son, gave the book to me as a gift. I smiled and thanked him and thought that I would look at it just to please him. But then I found the cd that came along with the book and it was incredible. In 1940 JFK tells a radio audience that if America didn't start re-arming we would be caught off guard the same as london was. What an incredible foresight he had. The other selections on the cd are well worth listening too. Including JFK reciting an autobiographical segment, handling a stubborn southern governor regarding James Merridith, and an adorable exchange between President Kennedy and his 2 year old son.



2. This book is truly a wonderful tribute to JFK.

   Greetings from Canada from a Canadian who wants to honor the memory of President John F. Kennedy.

   Kennedy was my hero when I was a 12-year-old boy, and 40 years later, President Kennedy is a true hero in the heart of a 52-year-old man.

   It seems hard to believe that 40 years have gone by since that very tragic day of Friday, Nov. 22, 1963. The day John F. Kennedy died, I shed tears and felt the world had lost a truly wonderful and remarkable leader.

   In the 40 years since the death of President Kennedy, I have built up a collection of books, photographs and political buttons from Kennedy's campaign for president in 1960. On my office wall hangs a large campaign poster with a larger-than-life photograph with a caption that reads: "A Time for Greatness" - John F. Kennedy for President. On my desk is a bust of President Kennedy. It is my way of honoring his memory and legacy.

   President Kennedy offered America and the world hope and a vision of greatness. He had courage and, like (those portrayed in) his book "Profiles in Courage," he was indeed a man of courage.

   Over the years, I had the honor to shake the hand of Robert F. Kennedy and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, and in 1989, I spent a whole day at the John F. Kennedy Museum in Boston, where I had the honor of spending time with one of John F. Kennedy's closest friends - David Powers. Mr. Powers shared with me some wonderful memories of JFK.

   These encounters with history have reinforced my heartfelt belief that John F. Kennedy was truly a wonderful and remarkable world leader.

   Back in December of 1974, on a cold morning, I made the trip to Arlington National Cemetery to visit the grave of President Kennedy. Though it was early and cold, I was moved by the line-up of people filing past President Kennedy's grave. Thousands of people like myself were moved by the life and times of a leader gunned down in the streets of Dallas.

   Forty years have not changed my affection and admiration for President John F. Kennedy; he has a special place in my heart.

   Michael McCafferty lives in Regina, Saskatchewan




3. With the purchase of this book, you get not only great pictures of the Kennedy's, but also a wonderful 60 minute CD with some of Kennedy's greatest press conferences, speeches and some phone conversations. This alone is a seller for this book. Bringing back JFK, if only for a few moments is awsome. He did things his way, you hear his conviction and beliefs in his voice, and his choice to follow those beliefs, is awe inspiring.

   I reccomend along with this book and CD the purchase of the book, "John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Life In Pictures". They are superb together and what I feel to be 2 of the best 40th Anniversary Commemorative books on JFK.




4. A wonderful pictorial of a brave man.
   No one is asking you to feel sorry for the Kennedys. But they do deserve respect. Yes, they could have lived long lives and grown full heads of grey hair if they had gone "with the flow" but instead they were killed for standing up for what they believed in.
   Brave people truly live Life while alive, more so in one year than cowards do in a lifetime.

   "Speak not evil of the absent: it is unjust."
   ~George Washington




5. jfk remembreing jack is good tribut to jfk.
   there are some rare pictures and anecdotes.
   there is a cd too. we can heard jfk at 23 and john-john speaking to his father.
   but there is not a biography, so if you want to know more about him buy another book.
   soif you are a kennedy fan or not buy it1

3 comments about My Years as Prime Minister.

1. I read this book primarily to find out whether Jean Chretien knew that 9/11 was an inside job and if he knew why Canada went along placidly in support of the war on terrorism . Although he does not answer the questions directly, he deals with them. He writes Putin told him that he believed the US military and the corporations involved in profiting from war were behind 9/11. They needed a new playground for testing their new war toys. In a totally different context in the book Jean Chretien writes that Canada could be invaded by the US at any time. Putting the two statements together I had my answers. He knew but he had no choice.
   Well written book, easy to read and packed with insightful information.



2. Sheds a lot of light on the accomplishments of the Chretien government and the media-driven scandals that ultimately caused the downfall in 2003 under Paul Martin. Great book for readers from Canada as it shows the true side of Chretien, something that was often muddled in the press. Readers from other countries will see the impact Canada had on world affairs under this leader, and come to understand how the Canadian political scene and "state of mind" differs very much from other countries, especially the United States.



3. As he always seemed to be, this is an honest and humorous account of his years as the prime minister. He is probably one the best Canada has seen in recent history. And the book is not only his memoirs, but also is full of lessons for those interested in politics, policy makings, and respect. Every Canadian should read this book, whether you like him or now (I know of very few people who don't praise his work and leadership abilities).

No comments about Madam Prime Minister: A Life in Power and Politics.

5 comments about Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt's Legacy.

1. Although I consider myself very much pro-laissez faire capitalism, a few of the chapters in this book are not very convincing, which detracts from the overall utility of the book. However, it is still one of the few books that critiques the Theodore Roosevelt Administration (henceforth T.R.) from a pro-laissez-faire capitalist perspective, and is therefore still worth reading.
   
   T.R. became president at a crucial turning point in U.S. history. At this time, there was a raging political debate between Classical Liberalism and Progressivism. Classical Liberalism was the idea of the Founding Fathers, which essentially argues that the proper role of the Federal government is largely to protect civil liberties to allow all citizens to pursue happiness. Progressivism encouraged the federal government to serve as an advocate for the weak and take a more active role in public affairs for the "greater good" of society. Unfortunately, with T.R., Progressivism won, which set numerous political precedents for government regulations in business, food, medicine, the environment and just about every other facet of public life. Since the T.R. was a *decisive* victory for Progressivism over Classical Liberalism, this makes T.R. arguably the worst president in U.S. history.
   
   Although Powell seems to miss the broad philosophical turning point described above, he does identify a large collection of loathsome policies of T.R. The chapter on "trust busting", which describes the dissolution of Northern Securities and Standard Oil and the subsequent hampering of economic growth that resulted from anti-trust laws, is very good. Similarly, the chapter on the massive pricing regulations on the railroad industry and the crippling economic results is also very eye-opening. The chapter on food and drug regulations contains a lot of informative facts, such as the ludicrous campaign against Coca-Cola (well after cocaine was removed as an ingredient), but it is a little less convincing. The chapter on environmental regulation was probably the least convincing of these four.
   
   Although Powell is very good at revealing how in many situations, the government regulations did not actually make consumer products safer or the environment cleaner in many situations, his argument seems to boil down to how these things inherently became less safe in every situation, because the government got involved. While this is certainly true in many situations, it is definitely not true in all, as there are legitimate cases of fraud or negligence in consumer products or pollution that the government should be involved in. Instead, Powell's argument would have been much more compelling to base his arguments on moral rights. For example, a chronically ill patient has the right to risk his life with a non-FDA-approved drug, if he indeed rationally perceives it to be his only hope to recovering.
   
   Moreover, the chapter on Roosevelt's foreign policy is not persuasive. Roosevelt did indeed think that a country should routinely go to war to maintain national pride and would toughen men into "real men". This is indeed an alarming view for a Commander in Chief to have, since wars should be viewed as something a country is forced into to defend the rights of its citizens, not as a means to boost national moral. However, Powell goes well beyond this. Powell is heavily critical of the Panama Canal because its construction was made possible by a U.S. government backed revolution in Panama. While I think there can be a serious discussion on the propriety of this actions, to fixate on the fact that the Panama Canal was made possible by "interventionism" overlooks the prodigious achievement in civil engineering and international commerce that this canal truly represented. Furthermore, Powell labels T.R.'s handling of the Ion Perdicaris hostage situation as unnecessary interventionism, which overlooks how T.R.'s actions boldly declared that the U.S. would have zero tolerance for those who violate the rights of U.S. citizens overseas.
   
   Overall, this is a good, but definitely not great, book on the Theodore Roosevelt administration from a pro-laissez-faire capitalist perspective.



2. I was sad to see "Bully Boy" by Jim Powell in my local bookstore. Mr. Powell's book goes on a long journey of historical fantasy and revision of one of our greatest Presidents. I would highly encourage people to boycott this trash book and instead read "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" by Edmund Morris for a more balanced and fair look at TR. This book does not dignify a longer response or a point by point retort. It only warrants a quick toss in the recycle pile along with other trash books, tabloids and fairy tales.



3. In FDR's Folly, Jim Powell relied heavily on the work of empirical economists to draw conclusions about FDR and his policies. While contrary to other historians who have largely ignored economic studies of the great depression, Powell evaluated FDR and the New Deal based on the actual outcomes and consequences that they produced. In a similar vein, Powell documents the policies of TR in his new book, Bully Boy, and concludes that they largely did more harm than good. Specifically, Powell discusses the following in Bully Boy:
   
   * How TR's regulations, tariff and "trust busting" policies harmed consumers
   
   * How TR's foreign policy undermined the Monroe Doctrine and set precedents for future intervention in conflicts with no clear threat to U.S. security
   
   * How TR's Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drugs Act were used predominately as special interest legislation and set the foundation for the future FDA "drug lag," which has killed thousands
   
   * How TR's conservation policies were counterproductive
   
   * How TR's tax policies help to establish the federal income tax
   
   While Powell's assessment of TR cannot be found in most history books, Bully Boy is well researched and documented with approximately 29 pages of notes and a 21 page bibliography. I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to people that either love or loathe TR.
   
   Many people will obviously disagree with Powell's conclusions or will support the consequences and precedents of TR's policies that appear to trouble Powell. I look forward to reading both the positive and negative reviews of this book. My hope is that those who disagree with Powell can provide more substance than the ad hominem attacks (e.g. "smut," "garbage," "reactionary claptrap") and other rhetorical fallacies that were the main locus of criticism for FDR's Folly and Wilson's War



4. Like liberals with Ronald Reagan, Powell I think misses the point about why Theodore Roosevelt was (and is) so popular--because they believed that he was genuinely interested in their concerns and problems and he spoke to them in a language they could understand. Despite his thesis most Americans probably felt (to paraphrase Reagan) that they were better off after his presidency than before. Powell is probably closer to the mark regarding TR's foreign policy, particularly the building of the Panama Canal but many Americans, similar to today (to some extent) supported a foreign policy that furthered American interests.



5. I failed to see any mention of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Filipino wonen and children killed by Americans. Roosevelt was said to have been elated by the slaughter of "savages" for the American cause

1 comments about Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington.

1. This is great for a reference but don't try and read it straight through without wanting to run screaming from the room. Written in true flowery early Victorian style it is often hard to read for more than a few pages at a time. There is very little of Martha Washington mentioned at all which is a disapointment. The author also has a very rose coloured view of his family, but then again don't we all?

5 comments about One of Us.

1. Richard Nixon. The mere mention of the name is enough to inspire some of the most mean-spirited, gut reactions. On the other hand, as Mr. Wicker quotes a Nixon associate in his book "you get back out of life what you plow into it." For all of his dark, quirky, idiosyncracies, RN, was in many ways "One of Us."
   
   Tom Wicker paints about as sympathetic and generous portrait of the late 37th president as you are going to get from a liberal New York Times reporter. The book is not without its snide and petty moments. Wicker, for whatever personal or professional reasons, has a field day down-playing the communist infiltration of the government in the Truman administration and describing, rather underwhelmingly, the high drama of the Alger Hiss case.
   
   The key quote, a quote in which the entire premise of the book rests upon, comes from none other than Henry A. Kissinger who poignantly asks "What would he (RN)have been like had somebody loved him?" At this point in the book, it all comes together: Here was an enormously gifted man who, because of his inner doubts and insecurities, destroyed himself from within. Missing, unfortunately, was RN's remarkable comeback to respectability. This book retains a slight flavor of the animous that "establishment liberals" had for the man who came from a decidely lower-middle class/working-poor background; a man who was a self-made man in every sense of the word.
   
   At times Wicker's attempt at amateur psychologist is agonizing. How can he possibly know what he knows re: RN's motivations, thoughts, desires, secrets, fears, etc. But to be fair, The Old Man was so uncomfortable with himself, so quirky and ill-at-ease "an introvert in an extrovert's" world, as he described himself, perhaps the only way to get your head around the man is to put him on the couch. I think that Fawn Brodie, who wrote a pscyo-babble biography of RN and Thomas Jefferson was hardly a source to be consulted. Notwithstanding, comments from Nixon relatives Lucille Parsons, Jessamyn and Merle West are highly insightful. It is, however, very unfortunate that Wicker is not more generous in his treatment of RN's parents, particularly his Quaker mother and the influence he had on her life. Father Frank Nixon is made to look like nothing more than a loud-mouth lout; Hannah is portrayed as this taciturn, cold, unfeeling mother who could not find it in her heart to express emotion. In short, I think Wicker has been watching too much Oprah, because not everyone feels the need to show their soul bare-naked to the world. Especially those of RN's generation and ethnic/religous group. Outward signs of affection were not the norm. Yet Wicker, instead of appreciating the diversity of the human condition, chooses to pathologize Mrs. Nixon's behavior (he does a good job on Pat in this regard as well).
   
   Jonathan Aitken's biography Nixon: A Life gives a fuller, more balanced and nuanced portrait of the impact pacifist Hannah Nixon had on her precocious son, as well as a better balanced account of who Frank Nixon was and why he was the way he was. Wicker's analyses of Nixon's parents, and of Nixon himself, are too simplistic and, at times, just plain mean.



2. Over the last few years I've read 35 presidential biographies, usually using Amazon readers as my guide to picking the best available choice. It's difficult to find a balanced Nixon biography, and I eventually chose Wicker's One of Us, but rating this book is difficult too. First, it's more of a political biography than a retelling of Nixon's life, but Nixon was so driven by politics that this decision doesn't seem to leave much out. Second, Wicker is more interested in describing who Nixon was than he is in telling a straight narrative. Once, he has given the reader the complete picture of Nixon's psyche, Wicker just stops writing. He leaves out Watergate and the last year and a half of Nixon's presidency. I don't know if Wicker felt too close to Watergate or if he just got tired of writing. Third, there have to be more editorial oversights in this book than just about any serious biography I've read. Towards the end of the book, I had the feeling that Wicker or the editor just turned on the spell checker but didn't bother to make sure the correct words were used.
   
   Despite these major criticisms there is a great deal of merit to One of Us. Although there is a fair amount of psycho-babble, Nixon is certainly in the top 5 presidents as far as needing to be explained from a psychological perspective. And Wicker absolutely nails Nixon's personality. The reader gets the absolutely driven, intelligent, paranoia, manipulative Nixon who has a realpolitik approach to ethics and values.
   
   Nixon was the first president who I really grew up in terms of a broad awareness of the issues of the times. Wicker does a great job of capturing America's concerns. We were obsessed with finding communists under every rock. Civil rights and race rights led to code words like law and order, Students got divided into good kids or rock throwers with little in between. With each of these issues Nixon found a way to play to his constituency, "the silent majority", in an often manipulative way that played more to television sound bites than solutions.
   
   Finally, for the Nixon skeptics out there, this book deals well with Nixon's supposed skills at international relations. It shows how the team of Nixon and Kissinger working together while ignoring the advice and consent of the Congress, State Department, or even the CIA led to serious long-term problems in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cambodia, with missile reduction treaties, and on and on. Wicker's analysis is difficult to dispute, and it is a powerful argument against the sort of power diplomacy used by Nixon and his ilk.



3. One of us??? Well, I guess -- if you consider yourself part of a group of square, sex-hating, self-deluded, egomaniacal bores who refer to themselves in the third-person. Actually, that would be unfair to all the self-deluded, sex-hating squares in our midst. 'Cause Richard Nixon was part of nothing other than the squalor of his own mind. When he looked out at the world, what he saw was the inside of his own eyeballs.
   
   Tom Wicker -- the quintessent(is that a word?) liberal panty-waste gets two stars here because of the unintentional humor of the tome. (It is almost 800 pages of tome.) But the humor is more than off-set by the outrage of the book. For it is a historical lie. All the so-called "progressive" achievements of Nixon's time (the EPA, expansion of voting rights and other minority protections, worker safety rules, etc) were accomplished IN SPITE of Dick Nixon, not because of him. They were gifts of that time because of the Congress, the media, and mostly -- oh how far we've come -- because the American people were then in much better touch with their own interests. Nixon, to quote Ed Harris as E.Howard Hunt -- was the darkness reaching out to the darkness, and our own very dark time is still haunted by the vicious hatred of all democratic values unleased by the Whittier Vampire. George W. Bush is much more the child of Nixon, than of his own father.



4. Chapter 14, pp 569-614 of "One of Us" is probably the best account of Richard Nixon's Vietnam War policy that I have read. Most Vietnam books tend to skimp on the latter years of the war, when it was winding down. In general this book is very even-handed and at times surprisingly sympathetic. However, Wicker is also honestly frank in his criticisms of Nixon's Vietnam policy and other aspects of his foreign policy.
   The reviewer is the author of "Killed In Action: The life and times of SP4 Stephen H. Warner, draftee, journalist and anti-war activist"



5. good work on the policies during the nixon adminstration
   very clear and concise writing in laymen's terms of some rather complex subject matters. the writier's skill in presenting his ideas clearly are done very well inthis book.

1 comments about My Vision.

1. This book discusses Gaddafi's view of the world in theory and his belief in how his Green Book has been implemented in practice in Libya. His ideas of the world's problems, it's causes and how they can be dealt with are unique. Gaddafi has never been afraid to criticize and his frankness has met with mixed feelings as to whether he is a hero or villain. Edmond Jouve, the author of this book, is a respected professor in Paris and he has captured the essence of Gaddafi quite remarkably. One could say that he would appear to be an admirer. Jouve not only speaks directly to the great man himself, but to those close to him; his only daughter Aicha Qaddafi, is an important and rare example of those who cooperated in the writing of this book. This is a must for those with an interest in African and Middle Eastern politics and of one of the region's most controversial and tenured leaders.

5 comments about Nixon's Shadow: The History of the Image.

1. Interesting recap of the various images of Nixon, some self-crafted, some imposed by friendly or critical onlookers to his long and winding career. The chapter titles serve as a valid sketch of the images:
   
   1. The Califonia Conservatives: Nixon as Populist
   2. The Fifties Liberals: Nixon as Tricky Dick
   3. The New Left Radicals: Nixon as Conspirator
   4. The Washington Press Corps: Nixon as News Manager
   5. The Loyalists: Nixon as Victim
   6. The Psychobiographers: Nixon as Madman
   7. The Foreign Policy Establishment: Nixon as Statesman
   8. The Historians: Nixon as Liberal
   
   Greenberg makes the point that the images layered and overlapped over time, and also makes the point that at this stage of presidential politics, partly as a result of Nixon's imagecrafting, we cynically expect politicians to be in the business of crafting their image, not presenting their true persona or policies.



2. I was intrigued about this book when I heard it praised in a lecture by Walter Macdougall, the Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian. He published his lecture and what he said was, "What image will posterity nurture of Nixon? The best analysis is David Greenberg's Nixon's Shadow, published last year. Greenberg describes five Richard Nixons that beguile and perplex the American people."
   
   But after reading it, I agree. Greenberg is younger than other historians who have written about Nixon and so he is, arguably, more objective. This book gives each point of view its due - those who hate Nixon, those who think he's an elder statesman, those who think he is a nutcase. It is as much a book about American political and social life and all of its strife and controversy in the years 1946-1974 (and after) as it is about Nixon himself. It doesn't just praise or bash Nixon - it explains WHY people praised or bashed Nixon.
   
   Greenberg has really invented a new genre of history here. You might call it Rashomon Plus. He shows you Nixon from different perspective but then goes on to unpack these different images of Nixon and explain why they have all taken root in our political mindset.
   
   A couple of the other posts apparently don't like Greenberg because he is liberal. That may be true, but this is not a liberal attack on Nixon, in fact he is more critical in many places of Nixon's critics than he is of Nixon. The "liberals" who came up with Tricky Dick are faulted for sneering at the middle class. And the radical left that attacked Nixon on Vietnam are faulted for being in the grip of conspiracy theories at times. The book gives Nixon's supporters more than their due. (In fact Walter Macdougall is a Conservative.) This is a highly orginal work of history.



3. Greenberg is a good chronicler of events and few occasions in Nixon's life, however incidental, is missed here. The book is long on details relating to the professional side of Nixon, but I was disappointed that there was a lack of personal anecdote within the covers of the book. Of course RN was an inscrutable, moody, paranoid and ultimately unknowable man, but I would have liked more material on Pat Nixon, as well as Tricia and Julie. Greenberg quotes copiously of Nixon's own self-serving memoirs but doesn't include much primary source material on Nixon as a human being.

   The strong points are the chapters on Watergate and the gradual demise and destruction of RN as President. The ancillary characters of Watergate all get their just due: Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean are described in sometimes sympathetic but occasionally, brutal detail. Reeves shows masterfully that Nixon dissembled and lied to the bitter end, not to the American people, but most disturbingly, to himself. It's well-written and full of detail, just don't expect much on Nixon the man. Otherwise, an enthusiastic thumbs up.




4. Greenberg's work is the first I have read that expores the relationship between image and history in an interesting and inviting manner. I think one of the reasons that Nixon invites so much controversy was that he was a complex and contradictory man. He just does not seem to fit. Watergate destroyed him, but you have conservatives railing against him and liberals saying he did good work and vice versa. Greenberg attempts an overview of all these competing images and it is surprising how often the image being projected says more about the writer than Nixon himself. A very interesting book that deserve patient study.



5. Here we go again.... It's become a "right of passage"
   in the leftist community: if you want to be invited
   to the best wine and sleeze... I mean cheese parties,
   write a book smearing Nixon. Richard Nixon was
   a complex human being, with both good and bad
   sides to him, just like you and me. He had an
   indelable impact on the development of the nation,
   in both positive and negative ways. He is far too
   much damned for his flaws, and far too little praised
   for his successes. This book is just another stale
   hatchet job, written by a hack who will be forgotten
   as quickly as yesterday's toast; just another necrophiliac
   having his way with a dead man. It's easier to
   regurgitate leftist party hate speech than to actually
   research the man's life and be honest about it.
   Don't waste your money on this drek; it isn't
   even good for toilet paper.

No comments about Mrs. Lincoln LP: A Life.