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 Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1: 1884-1933.

1. For many Americans, Eleanor Roosevelt is more a myth than an actual person. In the Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. there is a whole floor devoted to American presidents, but just a small wing devoted to our First Ladies, or more specifically their inaugural gowns. While visiting the museum, I picked up a poster of Eleanor Roosevelt, with a nice quote that reads something like, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent." Other than my poster, the only thing I knew about Eleanor Roosevelt was what my grandmother, who grew up during the Depression and Roosevelt years, had told me: "She sure was ugly." When Eleanor Roosevelt's letters to Lorena Hickok were revealed to the public in 1978, and questions about the true nature of their relationship arose, author Blanche Wiesen Cook, a historian and women's studies professor, was intrigued to answer the challenge of determining who Eleanor Roosevelt really was. In her book, "Eleanor Roosevelt: Volume One, 1884-1933," Cook promises to give readers a fuller view of Eleanor Roosevelt - not just the mythic character, but the actual story behind the woman, an independent power in her own right.
   
   "Eleanor Roosevelt: Volume One, 1884-1933" is, in essence, a feminist reading of the life and times of Eleanor Roosevelt, telling her story chronologically up to 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt becomes President of the United States. Eleanor Roosevelt's childhood, as would be expected, is crucial to understanding her identity. Although she grows up in a privileged family in New York - her uncle Theodore is President of the United States - her childhood is "filled with disappointment, alcoholism, and betrayal." Eleanor Roosevelt's mother casts Eleanor aside as ugly and too serious. Although her father is an alcoholic, Eleanor adores him, as he encourages her to be courageous and bold and wants her to be self-reliant and self-fulfilled. Both of her parents die before she turns 11, leaving Eleanor to be raised by relatives who mostly conform to the ideals in place during the 1890s. It is not until she is sent to Marie Souvestre's school in Europe that she is first "given permission to be herself." Marie Souvestre is an unconventional feminist and her school is unusual in that it encourages girls to be independent at a time when education is considered to be dangerous to a woman's mental health. Marie Souvestre's role in Eleanor's life is second only to her father's, as Marie Souvestre appreciates Eleanor's talents and encourages her to discover and develop her capabilities.
   
   Upon graduation, though, Eleanor Roosevelt faces the realities of her time, as she is torn between the new self-sufficient world she has discovered through her schooling in Europe and the traditions of her mothers and relatives in New York. Ultimately, Eleanor Roosevelt accepts her prescribed role as a woman, goes courting, and secretly becomes engaged to her cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to the chagrin of his possessive mother Sara. Eleanor becomes increasingly dependent on Franklin, feeling "absolutely lost" when he is away. After they are married, Eleanor is forced to move in to his family home with his mother; as a result, she is never able to have her own home and instead relies on her mother-in-law for everything, as she essentially runs their lives and is the loudest voice in raising their children, leaving Eleanor without a role in her own family and without "self-confidence and ability to look after [herself]." Whereas, to be loved by Marie Souvestre had "meant to display an independent spirit with individual flavor, and a playful imagination," to be loved by Sara "meant to become fully like Sara." It is here that Eleanor loses her identity, mimicking Sara's views, including "flip, class-bound arrogance and egregious racism."
   
   It is not until 1918, when the "bottom drops out" of Eleanor Roosevelt's world, that she reflects on her life and determines what she wants of it. While previously Eleanor has had a romantic view of her marriage, upon discovering Franklin's letters from his mistress, Lucy Mercer, Eleanor Roosevelt becomes dejected and depressed and develops what the author characterizes as anorexia. After a period of reflection and introspection, ultimately she resolves to design herself an "independent life" that serves to meet her own needs and reclaim her separate identity. After 1923, Eleanor and Franklin live essentially separate lives, as Eleanor accepts Missy LeHand's role as his "second wife" and develops her own separate circle of friends separate from his. While Franklin works toward rehabilitating his legs after developing polio, Eleanor works on her own career and becomes a national figure in her own right, including an important role as an educator, owning and teaching at a progressive school called Todhouse, and encouraging a new generation of female students just as she had been encouraged by Marie Souvestre. Finally, Eleanor seems to complete her personal journey as a woman through her romantic relationships with Earl Miller, her bodyguard, and Lorena Hickok, an esteemed reporter from the Associated Press, who both champion Eleanor Roosevelt and promote her best interests, giving her personal fulfillment. Through these relationships, she is no longer alone, but has the support system she will need to face her next big challenge - the White House.
   
   In telling the arc of Eleanor Roosevelt's journey to becoming an independent woman, "Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1" is what it claims to be - a life and times of Eleanor Roosevelt through 1933. Although the writing style is dry and the book starts off slowly, it ultimately succeeds in explaining who Eleanor Roosevelt was - her struggles to find her own identify and to put herself in a position of power where she doesn't need her husband to define her own self-worth. But because the book ends at 1933, we learn more about who Eleanor Roosevelt is and less about why she is such an important historical figure. Also, because this book is necessarily about Eleanor as an independent person, she emerges as a fully-fleshed three-dimensional figure, while Franklin comes off as a flat, ordinary, two-dimensional character. As a result, the book sparks even more questions than it answers. Why did Eleanor marry Franklin? What was the true nature of their partnership? What were her greatest accomplishments? And why should we care about Eleanor Roosevelt? While I had not originally planned to, I now intend to read "Eleanor Roosevelt: The Defining Years, Volume 2" by the same author, as well as "F.D.R." by Jean Edward Smith and "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns Goodwin to help answer these additional questions and learn not just about who Eleanor Roosevelt was, but why she mattered.



2. Readers disappointed with the lack of analysis in this book are looking for another animal -- a more supple, lovelier, livlier, or more analytic one. This is a narrative mammoth, wherein Cook revives ER through dense documentary detail. I especially enjoyed the detail about her upbringing, her families, and influential relatives. With all of the details woven into this chronicle, it'd just get convoluted to add more flourish, conjecture, and analysis. I would not like to see details cut for the sake of these.
   
   The notable exception is Cook's willingness to speculate about the amorous nature of ER's friendships. Even here, she cites documentation, and chronicles what has been destroyed, gone missing, and where interview questions were refused. Cook is forthright about her motivation to venture out further here in order to counter popular conjecture about ER as sexually frigid.
   
   Cook has provided groundwork for any number of less academic biographies.
   I too would love to see other kinds of biographies of ER, other than narrative: a philosophic biography analyzing the significance of her actions in her time; a descriptive biography of her character or biopic film.
   
   For a lovelier portrait of her perspective and character, read her own works or The Wisdom of Eleanor Roosevelt. For broader context and significance, there really isn't enough, but try Kearns-Goodwin.
   
   For details, chronology, and narrative, read both volumes of this. I'd love to see a biopic made out of it.



3. I have not finished the book yet but I am loving it and I picked it up at Hyde Park where I visited the homes and the final resting place of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and their two dogs. I carry the book around to encourage me to continue to speak up for the people of New York and I wrote yet another letter after getting inspired by Eleanor's courage and my newest letter was published and for me -- this letter is in honor of Eleanor! I love the image in the beginning of the book that starts with the 5th Avenue bus and it is symbolic for me (visually and as a metaphor for one's nature) but you read it and see why! Blanche Wiesen Cook praises her and also admits some political decisions, etc. made her cringe and that is true but she and the majority of us admire her for her courage and dynamism. Visiting her home one could see her photos of world leaders and people from diverse walks of life that Eleanor clearly appreciate...another words she refused to live a life of elitism. For me to know she visited the lower East Side and witnessed and brought awareness to the poverty and terrible working conditions of young children inspire me to keep speaking up although there will always be people who would prefer anyone who makes waves to be quiet and apathetic. Now is the time to open this book and read especially if you live in New York City and I also urge you to visit her home in Hyde Park!The book is not as dynamically written as Jean Strouse's Morgan and I can't find out how to lower the star rating but it is a good book and the more people read about Eleanor's life the better especially now in NYC's economic tsunami crushing communities and displacement including the lower East Side that was key in Eleanor's life and raising her husband's awareness of poverty and exploitation of children workers right here. So this book is worth reading especially now when I see mega rich literally pushing out long term community members and I work to support their rights to remain in their homes.



4. I found both volumes of Ms. Cook's books fascinating. I could not wait to return to them. I learned a lot about Eleanor and the time in which she lived. I will buy copies of both for all my children and suggest that my grands read them as well.



5. This nonsensical bio is written entirely from a blind feminist perspective. The research is suspect. The prose amateurish. The details gossipy and contrived. If Eleanor Roosevelt was truly a woman of thought and progressivism, then Cook has done her an unforgivable disservice. If you're looking to understand Roosevelt's honest-to-goodness place in history, you will not find it is this intellectually offensive work.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life.

1. A great biography on John Quincy Adams. The author thoroughly went through everything from childhood to death. He was able to describe him very well. I liked hearing about his various government jobs and living in Europe. I only have a minor nitpick the author should have sticked with refering to him as JQA instead of rotating from JQA, John and Adams given his famous father it would have been better to stick with just JQA. Other that it was a great biography.



2. A fine biography about America's most important second generation citizen. Nagel manages the tricky balancing act of covering the relevant topic without overstaying his welcome with everything and the kitchen sink. Nagel also earns due credit for resisting, for the most part, the urge to apply today's psychological interpretations to the mind and motives of a man who lived two hundred years ago. Discussion is important but speculation is just that. It also helps Nagel's cause that JQA led a pretty uncontroversial life.
   
   A great legislator and a (by his own admission) below average President, JQA proved his mettle as a Secretary of State and congressman. The only President to return to congress, he fought vehemently for abolition and civil liberties. He even died on the job. How's that for service to the nation.
   
   If the personal aspect of the biography seems underwhelming, perhaps that is due to the subject's relative colorlessness. A staid, serious individual who may have even suffered from mild depression, JQA lived his entire life as his father's son. Hard to live up to a man revered around the world as a living or recently deceased god. JQA lived a very quiet, serious life for a public figure.



3. I'm nearly at the halfway point of my mission to read a biography of each President. I would put this bio in the top third of those I've read for a variety of reasons.
   
   First, it was the perfect length. JQA was an important President but was he TJ, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln... no. Nothing that important happened when he was President at least in a very broad, international sense. I'm very glad the author didn't lengthen the biography and make it detailed to a fault just to make it look like he did more research or overvalued the importance of JQA.
   
   JQA was quite a character. Clearly he was an intelligent man. I loved the way the author talked about what JQA read. In fact, I might even read some of those books myself because as with nearly every President, they gathered most of their intelligence from reading on their own. I liked the fact that the author included all the info about JQA's literary, research and professorship.
   
   I didn't get the point of how the author pointed out JQA's schedule so often, when he got up, what he did all day, that got a bit old.
   
   Other than that, it was really a great biography that shed a lot of light on this man.
   
   A few things I found interesting about JQA that the author did a good job detailing.
   
   1. Abigail and John Adams really put a lot of pressure on their son. That was very apparent and made JQA a sympathetic person at times.
   
   2. JQA was a stick in the mud a lot of times so it is easy to see why a lot of people didn't like him. It also explains why his presidency isn't held in such high regard. I thought it very telling that on Andrew Jackson's deathbed JQA was very uncomplementary. I would've hated to cross him.
   
   3. And perhaps this is the most interesting. JQA couldn't rise above the pressure that was put on him by his parents. He passed that pressure on to his kids, causing one to kill himself. Of course, I do think he mellowed as he got older which the author detailed allowing him to become a sympathetic figure again.
   
   Lastly, how about the fact that JQA died pretty much in congress. Wow, what dedication.
   
   Good bio that I would recommend.



4. It was obvious from tne start that John Quincy Adams was going to be a great man,like it or not. His father,John, second in his class at Harvard, immediately began bombarding the youth with Greek, Latin, English and history. His mother, Abigail Smith of Mayflower descent, simultaneously joined the festivities, instilling a religious morality that might have frightened Calvin himself.Trips abroad with Quincy's father were to be educative,with little time to be "wasted".Little wonder that J.Q. would also graduate second in his Harvard stint. The real surprise to this reviewer is that the future 6th president ever married since he seemingly knew nothing about intimacy, only work and duty.His beratings and impudence towards his wife are carefully preserved, perhaps sadly. Certainly no family wrote or retained more for future historians.That he was a competent diplomat, an historic Secretary of State under Monroe, and a highly respected Representative for Massachusetts until his death in 1848 (stricken on the floor of The House) is almost completely forgotten.It's simply that his presidency was a complete bust,due mostly to the infamous alleged "corrupt deal" with Henry Clay in the election of 1824. No president was better trained for the office, few presidents were treated more callously by Congress.(Which came first,the chicken or the egg)? Paul Nagel writes an anecdotal, not too heavy biography of a difficult man. The results are generally favorable to the reader, even if the subject himself tends not to be, Is there a psycho-historian in the house?



5. After noting the ratings and browsing the titles of other reviewers, I realize I am in the minority in the low review I have given this book. I find it even more peculiar given my disposition to normally be quite favorable in my reviews. I will not flinch, however, in my belief that this biography is ill conceived, inadequately researched, and poorly written.
   
   First, I will tackle why this book is ill conceived. Nagel makes the assertion that he will be able to add knew insight into the inner workings of John Quincy Adams, a task he points out that no previous biographer has been fully successful, by writing a biography utilizing JQA's diary. This certainly seems like an acceptable approach but in practice Nagel simply uses it as an excuse to write a biography without doing any real research. In fact, you will not find a single footnote in this entire volume, simply an explanation basically telling you that his primary research was JQA's diary with the gaps filled in by other biographers work. Even more inexplicable, beyond a couple of lines of poetry, Nagel never quotes directly from JQAs diary except for short sentences or phrases trapped within his mechanical prose. The dumbfounding outcome of this is a book that purports to tell JQAs story utilizing his diary, yet never gives the reader any sense of what JQAs diary was actually like.
   
   The preceding criticism might be overlooked had Nagel actually written an enjoyable biography. Unfortunately, Nagel's writing is as lazy and thoughtless as his research. Nagel makes no effort to craft his work in a way that would be appropriate to his subject matter or complement his desire to use JQAs diary as the basis for the book. I would encourage anyone thinking of buying this book to read the excerpts available through the "Look Inside" feature. Nagel continues the exact same paragraph structure throughout the entire book. The book is strictly chronological, basically following a "then this happened, then this happened, and then this happened..." approach that is about as compelling as a high school level history assignment. Nagel treats events big and small with the same level of detail (not much) and never elaborates on events that seem to provide an opportunity for adding interest or bringing the reader to a better understanding of John Quincy Adams and his place in history. I would call this a "feather duster" biography - it glides along the surface without ever taking the time to go into any depth.
   
   Those interested in learning about JQAs presidency will be the most disappointed. Nagel explains that he only devotes a chapter to JQAs presidency because JQA himself did not think his presidency was very important. This is an absurd defense and a smokescreen for the fact that he did not do the necessary research. In fact, the chapter devoted to JQAs presidency is mostly about events that happened to JQA during his presidency unrelated to his presidency.
   
   In conclusion, I will call this book exactly what it is - an abridgement and paraphrased version of JQAs diary and a very poor one at that. I am still perplexed at how so many others found this book satisfactory, but I found it to be the worst biography that I have ever read.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



2. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



3. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



4. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



5. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton.

1. It was my ambition in college to someday write a biography of the most neglected of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton. I talked about it, read a few of the biographies out there. Forrest McDonald's was the best, I thought.
   
   Then last spring I borrowed from the Meredith, NH, public library this book by the incomparable Ron Chernow. I read it on the our family trip to Virginia. Visiting Redoubt 10 at Yorktown, horribly neglected by Americans, was an intense emotional experience for me.
   
   I've learned from Dennis Prager that the best way to learn history is through biographies. None are better, I've found, than this. In fact, after reading it, I had to purchase my own copy.
   
   That's how much I value Ron Chernow's absolutely magnificent biography. Embracing Christianity at the end of Hamilton's life shows me what side he'd take in the cultural war. How we could use his exemplary industry and brilliance now! Only he could overshadow Mr. Jefferson, whom I've always adored.
   
   But Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Chernow, you are the best.



2. The other reviewers of this book are right on -- Hamilton's influence in American political history is truly significant -- he is probably the most influential Founding Father never to have served as president. His vision for a unified country recorded in the Federalist Papers are truly remarkable and his influence on the economy of this country with his position as the first Treasury Secretary and his vision for a federal bank last to this day.
   
   I actually listened to the 10 set CD series of this book and the time just flew by -- the book is fascinating and Chernow does a great job of giving significant historical details on everyone who comes into contact with Hamilton -- from Washington to Jefferson to Jay and Burr. The portion of Hamilton's life which resulted in his affair are a great life lesson for every man, especially those in positions of leadership!
   
   Every student of history should buy this book (or listen to the CDs) -- Hamilton was a man history can not ignore.



3. Ron Chernow has written an informative, detailed, wholly engaging biography of one of the most interesting and controversial founding fathers. This book is a delightful read through the history of the forging of the United States of America.



4. Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton was a great read that included a remarkable amount of information on the man, as well as all the important characters who shared the stage with Hamilton during his 49 years. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, which felt nothing like its length.
   
   It was an enlightening experience to read the book because much of my knowledge of Hamilton came from biographies on his many rivals or books on the period. Hamilton was an opinionated, controversial and insecure man, but he was quite ethical in his professional life. I was worried that a Hamilton book would be bogged down with too much economics, but Chernow did a great job of presenting that important information is an understandable manner.
   
   The reason I can't quite give this book a 5-star rating was its overly sympathetic nature. Yes, most bios are partial to the subject, but this one took that to the extreme. Chernow gave ample coverage to the controversial events in Hamilton's life, though he tended to make excuses for them. Every sentence written about Jefferson, Adams and post-1789 Madison were very negative, as Chernow selected the unflattering quotes from those men in a way that would elevate Hamilton. If you were to read the second and third volumes of Dumas Malone's series on Jefferson, and follow it up by reading Chernow's book, you'd think they were writing about completely different eras, or that they were family members of their respective subjects.
   
   But since this book is eye-opening and filled with so much information, in a beautifully written account, I highly recommend it. It made me see Hamilton in a different light and understand more fully why he was such a powerful figure in the early American republic.



5. After an unlikely escape from the backwaters of the colonial Caribbean, Alexander Hamilton fought in the American Revolution as a young firebrand, supported the U.S. Constitution as a brilliant author and New York lawyer, and poured his formidable genius and energy into laying the foundations of modern America as the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. With George Washington shielding Hamilton's financial programs from smart and unrelenting critics, Hamilton successfully built a fiscal superstructure that pulled the United States out of bankruptcy and set the nation on a course to become the greatest industrial and commercial power on Earth.
   
   Chernow's epic biography is more than a little sympathetic to Hamilton, though honest and critical of Hamilton's significant and ultimately fatal flaws (e.g., the Reynolds sex scandal and Hamilton's inability to absorb criticism without hitting back). This is a minor weakness, leading at worst to some authorial disdain for Hamilton's critics. They are at times presented as underhanded, malicious, and viciously paranoid when they were were often simply naive in their dreams of an American utopia and terrified of falling prey to an American monarchy--not an unreasonable fear with most of the world still under kings and despots. The length of this biography may be intimidating to some readers, but Chernow writes in a voice that is both informative and engaging, even poetic. It's hard to imagine a more definitive biography will be soon forthcoming of this misunderstood and sometimes unfairly maligned Founding Father.

5 comments about George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography.

1. One of the scarriest books I've ever read. Almost hard to believe that people can be so calculating.



2. For me this is the fourth book I have completed on the Bush dynasty. Unlike the others, this one is not gossipy or filled with innuendoes and salacious half-truths strung together to entice the reader: This is a full-bodied history, well researched and documented, and backed up with "real facts." Since the authors are loosely affiliated with, or at least sympathetic to the Lyndon La Rouche cause, I made a conscious agreement with myself to keep my "crap detection system" in "wide open alert mode," and to "declare foul" at the first sign of "manufactured anti-Bush" unsubstantiated facts.
   
   I have now reached the end of the book and cannot say that I have found anything beyond a slight disagreement with the guilt by association arising in the case of the Union Banking Corporation's Hitler Project. It seems to me that Bush's father was more or less operating under the rules of the Versailles Treaty then in force: as a kind of silent "overseer" of a Harriman caretaking operation. The Bush connection to Nazism was thus more a product of these arrangements than due to some sinister ideological and Fascist motive, which is often erroneously left hanging in the air. U.S. and British partnerships with Germans were more the rule than the exception due to these WW-I Treaty restrictions. And this was true well into Hitler's administration. In fact, many of the actions the government took against these "shared corporations" under the Enemy's Act of 1942, specifically indicated that seizures were only of the "Nazi interests," often leaving the U.S. partners free to carry on business as usual. Except for this, and the fact that the rules of business morality generally seemed to have been more relaxed with wider opportunities for graft in the milieu of the last generation of "wheeling-and-dealing," there is little to question here.
   
   The book pretty much confirms the facts found in other books, but here the authors have done so at a much cleaner, more professional, and in my personal view, on a much higher level. Needless to say, I am impressed with the scholarship of the author's work. The book is all the more devastating because these authors have gone well beyond the cover stories; have provided context as appropriate, have not relied on the normal and very much available anti-Bush claptrap; and have additionally done their own independent research and investigations, often from scratch.
   
   The authors story about Bush I, goes as follows:
   
   George W. Bush (Bush I), like the other Bush brothers and sons, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush oligarchy, started by his maternal grandfather and uncle, George Herbert Walker, and George Herbert Walker, Jr., and Senator from Connecticut, Prescott Bush (George's father). The epicenter of the oligarchy has always been, and remains the banking business, in particular the Wall Street international investment bank of Brown Brothers Harriman. According to these authors (as well as all the others I have read), this bank remains the "Bush family firm" in the deepest sense of that phrase.
   
   The power of this bank and its ubiquitous network reaches both across the globe and across time. In particular, its connections to the British oligarchy, to Henry Kissinger Enterprises, to Israeli and Zionists circles, to Texas oilmen, and to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal families are well known. What is not so well known, is how these connections conspire to control, and in many cases to undermine U.S. economic and national security interests. In this regard the author points out that: "It will be noted that Bush has succeeded in proportion as the country has failed, and that Bush's advancement has proceeded pari passu (in tandem with) with the degradation of the national stage upon which he has operated and which he has come to dominate."
   
   The key to the story, according to these authors is Bush's amoral and compliant personality and willingness to bend the rules to serve those higher up the economic food chain, and family interests over U.S. national and economic interests. As he notes: "The reader will search in vain for strong, principled commitments in George Bush's personality; the most that will be found is a series of obsessions, of which the most durable are race, vanity, personal ambition, and settling scores with adversaries."
   
   Anyone doubting the seriousness of this book will be quickly disavowed of that notion from reading the prediction on its first page in which as early as 1991, when it went to press, predicted that GW Jr. would win the presidency and that his reign would be another unmitigated disaster for the U.S. That alone is worth five stars.



3. Great book for reference. Bibliography checks out nice. Book is good at seperating the facts from the fiction concerning the Bush Family, as well as others. Definately a must have for all those concerned with current affairs and America's future. Don't let "unauthorized" in the title discourage you, this is the REAL biography, not the propaganda puke which is regurgitated by mainstream media and press...



4. Amazingly accurate and well researched, this book will provide the reader with a fascinating view of "41", and the depths of the Bush influence in American politics. This is revelatory reading. Remember, Poppy is merely prologue for Dubya. These are dangerous people.



5. The Bush family is undoubtedly a crime family, right up there with the famous Mafia crime families. Prescott Bush's crimes in particular have long been on the public record (newspaper and magazine articles are cited in this book), but more recently, documents released under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) show the government documents backing the much earlier journalistic reports of criminal activity. Prescott Bush's son, George H. W. Bush, has continued in that tradition, perhaps more behind the scenes than on the public stage.
   
   This book was published in 1992, and I read this book in 2007. One thing that struck me in particular were the frightening similarities between Bush 41 and Bush 43. You will find more recent books, such as Robert Parry's _Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq_, portraying post-1992 Bush family history, but I believe that _George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography_ remains an important source of information and insights, particularly psychological insights, that are not readily found elsewhere.
   
   This book is a polemic -- readers are left with no doubts about the point of view taken. It is however, a polemic with documented facts and footnotes, otherwise the authors would likely have been sued over this book. Readers, be ye not deterred by ad hominem attacks on the authors, Mr. Tarpley in particular! He was indeed associated with Lyndon LaRouche for a long time, apparently including the time when this book was written, but is no longer. We may forget that serious, investigative Bush Bashing by mainstream authors was rare indeed during Bush 41's heyday. It took someone outside the mainstream corporate press to blow the whistle on the Bushes back in the early 90s.
   
   There is a free on-line version of this book that you can find easily enough, but its sheer size will discourage you from trying to read it this way. I have found the on-line version useful for searching on particular words that were not included in the index.
   
   Bush 41's legacy is still under-rated and under-appreciated, perhaps partly due to the "wimp factor". I highly recommend this book for readers wanting a better understanding of the important role that GHWB has played in American and world history.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln, a Man of Faith and Courage: Stories of Our Most Admired President.

1. I have collected books about Abraham Lincoln for well over forty years. I found Dr. Wheeler's book to be one of the most enjoyable to read of any that I have on my shelves. The stories that the author shares made this very unique President more "human" to me. I happened to be in Washington, D.C., when I finished the book. Although I have visited the Lincoln Memorial many times, it was a very emotional experience this time around because of what I had just read. I have enjoyed reading several of Dr. Wheeler's anthologies in the past, but I think this is his best collection ever.



2. I love history, yet I seldom carve out the time to indulge. When I was gifted "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: A Man of Faith and Courage" I began to skim it ready to put it aside. But I just couldn't put it down! Sure there are countless books on our most admired President, but NONE like this one! In this book we get verified and authenticated quotes from the man himself revealing the depth of his faith and specifically how that faith grew, and shaped his life and his presidency. Not only is every page an inspiration to remind every American in this century of our amazing, unsurpased blessings we so take for granted; it is also an amazing revelation of how God took a man of many failures and turn him into a world changer. If God can use this man who became the most admired President in our history, he can use YOU to change the world as well, no matter how small you feel!

1 comments about Yeltsin: A Life.

1. Colton has provided a smart, well-researched and well-written account of a pivotal figure in Russian history.

2 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



2. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.

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.