5 comments about RFK: A Memoir.

1. This book not only paints a beautiful and compelling portrait of Bobby Kennedy, it presents a very real and tangible snapshot of our country and the process of the political machine in the late 60s. Jack Newfield is (or sadly, was) a great writer who can keep the reader transfixed, most probably because this is his story as well. What Jack Newfield reveals to us about Bobby Kennedy is what he reveals to us about himself.



2. I believe Jack Newfield is an important journalist-- he refers to his importance regularly throughout the book RFK, a rambling, random, arrogant collection of casual glimpses and off-hand observations on RFK, that constantly refer to him being Irish, and suggest that we can understand him better because of that.
   
   There is no organization to this book-- it is not a close history, not a biography, hence, I guess, the title "RFK: A Memoir". It is a Memoir of a man who thought little of RFK-- by that I mean he didn't think RFK was all that great, but then he didn't think all that much about him. Did I mention Bobby was Irish. Because Newfield does. Frequently.
   
   Truly a horrible book. The key terms and thinkers referred to throughout: existentialism, Puritanism, Irish, and Norman Mailer.
   
   Honestly, the only high point is the section "Lydon Johnson: the Antichrist of the New Politics." Here Newfield quotes himself extensively, but at least he seems to have once cared about Johnson.



3. I wanted to read this book because of something George Stephanopoulos said in his book All Too Human. Jack Newfield certainly didn't disappoint. Despite the years that have passed since RFK was killed, the themes of human frailty, disillusionment and redemption still resonate.
   
   It seemed too, a much more real look into RFK than many other biographies and memoirs.



4. This is the portrait of Bobby Kennedy that captures why his last campaign changed some of our lives.
   I was only ten when RFK was assassinated and I went through high school during one of the most cynical periods of our political history: record distrust in government due to the death throes of the Viet Nam war and the disintegration of any respect for the presidency with Watergate (sound familiar????).
   A high school English teacher lent me this book when I was a senior in high school and it gave me new hope for our political process. Seeing Bobby Kennedy's capacity for change after JFK's death made me believe that it was possible to have a leader that listened, that grew from his own sorrows.
   The description of RFK informing a crowd at a housing project in Indianapolis of Dr. Martin Luther King's death stays with me after all these years (and Newfield's description rang in my ears as I visited the spot and the memorial to both men that has been built from melted down guns turned in by gang members on that spot).
   And David Frost's interivew with RFK in which he chillingly asked him what he would like his epitaph to be about a month before his death has stayed with me (and been up near my desk and computers for the last 30 + years): "I think back to what Camus wrote that perhaps this world is a world in which children suffer but you can lessen the number of suffering children and if you do not do this who will do this. I would like to think that I did something to lessen that suffering..."
   If you are going to buy anything to explore why RFK mattered, buy this book.



5. This guy was a genuine human being....not a political sound bite....not a fraud waving some banner of an ideology..he saw problems and tried to solve them or at least float solutions....he was a work in progress....

5 comments about First Ladies: An Intimate Group Portrait of White House Wives.

1. Thank you Ms. Truman for doing what our high school teachers never quite accomplished. You made the past come alive with colorful characters who changed the world. I have a new appreciation for our Presidents and their wives. You accomplished what your father wished -- you wrote the definitive book on the subject and spoke to our hearts. I would love for you to add a chapter about Laura Bush, who has been such an inspiration to us all since 9-11.



2. From her unique perspective and personal contacts with many Twentieth Century First Ladies, Margaret Truman has told their stories in a most interesting way. The brief biographies primarily cover the years each of these Ladies resided in the White House, although their roles in getting there are not overlooked.

   The concept of President and First Lady as political partners is central to the book. How and to what extent each First Lady fits into this mold is carefully examined. The influence that each First Lady has had on her husband and his administration brings some surprises.

   We know of the public partners, such as Rosalynn Carter and Hillary Clinton, as well as those such as Lady Bird Johnson, who would do anything to advance Lyndon's career, and Eleanor Roosevelt, the eyes and ears of Franklin, but there were others. Who would have thought of Julia Tyler, the young second wife of John Tyler who, in her year in the White House, orchestrated a whirlwind entertainment campaign to achieve the annexation of Texas. Another second wife, Edith Wilson, virtually ran the country during her husband's two year illness after his stroke. There were those, such as Julia Grant and Helen Taft, who wanted the White House worse than their husbands.

   Margaret Truman does an excellent job at categorizing the First Ladies topically. Among the tragic topics are those who may have been killed by newsprint, Rachel Jackson and Lou Hoover. Maligned First Ladies, such as Mary Lincoln, and those who lived with domineering husbands, such as Grace Coolidge, get sympathetic reviews. No sympathies are wasted on the undeserving, prominently Florence Harding.

   In this book Margaret Truman gives us a splendid introduction to one of the most crucial jobs in our country. I am glad that I read it. You will be too.




3. This book is a very well researched, excellently written piece of history. Highly recommended non-fiction when you're looking to learn something you didn't learn in high school.



4. THIS WAS A VERY INTERESTING BOOK AND GAVE AN INSITE TO THE LIVES OF THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST LADIES. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK.



5. I have been collecting First Ladies' autographs as a hobby, and wanted to know more about the women whose signatures I was hanging on my office walls. This book takes the reader through an exciting, humorous, interesting, and at times touching ride through our country's history. Even though I am a long-term history afficionado, I can honestly say I learned a lot from this book. There are so many things that seem to have been glossed over in "traditional" history education, and this book helps to fill in many gaps by revealing a very human side to both the presidents and their wives. By reading this book, one not only learns about the first ladies, but also about the period in American history that corresponds with the respective husband's tenure as President. Of note, the information provided is mostly limited to the time spent as "First Lady", but does give a bit of background on the women's lives prior to their White House days. In addition, there is a chapter entitled "Is There Life After The White House?" which explores in more depth certain First Ladies' (Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis, Ladybird Johnson for ex)travels and doings after their husbands were no longer president. After each chapter, I found myself looking up portaits online, and wanting to know more. Though this book does not cover every First Lady, and does not include the current First Lady (Hillary Clinton is the last), it is nonetheless a well-written, thorough book on the First Ladies that it does discuss, and is guaranteed to bring a new vantage point to the reader on American history, social life, and human perserverance. Of note, this is not a book with a feminist slant - it is objective, and intelligently written, with only slight opinion commentary by the author. Even the commentary that does exist is presented as an "aside"; in otherwords, the reader is not made to feel that Mrs. Truman's opinions are the only valid ones, but instead, the reader is allowed to form opinions from the facts presented. I highly recommend this book.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



2. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



5. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.

3 comments about Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy..

1. In his film, Sleeper, Woody Allen immortalized Albert Shanker as the madman responsible for blowing up the world. That helped to get Shanker known outside of NY, but clearly it wasn't the real Shanker. In this highly readable and often exhilarating biography of Shanker, Richard Kahlenberg shows that while Shanker, the architect of the modern teacher union movement (and, it turns out, so much more) surely understood power and accumulated it, his only "madness" was to seek to empower the powerless and to hold this nation to the democratic ideals it espoused and he so cherished. Indeed, far from being "mad," Shanker was both intellectually and politically brilliant -- a rare combination -- an idealist with both a shrewd and compassionate understanding of human nature and a pragmatist who nonetheless stood firm on principles, a stance that sometimes incurred the enmity of allies as much as enemies. This was also a man who dealt with the high and mighty, but who in his writing and speaking could take the most complicated ideas and make them accessible to ordinary people without ever dumbing anything down. Had Kahlenberg just written a biography of this complex and far-ranging man, that probably would have been interesting enough. But Kahlenberg goes further and roots Shanker in the major political and cultural struggles over the soul of the Democratic party and the direction of this country. Regardless of one's view of those struggles and their outcomes, Kahlenberg's recounting of them cannot help but make you think of missed opportunities and "what ifs" to this day. Politics, race, education, the meaning and practice of democracy -- a heady and vitally critical brew. And Kahlenberg stirs and blends this pot well through Shanker, his meaty main ingredient.



2. Albert Shanker had always been one of my heroes . . . yet until
   I read TOUGH LIBERAL by Richard D. Kahlenberg, I had not known
   too much about him.
   
   That's no longer the case . . . in fact, this excellent biography even
   increased my appreciation of Shanker who once told an interviewer:
   * "If I didn't have to make a living, I would have done this as a volunteer."
   
   What he did was head the American Federation of Teachers for
   well over 20-25 years . . . by doing so, he helped change the
   perception of teachers by having them recognized as professionals:
   
   * A professional receives a liberal-arts education, then specialized
   training, and then must pass a rigorous exam before beginning
   to practice. She participates in an internship, is guided by mentors,
   and participates in reviewing the performance of colleagues. Once these
   professional responsibilities are met come the reciprocal set of rights:
   greater autonomy and higher compensation. In Shanker's vision,
   policies like a rigorous national test, peer review, and career
   ladders were not just defensive moves against critics
   of public-school teachers, they were prerequisites
   to the professionalization of teaching.
   
   TOUGH LIBERAL summarized Shanker's contributions to
   education in one of the finest concluding paragraphs that I've
   ever read:
   
   * In one lifespan, Albert Shanker helped to create the institution
   of collective bargaining for teachers, giving them greater dignity
   and voice in how they would be treated. He then used that power
   to engage in a series of critical education reforms that proved
   instrumental in improving and preserving the institution of public
   education. Both accomplishments served the larger goal he cherished
   above all others: strengthening American democracy. His failure
   to convince fellow liberals to extend their support of democracy more
   broadly--to racial policy, international affairs, and their views of the labor
   movement--leaves open the question: what might society look like
   if we tried?
   
   If you want to learn about Albert Shanker and the labor movement in
   this country, read this book . . . it will also make a great gift for any
   teacher.



3. Al was my mentor in the 1970's and this is an honest and true representation of the man I knew. There will never be another like him.

5 comments about William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity.

1. I was truly unaware of who William Wilberforce was before reading "Amazing Grace" by Metaxes. Then I found "Real Christianity" by Wilberforce and now I am almost finished reading "William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity." The book, "William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity", is a can't put-it-down kind of read. It brings in notable contemporaries of Wilberforce which richly adds to the fiber of the text. Wilberforce's "Great Change" made him a mighty force for Biblical Christianity. I believe it should be a strongly suggested read for all politicians at every level of government (village, town, city, state, and federal). We need to see a moral turnaround in our beloved U.S.A. seen in the hearts of its citizens. Morality cannot be legislated. I give the book a five stars (thumbs) up.



2. This is a great introduction to the life and pursuits of William Wilberforce. His deep love and concern for humanity is fantastic.



3. This was a fabulously written and researched book. The depth of the original documents that were touched made it authoritative and the writing style was captivating. The descriptions of his personal and family life and how he related to his peers was particularly valuable to me. I also gained any insights into the reading list of Wiliam Wilberforce which is always a window into a man's soul. Highly recommended.



4. I read a lot of biographies, and have to say that while I am a fan of William Wilberforce and the movie Amazing Grace, this biography is not on my favorites list. Primarily, I disliked the structure of the book. It is written topically instead of chronologically having sections on his early life, his political life, his influence, his family life, etc. For example, the book has 10 chapters, and his marriage to Barbara Spooner isn't introduced until chapter 8! This made the book feel like a collection of essays instead of a typical biography. I won't read it again.



5. The story--or at least the legacy--of William Wilberforce is one that should be standard issue in all history courses. He is highly unknown in the US, perhaps because his greatest work came after its separation from Britain. But even I, who studied Political Science with strong philosophical and international emphases, had not heard of him until over 4 years after I graduated. Very well written book about the man who championed the cause and accomplished the abolition of the slave trade, and later the total abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. Belmonte captures the essence of the man and his life through a text rich in its use of sources and first hand accounts, with appropriate use of personal insight and conclusions. True to the subtitle, Wilberforce is duly shown as a hero for humanity, a champion for everything human, and a role model for all who desire to make a real difference in this world. Couple with the movie "Amazing Grace," this book provides a rich look at a man who was the wealthies man of his time in all the ways that truly matter.

5 comments about Survival In Auschwitz.

1. A touching, but not mawkish or dramatic, memoir. One realizes the randomness and happenstance by which he survived, and easily accepts the moral dualism of the life of thievery and connivance, within bounds of common decency and collective group self-interest, that kept any survivor alive. Some reviews seemed to fault the book for being unemotional, but one sees how Levi's essentially scientific and objective personality became a key to his survival, and necessarily informs his voice.



2. A monotone, sort of scientific voice. His story is sad...but is told with very little emotion. It was hard to get into - a little harder to read due to the "scientist' type voice that I'm not used to. I found Elie Weisel's "Night" to be a much more candid look inside a survivor's haunted soul. Primo Levi is good for someone who prefers reading something about the Holocaust that is a bit more textbook vs. memoir.



3. Excellant book, I felt like I was living Mr Levi's life in the camp with him. What a wonderful story of survival.



4. This book from bnpublishing contains serious multiple errors, sometimes five per page, that disrespect the author and the Holocaust and force the reader to stop and try to figure out the author's real meaning. Book is full of incorrect or missing punctuation (such as periods), words and names spelled different ways from one sentence to the next, random capitalization, run-on sentences, grammatical and spelling errors in English, French, and German. "Figfit" is not a word. Neither are "infaticable," "aroupd," or "mochery." The phrase is "flash of intuition," not "flask." The sign over every concentration camp was "Arbeit Macht Frei," not "Fret." You say, "avec moi," which means "with me," not "avec mot" which means "with word." Phrases like "there were no dark cold air had the smell" (p. 107) stop the reader dead. Very disrespectful of the author and the subject. Levi was a brilliant man with astounding powers of observation and recall for his hellish experiences. His words deserve to be preserved better than this.



5. I like the author. Many years ago he wrote "Christus kam nur bis Eboli"
   and that made me travel to that place in southern Italy.
   This book is even better. It informes me and at the same time it
   is interesting and I can not put it aside while reading.
   He writes about what he thinks and feels and how they react.
   This book is worth its money.

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson.

1. The American Presidents series, condensed biographies of individual presidents by eminent historians, makes the lives of our nation's readers accessible for general readers. That said, the books work better when resurrecting the memory of nearly forgotten minor presidents such as Rutheford B. Hayes than they do documenting the accomplishments of major historical figures like Woodrow Wilson. Simply put, Wilson's life was just too full to be given real justice by a 40,000 or so word manuscript.

   Limited by the format, Texas A&M Professor of History H.W. Brands gamely gives it his best shot. The author of such first rate works as "TR - The Last Romantic" and "The Age of Gold" recounts Wilson's life, devoting most of the mere 139 pages of narrative to his presidency. It's a good overview, and one that will likely whet the appetite of many readers to know more. Wilson was a strong, controversial and enigmatic leader. A progressive and idealist on the international front, for example, he was still very much a son of the South who strongly supported segregation at home. Brands deals with such events as World War One, the failed battle for ratification of the Versailles peace treaty and Wilson's debilitating 1919 stroke, but doesn't delve much into the details.

   Overall, a good if all-too-brief overview of Woodrow Wilson's life.




2. H.W. Brands' output over the last five years has been enormous. From huge biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin to fair-sized books on the California Gold Rush and several major U.S. business figures to a slim volume on Americans' relationship with their federal government, the Texas A&M historian has published at least six books over the last five years that I'm aware of. The four which I've read have had the same qualities: solid scholarship and writing, but nothing flashy or standout about them.

   Brands' biography of Woodrow Wilson fits in this pattern. The book is an easy and enjoyable read. The scholarship is solid (I enjoyed reading the short but striking comments for each of the books mentioned in the "selected bibliography"). Occasionally, Brands is even eloquent as when he describes the effect on Wilson of the death of his first wife.

   Nevertheless, as with every other book of Brands I've read, "Woodrow Wilson" never soars to become a great work. The reason eludes me. Brands seems to have all the gifts to write a memorable history or biography, but his work remains a little too flat and it fades too quickly from the reader's mind. He does not break out of this mold with "Woodrow Wilson".




3. No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era without knowledge of of the man who mid-wifed it into existence, Woodrow Wilson. In his biography of Wilson's presidency, Professor H.W. Brands brings his insightful style and keen sense of relationships between critical events. One learns enough from this rather short book to ask the next set of more interesting questions.

   Absent Wilson, would there have been a central bank, the Federal Reserve, in the U.S.? How did the Wilson presidency effect the direction of the national income tax? What did Wilson do to foster the growth of centralized federal power in the U.S.?

   Absent Wilson's inept diplomacy, would the U.S. have become so involved in World War I, first by funding Britain and France, and then by participating in the combat? Would the Great War have lasted so long and caused so much damage to the fabric of European civilization and colonial influence? Would the world ever have heard of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, veterans both of front line combat?

   Absent U.S. participation in the European War, would a pedestrian lawyer, and middling state-level politician named Franklin Delano Roosevelt have found his first federal job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy? Would the U.S. ever have bred such soldiers as Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman, and most of the rest of the list of future political-military leaders of mid-century?

   Absent events put into motion by Wilson, would Russia have broken up and descended into a Bolshevik Revolution? Would the Ottoman Empire have dissolved, to spawn the modern politics of the Middle East? Would the concept of League of Nations/world governance ever have gained the traction it did?

   Had Wilson never been president, would the U.S. and the world have had a far different 20th Century? Or was Wilson just one man in a particular time of great change? Germany and Italy had been building centralized, debt-financed governance for 40 years by the time Wilson walked into the White House. So did Wilson make history, guide history , or was he merely governed by historical forces whose time had come?

   Like it or not, we lived the 20th Century in Wilson's Century, and in the 21st Century we still follow the path he blazed. Wilson's ghost hovers over the plains of the Republic, walks the halls of power in every government building, and touches the lives of every person who draws a breath.




4. You must guard your expectations on a biography (especially of a two term president) that only reads 138 pages. However, I thought that H.W. Brands could add his typical free flowing style and story-telling ability to make a completely satisfying short-read. Unfortuantely, Brands delivers his least inspired performance in telling the story of Wilson. Obviously, the context of the project (a short "taste" on the life of Wilson) curtailed Brands style, which I found to be my biggest disappointment.
   
   As a whole - the life of Wilson is fascinating - a great turning point in the life of "liberals" (While Wilson would certainly not be considered a "liberal" by today's standards). Wilson implemented the 8 hour work day, the FTC, and stiffened anti-trust laws.... not to mention a monstrous epidemnic of the flu... and oh yeah.... World War I. Unfortunately - most of these issues are just briefly touched on (The flu epidemic was not even mentioned).
   
   As a whole - I found this to be a fair brief glimpse into the life of Wilson. However, I would have love to read one of Brand's standard 400 pagers on the life of Wilson.



5. H.W. Brands has written ambitious biographies of American historical figures, including a major work on the life of Andrew Jackson. Here, in keeping within the format of the American Presidents Series, Brands has writtten a shorter, but nontheless, insightful work. Wilson might have been a great president but, he was flawed. He was stubborn and uncompromising. Although he suffered a major stroke in his second term, he evidentally had suffered other, less serious strokes over the years. It is difficult to say whether his physical condition led to his unwillingness to yield but, much that could have been accomplished through compromise never came to fruition.
   
   An early sign of Wilson's concreteness appeared during his presidency of Princeton University. There was a dispute as to whether the graduate school should be located on the main campus or at another site. Wilson, a proponent of locating it on campus refused to negotiate a compromise and the project was stalled.
   
   Wilson was a Virginian and his racial attitudes were that of the Jim Crow South. However, being president of Princeton established his credentials as a New Jersey resident and Democratic party leaders put him up for governor of that state. He was elected and he showed remarkable independence as he proposed reforms that disappointed the party leaders and led them to consider him to be an ingrate. Later, when he was elected President of the United States, he continued his reform path in domestic matters.
   
   What defined his presidency was World War I and its aftermath. After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe to negotiate the peace treaty. On a tour of Europe, he was cheered wildly whereever he went. He was a genuine hero. However, in the negotiations England and France sought to impose harsh terms on Germany whereas Wilson sought more leniency. The heart of Wilson's Fourteen points proposal was a League of Nations. This League was included in the treaty and Wilson's next major battle was to get the Senate to ratify it. Here is where Wilson's stubborness did him in. Rather than negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson bypassed them and took his case to the people in a speaking tour. This was not the way to win favor in the Senate.
   
   Wilson's most egregious error, probably compounded by his stroke, was his total unwillingness to yield on one point regarding the League of Nations; i.e. a clause that required members to come to the aid of other members militarily. Republicans in the Senate were concerned that this clause might weaken US sovereignty. They noted that under the Constitution, it was the Senate, not the President who decalred war. Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People" noted that if one of Great Britain's colonial possessions, such as India, had been attacked, the treaty might require the United states to get involved militarily. Anyway, Wilson refused to allow a reservation which would clarify the United States' understanding of the clause to the satisfaction of Lodge and other concerned Senators. Accordingly, the treaty didn't pass the Senate.
   
   The tragedy of the Wilson presidency is that so much more could have been accomplished. He was a great reformer on domestic issues and was a popular war president. However, his one major flaw kept him from achieving true greatness. Brand does a good job in capturing the essence of Wilson and I recommend this book.

5 comments about The History of Alexander (Penguin Classics).

1. The most interesting and controversial, but not necessarily the most accurate, ancient biography of Alexander the Great. In addition to Arrian and Plutarch, you can't say you know all about Alexander until you read this book. Full of information not found in the other two biographies. Though it is often touted as not reliable, contemporary scholarship owes much of their increasingly negative opinion of Alexander the Great to this book.



2. Though not the definitive work on Alexander, Curtius provides detail not included by other sources. Sometimes hypocritical and biased, Curtius details the campaigns of Alexander with heavy focus on Alexander the person. To read this book is a must for anyone interested in Alexander. It is one of the primary sources and the fact that he is not as nice about Alexander (such as Plutarch or Arrian) may indeed do justice to the reader. This book can best be understood with the addition of Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander The Great".



3. I recently read a slew of books about Alexander the Great in anticipation of the movie. I have to admit that hile this academic text might be required reading of many college and high school history classes, I found Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy much more engaging, insightful, and fun to read. The battle descriptions in the this book are phenomenal. One feels like one is right in the middle of a battle. Rufus doesn't do such a great job.



4. Alexander the Great, was born on or around July 20, 356 B.C.E., and is my favorite personality to read about in history. To me he is the whole package general, statesman, conqueror, and philosopher. The smartest man who ever lived, Aristotle, tutored him. Alexander conquered more of the known world than any other figure in history, accomplishing all this before he dies at the ripe old age of 33. Some people called him conqueror and violent overlord. Some other called him civilizer and even God! All of them yet, called him "The Great". He was the first man in modern history that took this name, "The Great"! Even as a young boy, he shows great promise.
   Curtius' work is the oldest extant work available and based on eyewitness accounts. He does a better job than most in explaining the battle scenes, and seems to be more balanced in his admiration and criticism of Alexander then any of the other early biographers. I love his Bucephalus Story, and I recount it here so you get a flavor of the promise this young Alexander shows.
   
   The legend begins with Philoneicus, a Thessalian, bringing a wild horse to Philip for him to buy. None of the hands was able to handle it, and Philip grew upset at Philoneicus for bringing such an unstable horse to him. Alexander, however, publicly defied his father and claimed that he could handle the horse. The bet between Philip and Alexander was that if Alexander could ride the horse, Philip would buy it, if not, Alexander would have to pay the price of the horse, which was 13 talents, an enormous sum for a boy of Alexander's age to have.
   
   Alexander apparently noticed that the horse had been shying away from its own shadow, and so he led it gently into the sun, so that its shadow was behind it, all the while stroking it gently and whispering into its ear, (Alexander seems to be the original horse whisperer). Eventually the horse let Alexander mount him, and Alexander was able to show his equestrian skill to his father and all who were watching. The incident so impressed Alexander's father, King Philip that he told the boy "Look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of you, for Macedonia is too little for thee". He named the horse Bucephalus, which means Ox head, and rode it across Asia, founding a city in its honor in India after its death. This story gives you an inkling about the man.
   
   This book is a must read for students of Alexander, I also recommend Plutarch's and Arrian's work. Contemporary writers, J.F. C. Fuller and Tarn. Most of Alexander's greatest military traits are in the area of military logistics and to understand his genius in this area I highly recommend reading, "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army," by Donald W. Engels.
   
   As a retired U. S. Army Major, I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in ancient warfare, and history.



5. Another book written on Alexander the Great,but different from the others. So many have written books about Alexander and yet in this book so many things I read for the first time.The book is very easy to read, ofcourse it is about the wars,conquers,of Alexander.The details that are not written in Arrian for example and Plutarch are several.I will give a few examples.
   One of Alexander's speeches,outstandingly written to pursue the killer of Darius.
   The Amazon queen meeting Alexander and what she demands of him.The Caspian discovered by the soldiers, what they see and feel about the salted water.The speech of Coenus on behalf of the soldiers, and Alexander's speech.The fight of the Indus river.
   The Gedrosian desert,and the judgement of Philotas. All is strongly suggest that if you are an Alexander lover you should add this book to your reading. Enjoy.

5 comments about Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator.

1. I have never read a biography of Joe McCarthy. Most of what I have always heard about him and his career has been quite negative (i.e. the blacklists, "commie" trials etc.) To be sure, Joseph McCarthy could not have been the only man involved in the blacklisting and destruction of so many reputations of politicians, artists, scientists etc. We would be giving McCarthy the man way too much credit (and from the book, it is clear that he was not all that capable.)
   
   However, the book never looks at anything in McCarthy's career (beyond his work in the commitees investigating alleged members of the communist party or communist sympathizers.) As a man who was a senator (and supposedly working on behalf of his contituents in Wisconsin) one would think that there would be more. Mr. Herman does not discuss this. I would have liked to know what Joe McCarthy did, as a seator, for the people in the state of Wisconsin!!
   
   In my opinion, Mr. Herman's book is a defense of Joe McCarthy, period. He does not write as an impartial observer, using the many primary and secondary sources as a historian should. There were many times in the course of the book where Mr. Herman seems to rant and interject his own subjective views about McCarthy or his era (i.e. page 90), rather than letting the evidence and his sources speak for themselves. In this way, the writing was disappointing.
   
   Did I learn about Joe McCarthy and his era? Absolutely. However, Mr. Herman seems more desperate about getting his own conservative agenda across than writing a true and balanced history of that time.



2. "Received wisdom" places Senator Joseph R.McCarthy(1908-1957)only a few notches below the likes of Hitler and Stalin in the pantheon of great political villains of the twentieth century.The fabled "visiting Martian" might find this hard to understand.While Stalin,Hitler and co waded thru the blood of the millions of victims of their tyranny,Senator McCarthy never killed anyone,never started any wars,never even had anyone put in jail! He did once drunkenly assault columnist Drew Pearson in a tender spot though! The Martian would doubtless have his amazement compounded by the knowledge that McCarthy spent his career opposing communism,a despotic totalitarian political system,responsible for countless deaths and vicious oppression across the world,setting himself against those in his own country who sought to serve the interests of foreign communist regimes and who eagerly wished to overturn the US political system in favor of the communist one.
   This biography by Arthur Herman,seeks to explain the "how and why" of Joe McCarthy,the man,his career,the political context in which he operated,and the Senator's legacy.This is a broadly sympathetic picture of the the Senator and his "crusade".The only similar pro-McCarthy biographies before Herman which I am aware of,are those by Joe's friends and colleagues-William F.Buckley and Brent Bozell(1954)and Roy Cohn(1968).Biographers who have tended to "have the floor" on McCarthy,are Richard Rovere(1959)and heavyweight writer Thomas C.Reeves(1982).The latters biography has probably been seen as the "standard" one up to now(admirers of the Reeves take on McCarthy might not be so pleased about his later demolition job biography of liberal icon Jack Kennedy!)
   Herman has the advantage in having access to intelligence material de-classified in the US(especially the "Venona" documents),and the Soviet archives opened after the fall of communism.This allows a much fairer assessment of the period,and McCarthy's career,grounded in solid research.
   Here we see that the so-called "Red scare" of the 40's and 50's,far from being based in unjustified hysterical paranoia,exploited by seedy political operators like McCarthy,Jenner,McCarran and co,was a response to a subversive threat which was all too real.Soviet spies and agents of influence-many directly in league with Russian intelligence, were working within the heart of the American political and cultural establishment,secretly promoting communism at home and overseas.It was indeed "a conspiracy so immense"(McCarthy's words),which had seen,for example,the widespread entry of communist agents into highly influential positions within Roosevelt's Democratic administration,often with access to classified material which they passed on to Moscow.Stalin was allowed to swallow up large chunks of "liberated" Europe,China fell to Mao and communist North Korea invaded the capitalist South-all this seemingly with US acquiescence.Those,such a Whittaker Chambers(a former communist agent),who had warned the authorities what was happening in their midst,were largely ignored or ridiculed by a complacent administration and a "liberal"leaning press.It was only when the revelations surfaced about Alger Hiss,that a reluctant establishment was forced to at least look seriously at the issue.However it was generally the "outsiders"-poiitical mavericks like Richard Nixon and J.Parnell Thomas of The Un-American Activities Committee(HUAC) and Senators like McCarthy and William E.Jenner-who forced the issue to the forefront of politics.Many of the political and media elite found men like McCarthy "vulgar"-rowdy and unsympathetic.Unlike(say)the Soviet agent from Harvard,Alger Hiss,who they initially championed,farm boy Joe McCarthy was not "one of them".
   The idea of a reign of terror by "redhunters" is seen to be a misleading exaggeration-in fact it was often more "respectable" and acceptable in many circles to be opposed to the likes of McCarthy than be for him-there was massive hostility in much of the press,and among the political and legal elite(though Joe did,of course have his cheerleaders too-notably in the Hearst papers and among veterans groups).The CBS TV network could still run a breathtakingly unbalanced attack on McCarthy by Ed Murrow on "See it now"(mythologized by Hollywood at the moment in "Goodnight and good luck"),at the height of "McCarthyism"(this term itself-significantly-was coined by McCarthy's target,the academic Owen Lattimore-a State Department advisor on China,who did much to promote the cause of the murderous maniac Mao and his communists in the United States)
   Herman does not shrink from identifying McCarthy's faults and failings-he was a heavy drinker(it killed him),had a volatile temper,often didn't do adequate research,exaggerated,lied(which politician has not?),was a publicity hound who loved to be in the headlines,and was prone to serious errors of judgement(the biggest being over his blind faith in the Chief Counsel to his Senate Committee,Roy M.Cohn-this directly led to his downfall).But we are given a portrait here far removed from the one dimensional ogre of legend-McCarthy was basically kindly,he didn't tend to hold grudges(Drew Pearson excepted!),even when it came to his biggest political enemies like Secretary of State Dean Acheson(meeting Acheson in an elevator,McCarthy shot out his hand saying "Hi Dean!"-Acheson,coldly furious,stiffly ignored Joe,a reaction which left the Senator genuinely puzzled).His methods could be clumsy and his manner harsh(though no more than other government investigators in other areas),yet he was often right about his targets.In this context,Herman looks carefully at some of McCarthy's best known "victims" like George C. Marshall(so insouciant in allowing pro-communist advisors to guide him into effectively handing millions of Chinese to Mao),Owen Lattimore,Irving Peress and Annie Lee Moss.Even the notorious 1954 Army case(known as the "Army-McCarthy hearings")-which would destroy him politically and eventually personally-shows McCarthy was quite justified in launching his probe into Army "leaks",and came to grief thanks to his unreliable subordinates(especially Roy Cohn),his unfortunate television image and style(in contrast to his slippery unctious adversary,Army counsel Joseph Welch)and because he had taken on the massed ranks of a jittery political establishment(Democrat and Republican-including President Eisenhower),which finally decided to unite against him.
   McCarthy's last years were a miserable record of political oblivion,heroic boozing(he became a hopeless alcoholic)and poor health.Ignored by the press(which was especially hard to take)and fair weather friends-only a few stuck by him such as Bill Jenner,Roy Cohn and notably Bobby Kennedy(who briefly worked for Joe and liked him)-McCarthy died of liver disease,still in his 40's.Yet when he passed away,even his inveterate enemy and victim Drew Pearson expressed genuine regret.



3. Professor Herman does a great job in clarifying the real story of the so-called McCarthy era. Most books and movies rehash the same tired line: innocent Americans were persecuted by witch-hunting Congressional investigators. Herman shows that was not the case. As he points out, no one was deprived of legal counsel or of their Fifth Amendment rights. The McCarthy era was far more benign than the administrations of Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, where Americans were jailed by the thousands for speaking out against the government.
   
   Herman makes a vital point: McCarthy was concerned only with investigating Communist subversions among government employees. He had nothing to do with the Hollywood investigations. Herman makes an even more important point, one that is the heart of his book. There was a massive infestation of Communists in the government. The Truman state department did a horrible job doing background checks on government employees. McCarthyism was not, as most historians have said, a withchunt against innocent liberals. There was a legitimate problem with Communist subversion, and McCarthy was destroyed for trying to do something about it.
   
   Herman freely admits McCarthy made errors of judgment. He also points out McCarthy was often right. I wish more Americans would read this book. What people think they know just isn't so.



4. An excellent book and invaluable for understanding this pivotal cold war episode - the rise and fall of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
   
   McCarthy, on the heels of the Hiss Case in late 1949, started asking, loudly and publicly, what the administration knew about Communists in the State Department and other sensitive places, and what it was doing about it. For the next four years, and particularly after gaining the chair of a Senate investigation subcommittee, McCarthy bore down on this issue, attracting millions of followers who believed in his mission, but also making enemies among the intelligentsia, among elites threatened by McCarthy's populist style, among liberals who saw Communists as ideological allies. McCarthy's own missteps, and those of aide Roy Cohn, helped bring down his career and blacken his name. But only in recent decades has newly declassified intelligence information shown he was more or less on the right track.
   
   It is important to remember the context of the times. The Soviets had ended any illusions about democracy in Eastern Europe. China had fallen to Mao. Manhattan Project spies had given the Russians the atomic bomb and in 1949 they detonated their first. The Korean War began in 1950. Communism was seeking to establish its influence in the developing world. The Cold War was heating up, the U.S. seemed to be losing, but meanwhile the Truman administration didn't seem to want to know about potential traitors in their midst.
   
   Some of the best chapters here focus on historical context rather than McCarthy himself. Herman recreates the Popular Front days of the 1930s, when Communists successfully infiltrated many liberal organizations or duped liberals into joining Communist front groups. In the "Who Lost China?" debate, Communist-influenced diplomats tweaked U.S. policy to finish Chaing on Mao's behalf. And Herman renders a fine consideration of McCarthy's effect on politics between then and now, including the death and rebirth of conservatism, the death of the liberal establishment with the Vietnam War, and the Popular Front's rebirth as the New Left.
   
   History reads quite differently from the liberal conventional wisdom when the then-secret Venona Decrypts or only-recently-availaible KGB files are factored in. Virtually no one McCarthy exposed was innocent. Today's conventional wisdom mistakenly regards Communist ties then as no more than an expression of dissent, a sympathy for the underdog. The CW fails to recognize that it was a lifelong commitment - more like being in the Mafia or a religious cult - where one swore fealty to a foreign and hostile power, created discord to destabilize one's own society, and sometimes aided spies and traitors.
   
   Herman does not spare McCarthy's faults - his drinking, his judgment-impairing mania, his too-trusting reliance upon Cohn. He shows how McCarthy destroyed himself, such as his fit of pique during the televised Army vs. McCarthy hearings, where he reneged on a deal not to expose the Communist-front involvement of one of opposition counsel Joseph Welch's aides.
   
   Those close to him knew the youngest senator was not the best person for this job. He was too raw, too impulsive and too unschooled in Washington's ways. But the way he saw it, no one else was doing it and the job needed to be done.
   
   McCarthy became undeservedly vilified. No one went to jail because of him. He didn't kill anyone. Unlike dissidents in Communist states, those questioned by him were protected by due process of law and had legal counsel. McCarthy was performing quintessential Congressional oversight - shining the bright light of publicity on dark spots within the administration, to influence change through the bringing of social pressure. McCarthy often held closed hearings, when the publicity of open hearings would have helped him more, to protect witnesses or those they testified about from being smeared. His questioning style was tough but typical of a courtroom. And the government really did have Communists buried in its bowels, often with access to sensitive information, with an administration too often unwilling to act.
   
   Herman highlights some amazing ironies of McCarthyism:
   
   --The truest single victim of "McCarthyist attacks", someone railroaded and hounded to death in sham hearings, was McCarthy himself. Liberal journalists with little regard for the truth smeared him, and frequently.
   
   --The executive privilege so loathed by liberals when Nixon claimed it during Watergate, was pioneered by Eisenhower expressly to stonewall McCarthy. That marked the beginning of "the imperial presidency" and decline of Congessional oversight which liberals particularly often decry - sentiments with which McCarthy himself actually agreed.
   
   --Bobby Kennedy's well-received Congressional investigations of the Mafia and labor racketeering in the late 1950s used the identical tactics he had learned working for McCarthy, and for which McCarthy was condemned.
   
   --The Kennedys were not only McCarthy allies, but refused to go along with the rest of Congress in abjuring him. John Kennedy scheduled surgery so that he would not be present for the vote to censure McCarthy, while Bobby discreetly attended McCarthy's funeral in Wisconsin.
   
   --The New Left, born in 1962, was explicitly an attempt to revive Communist activity in the United States, minus the Soviet ties. The biggest purveyors of the "paranoid style" in American politics, a term often tied to McCarthy, has actually been the left, with its dark vision of a world dominated by a malign U.S. government and its all-powerful corporate allies.
   
   This book is one of the major sources for Ann Coulter's bestselling "Treason". Coulter's polemics rouse her base but may alienate even the undecided. Herman's evenhanded tone and treatment of the subject matter, though, do credit to his work, which lends a measure of vindication to McCarthy's short but searing political career. He continues to be vilified today, through movies such as "Good Night and Good Luck". Hollywood wants to keep history's spotlight on McCarthyism, but you get the idea that's mostly to keep us from looking where our attention belongs - on what McCarthy sought to expose.



5. Thoroughly researched and excellently written, this book is a great read.
   
   It gives a distinct picture of Joe McCarthy, and also educates the reader about the events occurring.
   
   GRADE: A++

4 comments about Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady.

1. It's surprising to note that this is the first biography of one of the most politically influential women of modern times, but MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK: CHINA'S ETERNAL FIRST LADY remains the only title to provide the complete story of a woman who seized unofficial and official power during China's civil war. Her position against Chinese Communism and her diplomatic relations affected decades of Chinese-American relations, so this book is key to a thorough understanding of not just the woman, but Chinese politics and influences in particular.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. This is a book to dive into, and lose yourself for days. Madame Chiang Kai-Shek is that good a story, and this is that good an account of her life. Madame Chiang used her political cunning and legendary drive to seduce supporters to her side of China's epic civil war during the middle part of the 20th century.
   
   The Nationalist regime, headed by her husband, was hated by the Chinese people for its notorious brutality and corruption. But as portrayed by Madame Chiang, especially to American audiences, Chiang Kai-shek's government was a modern, educated bulwark of democracy and freedom for a country whose history had allowed little of either. Indeed, Madame Chiang personified the vaunted hopes, bitter disappointments and complex misunderstandings of the U.S.-China relationship, which vacillated wildly during her exceptional 105-year lifetime. Laura Tyson Li's incisive new biography, rises to the tall task of capturing this pivotal figure in all her splendor and humiliation, against a backdrop of war, revolution and unending political turmoil. Li, a journalist with a decade of experience in Asia, accurately portrays her as "beautiful, vain, witty, spirited, capricious, scheming, selfish, and driven."
   
   What a character. What a tale.
   
   The book opens in the waning days of China's second-to-last emperor in the late 1890s, when Mayling Olive Soong was born in Shanghai, the youngest daughter of a businessman who had made a fortune selling Bibles and presided over a family of savvy, idealistic and recklessly ambitious children. One married Sun Yat-sen, China's first president. Another became finance minister and acting prime minister of Nationalist China. Another became one of China's richest women. Mayling became Madame Chiang Kai-shek.
   
   In an era when few girls learned to read and fewer traveled, Mayling was schooled in Georgia, then graduated from Wellesley College, where she excelled at French, violin and religious studies. She returned to Shanghai in 1917 just as China lurched into a bloody warlord period, and soon she was courted by the most severe warlord of all, Chiang Kai-shek. He divorced one wife and sent another off to Columbia University before Mayling agreed to marry him.
   
   During World War II, Madame Chiang became a superb envoy to the United States, where her address to Congress in 1943 thrilled Washington, and her barnstorming across the country won renewed support and money to defeat the Japanese. In China, she was a poised partner to her husband, softening his imperiousness while sharpening his political machinations.
   
   In Li's telling, husband and wife (who shared a bedroom with a screen separating their beds) could not have differed more. He was an early riser; she stayed up late watching movies. He was ascetic; she insisted on luxury. Still, they called each other 'Dar' (short for 'darling') and for years collaborated to cement fragile political alliances and keep a shaky hold on power.
   
   The book has delicious tidbits, such as an affair with Republican presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie and her insistence on getting silk sheets when she stayed in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's White House.
   
   Overall, Li delivers a thoughtful portrait of a complex woman and resists the considerable temptation to crucify her. That is a refreshing contrast to the shock-and-awe approach seen in so many recent books on prominent figures in China's recent history. Li deconstructs critical historical events with skill: the Xian Incident, when Chiang Kai-shek was kidnapped by rebellious generals; the 50-year house-arrest of the leading kidnapper, with whom Madame Chiang developed a curious friendship; Madame Chiang's mysterious disappearances for months at a time, caused, Li thinks by physical and mental illnesses, including debilitating hives, breast cancer and nervous breakdown.
   
   More reporter than writer, Li assiduously draws on Madame Chiang's extensive personal correspondence, from archives around the world, to explain each stage of her drama. It's a spellbinding period of history. And it does not end well for the Chiangs. The Nationalist regime crumbled to the Communists in 1949. The Chiangs fled to Taiwan, admitting no fault, but blamed President Truman and vowed to retake the mainland. That dream faded gradually after Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975.
   
   Madame Chiang's antagonistic stepson, Chiang Ching-kuo, would oversee a murderous suppression of dissidents as head of Taiwan's intelligence network. Paradoxically, as president, he later paved the way for the launch of Taiwan's democracy just before his death in 1988. That year, at age 90, she tried to rally Taiwan's Old Guard and prevent the onset of democracy she once spoke of so often. She failed.
   
   Madame Chiang lived out her days in New York, watching China and Taiwan as one became capitalist and the other became a democracy. Despite her illnesses, she lived until 2003.
   
   Ultimately, Madame Chiang was "a deeply flawed heroine," Li writes, "that rare creature who stuck resolutely to her beliefs, however misguided some of them may have been, through the decades and the trials."



3. Reading "Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady" was like going through everything in the attic and leaving nothing unexamined. Tyson-Li covers every aspect of Madame Chiang's life without ever letting us forget that life's relevance for today. The "Dragon Lady's" significance never disappears in the wealth of the personal, historical, political, psychological, medical, and religious dimensions of her complex life. Her fanatical anti-Communism calls to mind Richard Nixon's personal crusade. Her use of religion to define her and her husband's sense of destiny parallels certain leaders who employ religious language for similar ends. Her manipulation of people and events exceeds the ambitions of any demagogue who has come to believe his or her own public statements.
   
   All this and more the author achieves with vivid prose that takes you into private parlors where Madame Chiang herself has invited you to tea, but leaves you feeling that just maybe everything you've heard is really true and that your hostess is neither monster nor statesman, but an enigmatic individual using the world as a stage to work out her insecurities.



4. 
   Laura Tyson Li has assembled a spectacular bio. It's page turner with the authority and detail of an encyclopedia. LTL has managed to keep her opinions out of the text. It isn't until the last chapter when through an informed discussion on the Madame's possible motivations that LTL becomes subjective.
   
   While almost every aspect of this life is intriguing, certain people and episodes stand out. I had forgotten Zhang Xueliang until he emerged after a 50 year house arrest, after which he & his wife move to Hawaii. Apparently he was able to keep his pre-war fortune, or had been cared for financially; he is deemed a friend of the Madame. (Another 5 year house arrest of a physician who botches an operation of the General suggests house arrest is a common punishment for "friends" and other professionals.) Madame's war time US appeal for funds, with its cross country caravan of staff whom MCKS treats "as coolies" is certainly an episode worth a small volume. (The $800,000 she raises goes to her personal account.) While the Wendel Wilkie relationship (true or false) is intriguing, I fixed on the William H. Donald relationship, which may have been a professional friendship and refuge from her husband's authoritarianism, but her end of life treatment of him suggests something else.
   
   There are a host of issues worthy of their own books. Perhaps these books exist but I don't know about them. One issue is the "arrival" of 2 million mainlanders to the island of Formosa, who's 7 million citizens seemed to have some degree of prosperity under the Japanese. While the Chaings arrive with resources, others huddle in makeshift places and cry at night. "Invasion" appears to be a better word for this arrival (particularly after 2/28), but it is certainly not portrayed as such (or allowed to be portrayed as such) by the Nationalists who felt entitled to rule and had the resources to make it so. Even later, Madame objects to the appointment of Taiwanese to government posts.
   
   Another issue deserving its own book is Madame's money. Whether or not the NYC exterminators actually saw it, a closet of gold bars is not far fetched. For maybe 30 years, Madame's "charity" received a % of all imports to Taiwan. There were several "vacation" homes in Taiwan, one built at a cost of $2 million. Then, the resources brought from the mainland to Taiwan. This money provided Madame with luxury and a large staff until her death. How large was it? How was it acquired (any from the US war assistance?) and where did it go?
   
   MCKS can be noted for her longevity alone. There must be something Guinness-worthy about her survival despite many years in a war zone, continued medical treatments, operations including several for breast cancer, nervous afflictions, a late in life automobile accident, lifelong cigarette smoking (and potential drug abuse) and at least one assassination attempt. Any one of these factors would tend to predict an early demise, not a life of 103 years.
   
   If you read this book, it's riveting, so be prepared to give it time. Also, the level of detail might make continuity difficult if you have to make gaps in your reading time.