3 comments about Alpha Dogs: The Americans Who Turned Political Spin into a Global Business.

1. In the early 1980's, I remember walking into the Manhattan offices of Sawyer Miller on East 60th Street, and wondering what went on beyond its reception desk's wall of television monitors. Were they part Madison Avenue, part CIA and NSC? Who were these green beret alpha dogs who parachuted into campaigns to save the day? How did a Mayflower descendant/son of a shoe company exec (Sawyer) team up with the son of a shoe salesperson (Miller)? How did Miller, the man credited with "Coke is it," "Have a Coke and a Smile," and "Great Taste, Less Filling" end up selling candidates to American and international voters? Now I know. James Harding explains the history of modern political consulting, and gives detailed accounts of the growth of the self confident Sawyer Miller Group, its tactics, clients, successes, speeches, ads, and failures, and its growth around the world and effects on international elections. It is a fascinating read. At times their negative ads turned off voters, but engaged others; some were informative, others were created to "relate" to the voter, and sometimes their clients political and corporate clients lost, proving that ads are not always magic potions. As for going negative: the author tells us that even Thomas Jefferson went negative against George Washington in 1796, and Cicero, in 63 BCE, wrote about how it is delicious to go negative against your opponent when running for political office.
   
   The author writes on how Sawyer Miller's clients ranged from the Dali Lama and Vaclav Havel to Lech Walesa, Shimon Peres, Puerto Rico's Colon, Chile's Valdes, Ecuador's Borja, Bolivia's "Goni,"and Corey Aquino, and from Chris Dodd, Jane Byrne, and Scoop Jackson to Bruce Babbitt, as well as saintly domestic clients and international rogues known for alleged torture tactics. They worked for Amex, Drexel, BAT, Goldman, Resorts Intnl and more. The consultant who penned Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, also penned documents for Tony Blair, Boris Yeltsin, and Silvio Berlusconi. The author explains how politics became tactics instead of ideologies, and candidates were packaged like consumer products. In Harding's hands, we learn about the machinations of Black, Manafort ,Stone; Squier, Napolitan, Garth, Schwartz, Wirthlin, McCleary, Grunwald, Carville, Sawyer, Miller, and more.
   
   Chapter 1 tells the story of the birth and growth of consulting by framing it within an exciting fly on the wall account of consultant Ned Kennan's (aka Nadav Katznelson) meeting with Boston's multi term mayor, Kevin White. Kennan, who focused on the driver's of voter behavior, loved to give bad news to the powerful, which he did to White, who was 20 points behind in the latest polls. In Chapter 2, we watch as Sawyer learns the limits of consulting, polls, personalities when he heads to Venezuela and tries to turn a pussycat of a candidate into a tiger. Chapter 3 relates the story of New Coke, its political-like battle with Pepsi, and the lesson it has for understanding polling results. By far my most favorite chapters were Chapters 4 and 5, which tell the stories of American political consulting in Israel and the Philippines. The account of Mrs. Aquino, the downfall of Marcos, and the roles of Cardinal Sin, Reagan, the U.S. media, certain Senators, and "American" consultants were so enlightening and suspenseful that I read that chapter a second time.
   
   Briefly, to K.I.S.S. and Keep on Message, I recommend this as a lively informative and necessary read in this Presidential election year.



2. With only a limited understanding of political campaigning, mostly garnered from an appreciation of Josh in the The West Wing, I thought this book was a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided gift from a friend which might, at its most useful, end up being re-gifted. But from the first few pages I found myself completely sucked into this authoritative and beautifully written account of Sawyer Miller, a political consultancy firm which sold the art of American politics to the rest of the world. A must read for anyone who wants to read between the lines of political spin - and about the people who wrote them. Outstanding.



3. Any regular watcher of Jon Stewart and 'The Daily Show' will recognize this author, who made a hilarious appearance there a few days ago to talk about this book. The surprise is: the book behind the author is actually quite good.
   
   It's about the political spinmeisters who brought behind-the-scenes image consulting into its modern form. James Harding bores in on one particular political consultancy, Sawyer Miller. It's an excellent choice. The opening story about Sawyer Miller's counseling of Kevin White, the Irish mayor of Boston, is equal parts funny and insightful. ("Voters don't like you!" the consultant tells the candidate, while devising a strategy that helps him win anyway.) The consultants go around the world -- helping Cory Aquino oust Marcos in the Philippines, another riveting story -- and in and out of countless elections and boardrooms to find ways for candidates to get out the right message. It is not always pretty, what goes on out of view of the camera. From bare-knuckled fighting to seat-of-the-pants improvising, the tactics of a campaign invariably tell a memorable tale.
   
   Harding is a knowing, graceful guide. He has a sensible grasp of politics and the unpredictable dynamics that rule virtually every campaign. His writing weaves subtle observation and sharp insight into the narrative with seeming effortlessness. He always offers just the right amount of historical background to any episode. He never gets bogged down in more policy than you want. Yet I really appreciated his smart, illuminating explanation of the politics in any situation his protagonists wandered into, and they did wander far and wide.
   
   A highly enjoyable book.

5 comments about Obama: From Promise to Power.

1. As an Obama supporter, I was interested in finding out more about "what makes him tick". I read some of both of Obama's own books, but the perspective of a third party has always appealed to me. I found this book to be well written and easy to read. I look forward to the author's new book on Obama coming out soon, in which I hope he'll pick up where he left off.



2. A very good read. From his early ambition of running for Mayor of Chicago to his "warp-speed ascension" to a presidential contest, "Obama' provides fair reporting of the man and a revealing look at the political machine surrounding him. I found this third-party look at the candidate to be a very useful balancing tool in my own research for November.
   Thanks, Mr. Mendell.



3. The author does what any self-respecting journalist would do - paint an accurate acount, as well as it can be done this early in the game. This book may seem completely positive on Obama at first, but, pay attention, and you will be rewarded with unbiased reporting. Some statements that appear as digs, are actually nothing more than honest observations. I liken this "biography" to the Boston Globe's biography on John Kerry. It was fairly positive, but exposed what there was to expose, such as certain character flaws (and historical accounts), etc. Nothing too damaging, but puts things in 3D.
   
   It is balanced. And what comes forth is the impression that Obama is nearly as good as he expresses, but is far from not being a politician. The obvious implication being, that Obama is not impervious to his own message of change. Obama has tactics, folks. He isn't a saint. Still, you do get the impression that he's a smart, intuitive, ambitious, and nice guy.
   
   I recommend this, along with "audacity", for an appropriate picture of the man Barack Omama. Just, when you read "audacity", know that you're getting BO's talents on full display, and not an authoritative look at the man. Politicians are politicians - you know, some more gifted than others. It's always a lesser of evils scenario. Always.



4. It is always difficult to write a biography when the subject is 46 years old. It is exponentially more so when two autobiographical works have already been published beforehand.
   
   In Obama: From Promise to Power, David Mendell gives us his vantage point of the presidential candidate and the book derives its strength from Mendell's journalistic coverage since the beginning of Obama's run. Mendell book reads like an extended newspaper profile, covering the major bases without injecting much opinion or going into excessive detail. It is also driven by interviews and quotes of what other people think of Obama, and relatively little from what Obama thought of himself. Through interviews with Obama's sister and grandmother, we learn about his upbringing and the time he spent in Hawaii, from their point of view. Similarly, Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago is described by Jeremy Kellman, an organizer Obama worked closely with and helped shape some of his ideas. Mendell describes a couple encounters with Obama when he was still an unknown and, one could say, unguarded. These one-on-one conversations between journalist and yet-to-be politician is one thing that gives this book a refreshing perspective. Mendell was one of the first reporters to follow Obama in Chicago, and thus lends the book a revealing perspective on this complex man.
   
   The book has its shortfalls. It may go unsaid, but the book almost begs the reader to read Obama's two autobiographies, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope. In the first half of the book many quotes from Obama about his early life are directly lifted from Dreams. Also, From Promise to Power is skimpy on Obama's life changing time he spent at Columbia reading and developing his mind. One would like to hear more about it. Also, Obama's time at Harvard Law School is condensed into a short chapter. One would think these formative years helped solidify Obama's thinking about the world. Yet, there are few quotes from Obama himself about them. One must turn to Dreams to learn more. Mendell's book falls somewhat flat in the final third, when Obama rises to national fame. Mendell strains to give his experience following Obama around, while describing the significance of major events such as the 2004 speech at the national convention and Obama's return to Kenya. Much of this is simple narration of events, his experience following Obama with the scores of other reporters and, I think, rings hollow in terms of content compared to earlier chapters. Of course, much of this can be excused since those events are recent and this biography is purposefully unfinished.



5. I read Obama's Audacity of Hope and then Dreams from my Father, and then I picked up this book to see how an outsider would square with Obama's words. I was somewhat OD'd on the whole subject and found Mendell's book boring, more detailed about the reporters and other subsidiary players around Obama so after the first twenty-some pages I just skipped around. I found that the middle was more devoid of pejoratives and therefore more illuminating. It made me wonder if he hadn't been advised to color the early and late parts (because that's what the critics would read?) so as not to appear pro-Obama. His negative castings offended me and made it harder to take him at face value.
   
   In this campaign I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be objective. No matter how open we believe ourselves to be, we are colored by our experiences. I hate it when today's commentators bend over backwards to be "balanced" even when there is a preponderance of facts and/or expert analyses that weigh in on one side of the topic. This is not objectivity. The author would have been better served by stating his opinions directly as his personal reflections and feelings rather than using pejorative words in a misguided effort to "balance" his statements.

5 comments about Anthony Blunt: His Lives.

1. Miranda Carter has been justly acclaimed for producing a biography on Anthony Blunt that cuts through all the weird and assorted myths that have attached to him over the years since the revelations of his spying were made public. This book is richly rewarding as it connects the many lives of this very private public figure. Blunt is a complex personality and it took thorough research and the skill of a good writer to fully appreciate and capture these many and varied layers. The examination into the world of academia and art history was particularly well done and held the interest of this reader. I picked up this book because of the spying details but, to my surprise, found myself as riveted by all the other aspects of this man's live. This book, unlike all the others written about the Cambridge spies, does not come with an axe to grind and it is all the stronger for that abscence. Highly recommended.



2. What is the purpose of this account of the life of Anthony Blunt, the great traitor?
   
   This biography is a long emollient salve applied to Blunt's traitorous and murderous life. Its strengths are all associated with its depiction of the milieu in which he moved so effortlessly, the upper class institutions of England which he betrayed.
   
   The author, a product of St. Paul and Oxford, is an excellent writer and an indefatigable researcher. Her style is mellow and balanced--her analysis subtlely and consistently biased in favour of Mr. Blunt. The only time her mellifluous prose veers into ascerbity is when referring to Mr. Blunt's detractors, including Brown, Deacon, and the various former KGB operatives who have written memoirs. Their opinions, Ms. Carter assures us, are unreliable, badly researched, poorly judged, and so on.
   
   But not to worry--Ms. Carter does have the facts, and, she assures us, the proper perspective on Blunt's actions. Despite her many portentuous references to KGB archives, most of her research is based upon secondary sources, a great deal of which is journalism, and on interviews with people to whom she gained access no doubt because of her social background and elite education.
   
   And these sections of the book are indeed fascinating: Ms. Carter refers authoritatively to climates of opinion in the English upper classes that allegedly prevailed during periods before she was born. Her account sometimes reads like it was written by a contemporary of Anthony Blunt's, one with a remarkably benevolent attitude towards the traitor. This authenticity of tone is a testament to Ms. Carter's long years of research and her supple and even-tempered prose. It is also a testament, however inadvertant, to the tolerant, clubby upper class climate which allowed a traitor like Blunt to flourish for so long.
   
   On the surface, the purpose of this book is to present a balanced judgment on the life and deeds of Anthony Blunt. Its rhetoric is indeed a model of moderate, even-tempered balance. But that is not the character of the book, nor is a balanced account its true purpose. What this book actually represents is an example of what it sets out to document--the extraordinarily forgiving attitude of the English upper classes to the Cambridge spies who betrayed their country.
   
   It can only be hoped that its appealing surfaces will not persuade the public to accept this Blunt biography as anything other than an all-too-refined case of special pleading on behalf of a cunning, unrepentent, and all-too-refined traitor to his country.



3. Carter wins on giving us numerous minutia about Blount's life and his odd selection of friends. But her book was not of great interest to a reader who was aware of Blount's peculiar nature and interest in art. It is difficult to understand how Blount or his friends, seemed completly oblivious of politics as Carter has laid out. Unless she is making the case that Blount was the perfect mole - at all times on guard against exposure. But I don't think she is trying to make that case.Carter gives us a blur of names, quotes, and a failure to find mention of expected comments in corresspondence such as the passing of Blount's father. It may be Carter's intention to show Blount's world as an extremely focused life which was hardly influenced by outside events; such as the end of World War One and the rise of Communism. I suspect Carter is trying to explain Blount as a Good Boy Who Does Bad Things.



4. Anthony Blunt was a child of the British Establishment, born to a middle class family with Church of England and royal connections. He received a fine education at Marlborough and Cambridge and became one of the most acclaimed art historians and teachers in Britain in the twentieth century. At the same time, he was a spy for the Soviets. The story of how Blunt became a communist, worked against his country while supposedly serving it in MI5 during World War II, then became a courtier for two monarchs and the highly regarded head of the Courtald Institute, which he made into one of the finest art schools in the country, is fascinating.

   Blunt was a man of many contradictions. At the same time he stood at the side of the Royal Family as the Surveyor of their art collection he was leading a secret gay life notorious for its seaminess. While he appeared to be a pillar of the Establishment he gave secret information to the Soviets and became the long sought after Fourth Man who was in league with Burgess, Maclean, and Philby before they defected to Russia. When he was unmasked in the 1960s the British government did its own contradictory little dance around him, granting him immunity while pumping him for information.

   Miranda Carter is sympathetic to Blunt and emphasizes his positives, like his fine teaching abilities and helpfulness to many of his students, but without whitewashing his treasonous activities. She helps us understand the pressure Blunt was under for many years and the fear of being unmasked that dominated him until he was finally publically denounced in 1979. Above all, she does a fine job of depicting the man's numerous contradictions. Highly recommended.




5. Miranda Carter has written a splendid book about Anthony Blunt, appropriately subtitled, "his lives." Reading about the Cambridge Fellow, Soldier, Double Agent, Art-Historian, Director of the Cortauld Institute, Surveyor of the King's/Queens Pictures, etc., etc., is like peeling an onion, or perhaps--more appropriately--opening a Russian Matrioshka doll. As one probes into a deeper layer one discovers yet another persona, and although one might begin to understand Blunt's motives, one never really gets to know who he really was, thanks to his ability to compartmentalize his multifarious activities and interests.
   
   Although I began the book with considerable prejudice, since Anthony Blunt seems to have prospered while his fellow Cambridge spies were living comparatively miserable lives in Moscow, Ms. Carter's sensitive portrayal of this man, whose aloofness stemmed from a fundamental insecurity, changed my mind. She shows us a man who was unwavering in his ideals and loyal to his friends (He waited until 1964--after Guy Burgess had died and Philby and Maclean were 'safe' in Moscow-- to admit his complicity.). She also portrays a tormented man, whose ability to lose himself in his art-history scholarship preserved his sanity and probably saved his life. Publicly disgraced in 1979, stripped of his knighthood and other honors (after a promise of immunity), deserted by all except a few loyal friends, he died soon after. Miranda Carter depicts him as a man who was courageous but tragically flawed.
   
   This book is meticulously researched, so much so that an average enthusiast of espionage literature may find himself adrift among the dozens of friends, acquaintances and enemies whom Anthony Blunt knew, not only Guy Burgess, Kim Philby and the other Cambridge spy protagonists, but also literary figures, including Julian Bell, Louis MacNeice, W.H. Auden; and other characters--who have come in for their own share of speculation--Victor Rothschild, Michael Straight and Goronwy Rees. Precisely because of the plethora of names, the book presents a fascinating glimpse into a fifty-year history of Great Britain from the 1920's onward. And while probably only the most passionate art historians will read every word about Nicholas Poussin and Baroque Rome, the persistent reader will be rewarded by a colorful and witty glimpse into the outrageous life and times of Guy Burgess (Inexplicably no one has written a biography of the wayward spy, but if they do, it should probably be called "My Noisy War"!).
   
   For those afficionados who cannot get enough of the Cambridge Spies (Judging from the numbers of books still being published about them, half a century later, such readers are numerous.), this book is highly recommended!

5 comments about Saddam's Secrets.

1. I enjoyed the information in the book. Poorly written but never the less informative



2. Finally, the inside scoop! Questions of WMD answered! Why isn't this information made more readily available to the American People? This is a story of one man's faith and honesty in the worst of situations! You want to know the truth? Read this book!!



3. This is an important book that every American should read. Gen Sada is an amazing man, an eye-witness in Saddam's regime who lived to tell about it and claims to have actually seen WMD with his own eyes. Fascinating!



4. It's a shame that the public has to dig for the truth rather than rely on the press to be honest, but that's the situation. If you really want to know what was going on rather than buy into the juvenile theory that this was somehow all about W's oil buddies, this is a great start.



5. Have only read a small amount so far, but already would rate it very good and something all americans should read.

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. Massie has written a masterpiece.
   Graceful, informative ,never boring.
   One of the best introductions into the insanity
   of the Red Revolution and the rise of communism.



2. Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.
   
   Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.
   
   Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.
   
   Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.
   
   Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.
   
   Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.
   
   It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.



3. Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.



4. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



5. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.

5 comments about Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.

1. If I had to recommend one book to read in a year, I would recommend The Founding Brothers.
   
   Joseph Ellis recounts the early stages of American history with six historically-based tales about the Founding Fathers or, as he thinks of them, the Founding Brothers. The stories of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Franklin (more of a Founding Grandfather, Ellis asserts) highlight how the period after the Revolutionary War was the most politically treacherous in our nation's history. It was the Founding Brother's talents and foresight that allowed them build a country out of a revolution which, in most cases, falls short of ideals because of personal ambitions.
   
   The stories of the Founding Brothers is completely factual, however, the stories are written so that the reader can see the emotional and personal character aspects that the Brothers experienced during the early years of our nation. The stories are interconnected and woven so that even though each of the stories highlight different facets of the nation's early history (the ratification of the Constitution, the question of slavery, the infamous duel at Weehawken, the location of the new republic's capitol), the major players remain the same. Their personalities are built together to create interesting and insightful history.
   
   This book won the Pulitzer Prize. After reading, I found that to be no surprise at all. It's an excellent read with a blend of wit, conviviality, learnedness, and intelligence.



2. In the afterglow of the HBO series on John Adams, I grew interested in some of the founding fathers, many of whom had seemed boring to me ever since I read their bios in grade school. Ellis does a highly intelligent and readable job of laying out the personalities, conflicts and battles of the whole group during the first years of the nation. I particularly like the chapter on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Also great is the chapter about George Washington, who had seemed a cardboard character to me until my interest was piqued by the TV series. Ellis is more than a little inclined to repeat himself in that particular way academics have, although his ruminations are likely to advance the story, although a bit wordily. That aside, this book is worth digging into by anyone who wants to know what those guys were really all about and who doesn't want to be told by some ideologue what to think about them.



3. I'm giving this book 4 Stars. I was going to go with 3, but based on the works readability and style I believe that there is something to be taken away by everyone. The information presented by Ellis will interest the scholarly historian as well as the casually curious reader. The former of the two readers may busy themselves more with disputing some of the poorly cited, questionable material presented within the pages of this book.
   If I have it right, Ellis was attempting to portray the founders as a group of thoroughly human participants that possessed the omniprescence to grasp the scope of what their actions meant to history. This fundamental paradox of presentation left me scratching my head in search of the authors true motives. Was Ellis attempting to unite us with the men and politics of the Founding generation or was he furthering the mystification of these men, by adding to the accumulated material that presents them as histoical deities.
   Regardless of the overall impression the book leaves on you, I am sure, the reader will find themselves entertained from start to finish.



4. NOTE: THIS REFER REFERS TO THE UNABRIBED AUDIO CD VERSION
   
   First of all, I'm not going to get into the controversy over whether this book is totally accurate historically. If I knew that, I'd be writing a history book rather than reading one. The fact is, no one can be 100% sure of everything that happened or was thought 250 years ago.
   
   That issue aside, it's an interesting book but it gets bogged down in far too much detail and analyses. It isn't scholarly enough for a truly academic treatise, but not "entertaining" enough for a popular history. It may therefore bore some readers who prefer a more humanized anecdotal telling and infuriate purists who want proven facts rather than occasional speculation.
   
   The reader is good, but his voice tends to take on a droning quality if listened to for long periods. There is not enough differentiation for the quoted passages, so it's sometimes hard to tell what is a historical quote and what it the author's statements.
   
   From reading other reviews, I think it's safe to say that this is book may be too lengthy and "boring" for young students (which may be a sad commentary on both our youth and our school system) yet not scholarly enough for serious American history fans. The problem is, who's left?



5. Even though I'd seen and heard multiple items about the founding generation, I was pleasantly surprised that I learned something new from this work...namely that the discussion of the location of the new capital was seriously sidetracked by an abolitionist delegation's visit (which was even blessed by fellow abolitionist Ben Franklin shortly before his death). Highly Recommended, a great yarn.

5 comments about Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. Foreman writes a good biography firmly grounded in academic research but lucid and readable for the nonacademic reader. She suffers slightly from a bias towards her subject - which she admits herself in her introduction - but overall a solid work. I'll look forward to more by this author.



2. I am currently obsessed with Jane Austen, came across a glowing review of "Georgiana: Duchess..." in the New Yorker, and couldn't resist reading this story of Regency England. Unlike Austen's heroines, the Duchess has a very dark side - she's a gambler, adulteress, liar, drug addict...I found myself wanting her to be happy (and to win against the evil Bess) in spite of (or because of?) these qualities. In the end, her charisma, beauty, fashion, gentleness, vulnerability, wit, privilege, and political engagement endear her.
   
   I loved the book, the story, the characters, the history, and the politics. Unlike some other reviewers, I found Foreman's writing incredibly engaging and easy to read.



3. I was wanting more of a historical novel but this book reads more like a text book. Almost every page has notes at the bottom of the page, this makes for very "choppy" reading. Interesting subject but not a cozy read. I had to make myself finish the book.



4. if some one told me what really happen 18th century upper crust i would not believe them.money,sex,adultery,hidden preganacy,lesbianism,royality,gambling and drug addiction.fashion theather social scandals,politics,betrayal, blackmail and war.it's a soap opera that really happen.even a evil bestfriend who bears two childern by georgina husband is through in.this book is addictive.i didn't put it down till last page.



5. I was never a biography fan until this book. Foreman does a dazzling job of bringing Georgiana to life. I could read this book over and over again!

5 comments about Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia.

1. Janet Wallach's history of Gertrude Bell (1868-1926), Desert Queen, was read by my book club at least twice over the years, and several members have remarked that this was one of the best books the group has ever read. Hmmm. I guess they forgave the author her writing style...
   
   Without question, Bell is a fascinating subject; a woman who played a major role in Middle Eastern politics, and yet whose story has rarely been told. A brilliant, curious female, she was the first woman to earn a first-class degree in modern history at Oxford, she wrote seven influential books on the Middle East and, following WWI, was named oriental secretary to the British High Commission in Iraq. She spoke several languages fluently, including Persian and Arabic and was an expert on Arab affairs and Middle Eastern politics. She created detailed maps of the country that would become Iraq, wrote travel books, served as an intelligence agent, was instrumental in creating present-day Iraq, maneuvered to put King Faisal on the throne of the new kingdom of Iraq, became an accomplished historian and archaeologist, and founded the first museum for antiquities in Baghdad.
   
   All this she achieved while facing the obstacles and prejudices of being a woman in a man's world. She enjoyed a challenge and defied all social customs for women of her day. Being a woman was both her greatest asset and her biggest barrier in a lifetime of unusual ambition. She found women insufferably dull, and at parties she would head straight for where the men were gathered discussing important topics. Needless to say, she offended the wives and annoyed the men wherever she went. Yet she had a unique ability to endear herself or make herself indispensable to all levels of male Arab society. As a woman, she understood the subtleties of the culture, which were crucial to political success. This ability enabled her to build relationships with the people, helped her reach her goals, and gave her an important advantage over her team members.
   
   Unfortunately, what should be a lively and exciting account of one woman's incredible achievements is impeded by Wallach's dry, tedious, academic prose. Though the book's academic tone might seem to lend credibility, Wallach's level of research itself seems questionable and not as thorough as her subject deserves. While Desert Queen offers biographical information on a praiseworthy woman and an important perspective on the situation in the Middle East, it should not be considered a definitive work for either or an afternoon's light reading. Put on your hip boots, Myrtle. The slogging is heavy.



2. It's remarkable that a book written about events that took place 100 years ago has direct relevance to today, but that's just one of the many strengths of "Desert Queen." When you read about Gertrude Bell's political savvy about Iraq and the stubborness of the male politicians who ignored her advice, well, the parallels are obvious.
   
   The biggest takeaway for me was imagining Bell's life traveling through the desert to meet sheiks who were truly living in a different world. The Middle East of the 19th century still had huge populations of nomadic tribes that measured their wealth in camels. They were not a part of the Western world -- though they were highly intrigued by it. With incredible bravery and an astounding ability to overcome exhaustion and discomfort, she worked her way into the tents of sheiks who would not let another woman sit in their presence. And then after a few months of visiting and gossip, she'd take a several-week journey back to the luxury surroundings of her family's home in England. There was probably only about a 50-year window in which a person could do what she did -- the heyday of British wealth, might, and arrogance -- and she took advantage of that period perfectly.
   
   Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn about how Europeans thought about and influenced the Middle East. And, in fact, that's also the source of my only criticism of the book. If you don't know a lot about Middle East geography and history, the names and places mentioned in this book can sometimes be a blur. The maps and photos are very helpful, but for someone like me who has only a superficial knowledge, it's still hard to figure out at times.



3. This was my book group's pick and I could hardly wait to get it and read it; it sounded timely and fascinating. Unfortunately, it was like reading a textbook, interesting but WAY too dry. No one in our group finished it and even the brilliant woman who loves a book best if no one else understands it, didn't want to read it. I only stuck with it to page 50. Maybe it gets better as you get the author's rhythm, like Dickens. As much as I would like, I can't recommend it.



4. I enjoyed learning about the fascinating life and accomplishments of Gertrude Bell and the delicate and complex Arab culture and political history. I sadly realize that the knowledge and lessons that the history provided for us so abundantly are not being applied by our current government. Should we make presidential candidates take mandatory history tests in order to qualify for their candidacy? I am not much of a history reader, but this book certainly inspired me to learn more. Also it is a shame that a person as influential as Gertrude Bell has not been well known to us as much as she deserves. The writing of this book was complex but coherent, very easy to follow and enjoyable.



5. In response to your comments on Janet Wallach's writing in "Desert Queen": Her wriing made a colorful biography and her sources fill pages at the back of the book. You noted there were no footnotes: Who wants to read footnote after footnote like in a textbook? This is a story of a very vibrant woman and why not have the author envision what Gertrude Bell might have been thinking or seeing at different times e.g., "...his dark eyes were flashing..." You could not understand why she was against women's sufferage: She was a traditionalist; she might also have thought women were not well informed enough to vote or because she thought more like a man and was so involved with men she might not have given women much weight in her world. Must everything have to be explained and analyzed in a book? Exercise your mind. This discussion from my good friend Jane Kosut, Atlantic Beach, FL> Harvard '77

5 comments about Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.

1. With the focus on the opening salvos of the Cold War and Senator Joe McCarthy, author M. Stanton Evans pens a chilling account on how history and news is written, twisted & interpreted and its ramifications in domestic & foreign policies.
   
   Peeling back layers of fiction that has been taken for fact, Stanton Evans reports on a number of disturbing issues; missing documents in federal archives, copies of media coverage of events permanently lost and the continuing disinformation that - in the present - destroys the past for those wishing to seek real answers to historical questions.
   
   The research is outstanding and the book is a grim reminder on the lost and found nature of history surrounding Sen. McCarthy, the Cold War and the games played in the offices of the most powerful players in The Beltway.



2. The author is and has been for many years a highly respected conservative intellectual,columnist,editor,writer and author. So, I looked forward with anticipation to this work. I was not disappointed. With painstaking precision the reader is taken back thru McCarthy's speeches, testimony, hearings and writings. It can be tedious at times. But, the proof is there that McCarthy was correct in his mission of exposing communists and their fellow travelers. Anyone on such a mission needed to be besmirched and destroyed by the liberal establishment. He may have been intemperate at times. But, it is well proven that he was essentially correct in charging that it was too easy for persons not loyal to the best interests of this country to hold important government positions. His downfall, unfortunately, was brought about by a republican president and his eastern establishment influenced administration.



3. I was stunned by this book, and outraged by many many lies that have become the accepted "truth" about Senator McCarthy. The book is presents a wealth of facts that are extremely persuasive support for the author's thesis - that the senator was smeared by his enemies and that our common understanding is almost 100% wrong about him.



4. Blacklisted exceeded my expectations. I had been looking forward to reading a thoroughly researched study of the events involving Senator Joe McCarthy. And Blacklisted satisfied by providing exhaustive research. This alone would have sufficed - but the reader is also treated to the author's amazing writing ability. Evans has a talent for presenting his research in fascinating style. He brilliantly pulls together the facts and presents them in spellbinding manner. I didn't want to put the book down.
   
   Blacklisted gives the reader a clear understanding of the players and events involved in Senator McCarthy's "fight against America's enemies". You will learn about the Soviet Communist infiltration of the American government and why it was covered up by the Administration. You will learn about Senator McCarthy's role, and about those determined to destroy him to silence him. Many of the facts are shocking. Disappearing documents, blatant lying, cover-ups, intimidation and destruction of those trying to reveal the truth, just to name a few. You will be stunned by the techniques and activities used to protect the Communist moles and their White House supporters, and to annihilate those who dared to reveal the infiltration.
   
   Blacklisted also provides a good introduction to Communist infiltration methodologies employed in the U.S. Evans explains how the Communist infiltration of the American government not only created a fifth column in the U.S., but also contributed in some part to horrific events in other countries, China being a prime example.
   
   Blacklisted not only provides an understanding of the past - what you learn here, you will be able to apply to the present and to the future. Don't make the mistake of thinking that history is just about the past!
   
   People who seek the truth will be outraged by what they read here. If this book doesn't get your dander up, nothing will!



5. This is one of the best books I've read all year. While the topic is dated, who now a days cares about Communist intrusion in our government, it was a book that got my blood boiling. It is amazing to me what the Government of this country can stoop to when it is lead by liberals of either party. Shameful.

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

1. It seemed to me to lend itself best to "dipping into," read a little ahead there, double back here, and check the index to see when an interesting character enters.
   
   But I would recommend it. Especially since the craft and art of speechwriting (and making) is such a crucial part of the modern American presidency.
   
   Two of my favorites, even though they were given by presidents whom I would not have supported (had I been old enough, or in one case alive) were Nixon's first inaugural and Reagan's "Tear down this wall."
   
   Here, you'll find out who wrote these and other of the best-remembered speeches in history.



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



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



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



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