5 comments about Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time).

1. Jefferson: The Virginian by Dumas Malone is a masterful work on Thomas Jefferson's early years, from birth to being appointed as an ambassador to France.

   This work is one of the first comprehensive biographies of Jefferson's life. This is the first of six in the complete set. Malone is a distinguished historian so you will read about Jefferson's ancestry, along with Jefferson's youth, education, legal career, his marriage, the construction of Monticello. Not that was enough for one man's life, but we see the writing of the Declaration of Independence and Jefferson's work on the "Notes on Virginia."

   We get an insight as to how Jefferson conducted his highly successful legislative career and his governorship. But what we do NOT see is the soul of Jefferson... the man, the human being. We get facts and more facts about a very complex individual and a monumental man. But the richness of the breath of life is left out.

   Nonetheless, the book is a very scholarly work, one of the first to complete a comphensive work on a mulitfarious man. I enjoyed reading this volume for its historical importance and significance. This volume lays the ground work on which all of the other volumes set.

   This work being well documented is a good start into reading about the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. One fact the comes through loud and clear... Jefferson is a Virginian foremost and always... there is no mistaking that fact.




2. Malone, once called "the greatest Jeffersonian of them all", originally conceived this biography in four volumes. By the time he published the last book in 1982, at age 89, it had grown to six volumes. It remains the standard life of Jefferson, an indelible and important portrait of a great man, flaws and all, by a great scholar.

   JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN begins things with Jefferson's birth into a family of much distinction. His father Peter was a noted surveyor and a man of inordinate physical strength who nevertheless died fairly young (in his fifties). The book covers Jefferon's education at William and Mary (at a time when formal education was not a widespread thing, even among the gentry), his law practice, his beginning the construction of Monticello (which would preoccupy him right up until the time of his death), his terms in the Virginia House of Burgesses (one of which was served after his governorship), his writing of the Declaration of Independence (his initial version, a scathing indictment of King George, had to be toned down by his compatriots), and his controversial governorship (in which he sustained much of the blame for the British army's inroads into the Old Dominion state). It ends with his appointment as an American ambassador to France.

   Obviously this is no primer on Jefferson. Malone spares no detail. His prose is fastidious, elegant, and easy to read, although you may find yourself putting the book down from time to time to absorb what you have just read. Overall, Jefferson emerges here as a man naturally scholarly and reclusive, content to build his home, pursue his studies, and tend to his family, who is pushed into action by the obligations of his caste and by his own fervent patriotism.

   Malone has been criticised for writing a virtual hagiography of Jefferson, ignoring the "darker" aspects of the man's personality. In other words, unlike Fawn Brodie, Malone did not reduce his subject to some psychological cripple and sex deviate. The charges are balderdash. Malone DOES recognize Jefferson's flaws (e.g., his lack of a sense of humor and his sometimes indecision in taking action). He simply refuses to turn Jefferson into a whipping boy for his own ideological preoccupations.

   This is as complete a contemporary biography as we will probably ever get of this great man.




3. What can be said about this monument to Jefferson scholarship? I am sure that somewhere in universities around the United States there are "scholar squirrels who want to put down this invaluable resource in Jefferson studies. It is always the way that mice attempt to gnaw at lions. This is not a perfect work (and my remarks refer to all of the books in the series as a whole), there are somethings, namely Sally Hemmings references which are wrong and will not sit well with American 21st century mores. There is the issue of slavery which was handled much differently 50 years ago than it is now.
   Jefferson is not worthy of our interest because of Sally Hemmings and because he kept slaves. Jefferson is great because of the Declaration of Independence and his fight for the rights of man. While it may have been hypocritical to preach liberty and keep slaves, it is doubtful that slavery ever would have been abolished if Jefferson had never gained the prominence that he did. This book and the others that follow show why we should continue to honor the public man even though his private side may have been wanting.



4. VERY detailed account of Jefferson during the his life in Virginia. Although it had in depth description of the political structure, the people, and Jefferson's involvement in the politics of the United States and Virginia, it did not include a very detailed account of his personal life as is best depicted through letters. Surprisingly, despite Jefferson's extensive correspondence during the 41 years that the book covers, this correspondence was not used sufficiently to shed further light on Jefferson's personal life and intimate thoughts. Additionally, Dumas Malone did not focus enough on one of Thomas Jefferson's greatest contribution - the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.



5. I am currently attempting to read a biography of every President. For Washington and Adams, I settled for one volume biographies, the latter which was fortunate enough to be the Pulitzer Prize winning effort of David McCullough. After researching the available biographies for Thomas Jefferson I decided to plunge into the six volume work of Dumas Malone, partly because I did not find a one volume effort which I felt adequately delved into all the aspects of Mr. Jefferson's life in which I was interested, but mostly because as a University of Virginia alumni and admitted Jefferson admirer I wanted to read the most comprehensive and definitive biography available.
   
   Thankfully, I have not been disappointed. (Note: This critique refers only to the first volume, Jefferson The Virginian. I will review each volume separately as I complete it.) The book is surprisingly readable and written in a very straightforward and engaging prose. Surprisingly, this first volume, if anything, is less detailed than I would have wished, especially regarding Jefferson's early life. As Mr. Malone recounts, Jefferson's home at Shadwell burned in 1770 and many documents that would have shed more light on Jefferson's early life were lost.
   
   The other notable quality of this work is, though ultimately encompassing more than 3000 pages of text, each chapter has a narrow and well organized focus limited to 10-20 pages. This allows for quick reads of short chapters, which makes the reading of this large work more manageable and also aids in better retention of information.
   
   There is not much I can criticize of Mr. Malone's work, at least as it pertains to this volume. Obviously Mr. Malone is a Jefferson admirer, and that should be taken into account by the reader, although I can find no example where this is so pronounced as to circumvent a fair presentation of his exhaustive research, leaving the reader to ultimately decide for themselves. It should also be noted that this book was published in 1948, so obviously some scholarship since then may be missing (notably the children he fathered with his slave, Sally Hemings, which would not pertain to this volume in any event). Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Malone assumes a working knowledge of Revolutionary history. For example, the text mentions important events such as the Stamp Act, Townshend duties, and various battles, but makes no attempt to expound upon them in detail beyond what is required for the purpose of the biography.
   
   In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in a thorough study of the life of Thomas Jefferson. While a vast and comprehensive work, it is so well written and organized as to be easily accessible to all.

No comments about Porfirio Díaz (Los Grandes Mexicanos) (Los Grandes Mexicanos).

2 comments about A White Preacher's Memoir: The Montgomery Bus Boycott.

1. Pastor Robert Graetz left seminary with his young family to take a call to Trinity Lutheran Church in Montgomery, Alabama. As a white pastor during the time of the civil rights activity in Montgomery, he writes of his day to day struggle with racial hatred and how it affected his congregation and his family. This book defines the courage it takes to live out Christian justice and mercy and added a dimension to my knowledge of this era I had not yet experienced before I read it. Although I rated it a 9, if someone did not return my copy, I would buy another. It is a must for my library.



2. One thing I really enjoyed about reading Rev. Graetz's book was that it showed some of the diversity that was a critical part of the Civil Rights movement without making the case that African-Americans could not do it alone.
   
   Anytime a book is written in this type of context - a minority perspective on an issue - there is a danger of overshadowing the majority's struggle. In this case, Rev. Graetz merely tells of his involvement in what he saw as the right thing to do. Never does he make a huge deal about his own sacrifice, but instead talks about the general struggle. In the fine line between unique-diversification and over-the-top self praise, Rev. Graetz clearly falls on the side of the first.
   
   In addition, the book looks at different congregational backgrounds in the black community coming together for the common cause.
   
   There are many stories to be told about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and this is one that should be read.

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

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



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



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

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




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



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

4 comments about Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.

1. If you want to read a book by someone who worships Bill Clinton, who throws rose petals in his path, who feels he is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, then this is your book. If not, then wait for another.



2. Obviously well-researched with fascinating, real-life detail, the book presents a considered, coherent and integrated contour of events and the personalities which shaped them. Penetrating where journalism so often founders. History will thank Nigel Hamilton for telling the truth. Though his timing may be inconvenient, the telling preserves the standards of Diogenes. Illuminating. A must read.



3. Nigel Hamilton chronicles the first Clinton term, covering all the (mostly) bad and good, including his reinvention after the 1994 mid-term elections. Its amazing that despite Bill and Hillary making so many major mistakes, Bill came back to win a second term (and make his biggest mistake of all - Monica).
   
   Hamilton has no reservation in identifying Clinton's transition into the Presidency as the worst ever - beginning with his failure to appoint an effective chief of staff. (This is a topic Hamilton repeatedly returns to, contributing to Clinton's early lack of focus and being victimized by weak members of his administration. It does not get resolved until almost two years later.) It is also interesting (and scary) to read of Hillary's temper tantrums, beginning even prior to the Inauguration - concerning her wanting to take over the traditional V.P. office in the West Wing. Her decision-making also was a problem - eg. her choice for Attorney General (Zoe Baird) and for Attorney General in charge of civil rights (Lani Guinier) - despite warnings to the contrary, both nominations went forward and both went down in flames.
   
   Then there was Clinton's early move to permit gays in the military (backed down, looking indecisive), Hillary's locking correspondents out of access to the White House press office, Hillary being appointed to reform health care in 131 days (she acerbated the problem with secrecy and refusing to even talk to industry insiders), the Waco fiasco, LAX "Hairgate,), Hillary's "Travelgate," the Vince Foster suicide (followed by Hillary's orders to remove her personal papers prior to any investigation), Black Hawk down in Somalia (Clinton expanded the mission while troops were cut 90% and Defense Sec. Aspin refused to send the requested armor), the troop-ship Harlan County carrying President Aristide being turned away by Haitians chanting "Somalia," "Troopergate" - allegedly procured and lied for Bill Clinton, Paula Jones, Watergate (no illegal Clinton action, by Hillary inflamed the issue by refusing to turn over documents), and Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Browning.
   
   Then came New Gingrich and his "Contract with America," vs. a public perception that Clinton had no agenda. After losing both the House and Senate to Republicans, Clinton then re-invented himself as he moved to the center, and became a successful President.



4. In the dozen or so books that I have read about Bill Clinton including his autobiography Nigel Hamilton's books always stand our. These are among the most balanced and well thought out books written on the presidency of Clinton. Hamilton takes time for painstaking research of not only presidential archives but newspapers and voluminous secondary sources. This book which follows Clinton's rise to the presidency and his time as governor focuses on the first term in office. It accurately and effectively assess the first years where Clinton learned how to be president. The book encompasses several areas from the scandals, the role of Hillary in the White House and of course domestic and foreign affairs.
   
   The start of his first term can only be described in one word: disaster. Clinton was unable to effectively set up a transition team which would plague him through his early years in office when many of his candidates particularly in the justice department would have to resign over various scandals. Clinton himself was plagued by the scandals of Troopergate and Paula Jones while fending off his wife's scandals in Whitewater and Travelgate. These early years and political naiveté of the president were mastered by the end. As Hamilton points out and Clinton admits in his autobiography the stonewalling tactics that were used in these early scandals only fanned the flames quicker and in many cases particularly with Whitewater dragged the case along further than necessary. These scandals followed several legislative failures and executive failures from universal healthcare reform to gays in the military. Despite this those first two years were not entirely dark. The passage of NAFTA and the Oslo Peace accords were triumphs that came out of these dark days of his early presidency and a tax cut package that saved the American economy proved viable.
   
   Hamilton argues that Bill Clinton finally began to master the presidency and appear presidential after two events. In his previous book Hamilton shows that Bill Clinton is at his finest when he is running for office. When Clinton decides to fight the contract of America and use Dick Morris triangulation arguments to reposition himself as a candidate he is given for the first time a solid position to run from since 1992. The bombing of the Oklahoma building was the second event that helped redefine his presidency. Here Clinton was able to be at his finest when empathizing with people and demonstrates leadership. He ends his co-presidentship with his wife and takes responsibility to lead the nation doing an impressive job for most people and his approval ratings soar. The Bosnian crisis gave President Clinton the best chance to showcase leadership and coupled with the republican shutdown of government he emerged on top of his republican opponents.
   
   In the final analysis of President ClintonÂs first term he is seen as a brilliant politician but a flawed man. The scandals and poor organization of the White House plagued Clinton and forced him to spend his first two years at a public relations disadvantage. HamiltonÂs work is one of the best accounts on Bill Clinton and one of the fairest. It is encompassing of a wide range of sources and fairly asses them to come to logical conclusions.

No comments about Ronald Reagan's America with CD: His Voice, His Dreams, and His Vision of Tomorrow.

5 comments about Nixon, Vol. 3: Ruin and Recovery, 1973-1990.

1. it was the best book ever my bum is on the swedish! my bum is on the book hehe



2. Stephen Ambroses third Nixon Volume : "Ruin And
   Recovery" takes on into the heart and soul
   of democracy.
   Cynics accustomed to political scandal might
   be bemused by Watergate. What was all the
   hullabaloo really all about?

   Ambrose puts it something like this in the book:
   To the british, with their official Secrets Act, nothing
   that Nixon had done seemed that out of the ordinary,
   much less illegal. The Italians simply threw up their hands
   at the crazy Americans. To the French. Watergate
   confirmed their suspicions about the naive Americans.
   In west Germany, the frequent comparison of Nixon
   to Hitler by his enemies in America showed either
   how little the Americans understood Hitler,
   or how little they understood Nixon, or both.
   Nixons friends in China, could not understand
   why he just didn't shoot his critics.

   But in a democracy you must play by the law,
   and you must trust and have faith in the wisdom
   of the election process.
   Watergate was all about how these things were
   violated and how american democracy proved strong
   enough to recover.
   Ruin and Recovery reads like a detective story,
   absolutely undeniable brilliant stuff.
   
   

3. This third volume of the Nixon series is dominated by the Watergate scandal, with Ambrose skilfully detailing how the great election victory in 1972 slowly unravelled, as the full weight of the media and Democrat-controlled Congress worked to expose the whole tawdry episode. During this era, there was also the bombing of Hanoi followed by the Vietnam ceasefire, and summits with the Soviet leadership, but Watergate overshadowed all. Ambrose makes it clear that Nixon reinvented the story over and over, and bears a large burden of blame for the predicament he found himself in. He also makes clear that this was the opportunity for Nixon's arch enemies in the media and Congress to go for blood. The descent into the nightmare of possible impeachment and eventual resignation reads like an inevitablity, that Nixon lasted till August 1974 said a lot about his tenacity and stubborness in the face of relentless adversity.

   The recovery of Nixon was never fully realized, although he was an authoritative elder statesman in later years, and Ambrose shows that Nixon had regained a fair amount of respect in his later years. Since his death the left has continued to disparage and villify his legacy, but as hard as it is to defend Nixon at times, he was still a statesman to be reckoned with, and his foreign policy record, especially with his China trip, is one of distinction. The eastern establishment despised Nixon, but he did not cater to them, it was the silent majority that was his constituency. One finishes this book wondering where America would have gone had the Watergate scandal not occurred.




4. To fully understand Nixon, I highly recommend first reading volumes 1 and 2 of Ambrose's work. If, however, you are more interested in the Watergate affair, this volume certainly stands on its own.
   
   This is the final part of Ambrose's definitive three-volume biography of Nixon. The destructive tendencies wonderfully described by Ambrose in the first two volumes come to a head in Ruin & Recovery. Ambrose takes the reader through the unfolding of the mess that was Watergate.
   
   Even though we all know the ultimate outcome will be resignation, the author manages to maintain enough tension and suspense to keep the reader engrossed. In the wake of resignation, Ambrose follows Nixon's remarkable comeback as an elder statesman.
   
   If an affordable copy is not currently available, be patient. Because this book is out of print, it will be more expensive than you might expect, but you can find it for $20 to $30 if you look around.



5. For a guy that didn't grow up during Watergate, I found the third volume in this series to be a real page turner. Ambrose does a good job of telling you what happened, why it happened, how the public saw it and all the ways Nixon tried to keep the public from seeing it all.
   
   Ruin and Recovery is a great subtitle for this volume because Nixon truly did recover. There were a few things he never lost... his ability to guage the American people and how they felt about candidates and the ability to breakdown foreign affairs. It was good to see that in the final years of his life he was called on as an expert on both.
   
   I'm going to say it..."I ADMIRE RICHARD NIXON." Obviously I don't admire his Presidency or his decision-making during Watergate... but... for the most part I feel he was an idealistic, patriotic person that took a bad path and ruined his place in history at least when it comes to his Presidency. He did many things that Americans should respect though and it's high time we did.
   
   I am glad he has made a recovery in the minds of many Americans and as I read this final volume I think I saw Ambrose almost making a case for Nixon being a kinder, gentler person who should be slightly more respected in American history.
   
   Everybody makes mistakes and true Nixon made a big one, but I think in this final volume Ambrose almost makes a personal peace with Nixon and in a way advises Americans who resented Nixon to do the same.
   
   Really an enjoyable series of books that I would recommend to anyone willing to spend 1900 words delving into what made Nixon both good and bad as a person and politican.

2 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics.

1. I am confused why they sell these books at the Reagan Library. Admittedly they are long, through, and have wonderful cover at. But the content is what disturbs me. Not the entire content, but just three things.
   
   The first snag is that Cannon does not like Reagan. He clearly admits this in-in his footnotes:
   
   "It was the only time Reagan ever complimented me on anything I write." (Governor, 311n)
   
   This quote sums up the books main negative bias. This book is a history of Reagan as filtered through Cannon's philosophical grid. This makes for a tedious read. He takes Reagan on Lou Cannon's terms. Maybe that is why Cannon had a weekly column that included "Reaganisms," (President, 102n).
   
   Cannon is, however, fascinated by him. He freely admits this in the 1991 preface to President Reagan. This provides a positive bias, which saves the book from being a multi-volume hit piece.
   
   The second snag, is the books are almost all context. It is always "Reagan And": Reagan and Unruh, Reagan and Meese, Reagan and Reagan, and Reagan and Nancy. But we never see Reagan as an individual.
   
   The Gipper's tag-line is the Great Communicator, but Cannon rarely quotes him. This sucks the life out of the Regan magic. Read Michael Reagan's quote book on his father and then read this book. It is like seeing two different men. One is a lively and deep thinker; the other is a vague buffoon. But will the real Ronald Regan please stand up?
   
   Reagan also had a gift for humor. Peggy Noonan observed that Reagan had "an encyclopedic memory for jokes." (When Character Was King, 228). However, Cannon, in his chapter on Reagan's humor, talks about his humor in the abstract and recounts his juicier ethnic jokes (President, 101-102).
   
   The last snag is in the area of analogy. The second book is subtitled "The role of a Lifetime." His rhetorical device is to cast Reagan merely as an actor who gets the chance to play a president. This is a combination of "I'm not a president, but I play one on TV" and the plot to the film "Dave."
   
   Hover, this rhetorical device affects his logic. David Hackett Fischer calls this "the fallacy of insidious analogy" ("Historians' Fallacies," 244ff). The problem is that Cannon's analogy takes over his writing. It also become contradictory at times.
   
   For example, Chapter six of the presidential book discuses what Canon calls "the script." What he means by the script is the core philosophical ideas that Reagan had that attracted the voters. Cannon freely admits, "But it was the script that was compelling, and it was Reagan who wrote it." (President, 66). Then in later chapters he speaks of Reagan taking direction and needing a director (President, Chapter 10, p. 25, 32, 116, ).
   
   Cannon may misunderstand the necessity of delegation. The role of the president is to be the leader. That is, he articulates the vision, and then empowers his staff and cabinet to implement the vision. That is why he said, ""Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided is carried out." (President, 150). Ill timed or not, it is not only sound advice, it is the only way to run a country. A micromanager could not last three second as president.
   
   To be sure, Reagan may not have done follow-up as well as he should have, but he did understand the genius of individual people. He was not just remaking country, but truing everyone into demi-gods by empowering them.
   
   I think I have said enough, but there is one comment that just grates me. In Chapter 9 of the president book, Canon describes the rise and fall of the M/X missile. During one Cabinet meeting, Regan showed up with a cartoon of Uncle Sam playing as hell-game with Brezhnev. This clinched the issue for Reagan. (President, 138). Cannon conclude the chapter saying that Reagan was a "president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences, and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics, and cartoons." (President, 140)
   
   Cannon forgets that Reagan had an intuitive sense of people, and was able to connect without the use of the Cabinet and Bureaucracy (President, 119). One obvious was he did that was by listening to them. Another way was attuning himself to the humor. Cannon forgets the power of humor and that George burns said, "Truth is the basis of all good comedy."(Governor, 107). That one political cartoon illustrated a truth that would do honor to Socrates or Kierkegaard. For Cannon, the medium was the message. End of story.
   
   The gubernatorial book is the better book. Cannon does not feel the need to cover as much as he does in the Presidential book (Some of the material is redundant). The Presidential one has long chapters that sometimes get muddled. Chapter 8 covers Reagan's humor and thought patterns, and Chapter 11 covers Regan's early life-kind of late in the book for that. Also, Hinckley isn't mentioned by name in the narrative about the assassination, which is covered in half a paragraph, and then resumed in the narrative about the melt-down of Alex Haige.
   
   What would have helped this book? First of all, Cannon needs to sort out what he really thinks about Reagan. He is fascinated and even at times charmed by Reagan. But it is a love-hate relationship. Cannon disagrees with Reagan politically and philosophically. It is almost like Canon is afraid of Regan and feels the need to cut him down a notch.
   
   Canon makes the comment that Reagan may have never read E. B. White (President, 97). I suggest the same for Cannon: Remember Strunk and White's first rule of Composition: Place Yourself in the background (Strunk and White, 70).
   
   Secondly, "Check your premises." Figure out why you have this attraction to reign, and name concretes. Both were Irish and had Alcoholic fathers (President, 174n), but there is something deeper.



2. I did read the whole book just so I could comment on it. The part about him being docile when visiting his parents home made me throw up. But I persevered and read the rest of it. I just don't understand why the President and Nancy let this book happen. If you hate Reagan and you hate Conservatives, then this book should make you very happy. I threw my copy away. No way was I going to give this to the library like I usually do.

5 comments about John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Life In Pictures.

1. It is a great book !
   Although I am not a "Kennedy fan", I have to admit these pictures are awsome. Over 300 pages of dream, glamour, fashion, history & photography.
   It is not a political testimony, just a tribute to one of the most famous icons ever.
   My advice ? THE perfect Xmast gift!!



2. This collection of over 300 pages of the usual suspected photographs, as well as many unseen or rare ones, was published to commemorate the passing of 40 years since our 35th President was vicously cut down in his prime.

   The layout of the photographs is great. You see JFK throughout his life, from childhood, to Presidencey and every passing moment between. The photos are powerful, moving, show glamour and fun, you see a politician throughout his political career, you see a loving father, son, brother and husband. I have had quite a few photo books on JFk, but this is by far the best and most desirable one I have seen.

   This photograph book would make a wonderful and truly appriciated gift for anyone who has any respect, love or interest in JFK. My sister is a huge JFK fan, she had a bust of him on our dresser growing up.

   The price on Amazon, is as always, unbeatable. I saw this at a bookstore tonight for the full price.




3. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy:A Life in Pictures"is a great way to remember President Kennedy.I'm a young,strong admirer of President Kennedy,and not only are there great pictures of Kennedy,there is a biography of Kennedy with speeches he made,including the speech he was going to make on November 22,1963.The best pictures are of Kennedy with Herbert Hoover and a picture of Jack Kennedy with his daughter Caroline and his niece Maria Shriver.I have seen a bunch of great Kennedy photos,and if you ever want the best Kennedy photo,buy Robert Stack's autobiography "Straight Shooting"and see the picture of Stack and Kennedy. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy:A Life In Pictures"is a must read for all Kennedy fans and even all non-Kennedy fans.



4. I highly recommend this book, primarily for the great picutures of JFK. This 40th anniversary volume succeeds in presenting many rare and never-before-seen photos. I especially like the ones depicting Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine on the rear of the limousine in Italy 7/63. Get this!
   [...]



5. This is a great picture book. I have almost every Kennedy family picture book available. I just happen to come across it in a bookstore near my home. I paid $19.99 for it, pretty good price. You can get here for about $16-17 but remember you have to pay shipping. So it comes out to more but it is soo worth it. When you are going through these pics its like being taken back in time. I'm pretty young my mom was born in 1957 so she was about Caroline's age when these pics were taken.

1 comments about Nasser (Life&Times).

1. This book is a short biography of modern Egypt,s best known leader. The book is concise but leaves many aspects of Nasser's legacy in the dark. It is of interst to note that the writer points out to the fact that many of the recent demonstrations in the arab world had thousands of Nasser's photographs ,in Cairo, Beirut and Amman.
   It is a good book for someone who needs a quick and short one about Nasser and the effect that his memory has even on the new Arab generation that did not live through his reign. His memory is still alive despite the fact that during President Sadat's rule so many books and articles were written in newspapers in an attempt to tarnish his legacy.