2 comments about Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive.

1. I'm reading a bio of each President and was actually excited to get to Hoover. I figured he couldn't be nearly as bad as his reputation and there might be some insight as to how he was so successful in most of his life, but failed so miserably as president. Alas, there is not. The book seems well-researched, but there is a stunning lack of personal detail. Almost nothing other than Hoover's offical writings are cited. No anecdotes from friends. No personal correspondance. Before he went into government, he spent most of his adult life overseas. Surely there would be some interesting tales from those adventures, I thought. None. If you have to do research on Hoover, I suppose this is a fine place to start. However, if you're a bio fan and looking for some insight into the man and the times, don't bother. To be fair, such a book may not exist or even be feasible with Hoover. This one definitely isn't it.



2. Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression. He had trouble with the Federal Reserve and the New York Stock Exchange. Seven months into his term, the stock market crashed. By 1932, 12 million were out of work. The good thing to come from his term was Hoover Dam, located 30 miles southeast of Las Vegas. This hydroelectric dam harnesses the Colorado River to produce electricity for Arizona, Nevada and California. There was controversy about the dam's name. Democrats wanted it called Boulder Dam because of Hoover's failed presidency and because it was originally to be built upriver across Boulder Canyon.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln: A Constitutional Biography.

1. Despite the fact that this book is in fact a compilation of essays written over a nearly forty year period, it possesses a unity and coherence that would put many other works of "scholarship' to shame. Anastaplo is an amazingly learned, thoughtful,and spiritually sensitive man. He is also that rarity, an INTELLIGENT patriot. One cannot help but think, reading his reflections on Lincoln and the founding, that he would have made a superb addition to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that he The Illinois State Bar , deeming him a 'security risk"(!!), refused to grant him permission to practice law back during the McCarthy era. He certainly understands the constitution better than several of the Justices.



2. This is a very difficult book to pigeonhole. It isn't really a "biography" in the typical sense, and yet it does indeed tell the story of Lincoln in a unique, fascinating, and clever way, that is, Anastaplo explains Lincoln in terms of his philosophy, mindset, and outlook as these evolved over the course of his life as seen through the lens of his words and actions. To me there is no better way to explain or know somebody than identifying and understanding what philosophical underpinnings guided their words and actions. We are all guided ultimately, whether we admit it or not, by our worldview (i.e. the collective sum of our beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of reality). What a person believes about any number of foundational questions of human existence (existence of God, human value, equality, morality, etc.) defines who they are, and it is these things that guides ones words and actions, and it is consequently these words and actions that Anastaplo brings to the fore to give us an engrossing account of one of the most fascinating and brilliant human beings in history. Anastaplo never says the equivalent of, "Lincoln believed such and such...", but rather lets you glean that for yourself based on Lincoln's evolution of thought and word. Although Anastaplo does help "frame" the discussion of Lincoln in a philosophical context by providing some helpful background info and by culling the pertinent details of Lincoln's life such that the reader has a firm foundation from which to ponder Lincoln's mindset and how that mindset provoked his subsequent words and actions, he (Anastaplo) never attempts to spoon-feed or dogmatize.
   
   Ever wonder: So what's the big deal with Lincoln? Anastaplo gives the answer. You cannot help but come away with an almost reverential regard for Lincoln, not because he was so "good" or because he was so much better than anybody else, but because you see in Lincoln all the flaws, contradictions, and insecurities that plague us all. Lincoln was by no means perfect, as none of us are, but despite his flaws Lincoln shows us a profound picture of greatness in his patience, eloquence, and ability to learn from and reflect upon life and use the gifts we've been given to strive for good. In short, its all the things that make a hero a hero. A hero isn't a hero because he/she is perfect but because they are great despite imperfection. But I digress...
   
   This book is essentially a collection of essays Anastaplo wrote and lectured on over the course of his career. But don't let that dissuade you from reading. There is undeniable continuity and cohesion such that the essays seem to flow naturally into one another without unnecessarily overlapping or regurgitating other portions of the the book. I will warn however, that while this book isn't terribly long it is dense and requires effort. I found myself having to focus with an unusual amount of concentration, not because Anastaplo is cumbersome or because what he says is so difficult to understand, but because the nature of the material prompts and requires a huge amount of thought and reflection...and I LOVED it.
   
   Of all the books I've ever read this one remains in my top ten and I have no doubt that I will dip into it again and again over the course of my life, and in fact already have. If you are a seeker and love American history, do yourself a favor and read this book. You will be challenged and you will learn as much about yourself as about Abraham Lincoln.

No comments about The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition.

5 comments about The Clinton Wars.

1. Blumenthal writes passionately about the Clinton presidency as you would expect.
   The first 200 pages or so are comments on the first term where he did not work for Clinton, and I only skimmed through those as it was mostly references to other sources.
   The next 500 pages are much more personal and although nothing new and surprising comes out, Blumenthal still writes a fairly balanced account of the events and shows his brilliant polical and intellectual mind on many occassions.
   An important part of the history writing of the Clinton presidency.



2. first, a disclaimer: i actually liked the clinton presidency, even if i didn't care too much for the man himself. and i think hillary was right when she spoke of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," even though i thought she was cracked at the time.
   
   so: all i can say about this book is that blumenthal appears to be assuming the same position monica lewinsky did. this is a book written by a man with an astonishing ability to suppress the gag reflex. he is a clinton worshipper.
   
   imo, this is the book's major failing. blumenthal can see no wrong where his friend and president is concerned; he spends pages upon pages justifying, praising, and illuminating the clinton legacy. i could not read more than a chapter at a time -- a very unusual occurrence for me.
   
   to be fair, the book does an excellent job of setting out the timeline of events that plagued clinton's presidency, as well as connecting the dots between certain right-wing actors and clinton's public approval ratings. some of the anecdotes are amusing; some of the observations are insightful. but that still didn't overcome my desire to wash my hands every time i put the book down.



3. In trying to fairly review this book, as politics has gotten ugly and mean and divided this nation, let's imagine that someone from my favorite island (Tristan da Cunha) sets foot in the USA with no more knowledge of Clinton than he was the leader of the country recently. He wants to know more, so he picks up this book and reads it. Our man from Tristan will be able to tell that Sidney Blumenthal likes and admires Bill Clinton a lot. That's not a knock against Mr. Blumenthal in the least, as other authors have liked and admired their subjects, too - that's why they do a fine job of writing about them, their personal interest shows. But in reading this book, the Tristan man will also learn that Mr. Clinton oversaw continuous economic expansion, more than 22 million jobs created, a home ownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5%, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, higher incomes at all levels, the largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion, the lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974, higher stock ownership by families than ever before, a 220% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and a 300% increase in the Nasdaq from 1993 to 2001.
   
   Sounds like a heckuva job of improving America to me. So why is Mr. Clinton one of those "50%" people, half love him and half hate him? Mr. Blumenthal lays out a few reasons for the hate that still resounds today, and at base level it's all politics. the hatred and vitrol directed at Mr. Clinton and family is absolutely, positively, moronically senseless. We spent in excess of $70M trying to find something, anything, on a duly elected president, and it all ended up with an impeachment charge that seems as wispy as smoke today as it did in 1998. And it was all over a private matter that, under normal circumstances, would be settled between a husband and wife. The general mood of the country during the 1990s into the 2000s is as if we were one nation before Clinton took office; one group decided that we were two nations after he took office and open warfare on Clinton was continuous; and after he left office we should pretend we're one nation again. The media has their fair share of blame in this sordid trashing of Clinton's presidency, too - our So-Called Liberal Media showed its colors brightly from 1992 to 2001. I didn't agree with all of his policies and still don't, but personal attacks were never part of the disagreement. But beyond the political reason, why do we trash this man who tried to do so much for this country? Calling him names doesn't answer the question of why. Skim away your prejudices, read the book and see if you think that we had some pretty darn good days under President Clinton.
   
   An argument brought up is that at 822 pages, this might have been a couple hundred pages too long. There is a lot of personal information that Mr. Blumenthal includes about himself in here, like growing up and going to school. At first glance, there is the thought that this information is superfluous; on the other hand, given his deep involvment with the subject and the President, The Clinton Wars were also The Blumenthal Wars, fought over the same fronts. It's a long book, but it's worth reading.



4. This book contains a lot of good information and is quite well written. It is not objective, however. The author spends most of his time complimenting Clinton and his policies/strategies. It's not quite as bad as being told Reagan's presidency was a time when "Character was King", but it does wear on you after a while.



5. As any reader will discern, Sidney Blumenthal has enormous affection for the Clintons and great regard for the role of the Clinton Administration in American history. That bias does not detract from the fact that Blumenthal's grasp of history and intimate knowledge of the Clinton Administration has yielded an analysis that is must-reading for any serious student of this era in American political life. Blumenthal is a committed Democrat and a Clinton warrior. But he also a supremely gifted thinker, an elegant writer, and tough-minded American patriot.

No comments about George Washington: A National Treasure.

2 comments about The Lincolns in the White House: Four Years That Shattered a Family.

1. I received Mr. Packard's book yesterday, and I could not wait to begin reading it. Although I have little interest in the war aspects of Lincoln's presidency, the personal side of his story has always piqued my interest. I recently purchased books on Lincoln's depression and on his supposed (by the author) sexuality. Mr. Packard's contribution seemed to fit the motif quite well. After reading the back of the book jacket, which states that his book was written "with painstaking research and an eye for historical detail", I was disheartened to see that the first page I opened up to (purely by coincidence), was a photograph of Lincoln purported to be his last. The photograph in question was believed, for many years, to have been taken by Alexander Gardner on April 10, 1865, four days before the assassination. Packard dates the photograph to that session. The problem lies in the fact that many Lincoln scholars, relying on primary sources of the time, including the diary of portrait painter Matthew Wilson, who attended the photo shoot, have long since established that the Gardner photo was taken on February 5, 1865, and that the true last set of photographs were taken of Lincoln on the south portico of the White House on March 6, 1865, two days after the second inaugural, by Henry F. Warren. This will undoubtedly come across as nitpicking to some, but when a book markets itself as one conducted with "painstaking research and an eye for historical detail", it makes one wonder just how much of the content is accurate, ala "A Million Little Pieces." I tried to contact Mr. Packard before writing this review, but naturally his number is unlisted. In any event, the written portion of the book may be incredibly interesting and perhaps even accurate, but the author gets a one for making such an obvious and unnecessary error, in light of what current scholarship has already undercovered through the writings of Lincoln's secretaries, John Hay and John Nicoloy, Lloyd Ostendorf, W. Emerson Reck et. al.



2. Errors appear in even the best edited works. Perhaps the next edition will correct the incorrect information about the "last" photograph. As one of the multitude of Lincoln fans I found this book to contain lots of personal information about Lincoln and his family that I had not read in collected form elsewhere. I value the author's collected research that gives us a brief peek into the life of a very private man with more than his share of family tragedy. The relationship with his sons and wife is much clearer to me now that I have read this work. I consider this a well-written, highly readable account of the A. Lincoln family in the White House and belongs on every Lincoln collector's, if not scholar's bookshelf.

No comments about Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency.

3 comments about The White House Physician: A History from Washington to George W. Bush.

1. This is a well crafted, researched and comprehensive treatise, yet it is an entertaining and fluid "read". I did not expect that the topic could be presented in such an interesting and entertaining manner. The book succeeded in educating me not only in the specifics of the various actors, but in the evolution of the roles and responsibilities of the President's physicians. I had assumed that the provision of medical care to the President had been static over the decades; it was fascinating to learn just how much and how recently it has changed. This book not only deals with presidential physicians, the evolution of presidential medical care (including political overlap), but also provides fascinating insights into presidential history.



2. 
   
   Ludwig Deppisch is a medical doctor who has an interest in medical history, and out of that interest he has given us a book that sets out the fascinating story of the doctors who, from the time of the founding of the republic up through the modern era, have served as physicians to the Presidents. This story is doubly fascinating because it not only traces the historical progress of medicine through time but it also reveals how medical practices, sometimes in conjunction with political subterfuge, can impact the presidency itself.
   
   The first part of the book, which covers the practices of the best doctors of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - the doctors who treated Presidents - exposes the shortcomings of the medical profession in those years, even as medicine itself was becoming more professional. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his friend doctor Benjamin Rush, a greatly influential figure, that the doctor had "done much harm" with the practice of bleeding patients to treat illness. Indeed, calling on the aid of a doctor did not guarantee a cure; just the opposite could be the case. President James Garfield, who lived in a somewhat more advanced medical period, when shot by an assassin had his wound examined by doctors with hands so dirty that, according to the author, the doctors themselves likely caused his fatal infection. Still, a physically tough old President like Andrew Jackson could have a bullet removed from a dueling wound years after the duel and emerge much improved from the surgery.
   
   But it is as the story moves toward the twentieth century, while medical knowledge seems to be progressing, that we see another compelling issue begin to emerge, and that is how political and medical subterfuge can be employed to deceive the citizenry about what is going on in the health of a President. Grover Cleveland had a secret operation, for example, on board a private yacht, to remove a cancerous growth in his mouth. In the event the operation was a success and the public never became aware of what had taken place. Woodrow Wilson, however, had a stroke of such massive proportions that he probably should have left office but he did not. His physician was complicit in keeping Wilson isolated and the public misinformed about his true condition. FDR's health was so badly failing at the end of his third term that he should never have run for a fourth. But we were in the midst of war. His actual medical state was concealed and the reelected President died a short time into his last term. President Eisenhower had a series of serious medical problems which were interpreted to the public through rose tinted glasses. Never the less, Ike was popular, he completed two terms, and what Americans were told about the President's health likely gave them the reassurance most of them were looking for. Finally, it should be noted that JFK deliberately misrepresented his awful health facts to the American people throughout his political career with the audacity of Harry Houdini making an impossible escape. We might admire the audacity, but was it the right thing to do?
   
   The author also raises some related and interesting issues about using psychiatry as a tool both for evaluating the mental fitness of a President and as a mode of treatment. Hindsight suggests it might have been useful to know more about the mental health and psychological makeup of Richard Nixon before he was elected. But would it have been possible, we wonder, to get an objective and non political pre-election evaluation of Nixon's personality? By the same token, Senator Thomas Eagleton was forced off the Democratic ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1972 when it was revealed he had been treated for serious depression. Was this action appropriate? And how would the American people react if they learned that a President was undergoing current psychiatric treatment? These are worthwhile questions to ponder.
   
   All of this leads us to note that there is some useful discussion in this book about the place of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment when it comes to dealing with the ramifications of any severe medical impairment of a President. And while this constitutional amendment was specifically passed to provide guidelines should a crisis occur, we have unfortunately seen, as in the shooting of President Reagan, that when a crisis does occur key officials can still be caught flatfooted in the immediate aftermath as to what to say and do. Moreover, the question of whether a President is medically fit to continue in office places the White House Physician squarely in the cross hairs of decision making. Thus, relevant officials in any new administration need to discuss and understand all of the protocols to be followed and all of the attendant constitutional and medical implications well in advance of any medical emergency. Deception of the public will probably no longer be tolerated as it has been in the past.
   
   Lastly we should note that, like a good novel, this tale contains some rich characters, strong personalities like Dr. Cary Grayson, Wilson's physician, who can color the story and influence the plot. And we see the potential for conflict when there are many doctors involved in treatment, a few of whom may have large egos. Kennedy had a wide range of treating doctors and his titular head physician, Dr. Travell, was shunted aside while the President received secret and controversial treatments from Max Jacobson, the Manhattan doctor known as "Doctor Feelgood" because of the injections he gave the rich and famous, injections that contained amphetamines and steroids.
   
   All in all, it would be fair to sum up that the author has given us a book that is not only rich in scholarship, but one that tells a tale which is fascinating on its own merits. Moreover, this is a book that is a significant resource of information for any doctors or officials who are newly being called to serve in an administration and who might have to grapple with a replay of history sometime in the future. For them it might be essential reading; for the rest of us it is just a darn good read.
   
   G. F. Shirley



3. Terrific! This is a thoroughly researched body of work. It contains great insights into the development of American medicine, and I highly recommend it to those interested in American and presidential history. Furthermore, its examination of legal, political, and moral issues make it a must-read for those in the medical profession.

3 comments about Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Volume Two.

1. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




2. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher or bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 119 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them many times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




3. This book is a good subject for the Civil War buff that delves into the personal accounts of a general from birth to retirement. This a must companion for "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Volume One."

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.



2. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



3. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



4. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.