5 comments about Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness.

1. Lincoln's Melancholy is one of the best studies of the mental depression that troubled Lincoln throughout his life. Author Joshua Wolf Shenk draws on both scholarship and personal experience with depression to produce a sensitive and insightful account of Lincoln's struggles.
   
   Shenk's research is so deep that he even examined changes in Lincoln's penmanship to reveal a mood shift while Lincoln was writing a letter. Such care is evident throughout Shenk's book.
   
   Readers interested in Lincoln's personality should find Lincoln's Melancholy rewarding. The book documents that depression is unpleasant but, in one case history at least, was no barrier to a productive and fulfilling life.



2. Over the years, Abraham Lincoln's story has been told so many times in a reverential, almost worshipful, way that he has come down to us as more of a larger-than-life demigod than as a living, breathing, human being. Putting all the tales together, one might easily conclude that Lincoln was simply a great leader; a brilliant orator; a humble humanitarian; and a man with few, if any, faults. But Abraham Lincoln was much more than that. He was once one of us: a man whose thoughts, feelings, fears, troubles and concerns were much like ours and, like us, he had to live his life day-to-day struggling with his own personal demons.
   
   This author takes us inside the living Lincoln and, based upon the recollections of those who knew him both intimately and casually, lets us see a side of Lincoln which is largely unknown today. To some extent, we get to see Lincoln as he saw himself and as he saw the world around him, much of it long before he came to national prominence. In a sense, we get to glimpse the real Abraham Lincoln up close and personal, warts and all.
   
   According to this author: Virtually all of Lincoln's friends, associates, and acquaintances perceived him as a man suffering from a deep sadness which most termed a "melancholy," but melancholy as the term was understood in the mid-19th century. According to the evidence, this melancholy often overwhelmed Lincoln, sometimes to the point that he locked himself away and at times considered suicide. This may, in part, be due to the fact that for most of his life Lincoln considered himself an abject failure and struggled mightily to overcome what we might now call depression.
   
   What appears to have kept him going was that he felt he had to do something worthwhile for mankind, although he had no idea what that something might be. Of course, as we all know, he eventually concluded that to save the Union slavery had to be eliminated one way or another. He hoped that this could be done peacefully over time, but his actions and words created an impression of him among Southerners which, upon his election as America's 16th President, precipitated America's Civil War.
   
   I truly enjoyed this book and learned a lot more about Lincoln, his life and times, and the sequence of events which brought about the Civil War. I must admit, however, that I found the book to be something of a difficult read, primarily because it cloaked Lincoln's mental illness in the language of the past rather than in modern day terminology and, as a result, would frequently would go off on lengthy explanations in relation to more modern theories. In my view, the book would be much more lay-reader friendly if the differences in language were explained up front and modern terminology then used throughout.
   
   In any event, although I don't think this book is for the casual reader, I feel it is a work which may very well help shape the way Lincoln is viewed in the future. So, if you are interested in Abraham Lincoln, I highly recommend it.



3. This is a beautifully written book about Lincoln--the complete man. Joshua Wolf Shank does a lovely job of describing how Lincoln learned from his bouts with depression and could only have persevered through his difficult, war-time presidency with the wisdom he gained from his melancholy. We often think of Lincoln solely as a pillar of strength; seeing him at his weakest paradoxically deepens his image of strength.



4. Shenk's study of Lincoln and depression is fascinating, and Richard Davidson does an excellent narration. I found the audiobook entertaining and thought-provoking.
   
   Shenk provides a detailed biography of Lincoln interspersed with musings on psychology and related topics. He points out that modern culture has unfairly criticized depressives as negative people, with only a minority of scientists pointing out that depressed people may actually be more realistic than optimists. In light of the threats facing mid-19th century America, Lincoln was more in touch with what was likely to happen than his happier peers. Shenk also shows that Lincoln's long-standing depression contributed to some of his outstanding character traits, such as his desire to be of service to his country and an unwavering determination to complete necessary tasks, no matter how unpleasant. This made him strong enough to lead his country through an incredibly bloody war.
   
   Shenk finishes the book with a discussion on Lincoln's biographers and how historians inject their own prejudices into published research. The final CD concludes with an interesting interview with the author.



5. Carl Becker said that every man is his own historian, and so it seems fitting that Lincoln be reinterpreted in the light of modern approaches to depression and mental illness. What is most admirable about this book is the author's respectful approach to Lincoln and the past; he insists on viewing Lincoln's behaviors in the context of the mores and culture of his time, which were far different from those prevailing today. The author persuasively argues that there was a romantic connotation to melancholy back then. This, combined with the cultural acceptance of greater emotion from single young men, explains some of Lincoln's publicly expressed emotional troubles as a young man
   
   On the other hand, the author insists on defining Lincoln as suffering two "breakdowns." It's not clear what relevance this modern term has, nor can the author distinguish between mental illness and the culturally acceptable level of melancholy and love-sickness a young man was permitted to manifest at the time.
   
   In short, given the lack of data (most notably the inability to interview the subject, Mr. Lincoln) and the different culture back then, why even try to import these modern day notions of depression to the 1830's-1860's?
   
   Still, the book does make three points exceptionally well, which makes this a very worthwhile effort.
   
   First, he destroys the idiotic notions that Lincoln was gay by virtue of close emotional relationships with men that were permitted and encouraged by the culture back then. Superficial modern day notions of sexual identity have no place in a different time with different (and perhaps healthier) approaches toward the permissibility of emotional intimacy between men.
   
   Second, he argues that Lincoln's struggles with melancholy were part of his larger struggles against adversity that toughened him up for the greatest trial faced by any American President since Washington. This is an old theme, but it is well constructed here. On paper, hugely successful men like Buchanan, Jefferson Davis, and General McClellan should have been the ones to lead successfully during this crisis. But in some ways their previous success was a curse. The depressive's realism and ability to solider on during adversity is perhaps far better preparation. A fascinating point and one that is completley lost in modern Presidential races.
   
   Third, the author argues that Lincoln's mental makeup allowed him to resist the compromises and stop gap measures that seduced men like Buchanan, Douglas, and Crittenden. Lincoln saw that the country had to recognize the evil of slavery and put it on the path to ultimate extinction. This was, of course, Lincoln's greatest insight, though I'm not convinced that his melancholia necessarily predisposed him to accept it. But there is some appeal in the contention that depressives can be curiously more disposed to realism in a world that is frequently evil and unfair.
   
   This is an insightful book, though the ability to analyze Lincoln's psyche given the absence of data and intervening culutural changes is, of course, a doomed venture.

5 comments about Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different.

1. Eminent revolutionary era scholar, Gordon Wood, brings clarity to the profound question of why the revolutionary period produced the greatest set of public leaders that this nation has ever seen, and why it will never happen again. The men profiled here were of the Enlightenment where learning, rationality, and social adeptness were ardently pursued, but only by those with sufficient leisure, in other words, by social elites. They were not the multi-generational profligate aristocracy of England, instead basing their social standing on the merit of self-development. But with elite status came the expectation, if not requirement, of serving the public with disinterest (not for personal gain) regardless of any personal impositions. They were the leading intellectuals of the day, but in the context of being social leaders not as adversarial social critics of the modern era. With the exception of Paine and Burr, all of these revolutionary characters, as elite members of society, sought to shape the direction that the fledgling nation would take in a manner consistent their extensive learning and judicious understanding of social forces.
   
   These revolutionary leaders were not "small d" democrats, but were "small r" republicans. They had the notion that society, at least those that mattered, did or could consist of so-called virtuous citizens, public-minded and interested in the social good. It was an optimistic, if not fanciful, view based more on interacting with their fellow elites than any actual dealings with the general public. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton had become disillusioned with the self-interested machinations of the general public; only Jefferson and Paine continued to place faith in the wisdom of the common man. As the author points out, the decade of the 1790s was one of the most highly contentious in our history as the need for a powerful central government to constrain popular sentiments was counterpoised against the self-governing capabilities of virtuous citizens.
   
   All of the men are profiled in terms of their understanding of their social position and their need to project a refined and educated public image, and of their recognition of social forces that were eroding the privileged position of so-called gentlemen and elevating the influence of the often raucous, ill-informed common man. Washington's rectitude and concern with his public image is undoubtedly unmatched in our history. Franklin, though perhaps a manipulator of his public image, is regarded by the author as the most effective diplomat in our nation's history for his efforts in obtaining the help of the French. The chapters on Hamilton, Adams, and Madison are very insightful examinations of the subtle and complex, yet different, political thinking among the founders. The chapter on Jefferson is least satisfactory as he has become the whipping boy among modern historians (not the author particularly) for his lack of progressive thinking in the revolutionary period concerning race and gender issues. On the other hand, Jefferson's democratic utopianism is noted, which has endeared him to many through the ages. Paine, alone, was not among the social elite. His willingness to be forthright in his writings served him well in his advocacy for independence in Common Sense, his pamphlet of 1776, but less so when condemning Christianity in The Age of Reason. Such awkward sentiments among elites were generally confined to private correspondence. Burr, the only true aristocrat among the founders, was condemned by his fellow founders precisely because he refused to serve the public in a disinterested manner, seeking to benefit himself and friends.
   
   As the author shows, the revolutionary period and many of the men he profiled undermined the social world dominated by elite gentlemen. The constant extolling of the virtues of the common man was empowering. The proliferation of newspapers filled with popular sentiments overwhelmed the meager output of elite gentlemen. The Sedition Act of 1798 was a last gasp by social elites to curtail mass public opinion. Even Jefferson, became disheartened by the passing of control by cultured elites perhaps best exemplified by the election of Andrew Jackson.
   
   The author is most assuredly correct to assert that a disinterested, cultured, and knowledgeable elite will never again rise to the top of political circles in the US. In lieu of that, the American political system has gravitated to electing highly self- and class-interested, mostly business, elites, of no particular refinement or knowledge, to our most important political offices. The contrast with the founders profiled in this book could not be greater.



2. I read Dr. Wood's work as a graduate student in the 1970's and my daughter had him as a professor at Brown University several years ago. Consequently, I have an elevated sense of respect for the man. Dr. Wood has an extraordinary understanding for the Revolutionary Period. This book is for anyone who wants to peek into the heads of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr. I highly recommend this book.



3. First, this is more of an academic work than a popular one. If you are looking for a collection of engagingly told short bio's of some of the founders, this is not it. This is more of an academic work. It contains analysis and summary of scholarly opinion. For what it intends to be it is nicely done. Due to its nature, I found it less interesting in places, but it was beneficial to see what the current ideas are on these men.
   
   The book is largely a collection of previously published reviews or articles and it shows in places. For one, the choices of whom to include seems odd in places. Why include Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr but neglect Patrick Henry? Sure Paine was a key figure early on but in the end he was not much of a "Founder." Aaron Burr's chief qualities are negative ones as Wood points out. Henry, however, was perhaps the key early voice calling for independence- his resolutions reprinted throughout the colonies defined the issue and galvanized support. In addition to other examples that could be given of his oratory his role as governor of Virginia- the richest and most populous colony- during the war and his efforts in supplying Washington's troops were very significant. He is typically neglected due to his opposition to the Constitution, but this is actually another significant contribution to the shaping of the country since his criticisms helped to produce the Bill of Rights.
   
   In the end, if you want an engaging synopsis of the lives of the Founders, this is not it. If, however, you want one historian's analysis of their life and work this is a fine one. A good supplement on the issue of which Founders are most remembered and why is Daniel Dreisbach's essay "Founders Famous and Forgotten" in The Intercollegiate Review 42 (Fall 2007): 3-12. For just as scholarly but more positive assesment of Washington see Patriot Sage: George Washington and the American Political Tradition (ISI Books, 1999).



4. Read "Revolutionary Characters" in combination with "Founding Brothers" for an excellent duo, and compare and contrast the two in their approaches and content. This is not a history of the revolution or a detailed analysis of our form of government. Wood has done what he claimed - a look at the character of the subjects, how that influenced their work, and how they were a reflection of, or an exception to, their times.
   
   Wood's work combines expansive praise and cold analysis. Each of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison) is portrayed as a "great man", which of course each deserved, as well as a flawed individual or thinker. The praise and the more negative comments are done with a suitable tone, neither being excessive. For example, Wood describes how Washington was not an intellectual and how that affected his role and strategy, but not in a demeaning way, as Washington obviously contributed greatly in other ways.
   
   To me, the freshest perspective was on Madison, as Wood questions Madison's actual contribution to the Constitution, with an end result that bears little similarity to Madison's intent. Wood also tackles the apparent changes in Madison's thinking about the relationship of the government and the people. In fact, elite thought vs. public opinion is one of Wood's recurring themes.
   
   Hamilton comes across as the most modern of the founders, which is hardly original, so Wood points out some areas where Hamilton may be overrated in claims regarding his vision. Hamilton obviously outshined the others in his ability to turn vision into governmental reality.
   
   Jefferson gets the least positive treatment of the six. Wood recognizes TJ for his brilliance, yet Wood considers Jefferson overrated in American culture, as his vision of the American future was hopelessly impractical and outdated.
   
   Aaron Burr takes his lumps in a succinct assessment that will be familiar to readers of Chernow's Hamilton bio. Wood includes Burr as a counter-example to the positive character of the others, with Burr as a schemer void of known intellectual political thought or vision. No detachment for the good of society for Mr. Burr.
   
   The unexpected chapter on Thomas Paine was a surprising plus, explaining why Paine is not considered a true "founder". Paine was not the gentleman or the politician that his cohorts were, instead being an early modern intellectual and professional writer according to Wood. The chapter also served as a hint of the analytical final chapter, which emphasized the transition from the brilliant gentleman founders debating among themselves to the rise of the general public as part of the political process.
   
   As Wood said in his apt closing sentence, "In the end nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise."
   
   4.5 stars



5. The chapters on each of the founding fathers Woods wrote on included a lot of detailed character information in this book. The book provided background information on each person as well as information on their character. It was interesting to read about the contributions these men made that still affect America today such as the banking system, election policies, etc.

3 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (Signet Classics).

1. I loved the book from beginning to end. If you are looking for feelings, emotion, and real point of views of the slavery era this is the book for you. It is a short right to the point emotionally filled novel that always keeps you turning pages.



2. Douglass' personal account of slavery is riveting and one would never believe that a former slave could write so well. The novel starts of explaining Douglass' beginnings and from then on each chapter recounts an important moment in his life. He relives his tortured childhood by giving an accurate and honest description of the horrors of slavery. Being constantly traded from one master to another, he tells of what he saw and experienced with each. Douglass provides real-life stories and shares with us the brutality he encountered. This heart wrenching novel leads up to tell how Frederick Douglass obtained his freedom and how he used it to benefit the many other slaves who were tortured just like he was.



3. The Narrative is another book, like Hiroshima, that ever person should read. The in-depth look into Douglass' life shows how slaves were treated during the 19th Century. It explains why the struggle for freedom that led to the American Civil War and why it was such a brutal confrontation.

5 comments about His Excellency: George Washington.

1. The thing that stands out as being most erroneous in this book was the beleif that Mr. Ellis has that Washington was not involved in the practice of slavery in any way on his own volition. According to Mr. Ellis, the slaves on Mount Vernon were his father's, his brother's and his wife's, but not his, and he had no authority to free these slaves, even though he privately opposed slavery. Mr. Ellis supposes that Washington opposed slavery, even though he shows not evidence to support this other than the fact that he did not work his slaves. In his book, Mr. Ellis has submitted that Mount Vernon ceased to be a working plantation not due to Washington's advanced age and possible exhaustion, but due to Washington's opposition of the practice of forced labour.
   
   I also found it very interesting that Mr. Ellis took pains to make Washington at times a deist, agnostic and even an atheist. Once again he submitted no hard evidence for this, but it is inferred from from the fact that Washington was not the most proliferative writer of theology of the Revolutionary era. Since Washington never wrote a major work of religious philosophy on the subject of Christ he must had not believed in Christ seems to be the opinion of the writer. But if Washington did have religious views outside the norm for those days, why didn't any of the numerous rivals that Ellis mentioned bring those beliefs to light? It was well known the Jefferson used the press to attack Washington, and Adams when he viewed them as political rivals and not as friends, but he never mentioned their faith.
   
   I also take issue with the idea that this book depicts Washington as a bloody-minded general in the mode of Grant, and not as a man who learned his limitations as a military leader. Washington seems to have come to the realization that he was no field commander, but was far more effective in the role of the face of the resistance, and Commander-In-Chief. Furthermore, due to the ineffectiveness, and questionable loyalty of his officers, as well as the loss of his men, he felt the need to commit to a very limited number of engagements in the war until the French military arrived, but Ellis feels as though Washington jealously held on to his commission at the expense of his men with the aim of enhancing his own glory. Washington's firm belief that the war would be won by the French military, and the French economy was missed by Mr. Ellis, but most other scholars have accepted this as a fact.
   
   Mr. Ellis seemed to miss the idea that Washington was a product of his time. Generals kept their command until death in those days, there was no transfers, and no reassignments at those times. Southern plantation owners owned slaves in those days, and that was how it was. And lastly, all members of polite society were fundamentalist Christians, even though Mr. Ellis prefer the founder of the United States not be. Maybe I should amend my review to recommend this book to anyone who wants to see Washington as a Liberal Northeastern Politician from the early 21st century , and not as a Christian/planter/general from 18th century.



2. "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is a brief but illuminating view of founding father and first president, George Washington. It briefly tells about what little is known of his boyhood, and then quickly moves on to his first public adventures in The French and Indian War. Mr. Ellis follows Washington from his first retirement after that war to Mount Vernon, Washington's pride and joy. From there his frustration with British authority (specifically in commerce) is followed to it's conclusion by his part in the American Revolution. Washington then tries to retire again, but is called back into service (very grudgingly) as the new republic's first president.
   
   If there was anyway to categorize this biography, it is as a myth buster. Many of the ideas we have about George Washington are, while not lies or wrong, are not exactly completely accurate. He is also presented as not so much forging the new nation as lending his credibility to the other men who's ideas were more sound (like Alexander Hamilton's bank and treasury policies or George Mason's protests against the English monarch). He is also shown as much less effective in dealing with pet projects like emancipation of slaves and a more respectful treatment of Native Americans. On a personal front Washington is miserly and land hungry, and benefited by very aggressive land schemes and ventures that may seem unscrupulous by today's standards.
   
   But he is also proud and unbending in what he thought was right. When he chose a course he stuck to it usually no matter what the outcome may be (though usually worked in favor of Mr. Washington. He was a devoted husband and father to Martha and her two children. And he treated his slaves better than most; he refused to split up families despite the economic problem this produced.
   
   I have seen many complaints of this book, saying that Ellis is trying to destroy the reputation of this great man. I do not think so. I have not done the research that Mr. Ellis has done, but I trust that the evidence bears him out. The book was entertaining and thought provoking, and I am glad I read it. Most recommended to anyone with an interest in the early American history and it's founding fathers.



3. My only real gripe about this book is that it was too short. Because Ellis has such an ability to produce readable history books, I believe a 700-page book on Washington would have been more valuable and not been too bogged down in detail. In fact, there is so much about the American Revolution that is not discussed in this book. That was a bit disappointing.
   
   On the positive side, it's a very quick read and informative. I learned a great deal about Washington's temperament and his relative sensitivity to criticism, which surprised me. The book was naturally pro-Washington, not that anyone could really justify an anti-Washington stance. Ellis gives Washington perhaps too much credit for liberating his slaves in his will; Washington could have made a greater impact by freeing them while he was alive. Regardless, this is a great book for someone with minimal history background because it's short and easy to follow.



4. I was very disappointed with the disrespect shown toward George Washington. If you remove the negative comments made by Ellis about Washington, the book would be shortened by one half. Throughout the book he makes accusations about Washington's motives. According to Ellis, almost every decision that Washington made was based on some sort of arrogance, pride or self-esteem issue. And all of this coming from a man who lied about his own past and was severely reprimanded by his employer. Washington was beloved in his own time and now. I certainly understand that people have their flaws...and Washington was no exception. In the final analysis, this was a slander of Washington's character - I would definitely not recommend this book.



5. There are many review about this book so I will not go into a lot of detail.
   First I will talk about the narration. One reviewer was very critical. He said the pace was very slow. I liked the pace and the reader has a very clear voice. The other review also mention he could hear the readers stomach or something. There are places like on the third disk where the reader takes long pauses after a paragraph and you can hear distracting noises. I think it is the reader trying to swallow or bring moisture to his mouth. I don't think it is his stomach.
   I do think Ellis had an agenda and stuck to it, sometimes in spite of the facts. Ellis tries hard to bring Washington down from the God like status he believes many hold of Washington.
   Ellis tries claims that Washington was in love with a married woman, Mary Fairfax, just before marrying Martha. He states the evidence for this is just in three letters that aren't very clear. Yet he claims anyone disagreeing with his conclusion most have had their minds alreay made up.
   Ellis criticizes the plans British leaders made in the Braddock incident. He justifies this because they made these plans without knowledge of the Ohio region. Yet when Washington does the samething later on it is evidence of a personality flaw. "Washington felt he was superior to his superiors." Washington had first hand experience, that almost took his life and did take the life of many close to him. I think he should be given a little more credit than Ellis does.
   Overall, however, I think Ellis did a good job. Ellis is human and I disagree with some of his conclusions. Readers need to realize historical writers are not divinely inspired and therefore are not free from error. Ellis did a good job in presenting the details and I just did not always agree with his conclusions.
   Ellis also had an objective. He wanted to demonstrate how Washington became the man that others would choose over what seemed like more qualified men like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and other to be our first president. He also wants to keep his work at a reasonable lenght.

5 comments about Living History.

1. When I tried to buy a book on Hillary Clinton that wasn't by someone with a political axe to grind, it was tough. Obama was everywhere. Finally I decided to see what she herself had to say so I could judge for myself. I had to look hard for her book in a physical bookstore. Amazon has it in its bargain books. I think this says something about how we think we know Hillary Clinton and unless there is more dirt, we don't want to read what she has to say. I am glad I read this.
   
   I found this book much better written than Obama's The Audacity of Hope, although that title is great. Clinton's memoir is definitely from her perspective; it's not Truth capital T, but it's honest and forthright. It's warm and humorous, and occasionally she gets frustrated. You won't learn new things about the Bill Clinton Whitehouse per se, but I did learn new things about Hillary. This book is intelligent and insightful.



2. Hillary tells it like it is! She is a wonderful person who works hard everyday to help others around her reach their goals while achieving her own! She is going to make a great frist women perident!! This is a must own CD!!



3. Most conservatives give this book 1 star. Why? EVERY conservative should read this book. Now if I were judging it purely as a memoir, let's just say that James Frey has nothing on Hillary Clinton when it comes to "embellishment" (or should we call it "mis-writing"?).
   
   But for those conservatives who know how to do a web search or two, this book is rife with useful material. Contrast her story of Watergate versus Jerry Zeifman's account, for instance. Or read pages 440, 448, 465-466 on her account of how she and Chelsea learned about Monica Lewinski (and then ask after repeating the names Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowes, Paula Jones, etc. "So, you're telling me that this is how it went down? OK, so choose -- is she the dumbest woman in America or the biggest liar?").
   
   For a real laugh, read her account of Whitewater -- seriously, if you read this out loud, people would think you're doing a comedy routine.
   
   And her rewriting of the history of her health insurance debacle and the aftermath is priceless. Her tales of Bill's leadership and how she was a support are gems.
   
   EVERY conservative should buy several colors of highlighters and read this book (preferably alongside a copy of Dick Morris' Rewriting History). Besides, with every book purchase, you get a free dartboard (the cover).



4. So many people want to give their opinion of Hillary and not the book itself. I found the book extremely interesting and informative and the information she provides about all of the things she learned as First Lady I do feel made her perfectly well suited to become President. She knows all the appointments that need to be made, all the jobs that need to be filled, and she's learned what types of comments and actions can get you in trouble while in the White House. I find her incredibly smart and had no idea of all the different issues that she is familiar with and all the people and friends she has made over the years who can and do give her insight. All in all a delightful book and a good read.



5. A Memoir Review: Living History
   By Hillary Clinton
   
   Upon witnessing abridged television clips of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign speeches, I made the ignorant assumption the Presidential hopeful was clueless: "she's the wife of a former President; based on what professional formation does she speak?" The impression was unjustifiable. I considered her candidacy an attempt to re-establish the family name given former President Bill Clinton's embarrassing impeachment. Politics, after all, is much more than meets the eye, and as I discovered via the woman's autobiographical memoir Living History, Hillary Rodham Clinton is certainly much more than meets the eye.
   
   My primary reason to pick up Clinton's book was to learn about her political career--nevertheless, the work covers her early life extensively. This is appropriate, and crucial to set the context of her years as an executive. The initial chapters are engaging: not only are they an insightful look into Hillary as a young woman, but also an insightful look at being an American youth in the sixties. Clinton's extensive resume is testament to her scholarly knowledge, and her presence behind the scenes at The White House contributes to an equally significant practical knowledge. Hearing of her pioneering speech at Wellesley College, the first student to have ever given a commencement address, her entry into the all-male Rose Law Firm, and her intertwining of typically hardball politics and compassionate child work made me recognize Hillary Rodham was bound for a high-profile political career long before meeting William Jefferson Clinton.
   
   Clinton's writing embodies humanistic qualities, as if she is still an accessible advocate for everyday hiring. This fact is emphasized by her commentary on routine activities, and her naming of each political associate with which she worked. This latter aspect truly fleshes out the memoir--regardless, the squat descriptions of her colleagues sound unappealingly phoney. Everybody in Arkansas seems to be a close friend of the couple: "As soon as Bill and I became a couple, they became friends of mine. And their sons became close to Chelsea" (Clinton 105). Speaking of partner Sara Ehrman, a member of Senator McGovern's legislative staff, "We sized each other up and decided we would enjoy the ride together, and it was the start of a friendship that endures today" (Clinton 60).
   
   Alluding to "businessman and longtime politico" Jim McDougal, he "was a character: charming, witty and eccentric as the day is long" (Clinton 87). Admiring former Mayor of Little Rock, "Webb Hubbell was a big, burly, likeable man" (Clinton 80). Referring to trip director Kelly Craighead, "she had a lot of insight, dedication and spunk." Clinton chooses three formulaic adjectives to describe each of her acquaintances, and the mechanical style soon becomes tedious. The technique corroborates the "safeness" of Clinton's autobiography: nothing shocking, nor a "tell-all"--simply reserved commentary of nationally and personally historic moments. Understandable, since she would be running for President six years later. In this sense, I do believe there were ulterior motives for the memoir's release; the 2003 year of publishing was opportunely timed for Clinton's 2008 candidacy. The latter stipulation supports my learning that a Presidential campaign begins as soon as one shakes hands with the lowest-ranking political official twenty years from an official convention, and that one's private life will be increasingly scrutinized and distorted.
   
   There is little mention of the financial burden statewide and national elections place on nominees, which I found surprising given Bill Clinton's numerous campaigns. This is insight I was looking forward to reading about, given its increasing importance in our visually driven and electronic society.
   
   Though I have not reached the chapters focussing on the infamous Whitewater scandal, nor her conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt, I have already changed my impression of Hillary Rodham Clinton: she is a well-informed Democrat, whose has consistently demonstrated her leadership skills. Clinton is an activist currently living in manner she has promoted all her life, literally living history.

5 comments about If I Die in a Combat Zone : Box Me Up and Ship Me Home.

1. Tim O'Brien is one of our more gifted, living writers in the genre of war literature, and although IF I DIE IN A COMBAT zone isn't his strongest book, it is certainly worthy reading, especially in the echoing din of George Bush's Iraqi adventure.
   
   A straightforward account from a soldier's point of view, O'Brien's book includes the before, during, and after of his Vietnam experience -- especially the daily grind of soldiering (during) and the soul-searching and debate about fleeing (before) instead of answering the call of the draft. He had a rather quixotic escape plan to Sweden (of all places), but ultimately did his "duty," all along meditating on the nature of sanity, obligation, and patriotism. There are frequent excerpts from Plato, even, as O'Brien explores that ancient philosopher's take on "courage." As his fellow soldiers are killed, O'Brien details the nature of fate and chance, along with the more realistic details of the many ways "Charlie" (the VC) could arrange for you to die.
   
   Here is a typical excerpt in which O'Brien compares Vietnam to the Trojan War:
   
   "But losing [Captain Johansen] was like the Trojans losing Hector. He gave some amount of reason to fight. Certainly there were never any political reasons. The war, like Hector's own war, was silly and stupid. Troy was besieged for the sake of a pretty woman. And Helen, for God's sake, was a woman most of the grubby, warted Trojans could never have. Vietnam was under siege in pursuit of a pretty, tantalizing, promiscuous, particularly American brand of government and style. And most of Alpha Company would have preferred a likable whore to self-determination. So Captain Johansen helped to mitigate and melt the silliness, showing the grace and poise a man can have under the worst of circumstances, a wrong war. We clung to him." -- (p. 145)
   
   Philosophical riffs like this are frequent -- as are accounts of the soldiers' lives (and deaths), their nicknames for killer devices, their fear and superstitions, and their ways of surviving in a strange land where even women and children could, and often did, mean death. The literary weave of abstractions on war and history with specifics on Vietnam itself make for a potent read. You will come out of it not only feeling better educated about what Vietnam was like, but sensing that many of the arguments of the American government and the officers in charge ring as familiarly hollow now (in Iraq) as they did then (in Vietnam). If I could, I'd buy a copy for the President. But I know he wouldn't read it or, if he did, seek meaning from it.
   
   Pro or anti-war, Vietnam or Iraq, you, however, can glean something from this early effort of Tim O'Brien's. Check it out.



2. If I Die...is Tim O'Brien's first book, and his first of many inspired by his tour of duty as an infantryman in Vietnam, 1969-70. Later, more successful books, like Going After Cacciato and The Things They Carried, deliberately smudge the line between reportage and invented story (and, in GAC, he takes it all the way to outright fantasy) but this debut is intended as a soldier's field memoir, the facts as O'Brien saw and remembers them, although with much brooding personal commentary added.
   
   More than 30 years after its publication, the book is still quite powerful, reviving the sights and sounds of a war that America decided a while ago not to forget, but rather to remember in a way it finds most convenient. There are still too many people who believe we could easily have "won" Vietnam if we hadn't been "stabbed in the back" by politicians and hippie protestors at home; that is nonsense, much of which O'Brien's book helps disprove. Indispensible works like The Best and the Brightest, and of course The Pentagon Papers, prove how various US administrations allowed themselves to be deluded about the progress the US military might make in solving the political problems of a small SE Asian country. By the time O'Brien arrived as a foot soldier in early 1969, the war had reached a high-level stalemate, was essentially over, and the Vietnamese simply had to wait us out. LBJ and Nixon knew this but they continued to send our soldiers over to be killed and mangled; too precipitous a withdrawal would have hurt their administrations politically.
   
   What O'Brien does so well is dramatize this fatal stall at the personal level. His book is loaded with stories of ranking officers, brave men with Army careers, allowing their commands to ease off in the field, avoid pointless enemy engagements, even file fake patrol reports, especially at night. O'Brien's tour commenced a year after Tet and My Lai occurred, and in their aftermath, as O'Brien tells it, Army morale at even the officer level had sunk so low, and the failure of US goals was so evident, that few Americans wanted to get killed for a misadventure.
   
   What lingers most in my mind is O'Brien's struggle with his own self-loathing: he believed even before being drafted that the war was wrong, and made serious plans to desert the Army, but found himself unable to make that great break, fearful of the reaction he would eventually encounter from parents and the small Minnesota town of his birth. He gave in to tradition, rather than do what he felt to be right, and it seems he has never forgiven himself.



3. This memoir brought me closer than I had been before to the Vietnam War..it was interesting. Another perspective on the Vietnam War.



4. I've not read a ton of war books and picked up this one because it was on some list of best books of the century or somthing like that from Time. War must not change much, becuase the narrator in this book seems to be saying so much of what I have heard from soldiers coming back from the Iraq, etc. Lots of boredom with moments of great fear peppered in. I like this book a lot. The author's writing style is very matter of fact, but with as frugal as he is with his words, he says tons.



5. Being much more familiar with Tim O'Brien's fiction, one may not know what to expect in his memoir about his tour of duty in Vietnam. Written in the same style with a wry sense of humor, O'Brien challenges the war in a way few have.
   
   Courage and morality are continuing themes that O'Brien explores through his actions as well as literary quotes. It is very clear that O'Brien was uncomfortable with the war even before being drafted. He even contemplates going AWOL. In a paradox, he lacks the courage to go to war or escape going to war. Nothing is more powerful than the last chapter. Going beyond patroitism and rituals, O'Brien is numbed as he returns home. The war has left a mark that is difficult to fathom.
   
   Tim O'Brien does not flinch at the brutality of the war nor the American soldiers. Major Callicles seems straight out of Catch 22, yet he is all too real. The cruelty to a blind civilian has the ability to disgust. While making a statement, O'Brien's writing is both enlightening and entertaining. It is a remarkable perspective on a disastrous war.

5 comments about Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.

1. Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my masters in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school! I enjoyed it so much I read the rest of his books the same week. 5 Stars



2. This is a historical polemic in that it attacks other historians and the official Lincon standards. There is no other way to present an alternative to accepted scholarship than to try to debunk it. I work in DC and pass the Lincoln Memorial frequently. It is a temple. It is the stone deification of a man, not unlike the Roman deification of Augustus. They did the same to Jefferson. It is a human tendency. No one will say it - but they are temples seeking public worship. Very odd, not just today, but when built. The US has no state religion. That is the first amendment - but we do. One is the Lincoln religion. Lincoln's actual feelings about slavery, racial equality and the nature of total war have been glossed over in favor of the temple. All historians know it. Some of the contents of this book are rather shocking. Extensive footnotes. Your kids will probably get in trouble if they take this to public schools where the temple is strong. I recommend the book as one of many about Lincoln, but mostly because it will cause you to rethink Lincoln, read more about Lincoln and come to a decision on your own - which may disagree with the author. You may end up accepting the temple theory, but Lincoln should be reconsidered rather than just worshipped. This is one of those think-for-yourself books that gives you some concepts to reconsider. Personally, I don't think it goes far enough as I have studied Lincoln for years and am amazed at the amount of material the general public does not know. Why the civil rightds movement associates with the Lincoln temple and not with Harper's Ferry is beyond me. Also read up on John Brown, Harper's Ferry and Lincoln's plans for life after the presidency. But I give this book five stars for its daring, brevity, footnotes and polemical style that makes for lively reading. As for the temple, I would rather see a copy of the magna carta, the constitution and a large, running mirror where people saw themselves and their personal responsibility. Lincoln's statute reminds me of the descriptions of Jupiter Optimus in his temple in anceint Rome. One day, people will claim miracles...



3. Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
   
   Good readying if you like history and want to know when and where the downfall of our country began.



4. DiLorenzo offers nothing new: no new facts; no new argument. Rather he regurates poorly reasoned attacks on Lincoln that have been advanced by the Lost Causers for years and that have be soundly discredited by every serious scholar.



5. Very good reading. It reiterates much of what I had learned in school many years ago, before society, as a whole, changed history books in order to become more "politically correct."

5 comments about Ike: An American Hero.

1. I've always thought Ike was one of our two greatest generals, the other being Geo. Washington who kept our country together. If one can imagine the egos that Ike had to work with, i.e Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Patton, Montgomery, and even MacCarthur, it would seem that this would be an almost impossible task in itself. But then to be asked to construct and conduct what was perhaps the greatest military endeavor of all time, and to get all of these "egos" to work in harmony, would see to be beyond comprehension. This is probably not a biography in the true sense of the word as Korda treats some things a little superficially, but does cover the war years in great detail. I have no doubt that as history continues Eisenhower will be considered one of the greatest military genius of them all. He not only had to perform militarily, but politically also. He did that. I would certainly recommend this book to any student of history, particulary of World War II.



2. Excellent Presidential Biography that was both appropriately critical and complementary. This book is a must for anyone interested in both the military history as well as the Presidential biography.



3. Once Korda reached 1945 in IKE, it feels like he filed all his research away and said, "Let's wrap this up!" Unfortunately, Ike still had 25 years left in him. Consequently, Korda's biography feels incomplete. Furthermore, for all the space Korda accords to Ike's WWII years, he pays scant attention to the Holocaust. What did Ike know about the Holocaust, about the Final Solution? What was his reaction to the liberation of the concentration camps (Korda mentions Ike's presence at just one, a sub-camp). In light of the preeminence of Holocaust studies in the past 15 years, Korda really could have shed new light with a discussion of Ike and the plight of the Jewish people. Similarly, the creation of Israel receives no mention in this book, even though Ike, as Supreme Commander of the AEF and, later, commander of NATO, would have seen, heard, and possibly opined on "The Palestine Question." In short, if well done, a 900-page offering from Korda would have been more edifying than a 700-page tome.



4. The first 1/3 of the book is spent on the first 45 years or so of Ike's life, which is remarkable for its dullness. He really did nothing of note or of interest until WW2. Then, most of the rest of the book is dedicated to war-years (which is already well-trodden ground). Relatively little space is dedicated to his two terms as President, which I find appalling. Four years at war get almost 500 pages but 8 years as leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world get maybe 50? A very imbalanced treatment, IMO, and very disappointing.
   
   On a lesser note: the habit of the author to drop (un-translated) French and German phrases is pretentious and annoying. The author also makes a few attempts to dabble in psycho-history, which I've never been able to take seriously. Aside from these minor points, the writing is o.k.
   
   I'm sure one wouldn't have to work very hard to find a better treatment of Eisenhower and his work.
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.



5. Michael Korda's beefy biography of Dwight Eisenhower is a must read for anyone who thought of Ike as just the avuncular President of the quiet 1950's. Korda's portrait of Eisenhower paints Ike as an intelligent and thoughtful leader in both World War II as Supreme Allied Commander and in his many Post War roles. When Eisenhower took over the presidency in January 1953 the post war peace had all but unraveled with Korea raging, the French losing their grip in Vietnam, and the Middle East a boiling cauldron of activity. Ike's stalwart character appears to have been a great force in keeping this potential incendiary period in check.
   
   Korda paints Eisenhower as a simple but forthright and principled individual. I was particular impressed with the resolute character of Eisenhower and his strong sense of duty in whatever assignment or job he undertook during his career. As Korda says, "while Eisenhower was the last president born in the 19th century, he was a 20th century thinker." As supreme commander of European theatre during World War II and as President of the United States, Eisenhower never seemed to get raddled no matter how difficult or bleak the situation appeared. It is not hard to see how Eisenhower commanded such world respect during the War and the Post War period. One wonders what the situation would have been in Iraq if Eisenhower had been the chief executive today?

5 comments about Write it When I'm Gone.

1. There are descriptions galore on this book already, I just wanted to add that this was a "can't put it down" book for me also. I was in my early teens when Watergate was coming down. I had no idea just that Ford was such a principled man but also had the ability to get to the heart of a matter in few words and in most cases with no malice. As I was reading the last couple of chapters I felt like I'd really missed out by having neven known this man. He may not have been a Lincoln but he was certainly one Ford that never needed to be recalled. What a great read!!



2. This audio book far exceeded my expectations. The reader is very talented and the story is so honest. You come to realize that Gerald Ford was quite the public servant, leader and consumate gentleman. I highly recommend as it brought so much history to my own experiences.



3. A wonderful read about a good and great man. If only this country had more such men, then maybe there would not be the huge political schism in Washington today. Ford was a healer, who could be bipartisan and establish a rapport with his political enemies. Maybe, that was because he had no real enemies, and many on both side respected him for what he was: a smart, honest politician who did not have a huge ego.
   
   In this short book, DeFrank shows that Ford was really who he said he was. He loved the Republican Party and would not tear it apart for his personal ambition. He loved his country and tried to find common cause with some polical opponents like Carter and Clinton. He loved his home city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was like most people: an average man thrust into the leadership of the free world.
   
   This is a nice read about a true American Gerald R. Ford. His presidential service was short and his life long, but he made a difference in American political life. DeFrank captures the true spirit of Jerry Ford.



4. Who ever knew that Gerald Ford could be so interesting? I read over 70 pages in just the first day I got it and did not want to put it down. This is not a straightforward biography for a change-there are plenty of those out there. This is personal insight into a man that rarely let us see that side of him. He was a man of good morals, was extremely intelligent, and if you can get past the whole Nixon pardon, he really did deserve a second term in office. Even though his presidency was short, those were some very interesting times and Gerald Ford was a big part of bringing the country back together after Watergate and Vietnam. It is great to have the authors perspective of traveling with him for so many years and interviewing him, and even building a friendship with President Ford. You feel like you are along for the ride. I am glad I purchased this as it is a totally different kind of political book than anything else I have ever read. It is an easy and quick read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone interested in US history and/or the Office of The President. My only wish was that it was longer- did not want to get through it so quick !!!!



5. I dove in to this book expecting new and exciting revelations only to find.. not so much. Yes, it was interesting to learn what Jerry Ford really thought about his fellow Presidents (especially Reagan), but where are the bombshells?
   
   It was obvious that Mr. DeFrank admired Mr. Ford greatly. I too remember the healing effect Ford had on the country after Watergate and admire him. However, this author did not have enough material for an entire book. Redundancies abound. The same sentence often appears in different chapters. His description of the pivotal meeting with (then) Vice President Ford appears verbatim several times throughout the book.
   
   If this had been an article in a magazine, I could have rated it higher. Even without any real revelations.

2 comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

1. Another home run in the superb American President's series. John Eisenhower paints a picture of Zachary Taylor that leaves us wishing he was among today's candidates for President. Had he lived, he may have been able to head off the Civil War, we will never know. In short, a great biography of a great man.



2. Eisenhower handles Taylor's military career and his exploits in the Mexican War very neatly and offers selections from other Taylor biographers like Hamilton and Bauer to aid his case and offer the casual reader alternate windows into the life. A very neat summary of a very brief administration, Eisenhower's account never seems rushed or unduly cursory. The books in the American Presidents series vary wildly in quality. This particular volume is not a breath-taking small gem like Hans Trefousse on Hayes or a specialist treasure like Ira Rutkow's book on Garfield, but Eisenhower nevertheless provides a splendid small book on an unfortunately overlooked president.