At 46, I found the book both affirming and inspiring. Ms. Gerber shows, through the life of the great ER, how painful life experiences can enhance both self awareness and empathy, and even more amazingly, how suffering a betrayal can be liberating. Her discussion on the special leadership skills developed through motherhood make clear the public interest in cultivating women leaders. The book is both a very accesible, good read and an effective step-by-step leadership guide.

This is a must add to your leadership library! If you like authors such as Donald T. Phillips-"Lincoln On Leadership" or Axelrod- "Elizabeth I CEO" then you will enjoy this book. The big plus is that it is about a contemporary woman leader. The author adds how you can take some of the leadership qualities of Eleanor and apply it to your own life situations. She gives examples from the lives of women in your community and mine who are working to make a difference each day. This book speaks to the vision of one woman who helped to make a difference in lives of women today. Things that we take for granted were hard fought for ideals championed by this woman. It is hard to put this book down once you get started and will apply to each woman who works to make the diffence in the lives of the family, the community and the world. Read It! You'll enjoy it!

This is a truly wonderful book... an easy read about a complex topic. I've purchased extra copies as gifts for several friends already!
As a middle manager I am eager to explore my role as a leader... sometimes feeling that I am only one person who has little influence in this world.
Ms. Gerber understands how much women are looking for leadership "heroes" and her handling of Eleanor Roosevelt's personal history makes this book quite compelling.

I recently had occasion to re-read James MacGregor Burns's marvelous Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox and was deeply impressed by how well its has withstood the test of time. The early paperback edition of this book, which was originally published in 1956 and covers the period from 1882 until 1940, characterized it as the "first political biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt," and it continues to be the authoritative study of Roosevelt's preparation for and then conduct of his first two terms as president, when domestic affairs demanded most of his attention. This remains a wonderful book about this country's greatest politician of the 20th century, and it also offers many penetrating insights into the American political system.

Burns's treatment of Roosevelt is comprehensive, "[treating] much of [Roosevelt's] personal as well as his public life, because a great politician's career remorselessly sucks everything into its vortex." Roosevelt was the only child of a member of the upstate New York landed gentry, and he could have led a life of leisure. Instead, he was sent to Groton School in Massachusetts, where the headmaster, according to Burns, "made much of his eagerness to educate his boys for political leadership." Roosevelt completed his formal education at Harvard College and Columbia University Law School. Burns writes that Roosevelt's first elective office, as a New York State Senator was a "political education," and he became a "Young Lion" in Albany. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in Washington, D.C., during World War I and was the candidate for Vice President on the Democrat Party's unsuccessful ticket in 1920. In 1921, Roosevelt was stricken with polio, and the crippling disease would have ended the public career of a less ambitious and determined man. Instead, he continued to work hard at politics, was elected Governor of New York in 1928 and then President in 1932. This was just the beginning of a remarkable career in high office.

Burns makes clear that Roosevelt was a progressive in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson but was without strong ideas or a specific agenda. According to Burns: "The presidency, Roosevelt said shortly after his election, 'is preeminently a place of moral leadership.'" Retired Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes offered this cutting assessment: "A second -class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Action to combat the depression was necessary to restore public confidence in government, and the first Hundred Days of Roosevelt's first term was one of the great periods of legislative achievement in American history. Burns writes: "Roosevelt was following no master program." However, in Burns's view: "The classic test of greatness in the White House has been the chief executive's capacity to lead Congress." According to that test, Roosevelt was a great president. Burns writes that, "[i]n his first two years in office Roosevelt achieved to a remarkable degree the exalted position of being President of all the people." Burns explains: "A remarkable aspect of the New Deal was the sweep and variety of the groups it helped."

As early as 1934, however, organized conservative opposition to the New Deal was forming. (A newspaper cartoon reprinted here shows a figure identified as the Republican Party holding a sign stating: "Roosevelt is a Red!") Roosevelt was increasingly attacked as a traitor to his class, but a large measure of his genius was his ability to hold the more extreme elements of the New Deal in check. Roosevelt's political skills were tested in every way. For instance, Burns writes that Senator Robert Wagner's National Labor Relations Act, which proposed to"[vest] massive economic and political power in organized labor" "was the most radical legislation passed during the New Deal." According to Burns, Roosevelt's initial reaction to the bill was "invariably cool or evasive," and the president, with what Burns describes as "typical Rooseveltian agility," announced his support for the bill only after its passage was certain. Burns demonstrates that Roosevelt's support, both in Congress and among the public, gradually eroded in the late 1930s, but he was, of course, elected again in 1940 and 1944. Roosevelt's nomination in 1940 was especially skillful. Many in his own party favored maintaining the tradition of limiting presidents to two terms, and Democratic Party leaders lined up in the hope of succeeding Roosevelt. Roosevelt outfoxed all of them and was elected to his historic third term.

I believe it is fair to say that Burns admires Roosevelt, but this book is not a whitewash. Burns candidly writes about Roosevelt's "deviousness." And the author is appropriately critical of Roosevelt's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court following his overwhelming re-election in 1936. However, in my opinion, these instances simply are proof of the truism that great men are not always good men. Burns took the subtitle of this book from the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Machiavelli's dictum that a political leader must be strong like a lion and shrewd like a fox. Franklin D. Roosevelt was both, and that made him a great president. This is a great political biography of that great president

FDR was perhaps the craftiest politician to occupy the White House since Lincoln. The Title, "...Lion and the Fox" is an allusion to Machiavelli's dictum that one must be stouthearted like a lion and crafty like a fox. FDR combined these qualities to achieve political mastery of his time.

This book focus on his life up to the start of WWII. It paints a thorough life portrait of the president and illustrates the events and experiences that shaped this master politician. Although enjoying congressional majorities like no other president (that certainly aided the implementation of his program), FDR had to over come the reluctance of both GOP and Democrat conservatives to rework the federal government into the active economic and social player it is today. McGreggor's book explains how FDR the man made the New Deal possible.

This is a well written book that gives evidence of being thoroughly researched. For anyone interested in presidential history, I'd recommend this book.

Gives a fantastic account of FDR from his privileged childhood and days at Groton, to his harsh induction into the world of politics; the skill at which he maneuvered the political currents to the New York Capital in Albany, and ultimately the White House. Once there Burns gives an account of passionate dedication to the American people, both during the Depression and WWII, that most likely was not seen since Lincoln. A must for anyone's Presidential Biographical collection.

Accessible, well-written, and utterly compelling history is loaded with facts and dates, but more than that, this book places each president in the context of his times. Therefore, we come to understand the era itself; with the policies, debates, and legal questions fully explored.

This is Mr. Burns' companion volume to his Lion and the Fox (check that out). This focuses on FDR's WWII War Administration: policies, attitudes, hopes and worldly goals.

FDR's dedication to the well-being of the United States in WWII is evidenced by the fact that to start with, he didn't want a third term in office come 1940. Indeed, such aspirations were frowned upon in the political community. It did not stop him; as he saw it, it was his duty and obligation to the American people to keep familiar leadership in time of international turmoil. Other obstacles: struggles to arm allies, constant planning and meeting with allied leaders, and gradual, failing health. Burns also shows FDR's political savvy, using the utilization for war to the nation's advantage. Many unemployed workers were put back to work, which helped shift American industry into an overdrive that didn't stop for decades. Vision: as a disciple of Woodrow Wilson, he had a vision of a United Nations. One that he did not live to see.

For anyone reading about FDR, or World War II, this companion volume on his war administration is a must for anyone's collection, as it has become in mine.

This book tells the story of the First Minnesota in such a way that makes you fell like you are with the soldiers. It was nice to read a book actually made up a lot of the soldiers own writing through letters and diaries. The First was a large part of the Union winning the battle of Gettysburg and it was nice to read the soldiers account of what happened. The author also put in other accounts of the First from the Generals that were involved as they praised the First. Great Book.

This is an outstanding book that gives the detail of the First Minnesota's glorious charge at Gettysburg and helped saved the Union line against a largely superior Confederate force. I have been to Gettysburg and saw the field on which they charged against the Confederate line and closed the gap for the critical time needed for Union reinforcements to fill in the gap. The author also gives great narrative in the book as it does not become overwhelmed with unnecessary details that would be distracting to the reader. The timeframe in the book is mostly the summer of 1863 before the Battle of Chancelorsville and ends with the valliant and brutal charge in which the 1st Minnesota lost so many men in less than five minutes. The details of the charge are gripping and individual accounts by the soldiers who were there make the book impossible to put down. The First Minnesota's bravery ranks it right along with Col Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's 20th Maine as doing the suprizing and remarkable thing at precisely the right time, in which saved the Union Army and possibly saved the Union from defeat. This book needs to be reprinted quickly so other Civil War/U.S. History readers could know about this fine, brave regiment.

The men of the First Minnesota could swing an axe, and did so, building bridges and making roads. They could shoot -- straight and fast, and did so on some of the most famous battlefields of the Civil War. They were a "cool" Regiment, men who stood fast. And they died, as a Regiment, on the battlefield of Gettysburg.

This book should be read by every high school senior in Minnesota, and most elsewhere. Moe captures the simple competence of these frontiersmen, their ability to walk for long distances (Antietam), work with tools (Peninsula Campaign) and to stand fast and fight hard -- in each battle.

The First Minnesota was raised in the West, in the new state of Minnesota, but fought with the Army of the Potomac. This gives their story a sense of an American Odyssey -- Moe captures the changing nation as a backdrop to the war. The First Minnesota struggles to learn how to cook crabs... and how to fight the Secesh. The diaries and newspaper articles of the time illuminate the nation through the stories these men tell.

Finally, the Civil War buff will love this book. The book tells one entire arc of the Civil War through the life and death of this Regiment. And Moe's writing is so simple and clear, the story unfolds and makes the early eastern battles understandable.

Twenty years from now, when time has allowed for an author to look back on and write on the Clinton Presidency with some emotional detachment and real perspective, this book will be in the bibliography. Burns and Sorenson provide the most complete review of Clinton's legacy to date, superceding, as an academic source, Joe Klein's more recent, more opinionated and more reader-friendly "The Natural". That said this book has many flaws. It is denser than frozen cookie dough. Stuffed with the kinds of details that only poltical science professors and their students could stand to bear for even one page (for example, I came across the book while writing a senior thesis on the Post-modern presidency...if that excites you this book might be of interest)so it can be a sluggish read. It is also tilting to the left but that actually makes it's criticisms of Clinton stick more then say, a book written by Right-Wing Conspirators (and there are plenty of those if you are just into Clinton bashing for the love of it).

The book also suffers from the fact that it was published before Clinton actually left office so issues like his last minute pardons are not touched on. In contrast to The Natural, where Hillary comes off as a villain, here, for virtually the same reasons Klein criticizes her, she is the star of the Clinton Era. An oasis of ideolgical purity, striking in its contrast to the vacuous desert of the"the Third Way" centrism that enslaved Clinton and Gore. A bit hyperbolic, but that's the gist of the epilouge, incidentally written before Hillary's run for the Senate so perhaps Burns and Sorenson were on to something.

The book deserves kudos for focusing on substantive policy issues and evaluating Clinton on those rather than getting caught in the trap of focusing the many personal scandals and confusing them with his professional failings. Burns and Sorenson on one page offer one of the best retorts to the vicious, partisan and very often malicious attacks on Clinton. Yet,they aren't soft on him themselves and therefore one can not dismiss this book as propaganda. Rather, it is a truly substantive study that may be driven by the authors policy concerns but makes evaluations based on substance not smoke.

A good academic book. The Natural's conclusions, I think, will stand up as being more historically accurate than Dead Center's but for a really detailed look at the Clinton Presidency this book is indispensible.

This provocative yet thorough analysis of Bill Clinton's tenure in office provides an almost convincing argument against Centrism and its implementor. As a Bill Clinton fan, I must say that the author's arguments nearly swayed me to believe that Bill Clinton may have failed in what they called "transformational" and "principled" leadership of the country. They trace the beginnings of Clinton's presidency, from his inauguration speech of change and renewal, his failure of health care reform, his foreign policies to the Gingrich revolution and finally to impeachment. Within each, the authors argue that Clinton failed to bring any sweeping reform or decisive leadership but instead brought tactical politiking, dealing and governing from the vital Centre. The reader is left wondering whether Centrism is good at all. In fact, one gets the impression that Clinton's legacy lies in a tangled web of disjointed policies and no over-arching vision.

However, I think the authors miss the point that whilst Clinton did promise change and succeeded in some ( balancing the budget, welfare reform, NAFTA) and failed in others (health care reform,arguably race, campaign finance), the political environment he was in and also the post cold-war era constrained such sweeping changes. The Gingrich revolution forced Clinton to think more pragmatically and more tactically as re-election loomed. Impeachment (his own doing) poisoned Congress to a standstill in enacting any later reforms. In fact, whilst I agree that Clinton failed to deliver the high hopes he had promised from the start of his presidency, the situation changed to such a degree, that to survive politically, he had to govern from the centre ( see his triangulation). To a small degree, Clinton's presidency was a product of its times; there was no Cold War or major crisis to display "principled" leadership as with Reagan.

Not everthing is bad news of course. They outline Clinton's foreign policy successes in Ireland and the Middle East but also his hesitant meandering in Haiti and Bosnia.

The overall picture is one of a work in progress - a President learning on the job, trying to enact "bold change", later displaying tactical and political skill and subtly reforming the people's view of government. At the very least, this book strongly initiates the debate on the Clinton legacy and his leadership. It is by no means the end.

Historian James MacGregor Burns and Georgia Sorenson have written an interesting book about Bill Clinton's failed effort to be a success by becoming a "centerist" U.S. President. Their excellent book, title DEAD CENTER: CLIINTON-GORE LEADERSHIP AND THE PERILS OF MODERATION(1999), is worth reading.

The authors contend, rightfully, I think, that Bill Clinton tried to please everybody, and ended up pleasing no-one (well, almost no-one). Pulitzer prize winning historian James MacGregor Burns and his co-author Georgia Sorenson argue that the price of centrism is high. They state that in choosing a centrist strategy, Bill Clinton rejected the kind of leadership that might have placed hiim among the historic "greats."

They review Clinton's presidency (which they imply was a failed presidency), and state that Clinton lacked creativity in fashioning new policies, the courage to press for reforms and other changes despite popular apathy and opposition, the conviction to stick to grand principles no matter how long their realization might take (they imply Clinton was a notably mediocre President, and that he must really be grouped in the unprestigious ranks of Presidents who were fence sitters).

Most interestingly, Burns and Sorenson contend that Clinton (and by association, Albert Gore) was notable for his lack of commitment to the people to fight for their welfare at any personal cost. This is quite a charge considering that the main Gore Presidential candidacy battle cry was "I will fight for you!"

Burns/Sorenson review the disasterous faillure of Clinton's 1993-94 health bill and ascribe the failure of it to Clinton's centrism. They remind readers that Clinton rejected the highly intelligent Canadian health plan model, which has been successful for decades in attaining a liberal good, universal health care. Clinton tried to avoid alienating highly paid doctors and insurance companies. The result was that his health plan had no particular idology, pleased nobody, really, and failed miserably. The ironic thing was that Clinton's health bill was the most noble effort he made in his Presidency, which went downhill from that point.

Buy and read this excellent book. It's a good read, and great discussion of how not to be a U.S. President.

I am currently halfway through this book. The odd thing is that throughout the book, you get the feeling that you are reading a monumental book. The wealth of historical data that he brings to bear is huge. But somehow, it always turns out to overanalyzed and incohesive. The psychological models used are done so rigorously but to what real effect? He picks up a different model every couple pages; it makes you wonder if he actually supports any of them. This book lacks the formulation of broad theories on leadership that make a John Gardner book or a Howard Gardner book so great. If you are looking for a lot of historical background on leaders, this is a great place to look. If you are looking to become a better leader, look elsewhere.

This is the definitive book on leadership. It is long, dense with historical facts, sparkling with insights, and is essential reading for the leadership scholar. Few other leadership books merit a place on the essential reading list for this field.

Burns's accomplishment of recognizing the taxonomy of leadership is unmatched to this day. He distinguishes, for example, intellectual leadership from executive leadership, and explains how each is forged in the "crucible" of circumstances.

Rather than serving as a "how to" guide on leadership, Burns provides the reader with a framework for understanding his or her leadership role, and the requirements that accompany each role. Finding one's own reflection in this catalog of leadership roles can be an exciting and satisfying moment for the reader.

Burns is best known for developing the concept of "transforming" leadership, or "transformational" leadership as he calls it in this book. It stands in contrast to "transactional" leadership, which holds that every leader-follower encounter is an isolated event.

Whether the reader perseveres through the whole book, or just reads the introductory chapters, he or she will be in the presence of some of the best thinking to date on leadership.

This book is THE classic, set-the-bar book on leadership. Professor Burns has produced a masterful, beautifully written, historically based view of leadership behavior. In this book, he first introduces his idea of 'transforming leadership.' Now in his 80s, he is Senior Scholar at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at University of Maryland. A true classic.....

I'm reading this book in Chinese,I love it! Our teachers never told me about it, they just teached us what is 'right'.

Excellent intro to politics text. I highly recommend it for a classroom or for anyone really who wants to sit down with a plain-spoken piece to get you to understand our government. Whether it is for someone with little knowledge as to who this vast bureaucracy works, or for someone with a fairly good knowledge of it all - I don't think it will disappoint.
I think what I appreciated the most was the honesty that the text was written. The authors also included a good amount of humor to emphasize the point (in cartoon, comic, Top 10 List, etc), in order to keep a reader interested.
I think this text is also a good reference as well, as there are numerous court cases and explicit examples of gov't at work - that if you are ever at a loss for "what was it that happened?" or "what does that term mean?" Things are extremely easy to find and be referred to.
Good works.

An interesting fact of American politics - that many of our Presidents came from the "upper class" of American society - is the central premise of "The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America." In this book, co-authors James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn examine the role played in American history by arguably the most influential "patrician" family of the twentieth century - the Roosevelts of New York.

"The Three Roosevelts" is essentially a book containing short political biographies of Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt (TR) became one of our greatest Presidents. Early in life, his sense of "noblesse oblige" caused him to choose a career in politics rather than a life as a member of the wealthy elite. He was elected, in turn, state representative; then governor of New York, as a Republican. He was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the McKinley Administration. Three years later, he was elected Vice President of the United States, and succeeded to the Presidency when President William McKinley was assassinated on September 14, 1901. His seven years as Chief Executive were some of the most successful of any Chief Executive up to then.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was a young man who appeared to have little of his cousin Theodore's intellectual acumen, driving ambition, or ideological bent. Franklin followed his famous cousin into politics, but unlike his cousin, Franklin became a Democrat. Like Theodore, Franklin's political career advanced steadily. In rapid succession, he was elected State Assemblyman, then State Senator. By age 31, he had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

In 1921, FDR was stricken with polio, which paralyzed him from the waist down. In 1928, after a seven-year hiatus from politics, FDR was elected Governor of New York. His two two-year terms were highly successful, but by then FDR already had his eyes on the biggest prize of them all: the Presidency.

From 1929 to 1932, during the early years of the Great Depression, FDR proved himself a capable governor of New York. By 1932, after three years mired in the Depression, Americans were ready for a change. They elected FDR - the man promising Americans a "New Deal" - as President of the United States.

The vast majority of "The Three Roosevelts" is taken up with an account of FDR's "transformation of America" during the Great Depression. Here, Burns and Dunn portray Roosevelt as a man employing a pragmatic approach to governance... try whatever works! Congress passed a body of legislation that was tremendous in scope. For the first time, the Federal government actively intervened in American life in an effort to make life better for all. The modern welfare state was born.

The third of the "three Roosevelts" - Eleanor (ER) - was an integral part of her husband's political success. After her marriage to FDR, Eleanor remained indifferent toward politics, although she steadfastly supported her husband's political ambitions. As FDR's political career progressed, so did Eleanor's interest in politics. In fact, she was much more of an ideologue than Franklin. Burns and Dunn imply that Eleanor grew to have a tremendous influence on Franklin, possibly pulling him more and more to the left of center during his Presidency.

On April 12, 1945, after thirteen years as President, years which saw the United States struggle out of Depression and stumble into a world war, Franklin D. Roosevelt died. He had helped build the modern welfare state, and had guided the United States to a position of victory in the Second World War.

In the years following FDR's death, Eleanor Roosevelt continued to be a major influence on American politics. Through her nationally syndicated newspaper column "My Day," ER continually interjected her ideas and opinions into the national debate. She was appointed as an American delegate to the first organizational meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Later she would serve on a UN commission that authored the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She championed the cause of equal rights for all Americans, and was vocal in her support of the new nation of Israel.

When "The Three Roosevelts" appeared in bookstores in the spring of 2001, I eagerly bought a copy. This was the first book I'd seen in over twenty years that was written by James MacGregor Burns, the historian best known for his two volume biography of the 32nd President - "Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox" and "Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom."

My hope was that Burns and co-author Susan Dunn would provide a penetrating examination of what caused this trio of extraordinary individuals to leave behind the values and traditions of their 19th century "patrician" class, in favor of a progressive and at times socialistic political agenda. It is a question left largely unanswered. "The Three Roosevelts" remains a book very long on biographical information and very short on historical analysis.

The authors show an almost complete lack of objectivity toward their subjects. Burns is well known as a liberal "New Deal" Democrat, and his political bias shows on practically every page. He is ably abetted by Dunn. The result: "The Three Roosevelts" is practically a paean of praise to TR, ER, and especially FDR. Criticisms of the "three Roosevelts" are few, and even those are largely muted. Burns and Dunn's unabashed, gushing admiration of the "three Roosevelts" is annoying, and limits the usefulness of the book as an objective study of these fascinating characters in American history.

James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn, Democrats by conviction, give an unequal account of the life of three Roosevelts by dedicating most of their biography to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. MacGregor Burns and Dunn show their audience how these three patricians left behind a relatively easy life to descend into the arena of politics. Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had to overcome their prejudices about other classes, religions, ethnicities and races to get an understanding of the issues at hand and, at times make, painful compromises to get things done. MacGregor Burns and Dunn explain to their readers that the three Roosevelts have ultimately left an indelible imprint on the psyche of the nation by each setting an example of transformational leadership. On the domestic front, the country has been working on the best possible reconciliation of the respective interests of business, labor and consumers as well as the rights and duties of its respective races and ethnicities. Abroad, the country has weighed the pros and cons of an interventionist policy on a case-by-case basis to safeguard its vital interests, and to advance the cause of a world that espouses the values of responsible democracy and capitalism.

This novel was immensely informative and entertaining. I am an English teacher who reads a lot, and I could not put it down. I loved the descriptions of leaders such as Huey Long and Gerald Smith and the isolationist movement. It was also impressive that it was so well-balanced and avoided sensationalism and cheap shots. The authors did not take sides or make quick judgments. You must read this book. My two favorite sections were the descriptions of the New Deal and the class struggle in New York during TR's time.