In his book, Shenkman does an excellent job of ferreting out and explaining presidential ambition. While it may seem that Shenkman is concentrating on the negative, he is vigorously fair, and his ability to empathize with his subjects is his greatest asset. His central themes are:

1.Our presidents have been (from Washington onward) insatiably ambitious men who have done not-so-nice things to get and maintain power;

2.Their ambition and willingness to bend the rules often provided the leadership needed to steer the country through difficult times; and

3.Changes in the media, immigration, political parties, and technology forced presidents to take extreme measures to get and keep power.

What makes his book even more interesting is that he uses evidence from the historical record of presidents *before* Truman. And Shenkman spends a lot of time discussing presidents that most people know nothing about: Cleveland, Hayes, Buchanan, Polk (and his chapters on Buchanan and Polk are the best of the lot). This alone makes the book worth reading: I can't wait to suggest it to my blowhard uncle who claims Clinton was the first president besides Nixon to lie in office.

So why 3 stars, given that I am so enthusiastic about the content and the rigor of Shenkman's work? His writing has been called "breezy" and "journalistic". And his prose is both of those things, but there are times in this book that Shenkman gets in his own way with his self-conscious prose. He overuses two devices that should never, ever be overused in prose--sentence fragments and slang. The first time he used the word "caved" to describe a presidential capitulation, it was refreshing, but by the fourth I was tired of it. More annoying was his continued use of sentence fragments. Some of his points flourished with the punchy use of such informal prose; but in other cases, the device felt to me like an affection-an affection unworthy of someone like Shenkman whose prose in other places was indeed breezy and graceful.

That said, these problems are not serious enough to diminish the maturity of Shenkman's commentary. I think it is an excellent book for people (of any age) interested in the presidency. Some readers may be put off by Shenkman's moral relativism, and I guarantee the book would make for a lively discussion for a book group.

Presidential Ambition is an elementary read on the politics of the presidency. It significantly misleads the reader into believing that they are going to read a political/psychological analysis of the presidency, by treating each president individually. Rather we get a historical recap of what events forced the president to act "ambitiously" and "without scruples." Although each time we are reminded that the President did not really want to act in this matter, but the events around him forced him to do so. Shenkman offer little in terms of analysis and my reasons for offering an average review is that while there is little in terms of political analysis or an a look into the presidential psyche (in terms of analyzing personal papers, decisions, etc.); Shenkman offers a very good history on the presidency in an easy to read manner. His anectodes are interesting and purposeful chosen to support his rather simplistic thesis that to be President one must be ambitious, and as the country grew more complex, the more ambitious the president. Ambitious as the sole reason for propelling a President to make any decision sets up an unrelaistic scenario that suggests the President acts unilaterally. It is a historical delight, but as a book of political sciecne, it is underwhelming and a travesty

This book offers a fascinating insight into the lives of some of the men who have held the office of President. The author maintains that as times have gotten more complex, presidents are pressured to break the rules, lie and lend themselves to scandal to maintain political power. Shenkman poses and interesting question when he asks if the system is flawed or the individuals. He fairly concludes that both are flawed and proceeds to give example after example of how different presidents manipulated situations and circumstances to achieve and maintain their presidential ambitions.

The thing that I liked best about this book is that it spotlights some obscure presidents that you rarely hear about such as James K. Polk, James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur. I particularly found the chapter on Franklin Pierce very interesting. He had high presidential ambitions but at the same time, he had to keep his ambitions a secret from his wife because she did not want him involved in politics.

The book does an excellent job of covering presidential amibitions up until the Eisenhower administration. After this, the author gives an abbreviated view of the Cold War, Vietnam and Watergate. I found this to be strange because it would seem that this period of American history would provide the most blatant examples fo men manipulating events and circumstances to maintain power and shape policy. In anycase, this was the only shortcoming that I didn't like but overall it is a very good easy to read book that is well worth your time.

Back in AD 1964, the sordid details of Joe Kennedy's life were kept secret. So what you have here is a very incomplete picture. But, if you want to understand his stock trading or his ambassadorship to Great Britain, then this book is for you. But compared to Kearns-Goodwin and Kessler, this is very lop-sided.

oddly, you may be surprised about the kennedy's of massachusetts when you finish Whalen's work. It is possible that many have been quick to judge the family in a negative manner. Whalen, however, certainly points out Joseph Kennedy's very wonderful points including love of his family and gracious help for mankind. His charity for a man who wandered into his office off of the streets of Boston having just lost his son-and Mr. Kennedy buying the man a suit and paying for the funeral of that son-is particularly touching. Also of great interest to anyone interested in making a buck is how Mr. Kennedy made so much money in so many different arenas-sold out and took his profit on to the next venture-a sixth sense he had for making big money! author whalen points out this was almost always the case except his keeping ownership of Chicago's Merchandise Mart in the Kennedy name up, I believe, until currently-1998. Buy this work and then be prepared to not put it down for 48! ! hrs.! Of added interest was a historical look at how Joseph Kennedy got into B grade motion picture producing in Hollywood in the early days.

This is a very well written book that covers Nixon's birth through the aftermath of Watergate. My interest in this book bloomed when I watched Anthony Summers on Face the Nation on the 30th anniversary of Watergate. He even shared the spotlight with John Dean to the somewhat disgust of the author if body language means anything.

Summers has done quite a bit of research and links quite well the major partners in Nixon's campaigns and in addition the men that eventually help run the country. There is so much about Nixon's personal flaws and self gain obsession there is a question of balance. On the one hand I am amazed at the amount of detail that links Nixon to win at all costs campaign men, illegal money contributions even from mobsters, a long association with Howard Hughes, money laundering through Beebe Rebozo's bank, Swiss bank accounts, Nixon's plan to screw Johnson's peace initiative to win the election, his over compulsion with dirty tricks. It's hard to conclude otherwise that Nixon was a bad man more caught up with his own style of government. However, at times when the author goes back to Nixon's HS days its almost seems impossible for anyone retrospectively to say anything nice about Nixon other than his earnest desire to succeed. You almost expect someone to say "I remember Nixon when he was in diapers, even my dog didn't like him!" A question to be explored upon a broader canvas is how bad was Nixon compared to other politicians. Was illegal fund raising rampant and typical of the candidates in that era? Is it still happening today? After all, Nixon even on tape seems to say the other guys are doing it too. And the author concludes that Robert Kennedy was bugging Nixon while he served as his brother's Attorney General which Nixon discovers.
During the presidency, Nixon finds out the Joint Chief are spying on Kissinger (The Radford Affair).

Besides the illegal contributions, the most devastating part of the book deals with not so much Nixon's development of the plumbers but in his post Watergate obsession to deal with Watergate instead of running the country. Summers does a great job of accounting of Nixon's whereabouts in the final 18 months of his presidency where according to the logs, Nixon spends a great deal of time on the California coast or Florida with Beebe. In addition, the critical tapes show Nixon totally focused on Watergate In addition, Summers states quite emphatically that Nixon without his secret psychotherapist was unstable due to the use of Dilantin, alcohol and sleeping pills. The latter part almost sounds like Elvis' final hours as Nixon is portrayed as a mentally compromised man who could no longer govern. It's a pretty frightening portrayal and if the Nixon Summers describes is accurate, then Al Haig and Henry Kissinger did a disservice to the country in not working to ease Nixon out of power. In Summers' portrayal, the final period of Nixon's presidency almost reminds me of the movie "Dave" where the Chief of Staff tries to take over the government by not disclosing that the president had a stroke. While reading these parts of the book I was hoping that this was overstated because if not, Nixon was not lucid over the final 12 months of his presidency.

A book worth reading but a little more balance on how Nixon compared to his political adversaries would have been helpful, gosh Tom Dewey supported Nixon and he appeared to have similar fund raising issues. And didn't Nixon do more than just break down the cold war barriers a bit with Russia and China? Did he have any interest in domestic issues at all?

Now if Summers would do a book on John Dean. Dean acts extra clean since he bailed out first. Is a hit man any nicer because he cut a deal?

Anthony Summers setting of his decision to spend five plus years working the details of the life of Nixon is important. Along with Norman Mailer, he was pissed off at the obits cranked out in 1994 on Nixon's death, Obits written in the spirit of the cover-up. Perhaps the best way to frame this book is an obit crafted by an enemy list wanna-be. As yet another citizen still distressed at being left off that famous list -- I think Summers got Richard M. Nixon right on.

"Arrogance" is a full biography crafted around a collection of psychological insights into the subject -- it is a tale of one soul's journey through 20th century American Politics -- a tale of predictable disasters. It is so much more than Watergate, though readers knowledgable of Watergate detail will find much here that is new, and demands integration into one's Watergate fact file. But since Nixon materials are scheduled to be opened by various archives well into the second quarter of the 21st century, we probably will need more Summers-like books, books that synthesize new materials either as additions or corrections into the detailed analysis of Nixon.

But in year 2000 Summers adds it up as follows: Nixon as a kid learned telling the truth frequently led to a whipping, telling lies avoided that possibility. He learned to stuff his emotions so deep, they never really matured. He came to doubt his parents evangelical Quaker piety -- but he never explored so as to replace it with a mature value and belief system. He was ripe to be caught by that place where the American Mafia and American Business intersect, and need presentable political actors. In 1946 they needed a vet, good education, someone with a velvet fist to bust the labor movement, someone who would serve interests so long as he was well paid, (under the table mind you). Nixon got and took the offer -- and Summers details the whole long list of transactions that salt Nixon's rise...all the way to the post resignation annual visits to his secret Swiss Bank Accounts.

Much has been made in the press of the possible physical abuse of Pat Nixon at her husband's hand -- the sources are interesting, but not convicting. Nonetheless, the narrative is filled with instances of psychological abuse, a profound story of attachment disorder. One wonders why no one speculated about this during the long Nixon public career?

Summers provides the basis for raising the question needing debate -- how was it that a political party selected this flawed person for leadership? Just reading through the sources one understands Nixon's intimates knew something of the truth -- but they nominated him twice for Vice President, and three times for President -- we need to comprehend why. His own psychologist seemed to know in 1951 that he could not handle stress, but professional ethics of course kept him from speaking out. His profound problems with truth and trust were apparent to his political allies -- but they turned away from the responsibility to act. Summers does not ask these questions, but readers ought to consider them.

I have always been struck by the particular choice of words "I am not a crook" that Nixon used to disclaim his role in Watergate. After all, if Watergate was a politically motivated crime, his words should have reflected the constitutional issues involved--something to the effect that "I am not a self-serving traitor." To me, being a crook connotes theft, racketeering, extortion, and other crimes involving money and other property. Among many other virtues, Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan have made it clear that from the beginning of his career, Nixon was in fact on the take, and his subsequent political life was spent substantially on covering up his earlier crimes. What a tangled web indeed! No wonder he cracked under the strain.

As in his previous book about "Jaye" Edgar Hoover--pun intended for fans of "The Crying Game"--Summers has used a sensational but semi-corroborated allegation as a publicity hook for an otherwise exhaustively researched and important book. But if this is what it takes to get people to read about such dangerous men--Hoover with rentboys at the Plaza Hotel, or Nixon beating his wife--then more power to the authors. Regardless, these allegations are consistent with everything else we read about in the books. Unfortunately in the case of Nixon, it seems as though it was the evil that was interred with his bones, not the good. Thanks to Summers and Swan for exhuming it.

As is often the case with Western scholars writing on things Russian, one simply cannot properly understand Russia -- culturally or politically -- without first understanding Byzantium and Eastern Orthodoxy. Russia is a heir to Byzantium, and Orthodoxy determined and shaped its culture. Mr. Wortman tends to treat his subject as if he were part anthropologist, part literary theorist, part psychologist -- all premised on the assumption that the idea of Monarchy itself was and is simply a "forest of symbols", as arbitrary in its connection to any sort of transcedental meaning as any other "system. This betrays the disease of modern academia: political systems are mere ideologies, constructions that mask power. To ignore the theology of the Orthodox Church and the various writings both in Greek and Russian on Monarchy is an oversight to say the least. To try and psychologize or play with semiotics as a way to unmask the Russian Monarchy is bad history. The Czar and the Church represented the two heads of the double eagle inheritted from Byzantium. One head -- the Czar -- protected the Kingdom and the Faith from foreign invaders and preserved a Christian Kingdom in rule and law; the Church -- the other head of the eagle -- tended to man's salvation and his soul. These two heads worked synergistically. This is the essence of the Russian Monarchy: the Czar's role cannot be separated from his duty to God and the Church. To understand how this works and why, turn to Byzantium or Pebodenostev.

Wortman seems to be one of those deeply conservative "leftists" who think that narratives of a ruling class or body are academic narratives - that is, that the history of the Russian monarchy is full of symbols that an upper middle class college prof with *way* too little interest in the suffering of the serfs and *way* too much interest in trying to be taken for a clever reader of historical artifact (academics of this bent mutually praise one another, but readers genuinely interested in the subject matter feel differently, and don't have as much time to waste as the "theorists" do, alas.)

There are many good books on this period, and on this subject. Don't let yourself get cheated.

How to summarize the history of the Romanov dynasty? Well, Peter "the Great" murdered his son, Catherine "the great" murdered her husband, and Alexander "the Blessed" was complicit in the murder of his father. After that the dynasty went into a bit of a decline. For the past two decades historians have been increasingly interested in the world of monarchist ritual. They have looked at how during the nineteenth century these rituals became more, not less, elaborate and they have pondered on the use of these rituals as examples of aristocratic hegemony. Wortman's well written and well documented second volume looks at the Russian version from the ascension of Alexander II in 1855 to the abdication of Nicholas II. We certainly get a lot of information on the elaborate ceremonies of the monarchy. We learn of the elaborate rituals and liturgies of the coronation ceremonies, along with fulsome and increasingly sycophantic paeans from the ranks of Orthodoxy. We are in a world of great popular feasts for the people, "entertained by acrobats, jugglers, stunt riders, and carousel rides," which comes to its horrible climax when at least 1,500 people are trampled to death on the feast festivals of Khodynka at the coronation of Nicholas II, the direct result of tsarist incompetence. We enter the world of elaborate balls, and the exquisite detail of faberge eggs (one designed to look like Assumption Cathedral). We see new strains in royalist propaganda as Alexander III presents a nationalist and orthodox message, while Nicholas II presents a Victorian and domestic picture of his family. Rather revealingly Wortman quotes Tchaikovsky's contempt for the 1812 Overture that he composed for Alexander III's coronation.

But there is a larger point in Wortman's account. Much of the literature on royal power deals with its ability to dazzle the larger population. Increasingly, however, royal ritual only dazzled its monarchs. Alexander II starts off with the "scenario of love." After the (partial) emancipation of the peasantry, Alexander II increasingly emphasized his "loving" and "benevolent" nature, as if his self-professed amiability automatically deserved to be reciprocated. As it happened Alexander II's marriage was visibly crumbling as he carried on with a much younger woman. At the same time Alexander moved away from a western path of development, he also sought to ignore what laws and regulations existed to force the rest of the nobility to accept his paramour as his second empress.

Alexander III's reign saw an emphasis on an increasingly chauvinist vision of Russia and Russian orthodoxy, with a new emphasis on monarchies and cathedrals. There was a weird, increasingly unreal and almost necrophiliac admiration for 17th century Moscow, before the liberal rot had set in under Peter I. There was a new emphasis on miracle as the country moved towards a military dictatorship. Nicholas II believed in all these ideas and more, but whereas Alexander III relied on the army and the dictatorship, Nicholas increasingly deluded himself into believing that he had a direct relationship with the Russian people. In this increasingly mystic view in which the "real" Russian people gave him their complete and unequivocal support, Nicholas II viewed the bureaucracies, the army, the episcopacy, other politicians simply as barriers to the implementation of his own will.

As a result during his rituals Nicholas II never missed an opportunity to demean the Duma, the parliament he had reluctantly allowed after the 1905 revolution and which he was planning to emasculate before war broke out in 1914. Nicholas became obsessed with "holy men" who supposedly represented the Russian people, and he and his wife shamelessly bullied the Orthodox hierarchy in order to declare one of them a saint. Reading reports from his bribed press, easily impressed by the crowds who flocked to the anniversaries and royal tours, Nicholas had deluded himself into believing that he was one with the Russian people. Becoming commander in chief of the army against the advice of almost all his ministers, by the end of his reign Nicholas could no longer count on the army, or the church, or the conservatives in his rigged parliament, or most of his family, indeed on anyone other than his wife and children. And yet he was outraged after his abdication that his brother Michael might speak hesitatingly of a constitutional monarchy. The emphasis on Victorian domestic harmony was an illusion; Wortman clearly shows that any chance Russia had of moving on towards a non-revolutionary modernity was fatally hampered by its monarch with a seventeenth century soul.

Stoutenberg competently retells the familiar stories of Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Stormalong, Mike Fink, Davy Crockett, Johnny Applessed, John Henry, and Joe Magarac in a way that stresses the common tall tale elements and should be appealing to upper-elementary school readers. Useful in schools when balanced with some of the more recent and sprightlier stories featuring heroines.

this book was an indepth look at the life of J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. It goes into great depth on his life and his services in the FBI. It is a source for information, however the writing is a bit slow at firslt. overall a great book though!