...I received and read Slow Dark Coming by Harold Covington,one of the best and saviest writers of the current politicalscene. Although a novel, Slow Dark Coming, especially when read onElection Day, Nov. 7th, in the United States . had a very chillingeffect. It gave to me a very deep, profound reality check.

It'sabout Matt Redmond, an honest cop, like Serpico (remember him) whoretires from the DEA because he can no longer take ...[what] occurs injust about every law enforcement agency. As a former NYC cop who wasfurloughed in the 70,s this book is a must read for all those in lawenforcement, and all those who are in the dirty game of politics. Youmay not like what you read, but Harold Covington, tells it like itis. Take it or leave it. But believe it. This is what the game isabout. And sometimes the truth hurts. Read this book and find out. Amust read.

H. A. Covington's "Slow Coming Dark" has everything: fast pace, fascinating characters, villainous villains and heroic heroes. This formula can really be a trite template for a boring screed in the hands of a mediocre writer, but Covington is able to grab the reader's attention right from the beginning and hold it until the last page. You don't have to be an anti-Clintonista to enjoy this book. The ending is both tragic and intriguing. I hope we will see more Matt Redmond novels from Mr. Covington in the future.

I was a supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton through thick and thin, until about three weeks ago when they finally crossed my own personal bottom line by blatantly selling a pardon to a major white collar criminal for camnpaign cash, and then by their looting of our nation's White House like fleeing 18th-century monarchs one step ahead of the mob with pitchforks and torches. Their whole exit was just TACKY, if you get my drift, so it's possible that I was somehow spiritually ready to read H. A. Covington's "Slow Coming Dark." I am among the last of the card-carrying old fashioned liberals and Mr. Covington has not changed that one iota, but hot damn! this is a great read! Looked at just purely as an adventure story, it's got everything: a beautiful heroine in danger, a big strong hero, really villainous villains and good sidekicks, action out the wazoo plus a bizarre but interesting romance angle between Tori and Tony. Liberal or not, I found this book to be just plain FUN. Gonna try "Fire and Rain" next.

This is a very well researched, even-handed study of the entire Clinton impeachment and trial episode. Often, the books examining this topic are clearly ideological (for example, Schippers horribly written, self-serving "Sell Out"). Baker does a great job of providing insight on the various stages of the events that made up this time in our nation's history. He does this by having almost unparalled access to the thoughts and conversations of the major players. For example, what better way to know what various Senators were thinking during the trial than to examine journals and notes belonging to those Senators? Due to his excellent reputation for veracity and fairness, Baker was given access to such sources (e.g., Senator Collins' impeachment diary) and to conversations normally kept private from reporters/researchers. If you are a student of history, of Clinton, or of Congress, this book is a must read. Personally, I've read most of the impeachment books, and this is the best. What is most amazing is the insight into the way the events actually unfolded; the public gets to see (often for the first time) how very differently things could have gone if only one person had done something, or said something, differently. For example, had DeLay decided not to wage his "let's impeach" crusade; had several moderate republicans been approached differently, had Clinton (at several points) shown actual contrition, impeachment and/or a trial may have never occurred. Great book!

This is the book I hoped would one day be written about Clinton's impeachment, going behind the scenes to tell us what was happening when the cameras were off. I never expected this kind of book would emerge so soon - I figured we'd be stuck with one-sided rants from entrenched individuals like Jeffrey Toobin on one side and David Schippers on the other, for quite a while. Peter Baker does an excellent job of covering the aspect of Clinton's impeachment saga that I was most interested in: the machinations in the House, Senate and White House once the Starr Report was literally dropped off at the House of Representatives up through the saddest example of jury nullification in our times, when the Senate acquitted the impeached 42nd President because they cared more about polls and threats than the facts and the law.

No matter how you felt about Clinton's Impeachment, you will learn a lot from this book. If you were interested in how Clinton's staff felt during this trying time, it's in there. If you were curious about how Democrats in the House and Senate came to the decision to back Clinton, no matter what, it's in there. If you wanted to know how the move to impeach stayed alive despite bumps in the road along the way - such as the midterm elections and Newt Gingrich's resignation - it's in there. If you wondered what it was like for House Managers thrust into a media circus, it's in there.

The Breach will be an excellent source for people studying Clinton's impeachment in the future, but it's also a fun, informative and interesting book for those of us who lived through it. Even if you were glued to the TV the whole time, you'll learn that you missed a lot.

The most significant thing I learned is that Clinton had so many chances to avoid being impeached. The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee were quite reluctant at times. They met with their Democrat counterparts, members of the Clinton defense team and others to find some sort of suitable substitute for impeachment that would withstand constitutional scrutiny yet still have some meaning. These efforts were fruitless mainly because President Clinton and his representatives chose to go to political war rather than accept an iota of responsibility.

In the end, perhaps Clinton should be grateful. If not for the impeachment, his presidency would be a lot like the 90's sitcom Seinfeld: about nothing. For the President who searched like crazy for a legacy, this is a big part of it. And Peter Baker has done an excellent job. This is a substantive must-read book for anyone interested in this episode.

Baker does an exceptional job of chronicling one of the most explosive scandals in Presidential history. His account is thorough and reasoned, and his prose flows like a good novel.

For all of us who followed the story on the evening news, it's interesting to see the real story behind the headlines, especially how slyly the Democrats orchestrated the entire impeachment process in their favor. In fact, I was astounded to read how the Republicans tried, more or less in earnest, to resolve the matter in a non-partisan fashion while the Democrats did everything in their power to polarize the issue and then play themselves as the victims of partisan politics--"win by losing", as Gephart aptly put it. Interesting indeed . . . Also of note is Baker's observations on President Clinton, how he was unable to admit he did anything wrong, how his own party, Cabinet and closest aides believed he deliberately lied under oath, how difficult it was for those who stood up for him to admit they had been had . . . Fascinating!

Overall, a very well-documented, even-handed book by Baker. Well worth the read.

If you are going to read "The Federalist Papers," you must also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers" in order to get the complete picture. Both books cross-reference each other and both are instrumental in understanding how our government was designed and how it was intended to work. In addition to the Papers, this edition also contains the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and an excellent introduction by Charles Kesler.

In a time when each colony had its own "constitution," the Federalists believed in creating one strong centralized government (with one Constitution) that could effectively represent the people. The authors and supporters of the Constitution knew that they could not afford to lose the vote in the state ratifying conventions. In an effort to win over his home state (New York), Alexander Hamilton, with the assistance of James Madison and John Jay, began a collection of 85 essays and published them under the pseudonym of "Publius" (named after one of the founders and heroes of the Roman republic, Publius Valerius Publicola). The Papers, published in 1787 and 1788, analyze and defend the proposed Constitution of the United States.

The Federalists succeeded in winning the colonists' support. But, even though the anti-federalists lost, their ideas were also brilliant and made an important contribution to the history of our government, which is why you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers."

This book is a must-read for all Americans. After reading this book, you will have a renewed appreciation and admiration for the wisdom and vision of our founding fathers.

If you are going to read "The Federalist Papers," you must also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers" in order to get the complete picture. Both books cross-reference each other, and both are instrumental in understanding how our government was designed and how it was intended to work. In addition to the Papers, this edition also contains the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and an excellent introduction by Charles Kesler.

In a time when each colony had its own "constitution," the Federalists believed in creating one strong centralized government (with one Constitution) that could effectively represent the people. The authors and supporters of the Constitution knew that they could not afford to lose the vote in the state ratifying conventions. In an effort to win over his home state (New York), Alexander Hamilton, with the assistance of James Madison and John Jay, began a collection of 85 essays and published them under the pseudonym of "Publius" (named after one of the founders and heroes of the Roman republic, Publius Valerius Publicola). The Papers, published in 1787 and 1788, analyze and defend the proposed Constitution of the United States.

Obviously, the Federalists succeeded in winning the colonists' support. But even though the anti-federalists lost, their ideas were also brilliant and made an important contribution to the history of our government, which is why you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers."

This book is a must-read for all Americans. After reading this book, you will have a renewed appreciation and admiration for the wisdom and vision of our founding fathers.

Read this and understand the true thoughts and meaning behind the Constitution and its Amendments, its interesting to read how the founding fathers interpreted what they wrote in a very different way then the courts and federal gestapo interprete them today. Especially of interest is the paper oon the true meaning of the term "for the general welfare" which has been used to allow all sorts of power grabs from the nuts in Washington, and which has been interpreted completly contrary to what the founding fathers intended. Be a true patriot, read this book.

After reading "Benjamin Franklin", he would be the one person -- dead or living -- who would make the most fascinating dinner guest for an evening. His list of accomplishments is practically endless: printer, writer, philosopher, postmaster general, inventor, scientist, diplomat, statesman, traveler, and conversationalist. The majority of people who are ultimately successful have a key talent in one area, focus on that talent, and rise to the top. It is so inexplicably rare to find someone of such vast talent who also excels in all his (her) talents. Benjamin Franklin was such a gifted individual and, thankfully for our nation, focused much of his energy and time into serving the public. Carl Van Doren has written an incredibly well-researched biography of one of our key founding fathers. Van Doren's style can sometimes be dry and too academic, but keep in mind that this book was initially published in 1938. Today's reader may expect a more conversational tone and faster moving story. However, Carl Van Doren's biography is heroic in its effort and the author's admiration clearly shines through for Mr. Franklin.

This remarkable, scholarly, and readable book brings the reader face-to-face with what seems an impossible life. The usual picture we get in school is intriguing, but here we meet a man whose range is staggering. Franklin the young, self-educated adventurer, writer, apprentice. Franklin the printer, entrepreneur, community activist. Franklin the pioneering scientist, delegate, historical visionary. Franklin the publisher, the spy, the sometimes invisible hand steering the birth of the modern republic. The inventor of a musical instrument that Mozart and others composed for. The outrageous wit who shocked Abigail and John Adams. Franklin the friend, free-thinker, and moralist. Creator of the stove, the lightning rod, the watertight compartment for ships' hulls. The first to understand how weather systems move, and ocean currents, and continents. Designer of roadways to connect the colonies and then the nation. Richly incorporating excerpts of Franklin's own voluminous writing, Van Doren's account is clearly factual, yet appropriately awed and inspired by a man "unsurpassed . . . in the range of his gifts or the important to which he put them."

"Benjamin Franklin" is a wonderfully written biography of perhaps the greatest American who ever lived. Author Carl Van Doren presents a rich and detailed portrait of Franklin - printer, writer, philosopher, scientist, inventor, politician, statesman, and one of the founding fathers of the United States of America.

By tracing the major influences on Franklin, and the key events of his life, Van Doren presents this self-educated genius as the apotheosis of the 18th century "Enlightened" man. Imbued with an insatiable intellectual appetite, a keen scientific mind, a high sense of morality, and a fervent patriotism, he was shrewd, wise, witty, and always confident in his own limitless abilities. The author describes in detail the great events of Franklin's life - his youth and young adulthood as a printer and writer of Poor Richard's Almamack; the philosopher, scientist and inventor of note; Postmaster General for Pennsylvania, and later for all the colonies; representative of the American colonies to Great Britain at the time of the American Revolution; signer of the Declaration of Independence; U.S. Ambassador to France after the Revolution; and signer of the U.S. Constitution.

As good a biography as this is, "Benjamin Franklin" is also outstanding history. Van Doren skillfully "paints" Franklin's portrait against the backdrop of the tremendous social ferment, scientific awakening, and tumultuous political events which occurred during the second half of the 18th century. I gained not only a fuller understanding of Franklin's life and great genius, but also a greater appreciation of the times in which he lived.

"Benjamin Franklin" is written with grace, clarity and obviously great scholarship. Winner of the 1959 Pulitzer Prize for biography, it is a brilliant masterpiece - one of the best biographies of any person I've ever read!

David Maraniss has written a gripping account of Bill Clinton's rise to power. It is a testament to the quality of his work that there is no feeling of partisanship. The picture that emerges is one of a thoroughly determined, charming and intelligent individual. Maraniss examines also what kept him motivated and more precisely, who. Detailed accounts of his mother and stepfather, of Hillary and his peers are invaluable to help us understand this highly complex character. What I found most interesting about the book was the extreme emotions that I felt about Clinton. At first, one can only feel admiration and respect for the southern boy who made his way to Georgetown, Oxford and Yale Law with the brightest in the country. However, power corrupts and as Clinton starts his political ascension, he becomes less and less of a sympathetic character. I couldn't give this book five stars for a variety of reasons. While accounts of education and early life are undoubtedly useful guides, Maraniss should have focused more on Clinton's political career. It only starts roughly three quarters into the book... Finally, the book ends with Clinton announcing his candidacy for president in 1991. Surely, we could have gotten a glimpse of the toughest campaign of his life. Nonetheless, brilliant book which you should buy to understand the man who has presided over such prosperity and created such controversy.

This book tells a story of Clinton's past and his road to power. It is also a touching family story with some impressive psychological insights. One of the features of this book: you can't help but think that the author is a decent person. The devil is in the details, and the author's attention to the detail is impressive. It is obvious that it is difficult sometimes and takes effort, but Mr. Maraniss manages to give us a balanced account of the events-packed life of the mercurial president. Accounts on Clinton's tempo tantrums and his hot-temper were news for me. In the end, combination of idealism of the Wilsonian kind with Machiavellian pragmatism was, I think, crucial in bringing him to power. Wilsonian idealism is not a pose, but genuine attitude based on conviction; Machiavelliaism - what politics is all about - was easily adopted or learned from Hillary Rodham and Dick Morris. This is a dangerous combination, but it also brings success. Sometimes this success could be short-lived, as in case of Woodrow Wilson. Clinton is the most successful person in America today. How can we blame success? Will we be blaming it tomorrow?

I did not read this book until a few weeks ago, long after David Maraniss was being interviewed on almost every cable news show on almost a daily basis. My impression from the interviews (unfortunately shaped almost entirely by the tone of the interviewers' questions) was that this was just another hatchet job done on the Clintons by just another right-wing hatchet man a la David Brock and his ilk. Whoa! Not so! This is a fine and well researched exploration of much of Bill Clinton's life up to 1993. I have known the former president and his first lady since he ran for congress in 1974, and we have many friends in common here in Arkansas, an awfully lot of whom are women (I am an Ob/Gyn.) While I have heard the ugly rumors of Bill's infidelity for most of the 27 years I have known them, I've yet to meet or take a medical history from any woman who ever admitted that Bill Clinton ever made an in apprpriate move on her. I know dozens with whom he flirted over the years, most of whom were highly attracted to him and more than a few who, like Paula Jones, would probably have been willing to be his "girlfriend." But as far as I know, his reputation as a roue, at least since 1982 or 83, is vastly overstated. And given the intense scrutiny he has been under all that time, I suspect that he has had far fewer amorous adventures in the past 19 or 20 years than the average national politician on either the left of the right. But back to Maraniss' book - I found it eminently fair and balanced. Certainly Clinton has some unattractive traits, but he has never been mean, cowardly, vicious, nor even hypocritical (at least not when judged by current Republican standards.) Nor has he been venal, judgemental, or vendictive, as so many of his enemies have been. Certainly Clinton, like all of us, has made mistakes in his life. One can't live a life so active and involved as his and not hurt some or disappoint others, even while trying to do the best one can. Maraniss accurately caught his compassion and his empathetic nature, neither of which is phony (unlike the pseudo-compassion and faked empathy of our "compassionately conservative" current resident of the White House.) This book should be compulsory reading for Clinton haters and for aspiring politicians. Unfortunately, we may not see his equal again in the White House for a long, long time. Probably the greatest tragedy for this country and for Clinton's presidency was the ascendency in Arkansas of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, whose editorial policies make those of the Wall Street Journal look positively progressive, even benign. The editorialists and columnist of this newspaper propagated and promoted rumors and outright lies about the Clinton's to the national media for the duration of his presidency and both national campaigns. Unfortunately, Maraniss doesn't pick up on this aspect of the "Clinton scandals" any better than did the New York Times or the Washington Post, and therefor gives as much credence to many of the lies and rumors as did the Office of the Independent Council. Had he checked a little further, he might have come to many of the same conclusions as do Gene Lyons and Joe Conason in their fine book, The Hunting of the President. However, for what it is, it is a fine book and a real contribution to the historical record, which will treat Bill and Hillary Clinton with far greater respect than it will treat most of their detractors.

I found this book to answer the mystery of the Iran-Contra/Mena, Arkansas drug smuggling operation. Having read "Under Fire" by Oliver North and this book I find it quite obvious who's lying. Terry Reed, a CIA operative, who thought he was serving an honest government, is compelled to expose the corruption that he himself encountered. Whereas, Oliver North in his book COVERS it all up. We should be thankful for Terry Reed's courage to bring this information out. This book corroborates the documentary, "Mena Cover-up". A man who follows his conscience should never be bound to secrecy when that secrecy only hides corruption. May more COURAGEOUS men and women who have vowed "to secrecy" STAND up!

As I read this work, it became so compelling that I couldn't
wait to wake up to read more. I found myself yelling at Terry
and his wife throughout the book - "No, don't do that!" Knowing
not exactly what was waiting for them in the future - but knowing
it wasn't going to be good.

What was amazing was how they "played his ego", "played his
ambition" and generally opted out when questions that made sense
were asked. Who is ever to know if any or all of this story
is or was true. What is important is: It makes too much sense!

The methodology and policies Mr. Reed explains about the Agency
is terrific. Especially, the Barry Seal flights - which tends
to explain a lot of other "so called" mysterious plane crashes
around the world.

Compromised has changed my life, because it not only brought
lots of new information, but confirmed all my worst fears!

I read this book twice when it was first published. The deals described in this book anticipate many events, such as the political elevation of George H. Bush's sons (yes, I voted for George W. Bush)and the protection enjoyed by Clinton during his presidency. Terry Reed is an American hero with the guts to reveal the truth.

Whether your predilection is liberal or conservative, you must agree that the death of Vincent Foster was most unusual. Christopher Ruddy focuses on these unusual circumstances in a compelling narrative that reveals the possibility of obstruction of justice both within and outside the White House. I read the book cover to cover without putting it down. The thing I liked most about Ruddy's treatment was the fact that he did not confuse the reader by inserting his own beliefs into the book. He states the facts, but doesn't draw the obvious conclusions. He allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. If you like a good murder mystery; if you like a good conspiracy drama; if you like to believe that someone still cares about the Constitution, you'll like this book.

Christopher Ruddy has written a well-documented account of a very disturbing incident. You will no doubt be amazed at some of the facts that he mentions.

For instance, Foster's eyeglasses were found about 20 feet from his body. Sounds logical: he must have thrown them before the suicide. But actually, the glasses had gunpowder residue on them.

It was also claimed that Foster walked through Fort Marcy Park, which consists of a dirt path. Of course, no dirt or grass stains were found on Foster's shoes.

The Park Police searched Foster at the scene and found no keys on him. But his 1989 Honda was parked there. Later, at the morgue, not one but TWO sets of keys were found on Foster. A nurse there said that Messrs. Livingstone and Kennedy arrived before the Police to identify the body.

Or the gun. When Foster's wife was shown the gun, she said she didn't recognize it.

I could go on and on. Read this book and find out the truth. It's an excellent piece of work.

Ruddy has extensively researched his topic and is to be congratulated for all the work he put into this book. A top-notch mystery if it were only fiction, however, as true-crime, it is frightening. Ruddy demonstrates how power can so easily be abused in a well-written, moderately easy-to-understand book. The reader must approach this book with an open mind, study the evidence the author presents and come to his/her own conclusion. There are dozens of inconsistencies regarding Mr. Foster's death, and Mr. Ruddy examines them all. I was appalled at one particular incident he relates. If a good friend of mine suffered death under questionable circumstances, I would want a detailed investigation, however, the White House kept pushing to "hurry up," "wrap it up." Even the most avid Clinton-lover will have to admit that "something's rotten in the state of Washington, DC." Perhaps when this administration is out-of-office and no longer in power, someone will finally tell the truth. Ruddy is very courageous to name names, quote documents and testimony extensively. He has been blacklisted by the White House. How much more do we need to know?

In the preface to this meditation on presidential substance and style, Author David Gergen makes one of the great understatements of our time: "I do not promise that these thought will be strikingly original." As Gergen predicts, this book shows little imagination, and he could just as easily have written that he is, in fact, presenting an extended exercise in the conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, Gergen worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, as well as on President Bush's campaign, and with President Carter after he left office. As a result, Gergen has had the opportunity to know every chief executive of the United States since1969, and he must have some insights into the essential elements of presidential leadership. At least that is what I expected.

What I am about to do is a bit unfair because I am taking Gergen's words out of context, but here are a few examples of Gergen's less-than-incisive observations: "Like so much else in the Nixon operation, the zeal to win, to control every detail, to make the trains run on time, went completely overboard;" "Jerry Ford had a mind of his own about what he wanted;" "There was a continual jockeying for power and for Reagan's ear;" and "Clinton had slipped on one banana peel after another." Gergen is one of the current crop of journalists who have raised political punditry to an art form. He is not Walter Lippmann, but neither is Gergen, a graduate of Harvard Law School, an ink-stained wretch or a hack. And that is why I expected more from him.

Why does this book fail to provide depth of insight? This is what I suspect happened: The publisher, and perhaps Gergen himself, wanted to get it into print during the 2000 campaign. The text covers a lot of ground, and given the self-imposed deadline pressure, there simply was not time for judicious rewriting and careful editing. As a result, a lot of the prose is flabby, and there is at least one embarrassing gaffe, when Gergen refers to "Mr. Chips goes to Washington." (Film enthusiasts certainly will recognize "Mr. Chips" as the much-beloved English schoolteacher, while "Mr. Smith" was the unsophisticated senator.) Nevertheless, I believe that this is a good book which has the potential for greatness. For instance, about midway through the book, Gergen writes: "At the heart of leadership is the leader's relationship with followers." That may border on triteness, but I believe it is an important concept. If Gergen had carefully examined the leader-follower relationship for each of the presidents he studies, we might have gained real insight into how the public decides who will lead and then how the president goes about leading. Instead, too much of this book is devoted to inside-the-Beltway blather. The descriptive chapters of this book are, therefore, somewhat disappointing. The final chapter, entitled "Seven Lessons of Leadership," is prescriptive but also less than persuasive. For instance, Gergen asserts that "integrity is the most important [personal attribute] for a president." That may be a valuable principle for a civics class, but I submit that it has little to do with practical reality. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were well known for their ethical lapses and each got elected president twice. Jimmy Carter was a man of high character but a nearly utter failure as president. And telling us the president must have a "capacity to persuade," tells us little we do not already know. No one can get nominated, let alone elected, without the power of persuasion, but some presidents are better preachers from the bully pulpit than others. The question, of course is: Why? For all of his experience in public life, Gergen has not yet given enough thought to the lessons he can draw from that experience.

Sometime before the election of 2004, I urge Gergen to return to his computer, cut the text by about one-third, but triple the penetrating analysis. The result, I predict, would be a genuine contribution to the popular literature about what it takes to be a leader in the most powerful elected office in the world.

David Gergen has written a very worthwhile book even if his conclusions are not very original (in the introduction, Gergen admits this himself). The New Republic has called Gergen the guardian of Washington's conventional wisdom (and they meant it as a compliment). Eyewitness to Power is in keeping with this fine tradition, and doesn't stray much beyond it.

Essentially, Gergen offers his inside assessment of the four Presidents he has served -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. His account of the Nixon years is very balanced, but the most distant of all: as a mid-level staffer in an Administration that limited access to the Oval Office, Gergen could only get so close. Nonetheless, his informed speculation about both the grandiose aspirations and the dark side of Richard Nixon is enlightening and poignant. How could a man who accomplished so much feel so insecure as to pursue that catastrophic a course of action against his political opponents? We will never know, but Gergen lays out the evidence nicely.

The Reagan section is really the only place where Gergen can be faulted for not including more reflections on his day-to-day experiences. As a former top aide in the Reagan White House, one would expect more in the way of such recollections. For the most part, though, Gergen spends his time synthesizing others' accounts of Reagan, and fortunately, he does an excellent job of it. Though perhaps not his primary purpose in this book, Gergen proves his worth as an historian.

Only during the Clinton years do we get any sort of "kiss-and-tell" accounts. Beyond the titilating forebodings of Monica, Gergen does give the serious reader useful revelations on the early Clinton White House: how Clinton's flawed transition hobbled his ability to govern, how the youthful Arkansas Governor viewed the '92 campaign as a practice run for 1996, how Clinton had never expected to win early on, and how this hurt him when he got to the White House. Because the Clinton section is so short on the historical inquiry that dominate the book's earlier sections, Eyewitness to Power is a somewhat skizophrenic -- but still valuable -- work.

I read this book knowing that Gergen had worked (mostly in the communications area) with four presidents -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. He has always impressed as a intelligent, fair-minded commentator on the political scene who is not overtly partisan, always a good thing in a commentator. This book helped maintained the tradition, in that it gavce what I though were very fair portraits of the presidents Gerger worked with -- sometime admiring, sometimes not.

The book has a number of strengths. Part of is political history, part biography. You a get sense from reading the books of what the times were in which each president served and what the public expected and got from them. He is quite frank in discussing what the strengths and weaknesses of the presidents were (with some side reflections on Carter and Bush) and tries to sort out why some presidents are successful and others not. I found most of his appraisals (one at a time and then in summary) both well-articualted and generally convincing.

I know one reviewer here says Gergen namedrops -- I don't think he does. He is mostly telling an "I was there" story and then giving his sense of what it all meant. He is in no way aggrandizing or trying to clain an unreasoable role for himself.

For me, the best part of the books was discussion of what makes a president effective (admittedly something that changes with time). It seems to a mix of character, ability to connect with people, and in terms of leadership, the ability to focus on a few issues (esepcially early in a term) and to build consensus in the country. These are good lessons (told well) that I hope our next president understands.

My one hope on this book is that Gergen revisits it or at least fills us in some forum us on how the new president is doing. The book is a nice mix of history and an interpretation of presidential leadership.

This is a beautiful book documenting the life of a President. The photographer, Robert McNeely, did a great job in choosing photographs that depict the life of a president. It is apparent that McNeely choose shots that he thought would draw a reader into the book, versus standard press shots or pictures that have ran in thousands of magazines and newspapers. I was a disappointed that McNeely didn't elaborate more on the pictures and tell about the events that led to the picture being taken or what happened after the picture was taken. McNeely does give some insight into the Clinton presidency in the endnotes of his book. In all a great book and a different view of the presidency.

Like him, love him, or hate him, few could deny that Mr. Clinton is an interesting and complex individual. President Clinton's need for and ease with personal contact with practically any person comes through loud and clear through these behind-the-scenes photos of Robert McNeely. Clinton's comfort with small children and world leaders comes through wordlessly in these photographs and they present a different view of Bill Clinton's political life and presidency heretofore not seen in the media. I believe this coffee table book of photographs would make interesting viewing and reading for anyone who, like me, is intrigued about a person who became President.

Although the pictures are of Clinton, this book is not about him.

In that respect the title is accurate. The Clinton Years is not about Clinton -- it's an inside look at the last eight years.

Regardless of political leanings, this book is about America and the people behind the curtain that make it work. Not many people have an opportunity to see any President in candid moments of success and failure. Now we have that chance.

McNeely is a talented photographer and his skills are on display here. He does well to make the viewer an eyewitness to American History as it plays out through the President. Colin Powell, Al Gore, Hillary, and Janet Reno are just a few notables frozen by McNeely's lens as they interact with Clinton.

If you don't appreciate the power and intrigue of a President --whether Kennedy, Regan, Nixon or Clinton -- this book will not do anything for you. But if you do appreciate the mystique of American Presidents, you're going to miss something if you do not sit down with this book and walk through the past eight years with our last President.

This book by political scientist Fred Greenstein is the first I've read focusing, not on presidential achievement but on effective leadership. Using a series of criteria including vision, cognitive ability, management style and most importantly emotional intelligence, Greenstein looks briefly yet closely at each president from FDR through Clinton with a special afterword on George W. Bush. (pre 9/11) Greenstein chronicles the successes and failings of each president he profiles. Roosevelt receives the highest regards for his ability to translate his popularity into bold leadership. His secretive and manipulative management style is condemmed. Truman is praised for his management style but criticized for his inability at times to lead the nation along the lines of his vision. There is truth to this criticism but Greenstein doesn't look at external facotrs that effected Truman's ability to govern such as the Republican demagoguery of the Democrats as "soft on communism". Eisenhower is highly praised, and properly so, for his strong management style and his strong, quiet leadership. Kennedy gets deserved criticism for his early failings but not enough credit for his later growth. One thing Kennedy is properly criticized for, in my view, is his overreliance on intellectuals, something that would plague Clinton as well. After Kennedy we have a series of failed presidents, with Ford excepted. The common denominator between Johnson, Nixon and Carter are their weak emotional intelligence quotas. All are thin skinned, unable to work well with others, naturally suspicious of those outside their circle. Clinton too is regarded as weak emotionally. Greenstein's thesis is that persons of low emotional intelligence should not become president as it is a recipe for failure. Interestingly, in his brief comments on President Bush, written before Sept. 11, 2001, he predicts, based on his observations of Bush's steady emotional inner core, that he will be a strong and succesful leader. You don't have to agree with Greenstein's entire analysis to appreciate the achievement of this book. It is refreshing to read a book about the presidency that moves beyond Arthur Schlesinger's tired and outdated theory of active and passive presidents. A good read and I highly recommend it.

The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton.

Professor Greenstein has provided us with a highly readable book with much sound analysis of the Presidency and the last eleven men who have held the most powerful political office in the world. Each President is given a chapter that covers the essentials of his presidency and each ends with a summation of its importance under the heading of 1/ Public Communication, 2/ Organisational Technique, 3/ Political Skill, 4/ Vision, 5/ Cognitive Style, 6/ Emotional Intelligence. This is a vast subject and the author's discipline is remarkable in keeping within his tight framework. Although there are moments where the reader may wish that he had succumbed to some of the more seductive questions.

FDR emerges as he usually does, as the effortless president- a man whose exquisite political touch was applied at just the right moment and whose guile was limitless. Yet his style may have led to destructive competition between members of his staff. Truman effectively gets a roasting - man better suited to the politics of his home state of Missouri than to the national stage, while Eisenhower is the 'Clark Kent' of American presidents whose skills have only recently been recognised. The point where many readers will part company with the author's conclusions is where he asserts that Kennedy lacked vision. This view is supported by Kennedy's lack of a consistent approach to the Soviet Union, which presumably represents the lack of a sound underlying political philosophy. This startling claim is further undermined when the author claims later that Reagan did indeed have 'vision'. Worse still, this latter claim is scantily justified by Reagan's opposition to communism. On that basis Senator Joe McCarthy had vision. The author mentions how Bush was uncomfortable with the 'stridency of Regan's early anti Soviet pronouncements' and that during Reagan's second term he reached out to Gorbachev. No such generosity of interpretation is extended to Kennedy- a mere three years in office. This contentious conclusion does require more justification. As it stands, few will be entirely comfortable with a description of Kennedy as lacking 'vision'. Was there no vision behind the Test Ban treaty of 1963? Was the author (and most now accept that he was indeed the author) of the Pulitzer prize winning Profiles in Courage lacking in 'vision'? There is a broader reservation about this book -at times the author makes comparisons between Presidents that seem to give insufficient weight to their differing circumstances- as if comparisons can be made across the decades of the office and its occupant. As if every president was armed with the same resources and faced comparable foes- as though the presidency existed in a vacuum. Again, if we look at Kennedy and Reagan. The former faced a Soviet Union much more virulent and about which much less was known than was the case in the final years of the latter's presidency. There is little evaluation of the limitations imposed by the policy inheritance of a president's predecessor or indeed of the very obvious factor of single and double term presidencies. A president, mindful of re-election. is likely to be cautious in the more contentious areas in his first term. In an era where overwhelmingly historians are devoted to mass movements and long term trends, it is refreshing to have a view that stresses the importance of the character of the chief executive. But can comparisons between presidents ever be more than superficial? Can we pretend that Truman's experience of dismissing McArthur and paying heavily politically for it, can ever really be reproduced? After all, there is only one McArthur in American history. Can we pretend that the civil rights challenge facing Johnson was comparable to that faced by FDR? The exceptional considerations of every presidency make comparisons beyond the superficial, very difficult indeed. Ford emerges as a solid president, who did not allow the pressures of office to affect him and who was not burdened by many of the emotional problems of the others. Ford is also credited with many new imaginative departures in presidential administration. The author does not however reflect on the irony that Ford was never elected to the oval office - either as president or vice president (having replaced Agnew) and the greater irony is that he was selected for the VP position by Nixon-the most flawed president of the 20th century! The other underlying assumption that causes concern is that of completeness of picture. Eisenhower, seemingly detached during his presidency has since been revealed through the release of materials as an astute political operator aware of every political development. The slow-drip release of records relating to Nixon confirms him to be worse than imagined and Truman who boasted that he did not lie awake worrying at night has since been revealed as a man as burdened as any by the weight of his office. How then can we evaluate Bush and Clinton, the latter still in the Oval Office when this book was published?

The author does promise in his first chapter that he has considered each president on his own merits as a flesh and blood individual and that presidents and those who select them will benefit if they do not 'begin with a blank slate'. Although some readers may question whether the author has given enough weight to the changing America each president faced and sought to lead and although many may disagree with a few of his conclusions, most will agree that he has, on balance, succeeded in providing some new insights into the strengths and weaknesses of character that helped and hindered the last eleven presidents.

Fred I. Greenstein's "The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton", is a lucid and thoughtful accoount of the modern presidency. Greenstein has managed to put into a brief book a comprehensive and well-researched critique of the eleven presidents which he studies. By using such important characteristics such as organizational skills, vision, emotional intelligence, and political skills, (there are others) Greenstein provides an effective backdrop with which to critique the eleven men who occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over the last 63 years. Greenstein is also careful to point out both strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner. This is especially true of FDR, who tends to be blindly praised by some historians without any thoughtful analysis of FDR's abilities. Greenstein's observations on Nixon and Ford were, I thought, the best part of the book. His psychoanalytic description of Nixon and how he conducted his relations with his White House staff was especially interesting. Nixon was a man who let his superb political skills get in the way of effectively managing his highly volatile emotions and this may have helped lead to one of the most politically damaging scandals in our nation's history. Greenstein's interpretation of the Ford presidency is also refreshing in that he treats Ford as a lesson in crisis management. Ford's term in office was more than some uneventful interregnum. Ford had superb organizational skills which became evident in the wake of the Watergate scandal and his brief term in office was ended only due to Carter's populist appeal for Washington outsiders. Greenstein's analyses of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies are original in how he uses the above-named categories to describe them although much of the information can be gleaned from scholarly works already written about these presidencies. What I enjoyed about Greenstein's book is that the author did not fall into the trap of bashing any one president in favor of his personal political preferences. Although I felt his portrayal of Eisenhower was a little too glorified, I thought this was a very informative and thought-provoking book on the modern presidency. Well-done footnotes and an informative appendix wrap up the book. A must for any history bookshelf.