Richard Kennedy Books

Chris Matthews, MSNBC news host, has written a book about the Nixon/Kennedy rivalry. This book is very good at what it attempts to do: an introduction into who these men were, where they came from, and what made them fall.

The book reads more like a courtroom drama than a dusty textbook. I find this feature appealing. If you want a more scholarly work, pass this book up.

"Kennedy and Nixon" is very interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the 60's, the Post-War generation, or the events leading up to Vietnam and Watergate.

The rivalry that existed between Kennedy and Nixon is still relevant. It is the classic rivalry of Caesar and Brutus: friends at first, enemies in the end.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has any of the aforementioned interests.

A reprint of the original edition from 1961; has the look and feel of a classic, especially if you are too poor to own one. Amazing photos of the Kennedy campaign.

This is an extensive account of Graham's influence on many President's attitudes and/or actions and has been needed for a long time. It is particularly appropriate in a time when so many mainstream religions seek to influence government actions. They have lost sight of the importance our constitutional provision--separation of Church and State. It details many incidents of the use of Graham's presence to provide endorsement for unethical decisions.

Joseph Haun
Asheville, NC USA

The title comes from Graham's support for every American war since Korea, but I found the civil rights material most interesting.

Cecil Bothwell portrays Graham as the political opposite of Martin Luther King and says the historical record does not support Graham's recent insistence that he was a friend of King's and of integration, pointing out that Graham "was absent from every civil rights march, rally or celebration over the years."

Sample paragraph: "Graham's frequent claims about King's approval are at odds with King's widely circulated exhortation from the Birmingham jail, in which he categorically condemned the position of clergymen who opposed civil disobedience, took them to task for obeying unjust laws, and spoke at eloquent length about the necessity for those of faith to demand change. He could have been directly rebutting Graham when he wrote, `You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.' "

Bothwell notes that when King was killed 200,000 people attended the funeral. A long list of notables from every field came, the Academy Awards were postponed, and the start of major league baseball was delayed, but Billy Graham did not attend.

I found The Prince of War to be well worth reading.

You can hear the compassion and conviction in Bobby's voices. I have listened to these two tapes many times over... I've read the speeches in text ... but nothing is like listening to Bobby's voice, slightly shaken, slightly rushed, but always genuine and sincere. Bobby Kennedy is an American leader. Though his short life span did not allow him to accomplish enough, his vision and integrity examplified what spiritual growth could be. Even with all the mistakes he might have made, you could never doubt his conviction and his good will towards all mankind. Listen to his voice, not just his words ... and let his voice give you a desire to give more than what you are required ... to live for something greater than ourselves. Even in death, Bobby left the youths of every generation the challenge, a torch to carry on.

According to the United Nations Human Development Report published in 1996, the 358 richest persons on earth control assets equivalent to the annual income of 45 percent of the world's population. In the United States, the top 1 percent of income earners receives 12 percent of the entire country's pretax income and holds 37 percent of the wealth. At the same time, evidence is accumulating that disparities in income have profound social consequences and that the social and economic structure of a society may fundamentally determine the health of its members. The Society and Population Health Reader provides the reader with the original reports on income inequality and its effects on public health.

That being poor is associated with ill health would seem to go without saying. Many studies in the past three decades have established that absolute levels of income or education or class are related to morbidity and mortality. The Whitehall studies of the British civil service, begun in 1967, showed that mortality rates were three times as high among people in the lowest employment grades (porters) than among those in the highest grades (administrators) in a relatively homogeneous population of office-based civil servants who had access to comprehensive health care. The Whitehall studies and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial in the United States show that conventional risk factors (smoking, obesity, inactivity, and high blood pressure) explain only 25 to 35 percent of the differences in mortality rates among persons of different incomes. In fact, socioeconomic status is now understood to be the single most powerful determinant of health. This in itself is a stunning notion --one that is overlooked by physicians who are not oriented to population health.

Physicians are accustomed to think of the socioeconomic determinants of disease in terms of an individual person's risk factors. The story, revealed in these collected papers, is more complex. It now seems clear that absolute wealth or income is a less important determinant of health than the relative disparity in income or the income gap between the rich and the poor. Wilkinson is a leading proponent of the relative-income hypothesis. He finds no clear relation between income and health when comparisons are made between countries. For example, there is no relation between the per capita gross domestic product and life expectancy at birth in comparisons among developed countries with similar levels of industrialization.

Wilkinson and now a number of other scientists have, however, found a strong relation between income inequality and health. Countries with the longest life expectancy -- Japan, Iceland, and France -- are not necessarily the wealthiest, but they are the countries with the least income inequality. These relations are not limited to nations but can also be seen at regional and local levels. In the United States, for example, states with the narrowest, most equitable income distributions, such as New Hampshire, have longer life expectancy than less egalitarian states, such as Mississippi and Louisiana.

What connects income inequality to the health of individual persons? Biologic scientists have explored the connections between social rank and biologic determinants of disease, such as immune function and endocrine responses to stress. Several such studies are presented in this book. Social scientists have long asked why some communities have effective institutions, respect for the law, and healthy citizens, whereas others do not. Social capital, defined as civic engagement and mutual trust among community members, may be an important intervening variable between income inequality and health. Communities with high social capital, or cohesiveness, are associated with higher levels of political participation, lower levels of crime and delinquency, and better health status.

The conclusions reached by several of the book's authors, that socially engineered reductions in income inequality might produce substantial health benefits for the population, are certain to provoke controversy. The debate about an assured national income -- dormant for 20 years -- may be revived. The relative-income hypothesis has implications for matters of public policy, including education, poverty, and crime, and the authors suggest specific additional research that is needed to support the development of policy in these areas. Some policy makers are designing programs on the basis of socioeconomic research. Dr. David Satcher, the surgeon general of the United States, has, for example, made the reduction of inequalities in health based on race and class the priority of his office.

The Society and Population Health Reader is organized in four sections, each with an introductory essay that includes study questions and suggestions for further reading, followed by reprints of recent research articles - 40 in all -- as they appeared in the medical literature. About half the articles are by the editors. Although some criticism of the relative-income hypothesis is presented, for the most part, the book reflects the editors' positions. For the general reader who is willing to stay the course and plow through the 40 articles, I cannot think of a better introduction to this fascinating field. This book is uniquely useful for the professional student of these topics or for research scientists developing an interest in the field.

Michael McCally, M.D., Ph.D. Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, NY 10029

Mr. Tofel provides an enjoyable and sympathetic account of how President-elect Kennedy managed the production of this rhetorical bombshell.

Like most presidential speeches, Kennedy's inaugural was a group effort, drawing upon the words and ideas of many gifted people. Tofel does an excellent job of pulling the speech apart, and showing the influence on particular passages of Kennedy's contributors and advisors, and of historical works such as Shakespeare and the Bible.

Lawyers and other communicators will be inspired by Kennedy's ability to fuse all these sources into one of the most invigorating of all Presidential inaugurals.

To be fair, if there were a 3.5 star rating, I'd have chosen that one. Pippi is one heckuva lotta fun. Who can resist a 9-year-old girl who lives in a big house with a monkey, a horse and a suitcase full of money? That's right, no parents! How cool is that!? And then there's Pippi's super-strength. She's an irresistible character.

Though the writing is solid, I wish there were more of a story here. Y'know, let's solve the mystery or find that certain something or expose this nasty person for who he/she really is. But, similar to Stuart Little (but Pippi is much better), the book is simply a series of somewhat unrelated adventures. I like a clear A to B to C in my fiction. Still, it's a good time.

Pippi Longstocking book review
by Astrid Lindgren
Pippi is a little girl who lives in a little house in Villa Villekulla where she meets Tommy and Annika, who become her best friends. Pippi is a strong 9 year old girl who's stronger than a policemen. She also has a monkey named Mr. Nillison. Pippi is always cheerful except when people make fun of her . If you want to find out more you'll have to read the book.

If you want to be a part of an adventure, read the book.
This book is a great fantasy book. I liked this book because Pippi is so funny and brave and I like that Astrid Lindgren used details that made images in my mind. This book is for 2nd grade and up. If you like this book you should read the series!
by Zoe

By Zoe


Pippi Longstocking book review
by Astrid Lindgren
Pippi is a little girl who lives in a little house in Villa Villekulla where she meets Tommy and Annika, who become her best friends. Pippi is a strong 9 year old girl who's stronger than a policemen. She also has a monkey named Mr. Nillison. Pippi is always cheerful except when people make fun of her . If you want to find out more you'll have to read the book.

If you want to be a part of an adventure, read the book.
This book is a great fantasy book. I liked this book because Pippi is so funny and brave and I like that Astrid Lindgren used details that made images in my mind. This book is for 2nd grade and up. If you like this book you should read the series!

The story is good but perhaps a bit boring for children under 7 or 8 years of age. The narrator of the audiobook does a decent job but is not as lively as other narrators I have heard and unfortunately grossly mispronounces the name of one of the three main characters (which, given the number of times she is mentioned, becomes galling).

This is a great book that I bought for my daughter for her last novel of the year.

Chris Matthews is no stranger to anyone interested in American politics, though unfortunately some may be more familiar with the caricature of him on Saturday Night Live than the real Chris Matthews. None of which should matter as far as reading his book, though it does explain the approach he's taken.

The book is easy reading; it's written in decent prose, flows nicely (though there are some unsubtle bits of repetition throughout the text, these are minor, at most a sentence here and there) and is easy to comprehend even if one does not have a hardcore interest in politics. But the reason it flows so well is that it seems superficial in places, and from a scholarly point of view the placement of the notes/sources at the back is frustrating. A good choice for making this a readable and "popular" history, but bad for easily figuring out where Matthews draws his conclusions from. Many of his inferences seem on the face of it to be drawn from thin air, and he steps into the mind of President Kennedy or President Nixon quite readily at times, leaving one to wonder if he has taken an enormous amount of liberty or not.

Nonetheless, for someone with no background at all in the history of these two political careers, the book does draw on a lot of fascinating information. The emphasis is firmly on how the two careers influenced each other. Even if all one did was read the photo captions, that reader would come away with a new and unique perspective on the events of the 1950s-1970s in American history.

The book treats many of the events superficially, however; familiar and dramatic events are discussed briefly (the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is breezed through in a page or so) and others are conspicuous by their absence (no mention of the missing 18-1/2 minutes?).

The largest criticism is that the book is drawn from secondary sources. Of necessity, naturally, since the two main subjects have passed on. However, despite a functional telling of how they became elected to their various offices, we never really learn why. Their ambition is taken as a given and I think Matthews' background as a political observer may have been a stumbling block here; his knowledge of the subject matter, the political world, the reason why either man would do something in a particular situation for a political motive, is so ingrained, he probably sees no reason to explain it to a layperson audience. But for someone outside the political realm with little idea of the very different world that these power brokers lived in, it becomes very hard to relate to the naked ambition of these historical figures, and Matthews does little to help the reader understand why anything is happening. In that regard the book comes across as pedantic.

The book also presents all the events of the era through the lens of the rivalry; the other influences - particularly during the Nixon presidency - are hardly discussed at all, and Matthews tries too hard to make his point that his fear of the Kennedy family drove everything he did, when other sources suggest that other forces were also at least occasionally at work.

Still, there is much food for thought here, and the book should please both the serious student of the eras involved, as well as those doing some light reading.

It is an interesting and most revealing book about how US was changed under these two people's leadership and quest for power. That being said, the universal truth is that no matter how high politicians speak in any country, their ultimate personal goal, which is to attain and retain power decides the destiny of nations, perhaps the world.

Matthews provides a balanced and fair, if superficial, examination of Nixon and Kennedy. As an avid studier of this era of politics, and Nixon in particular, I didn't learn a whole lot that I did not already know. But this book, I don't think, is meant to provide the function of in-depth scholarly research. It's pleasant fluff, for people who might be interested in learning a little bit about Nixon and Kennedy, but don't want to invest too much energy and brain power. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think we all have subjects we'd like to know a little bit more about, but don't necessarily want to make a major scholarly investment in.

Matthews' writing style is easily digestible and entertaining, even if it does make you think that Matthews might just be as stupid in real life as he appears on TV. He also provides a solid and fair account free of egregious errors. If anything, I might be inclined to believe he has a slight bias towards Nixon and against Kennedy in terms of their respective treatments. Despite Watergate, and my own liberal leanings, I tend to have a similar bias so it didn't bother me. Nevertheless, Kennedy and especially Nixon are both fascinating figures, and Matthews does a credible job of capturing what makes the both of them so interesting. In short, I'd give this book a fairly mild recommendation, with the understanding that there are better books about each figure out there, and Matthews does not provide any crucial, original, or insightful analysis. It is good for the person with a mild interest, who'd like to know a bit more about Kennedy and Nixon, but who does not have the time or energy for something heftier.

Chris Matthews, MSNBC news host, has written a book about the Nixon/Kennedy rivalry. This book is very good at what it attempts to do: an introduction into who these men were, where they came from, and what made them fall.

The book reads more like a courtroom drama than a dusty textbook. I find this feature appealing. If you want a more scholarly work, pass this book up.

"Kennedy and Nixon" is very interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the 60's, the Post-War generation, or the events leading up to Vietnam and Watergate.

The rivalry that existed between Kennedy and Nixon is still relevant. It is the classic rivalry of Caesar and Brutus: friends at first, enemies in the end.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has any of the aforementioned interests.

Chris Matthews, the host of Hardball, clearly composed a masterwork in "Nixon & Kennedy". The book is well written and manages to take a non-partisan look at the rivalry. While the book is clearly not a complete biography of either man's life, the unique angle of the politcal rivalry between these men should be pleasing to readers of history.

Nixon and Kennedy could not be more different in their backgrounds. Kennedy came from a wealthy background, while Nixon was not nearly as fortunate. Despite their differences, they developed a mutual admiration for one another after they entered congress in 1947. Both Nixon and Kennedy were viewed as up and comers for their respective parties, curious as to who would go farther in his career first.

Their rivalry came to a tragic end when JFK was assassinated in 1963. Yet the rivalry lived on through other member of the Kennedy family. First, the spector of Bobby Kennedy running off of his brother's legacy frightened Nixon. RFK's assassination would extinguish any Nixon versus RFK poltical battles before they came to fruition. Without a Kennedy in the way, Nixon was able to win the White House.

Even after the first term in office, Nixon's biggest threat was another Kennedy. While Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations were evaporated by a car accident, Nixon continued to feel threatened. These feelings of inferiority led Nixon's administration to the dirty deeds involved in Watergate. Ironically, Ted Kennedy led the charge that ended Nixon's Presidency through his resignation.

Matthews goes into surprising detail on a number of topics in the book. I found the chapters on Watergate to be more thorough than many sources. The overall picture is a revealling look into American politics in the 1960's and 1970's. Truly, I took great pleasure in reading this book.

First of all, let's get it out of the way. I really love the Kennedys. I enjoy most of the books about them and always learn something of each (yes, even the crazy conspiracy books). This book was a little different. I learned a lot. I enjoyed how it was put together. It starts with the 1950's and then takes 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and then Bobby Alone as separate topics. It has stories from their growing years in each as if looking back to show why they were doing what they were doing at that time in their life. I really got in the Bobby Alone section from 1964 to 1968. It showed how Bobby totally changed his views and what he went through in order to come to the conclusion that he needed to run for President. Mr. Mahoney does drag out the New Orleans, Cuban, and Mafia stuff but it's ok. Most nowadays do. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a well rounded book on the Kennedy boys.

ive read other books on JFK and none of the other books can quite compair to the realism in this book. the things i didnt understand in the first few books where explained more in depth than before and i came to realize that half of the things that kennedy was blammed for after his death were not acctually his fault. for example, vietnam.

this is not a biography,it's a fiction and it's stupid, boring.
the author was surely drunk when he wrote it.
this book is a shame to the legacy of the kennedys.
there are a few photos.
buy abetter book like: rfk and his times....

Richard Mahoney is to be commended for putting together a highly readable and cogent account of the life and times of JFK and RFK, as well as their dealings with the Mafia (that led to the death of JFK). Well done.
[...]

I was raised in a conservative household and consider myself conservative in many ways (though I'm a registered independent). That said, I am 29 years old and both these men were dead before I was even born. However I have had a fascination with JFK & RFK since I first started studying history and the impact that the changes in the 1960's would have on future America. The picture on the cover is very telling about how different these brothers were -- black and white. What this book is really about is how co-dependent these two men were, with Jack more so upon Bobby. Many disturbing facts have come out about the Kennedy brothers in the last twenty years. Much of it does bother me as a moral and religious person. But that doesn't erase the fact that Jack and Bobby were very intelligent and gifted men and when it is all said and done, their idealism and determination positively impacted our nation's history.

A gift to my old friend who ever read few
books from the same authors.

Senator John F. Kennedy's slim victory (less than 150,000 votes) over Vice-President Richard M. Nixon in 1960 was arguably the 20th century's most iconic. Kennedy's generation, "born in this century," linked American history and heroes with still-modern inventions of instant polling and television to face the legacy of a beloved war hero president, his formidable vice-president and eight years of their "peace and prosperity."

Theodore H. White's influential bestseller, "The Making of the President 1960," not only chronicles the primaries, speeches, strategy sessions, debates, and final tallies, but was largely where 1960's election, and its victor, began owning their singular places in U.S. history.

Beginning fittingly at campaign's end with Kennedy's stressful, exhilarating victory night, the book unfolds candidate strategies from primary to convention to the weeks between Bill Mazeroski's World Series-ending home run and that November 7. White is novelist, journalist and historian chronicling the Democratic party torch passing from hero Adlai Stevenson (a reluctant if overpoweringly influential candidate) to Kennedy at the Los Angeles convention. With unprecedented access to President Kennedy, campaign manager Bobby Kennedy (provocatively described as a Catholic "Boston Puritan"), and their brain trusts, White sketches the candidate's vigor, intellect, and humor making him cultural equal to era icons Franklin Roosevelt and Elvis Presley.

Without nearly the access to the then-vice president or his staff (part of Nixon's hostility to press which reached dizzying heights a decade later) White's views on Nixon are observational, quotes from formally prepared speeches or advisors speaking off-record. Eisenhower's Republican torch becomes a hot potato jumping from New York governor Nelson Rockefeller to industry captains supporting the party to what White describes as Nixon's mix of stubbornness (with a 50-state strategy), bad luck, bad TV imagery, and a touch of greed. This led Nixon to make decisions perceived strategically right over those morally right (both candidates' reaction to Dr. Martin Luther King's Georgia imprisonment weeks before the election being a watershed example.)

But for its merits in describing Kennedy and Nixon's exhausting marathon to the Oval Office (and hardships of accompanying staffers and even reporters), White's most valuable chapter for today's reader is "Retrospect on Yesterday's Future." Any political science or sociology student must read White's chronicle of 1960's changing demographics: contrasts between black/white, urban/suburban, regional/ethnic ("red" and "blue" state values are spot-on described without color) and, most notably, Catholic/Protestant. (Kennedy's famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, taking his religious and presidential responsibilities head-on, is reprinted as an appendix.)

White gives this humanity and immediacy making particular episodes (Nixon's Atlanta rally, Hubert Humphrey's long bus ride in Wisconsin and his awkward TV telethon, Kennedy's final speech as candidate in Connecticut) seem fresh and evocative of their time. White shows 1960 as slamming shut the "simpler time" many envision the 1950s to be. This not only stems because of the horrible tragedies awaiting both men, but Big Media's ever-larger bytes and swallows of political discussion and drama.

Anyone wanting to understand modern American politics, strategiesm and motivations in place even to this year's election must start here. "The Making of the President 1960" should be required for any voter helping to make one in 2008 and beyond.

Nowadays, when a campaign book is written it amounts to little more than a collection of Newsweek articles. Theodore White's Making of the Presidency 1960 on the other hand gets into the nuts and bolts of presidential campaigns, party machinery, and voter demographics in a way not really seen anymore. It's about the big ideas that shape national elections and the individual people that make it all operate.

Given the current political process, some of the 1960 action seems quite distant. First, several candidates were aiming for a convention strategy, completely ignoring the primaries that were then far less important. Second, at one point the book mentions eight minute statements given by Kennedy and Nixon during one of their debates. Nowadays, we are lucky if a debate statement on the most important national issue lasts for more than two minutes.

The book's publication in 1961 also makes it interesting, as it leaves the reader at the threshold of the Kennedy presidency but is completely unaware of the events to follow. Not only does this include the assassination of two Kennedy brothers, but also the election of Richard Nixon to the presidency in 1968.

I have also read the Making of the Presidency 1964, but not the two successive volumes. I highly recommend this and the follow-up.

I very much enjoyed reading this book - having polished it off in a day. This book really takes you back into a very different era of American politics and culture. Indeed, there were only 3 major television networks, 2 wire services (which fed local newspapers), and no cable or internet. Moreover, the Presidential nomination process was quite different from what it is today. Back then, party conventions actually conducted substantive business, with deals and compromises being made, and floor battles beign waged (whereas today's conventions are largely a waste of time and money). Also, both major Presidential candidates sought to carry the broad segment of the electorate, not just certain geographic regions (there was not the concept of "Red" states and "Blue" states that exists today - many of the states were "in play" for most of the campaign).

I also enjoyed Mr. White's interesting analysis of American culture and society, circa 1960. He takes readers through a colorful discussion of trends and changes that have occurred and connects them with the political scene. This definitely puts the unfolding of the campaign and election into a greater perspective.

I have read a number of criticisms that Mr. White was unduly biased toward John F. Kennedy in this book. I do not see this as being accurate - he does not present Kennedy as some sort of secular saint. Moreover, (and I am no great admirer of Kennedy), Kennedy did have a great deal of charisma that lent itself to positive press coverage. In a later book, Mr. White takes a similar tack toward Ronald Reagan. Mr. White does show some empathy toward Richard Nixon, though he rightly criticizes him for not making better use of President Eisenhower's immense popularity and goodwill with the American people. Nixon, of course, will ultimately win a Presidential contest, though under a different set of circumstances.

Interestingly, I don't think that either Kennedy or Nixon would have won their respective party's Presidential nomination in the current political climate. This is because both men were, at heart, center-leaning pragmatists, not given to being in lockstep with the ideological orthodoxy that exists today in both parties.

On a critical note, Mr. White does not mention the controversial election returns that took place in Chicago and Texas, or about the dubious (to put it nicely) dealings of Joseph P. Kennedy, who took an active role in the campaign, despite an appearance of aloofness. I think that Mr. White should have included this, and that doing so would not have harmed the book.

While it would seem this book would be very dated, I found it to be incredibly interesting and unintentionally relevant to the modern political world. First though, the book reads incredibly easy. Ted White was a journalist and thus this feels more like a direct piece, rather than an academic's thesis. The story of the election moves along with a few pauses for in-depth analysis. The focus shifts in every chapter, so it doesn't become monotonous.
I especially liked reading the book because it was about John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon and written from a perspective that is hard to find: before JFK was shot and Nixon resigned. Instead the book treats them just as two young pols, eager to ascend to the highest office.
Additionally, many of the positions of the Democrats and Republicans, as well as response by the American people seems unchanged despite the past nearly 50 years. Looking at the parties as they began to form their present state provides insight into how our political scene today developed.
All in all, I recommend this book to anyone who's interested either in Nixon, Kennedy, or presidential campaigning in general. They'll find it almost humorous in how some descriptions written in 1961 still apply in 2007, and how most tactics are still being used.