Franklin Roosevelt is portrayed as a born leader. His personality was ideal for leading the country through the conflicts of his Presidency. Goodwin's section has the underlying theme that even if you did not like Roosevelt, you had to respect him.

Beschloss's chapter is my favorite as it contrasts the Presidencies of Kennedy and Eisenhower. Eisenhower was the thoughful though man America needed in avoiding a policy of isolationism and fighting a war in Korea. Kennedy was the peacemaker the country needed to avoid war with Cuba and Soviet Union. Their unique personality characteristics were suited to their time period.

Lyndon Johnson was a very secretive men. It is difficult to tell truth from myth in many cases. Lyndon Johnson is to be commended for his interpersonal skills, even though some turned sour. With his relationships in the congress, he was able to pass the Civil Rights Act. Johnson was a intelligent politician.

Richard Nixon was a complex man. He did not like failure, nor did he enjoy the comradery of politics. This is one of the reasons he was more successful on foreign issues than domestic issues. This same inability to communicate led a competent politician to be involved in Watergate. A well stated chapter.

Ronald Reagen was the great communicator. He was unique to his time period in that he gentle, people loving nature brought back people's faith in government. His acting ability transfered in to politics forging a relationship that ended the cold war. Like many essays on Reagen, this only looks at the good points. In this case, it may not be a bad thing.

Perhaps I am to harsh on the chapter on Bill Clinton since it was written in the final year of his Presidency. The focus is on his drive to be President. He was the man Republicans hated, but had to go along with because he always beat them. Little is mentioned of the economic growth in his presidency. The focus is on the sex scandal and failed health care reform. His greatest accomplishment seems to be winning elections. The author does say that time will tell how his presidency is viewed in history. This certainly won't be the benchmark. This is a poorly composed section even for its time.


Good things in small packages   March 26, 2002
 1 out of 2 found this review helpful

This is a POWERFUL book. A good, quick read from some of our premier modern-day American historians. This collection of essays gives us an inside look at most of the presidencies of the second half of the 20th century. A must read for any history buff.


A little gem of a book, Indeed!   March 15, 2000
 19 out of 21 found this review helpful

These well written essays provide vivid glimpses of varying Presidential personalities, with thoughtful discussion of individual strengths and weaknesses. To me, especially in an election year where character is a major issue, it was an enthralling read, with highlights of qualities such as "Reagan's voice, which was a large part of Reagan's power..." or the speaking style of TR, with plosive P sounds, which "would pop with Gatling-gun force. The effect of his oratory was to bury every word in the psyche of his listeners." or the political genius exhibited by FDR who talked "at a level at which very few people could follow him and understand what he was really saying" that FDR also recognized in a young congressmen, LBJ, as "he saw Johnson understood _everything_ he was talking about." I enjoyed reading these examples of behavior and the illuminating contrasts such as: "It is hard to imagine two more different men than Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy..." or "despite the major differences in their temperaments--indeed, I would argue, because of these differences--Eleanor and Franklin forged their historic partnership..." I would recommend to readers the book "Presidential Temperament" by Choiniere and Keirsey, another well researched volume which gives an explanation of "how each President's temperament inevitably expressed itself in his behavior, both in office and in his personal life."


Dissenting opinion   February 14, 2000
 11 out of 16 found this review helpful

Although vivid, most of the essays in this book are far too short to address the complexities of each different personality. Beschloss's essay is the best; Morris', Caro's, and McCullough's good but inferior to their respective biographies of Reagan, Johnson and Truman. Goodwin's essay doesn't add much, and the editors get docked a star by choosing Benjamin Bradlee - of all people - to review Richard Nixon. A more impartial person and Nixon biographer (Stephen Ambrose? Tom Wicker?) would have been more appropriate. I think you are better off simply getting the biographies of Reagan, LBJ, Truman, and Clinton by Morris, Caro, McCullough, and Maraniss, respectively.