|
| 
 enlarge | Author: Ted Sorensen
Publisher: Harper
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy New: $8.63
You Save: $19.32 (69%)
New (55) Used (23) Collectible (2) from $6.55
Avg. Customer Rating:  34 reviews
Sales Rank: 12299
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 576
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2
Dimensions (in): 8.8 x 6.2 x 1.8
ISBN: 0060798718
Dewey Decimal Number: 973.922092
EAN: 9780060798710
ASIN: 0060798718
Publication Date: May 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: New, unread, publisher over-stock copies. Ships out by NEXT Business Day. We have shipped TWO MILLION+ Amazon orders to-date. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee!
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Inspiring in places, the book lacks the human touch. August 26, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
I am an Irish Catholic, born six months prior to JFK's murder; the admiration for JFK as lost leader has been a backround to my life, and is deeply felt in my society. I have been thrilled on the speeches - `A man on the moon this decade' represents, for me, the it audacity, ambition and directness that I associate with the USA -so I am up for the whole Camelot ticket. I admire what Ted Kennedy has done for the Irish Peace process, and am willing to go along with the Obama endorsement. So I bought this book looking for an insight into JFK's character and the philosophy that backed it up. It gave me neither.
What I had previously known about Ted Sorensen was limited, though I knew he played some part in writing the speeches. In fact it turns out that he was JFK's right hand man for most of the 1950's and special counsel to the President during the Kennedy presidency. However I must admit that when I started the book, I skipped straight to the second section which describes the time that Sorensen started to work with Kennedy, guiltily, I later returned to the first section for the sake of completeness. One of things that struck me about the narrative is Sorensen's complete sublimation of his personality to Kennedy his statement that his role in the speeches and in writing Profiles in Courage, were to express Kennedy's own thoughts, because he, Sorensen, had come to know them so well. I found this a bit creepy.
Another source of guilt for me is the fact, mentioned in the Epilogue, that Sorensen is dictating this book ( to Obama's speechwriter, if I'm not mistaken) having had a stroke in 2001, leaving him with blurred vision, unable to read or write clearly. For a man who is so clearly well read, whose profession and interest centre around reading and writing, this must be devastating. Sorensen has shown remarkable fortitude to deal with this cruel blow.
Despite the above, I didn't enjoy the book. I felt that the view of Kennedy was too deferential, only grudgingly admitting that JFK had any faults, acknowledging only those weaknesses which are now public knowledge - womanizing, the pressure on the New York Times to remove their Vietnam correspondent - " I know of no other instance where he made such a request to another newspaper". Sorensen tells how high-minded Kennedy was in pursuit of policy matters, even to the point of political disadvantage. This to me just did not seem realistic, I do think he showed great courage is tackling the Civil Rights issues associated with desegregating the Southern School system - however I also think its realistic to say that he came to this issue quite late. Even Lincoln came late to Emancipation. His handling of the Bay of Pigs was hesitant, of the Missile Crisis was deft. So I think its ok to say that he learned on the job.
At the same time as JFK is venerated, almost held in aspic, I felt a curious lack of human detail. What made him such a leader? There are flashes of his winning humour - to overcome rumours that his millionaire father was funding his campaign (which was true) JFK read out, at a press gathering, a (false) telegram from his father saying " don't buy one more vote than necessary, I'm damned if I'll pay for a landslide". But what attracted such a talented team, how did JFK overcome his relative youth, his privileged backround and administrative inexperience to become such a courageous leader? There really isn't much clue in this book, I'm afraid.
Sorensen's own view of the team and his role in it is too rosy also. He seems to be surprised to find out that Ken O'Donnell, another Kennedy advisor ( Played by Kevin Costner in the movie Thirteen Days) disliked Sorensen intensely. Indeed Sorensen seems to have been unaware of personal animosity and tension within the Kennedy team at all. I think this is unbelievable, tension among ambitious people under pressure is inevitable. It is incredible to me that Sorensen won't acknowledge its existence. He quotes a Boston Globe editorial (from 1977) which describes Sorensen as " never a well-loved man with his icy brilliance and his hard eye for competence". Why not own up to this? His contempt for President Johnson is just beneath the polite surface, he quotes Jackie's comments on the references to LBJ in Sorenesen's biography of Kennedy "You must know - as well or better than I - his [JFK's] steadily diminishing opinion of him[LBJ]...", the book would be better if we got more of this flesh and blood feel of what it was like to live through the interaction of these characters. There is, however, a classic anecdote which summarises Sorensens view of the contrast between JFK and LBJ - JFK's speech's would quote and reference all manner of classical sources, but when LBJ received a draught speech referencing a quote from Socrates, he crossed out the ancients name and replaced it with `my granddaddy', you can almost see Sorensens nose wrinkle.
Sorensen practised law in New York after leaving government service, occasionally being drawn back into the political life, once tragically with Robert Kennedy, once, sourly, as a potential Carter appointee to the CIA. His candidateship ran into rough water in the Senate, and he was very bruised by fellow Demoncrats and abandoned by Carter. His stories about his international law practice left me a bit cold - He helps found the South Africa Feed Election (SAFE) fund to help South Africa get ready for its first election after Nelson Mandela's release. Anthony O'Reilly is the co-chair of SAFE and Sorensen tells of explaining the work of SAFE to Mandela while flying back to New York from O'Reilly's estate in the Bahamas, on O'Reilly's private plane. Anthony O'Reilly is one of Ireland's richest men, formerly CEO of Heinz, he is a media-magnate who has developed significant media businesses in the new South Africa.
He mentions working to develop a pipeline in Panama in 1976, the agreement was worked out between General Torrijos, Panama's leader (unelected) at the time and the company's president Harold Bernstein. Sorensen takes some pride is stating that thirty years later he returned to renegotiate the deal between Torrijo's son, Martin, then President of Panama and Jay Bernstein, president of the company. I think the feel of the elite going about their business makes me quite uncomfortable.
In truth there are many fine attributes to the book, Sorensens loyalty is evident, his eloquence is breathtaking, his advice on speechwriting and the US political process is acute. I think what I disappointed me most is the absence of a clear political philosophy. His loyalty to and admiration of Kennedy are commendable, his loathing of the current administration is palpable. He is very comfortable with a president who knows the limits of the feasible, even for a superpower. But I can't discern an overachieving philosophy that will guide those who wish to follow his hero's footsteps. Conservatives have fashioned a credible philosophy around Liberty - which justifies a belief in small government, looser regulation, lower taxation, it is also (at a stretch) used to justify the Iraq invasion. It is most exposed on issues of personal morality. Progressives (or Liberals or whatever) don't seem to me to have a comprehensive set of beliefs - presumably it could be fashioned around Equality - though US policy in regard to Healthcare, Infrastructure and International Co-operation definitely needs some work. I don't get that some this book.
 A Great Read. Buy it. August 11, 2008
A thoroughly enjoyable read if you are interested in the JFK era. Sorensen loved (in the most genuinely platonic sense) his hero Kennedy. While some of his praise for the assassinated President borders on cloying, the overall book is an excellent read. As a keynote speaker, (I reference the Kennedy brand in a jaundiced manner in Why Ireland Never Invaded America) I have a deep and abiding fascination for great wordsmiths and by any standards President Kennedy's Counselor is a great speech writer.
The author shows us how he and Kennedy wrote some of their great speeches. He is extraordinarily self-effacing in terms of his own contribution to Kennedy's work. This is most obvious when discussing Profiles in Courage where despite all evidence to the contrary, he still maintains Kennedy was the sole author of the book because it was his (Kennedy's) ideas and direction that produced the book. Maybe so, but there is not another person alive today who would not at least claim co-authorship if he or she were to contribute as much as Sorensen did.
He would never claim to be objective about JFK, which I accept, but this lack of serious objectivity stretches to almost anyone bearing a Kennedy name as he provides brief commentary on RFK, Ted and Jackie Kennedy.
As with most Kennedy fans, he suggests his boss would have kept the US out of Vietnam. Who knows? But the facts are that the domino strategy ruled American policy at that time, the people who convinced LBJ to get more involved in Vietnam were not dissimilar to Kennedy's team e.g. Robert McNamara, and North Vietnam would never have settled for anything less than a unified country in order to finish a war it believed was a war of independence.
Proof that opposites attract find evidence in the Kennedy / Sorensen relationship. To put it gently, Sorenson comes across as intense, boring and not particularly popular as he jealously guarded his extremely productive relationship with Kennedy. One could query how Sorensen was so effective given the level of apparent adulation that comes across in the book, but he was. He was hugely effective and a man whom Nixon, LBJ and others wished was on their side to advise them.
Even though he comes across generally as dry, he does have a wicked sense of humor and recounts some very humorous anecdotes about his time in Washington.
I skimmed his early life and was tempted to leave the book once he was finished with JFK. I'm glad I did not. One of the most fascinating chapters relates to his nomination for Director of CIA. The bottom line is that Jimmy Carter had not done his homework before nominating Sorensen. The nasty world of politics halted the nomination because Sorensen was a conscientious objector. This riveting chapter shows the dirtier side of politics and some of the blatant hypocrisy that pervades Washington.
Overall, a top class read. Buy it.
Preliminary Review August 3, 2008
I am currently reading the book, which I found to be enjoyable and mesmerizing from the first word. The author's use of the English language is superb and I enjoy the beauty of his prose as much as I enjoy his content.
A very good book August 2, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I had a hard time getting used to Sorensen's life being discussed by theme (how he joined Senator Kennedy, his evolving role on the staff, speechwriting, the issue of religion, etc) rather than chronologically. I couldn't help but think that this made his recollections seem a bit shallow, since we are deprived from the moment-to-moment aspect of presidential decision-making and have to rely instead on what are just recollections decades earlier.
But the book provides a fascinating account of the Kennedy years and it is a good way to check the record on specific issues, such as Kennedy's civil rights initiative, without having to hop from one place to another seventy pages later, as would be the case for more traditional biographies. Sorensen was obviously devoted to JFK and feels immense pride and nostalgia at having been his special counsel. He doesn't pretend he was making the decisions for JFK, or anything remotely close to that - he has far too much respect for Kennedy's intelligence to suggest such a thing. Of course, one reason Sorensen was so attached to Kennedy was that he (Sorensen) advised him on far-ranging policies; he liked very much the behind-the-scenes impact he was having on critical issues. (We all would, if we were in his situation.)
The most beautiful chapter by far is the account of Kennedy's assassination and its aftermath. There is a beautiful sentence in that chapter where Sorensen explains that Kennedy's death robbed him (Sorensen) of his future, and later, when he considers other jobs, he quotes his brother as saying (I paraphrase) that the only job Ted Sorensen ever wanted was special counsel to President John F Kennedy, and that job wasn't available any more.
Sorensen makes no mysteries of his dislike of the current Bush administration and his strong support of Obama's campaign for President. The memo for all "presidential hopefuls" on pp.480-484 seems intended for Obama, although Sorensen is probably only repeating ideas he has already shared with the presidential candidate in person. (The last picture in the photo insert is a picture of him with Obama.)
This book will be most appreciated by people who have already read about the Kennedy administration, or just want to focus on a few issues and skip the other chapters.
 A fascinating, boring read July 30, 2008
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
The 50's and 60's certainly were fascinating times in American politics, and I can't seem to put books like this down. There is no question that it delivers insight into this era (and of course later years)from a unique point of view. However, it is very difficult to digest the heavy doses of egotism mingled with the "I'm just a lucky everyman from Nebraska" stuff. If you can get past that, the parts about the JFK years are interesting. The rest is mostly intolerable.
Part 1 of the book, dealing with his upbringing in Nebraska, is really meant to establish his liberal pedigree. But anyone with the mildest knowledge of Mr. Sorensen would already know this, and the point of all this seems to be to say, lest there be any doubt, that he is most emphatically NOT a conservative. Very trendy. Skip this part unless you really are interested in the family history.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s recently published journals (great reading but very snobby) provide an interesting anecdote which I'll paraphrase. There was a meeting of Schlesinger and other writers (perhaps their first meeting; I can't recall) with Sorensen about a JFK speech. As they all waited to start the meeting, Sorensen put on an "important phone call act", then wheeled around and said, "JFK is very difficult to write for". Hilarious.
Interesting tidbits here and there, interesting on the JFK years, but Sorensen, and this book, are otherwise just too much to take.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
