Rating: 
Summary: Informative but Biased
Review: Schlesinger starts out by stating in the forward, "This work is not a comprehensive history of the Kennedy Presidency. It is a personal memoir by one who served in the White House during the Kennedy years." In the first two sentences, Schlesinger tells his first two lies.
There is no way that this can be considered a memoir, especially when on countless occasions Schlesinger himself admits that he was not involved nor really informed about issues. How can it be considered a memoir when he is basing his statements at times purely on documents? That is a "comprehensive history" and not a "personal memoir."
Despite Schlesinger's failure in his initial task, he does tell the history of the administration in great, albeit bias, depth. It is tough to avoid repetition over 1031 pages, but Schlesinger does a good job avoiding informing me of the same thing in three different ways. As well, he interlocks the history from chapter to chapter and explains its interconnectedness to defend Kennedy. Schlesinger attempts to tie the domestic problems such as the U.S. Steel company raising its prices into foreign policy. It is doubtful that his foreign successes and failures would have been any different without the U.S. Steel controversy, except to Schlesinger.
As Schlesinger admits, he overstates the importance of the advisors, especially himself. Regardless of what he did, he manages to mention himself in every chapter in a last ditch attempt to memoirize this history. Sometimes he did something, other times he just had a conversation with the president. On another occasion, to include himself in the chapter he writes about how he jumped in a swimming pool when Mrs. Ethel Kennedy fell in. For the first time and only time on that one page, it is a memoir.
Despite the excessively pro-Kennedy attitude, Schlesinger does manage to vividly describe the administration. He takes us around the world from Southeast Asia with Vietnam and Laos to Africa with the dealing with Sekou Toure and other Moscow-leaning leaders to Europe and troubles pleasing De Gaulle and keeping control of the Americas despite Castro. The foreign policy of the administration is explored, if not fairly criticized, for most of the book. He is less in depth on domestic policy, however he devotes a good 150 pages to the Civil Rights Movement and the budget and congressional legislation. He also attempts quite successfully to argue the point that Kennedy failed to keep the people up to date on what was going on in the world. He even elevated Kennedy above his even more beloved Roosevelt by stating that FDR addressed the nation "no more than two (times) a year" before the war compared to Kennedy averaging three a year. Kennedy also frequently made speeches at colleges such as American and Yale.
Almost as common as the Kennedy praising was the Eisenhower bashing. He over-generalizes the conservatism of the Eisenhower administration and he criticizes some things that Kennedy adopts and praises Kennedy for adopting, such as the large peacetime budget deficit. Conversely, he over-generalizes the liberalism of the Kennedy administration. The changes made were on a large-scale slight. The only major policy change was the change from defeating communism to containing it. And even that change was only a spoken change as proven by the Bay of Pigs and the continued hope for an overthrow of Castro.
Overall, Schlesinger does a good job organizing the book logically. With two exceptions, everything follows with at least a logical flow. Only in the middle when he changes from foreign to domestic policy and a few chapters later when he goes back to foreign policy does the reader need to stop and readjust himself (well, also when he starts talking about the swimming pool incident).
The history is accurate, even if it is bias, and it is an interesting, but long read. If you don't mind the bias or don't want to form your own opinion, it is worth the read. At least you are warned.
Rating: 
Summary: a excellent book
Review: schlessinger tells us very exactly how was jfk, and his administration. it's very exciting, but it's sometimes boring.
it's the most complete book of jfk's administration.
I recommend it to everybody.
but there aren't any photos.
Rating: 
Summary: Camelot's court historian writes nostalgic gush
Review: Simply put, this is one of the books that shattered Schlesinger's credibility as a legitimate historian once and for all. Once he was "Artie," the precocious high-flying historian/prodigy, amazing his peers & elders with his dazzling talents as an author & scholar. Now he is a superannuated peddler of Camelot nostalgia and a defender of a school of thought that has been so thoroughly discredited over the years that it truly is a wonder that anyone takes Schlesinger seriously anymore. Really, the only author/historian that is worse in this field is possibly Manchester.
How can anyone regard this stuff as serious history? It is as though Schlesinger has sustained a sort of man-crush on JFK for all these years and cannot bring himself to be even remotely objective about a rather undistinguished administration. He really contributes nothing to this field of study, so save yourself the effort of reading this tripe.
Rating: 
Summary: highly biased
Review: The author is, I understand, a professional historian. I am afraid he has not done his job as an historian, who should be fair, impartial and truthful. He was a member of the Kennedy gang. Everything he wrote pointed to two things. Kennedy and his men were great and infallible. All other politicians, not memebers of the Kennedy gang were bad, and mediocre. Let us get the facts. Eisenhower and his administration had the best foreign policy in post WWII history yet Eisenhower was portrayed by the author as useless and highly incompentent. According to Mr McNamara's book (Vietnam, a Retrospect) the Kennedy administration first fouled up on Vietnam and eventually led to the most disastrous war in U.S. history. Yet the author portrayed the Kennedy gang as superb and brilliant. According to Mr Hersh's book (The Dark Side of Camelot), both Jack and Bobby were unscrupulous and immoral,not the holy men portrayed by the author. Perhaps the author was not aware of some of these facts in 1965 when he wrote the book. It is time for him, as a professional historian, to make some kind of confession
Rating: 
Summary: Absorbing, Thoughtful and Insightful
Review: This book has won a Pullitzer and National Book Award for good reason. Unlike most political biographers, Schlesinger provides a detailed and interesting analysis of his subject's policy decisions. We don't get a detailed accounting of what Kennedy has for breakfast, but we do get an understanding of Kennedy's decision making process and how it related to the numerous issues with which he was confronted. Many of the customer reviewers criticized Schlesinger for his bias in Thousand Days. It is true that nothing that Kennedy does in Thousand Days is wrong, and nothing that Eisenhower did was right. In the 1030 pages of Thousand Days, the reader is hardpressed to find a single critical comment about Kennedy. There are certainly plenty of excuses, as well as repetitive references to the "seeds" of legislative programs sown by Kennedy that would inevitably (as implied by Schlesinger) revolutionized the US. However, Schlesinger did not attempt to hide this bias -- he was obviously star struck by the Kennedys and did not purport to give the Republican perspective on the Kennedy administration. In essence, the "bias" is so obvious it is easy to single it out and focus on what Schlesinger has to offer -- a studied and very inspiring first hand account of a presidential term from one of this country's leading historians. I have read several dozen presidential biographies and can say that none have provided so much insight into presidential decision making. In a word, this book is "dense", full of ideas, theories and speculation about the workings of the executive branch when confronted with some of the greatest challenges of our time -- including the cold war, the Cuban missile crises, Bay of Pigs, civil rights and Vietnam. What's more, it was an absorbing and thought provoking read. A little more critical analysis of Kennedy may have been more illuminating, but this type of analysis may well have robbed Thousand Days of the passion that makes it so interesting and inspiring. Kennedy, after all, was an interesting and inspiring president. Perhaps the most effective way to portray the man, therefore, is with a biography that is interesting and inspiring.
Rating:
Summary: Absorbing, Thoughtful and Insightful
Review: This book has won a Pullitzer and National Book Award for good reason. Unlike most political biographers, Schlesinger provides a detailed and interesting analysis of his subject's policy decisions. We don't get a detailed accounting of what Kennedy has for breakfast, but we do get an understanding of Kennedy's decision making process and how it related to the numerous issues with which he was confronted. Many of the customer reviewers criticized Schlesinger for his bias in Thousand Days. It is true that nothing that Kennedy does in Thousand Days is wrong, and nothing that Eisenhower did was right. In the 1030 pages of Thousand Days, the reader is hardpressed to find a single critical comment about Kennedy. There are certainly plenty of excuses, as well as repetitive references to the "seeds" of legislative programs sown by Kennedy that would inevitably (as implied by Schlesinger) revolutionized the US. However, Schlesinger did not attempt to hide this bias -- he was obviously star struck by the Kennedys and did not purport to give the Republican perspective on the Kennedy administration. In essence, the "bias" is so obvious it is easy to single it out and focus on what Schlesinger has to offer -- a studied and very inspiring first hand account of a presidential term from one of this country's leading historians. I have read several dozen presidential biographies and can say that none have provided so much insight into presidential decision making. In a word, this book is "dense", full of ideas, theories and speculation about the workings of the executive branch when confronted with some of the greatest challenges of our time -- including the cold war, the Cuban missile crises, Bay of Pigs, civil rights and Vietnam. What's more, it was an absorbing and thought provoking read. A little more critical analysis of Kennedy may have been more illuminating, but this type of analysis may well have robbed Thousand Days of the passion that makes it so interesting and inspiring. Kennedy, after all, was an interesting and inspiring president. Perhaps the most effective way to portray the man, therefore, is with a biography that is interesting and inspiring.
Rating:
Summary: Cumbersome, yet well written and invaluable for research.
Review: This book was the winner of the pullitzer prize, but may not have deserved it. It is well written; however, quite cumbersome at times, almost unnecessarily so. The book could have been downsized quite a bit, unlike Schlesinger's other large biography, "Robert Kennedy and His Times," "A Thousand Days" got boring at times. However, the book should not be overlooked for it is largely invaluable for any reasearch of the Kennedy-era, and my opinion of it may not be in concurrence with others.
Rating:
Summary: Just awful
Review: When I was a child, the luster had not quite left the Kennedy administration as a historical era and this book was believed to be the definative history on the subject. While Camelot continues to maintain some of its swankness as soap opera (as indicated by the success of the Jackie Kennedy dress collection museum exhibit), no one with a brain can read this book without laughing. Schlesinger was Kennedy's historian in residence and his job was to one day produce the official record of the administration. This he did with all the flair of the Vice President of a local Elk's chapter delivering the annual financial report. It is pretty amazing that anyone would or could read this book in which nearly every act is conceived from some sort of high minded purpose. This may be a staple on the television show "The West Wing," but that is not the way things work in real life. Does every aspect of the New Frontier really require the level of attention that Schlesinger provides. Do we really need lengthy chapters on "The Alliance for Progess," a failed initiative? I do not think so. Schlesinger clearly is too close to his subject to render an unbiased historical account of these events. I cannot understand why this book is still in print. Perhaps photogenic pictures of JFK will continue to push sales forward. However charismatic Kennedy may have been it is never a good idea to judge a book by its cover.
Rating:
Summary: Just awful
Review: When I was a child, the luster had not quite left the Kennedy administration as a historical era and this book was believed to be the definative history on the subject. While Camelot continues to maintain some of its swankness as soap opera (as indicated by the success of the Jackie Kennedy dress collection museum exhibit), no one with a brain can read this book without laughing. Schlesinger was Kennedy's historian in residence and his job was to one day produce the official record of the administration. This he did with all the flair of the Vice President of a local Elk's chapter delivering the annual financial report. It is pretty amazing that anyone would or could read this book in which nearly every act is conceived from some sort of high minded purpose. This may be a staple on the television show "The West Wing," but that is not the way things work in real life. Does every aspect of the New Frontier really require the level of attention that Schlesinger provides. Do we really need lengthy chapters on "The Alliance for Progess," a failed initiative? I do not think so. Schlesinger clearly is too close to his subject to render an unbiased historical account of these events. I cannot understand why this book is still in print. Perhaps photogenic pictures of JFK will continue to push sales forward. However charismatic Kennedy may have been it is never a good idea to judge a book by its cover.
|
