Washington

Rating:
Summary: Insightful And Intelligent
Review: "Washington", by Meg Greenfield is a wonderful book. Prior to the book's beginning there is a Foreword written by Katharine Graham that is very interesting to read and better written than many books. Almost as important as what this book is, is what it is not. Meg Greenfield was clearly well educated, brilliant, and a writer that could be tough without sinking into the mud. This book is devoid of gossip, and never even strays near the type of tabloid garbage that litters newsstands. She does talk about scandal, but she focuses on the damage it can do to the family and children of the person caught in some impropriety, not on the salacious details that are valueless.

For over 3 decades this lady covered Washington, and for most of that time it was for The Washington Post. When she arrived it was to a business that would not allow a women to step into press clubs to do her job, when she finally left she had become one of the more influential Editors, had been the first woman to occupy the many levels of the profession she pursued, and was a winner of The Pulitzer Prize as well. She was not outspoken on women's issues, she made her mark by her performance. Her comment, "that if liberated I will not serve", would anger some, but this lady's career was a success by any measure by either gender.

She characterizes Washington life as being akin to high school, with people playing the same roles that teenagers do. There are the groups to be part of, people that are shunned, and others that are the flavor of the moment. She provides a wonderful illustration of just how little substance many in Washington posses. The book is balanced as she also offers brief biographies of people who have come to this nation's capitol and actually retained their personalities, their integrity, and made a difference.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting -- yet one wants to know what was left out...
Review: An interesting book, not least because Meg Greenfield's WASHINGTON teasingly promises more than it delivers, only hinting at the devastating expose that might have been. One wonders what information may have been in the many secretly coded files that Michael Beschloss edited into the finished manuscript. Did Greenfield name some names that Beschloss deleted? Did she tell some tales that he thought were better left untold? Unfortunately, Beschloss's essay doesn't give a clue. And neither does Katherine Graham's tribute.

What does come across clearly from the published work is that Greenfield knew many more secrets than she ever told, that she kept these secrets while working for Max Ascoli at The Reporter and Katherine Graham at the Washington Post, and that she may have taken some of her best stories with her to her grave.

One conclusion that occurs after reading WASHINGTON is that reporters and editors have a lot more information than they ever share with their readers -- and that the game of "I know something you don't know" is one of the favorite pastimes in our nation's capital.

To see that confession in print, Greenfield's book is well worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: It's terrible
Review: I cannot agree more with the reviewer who panned this book. Meg Greenfield may have been a great journalist, but a great journalist does not a great author make.

She never gets to the POINT. While there are some mildly interesting stories about people in government, a far better book is (her former boss) Katharine Graham's Washington. Spend your money on it.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: I finished reading this book right in the midst of the Trent Lott racial scandal, which resulted in the senator being forced to resign his position as Speaker of the House. Meg Greenfield's words and arguments echo prophetically when one looks into the real events. Her narration is lucid, intricate, and sophisticated. She paints a picture of Washington that is less than ideal and utopian, but her writing is so elevated and rich that it is easy to be mezmerized and captivated by this place nonetheless. She mixes in an array of different and fascinating characters in her stories: ranging from the proteges, to the prodigies, to the politicians' wives, and their children. Each and every one of these people has a distinct role to play in her narrative.

I took into consideration before reading this memoir that Greenfield might describe Washington chiefly from a woman's perspective. Although she has a chapter devoted to women in her book, she mainly wrote from a journalist's perspective. She did not express any strong feminist standpoints, but rather one who feels strongly about these issues would feel a slight disgust/surprise about her reluctance to do so. Nevertheless, to most people who are enchanted by Washington D.C., her book is still engrossing and authentic in its own right.

Much of the reason why I gave this 4 stars instead of a perfect 5 was because she flatly refused to mention more names in her memoir. A large majority of the people whom she speaks of remain nameless and anonymous. Thus, it keeps the reader guessing vaguely and wondering who did what to whom. In addition to this book, I also recommend "Hardball" by Chris Matthews.

Rating:
Summary: Politics as "high school"
Review: Looking back on nearly four decades as a journalist in the nation's capital, Meg Greenfield's (Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post editorial page editor and Newsweek columnist) "Washington" eschews personal memoir or tell-all sensationalism for a witty, ascerbic take on how the place functions and how it's changed.

The analogy that best fits its structure and function, Greenfield says, is high school. "High school is a preeminently nervous place." Isolated from the larger community, it operates on "a make-or-break, peer-enforced social code that calculates worth as popularity and popularity as a capacity to please and be associated with the right people (no matter how undeserving they may be...." Congress has "terms", its work grinds to a halt during long vacations, and its "freshmen" are expected to tow the line and show deference to their elders, while seniors wield the power and set the rules.

It's a rarified high school, comprised of "successful children." These are not only the hall monitors and teachers' pets, the civic award winners and "the ones who mowed the neighbor's lawn and were pronounced `fine young people, but also "a small but steady stream of amazing prevailers...the determined, express-train kids who knocked down all the obstacles and were the first in their families to do practically everything." Few troublemakers or rebels aspire to a Washington career, and in this clear-eyed assessment Greenfield includes herself, "nothing if not reliable, and, in fact, sometimes seeming to have been fifty years old at birth."

Like herself, many Washington denizens have a "rogue" sibling (like the long line of first brothers - Sam Johnson, Donald Nixon, Billy Carter, Roger Clinton - and that's just during Greenfield's tenure). "You may take it as a rule of thumb that the children who came to Washington are not the ones who put the cat in the dryer but the ones who tattled." The psychology is more complex than that, involving guilt, love, even a certain admiration for the brash willfulness or impulsiveness so foreign to the "good" child and Greenfield does a clever, often humorous job of explaining how "good child" psychology makes government work on many levels, including staff and press.

Greenfield's study of Washington psychology goes on to encompass family. Wives (Washington is still primarily a man's town, "a recovering man's town, but still a man's town"), children and particularly parents who knew him "when" have the ability to cut the big man down to human size. "When even he, in the gathering derangement that marks his ascent to public notice, has come to think of himself as synonymous with the title and image, they will not." Many pols, she points out, had powerful parents, particularly mothers, and their good child personas keep them striving for approval. With a few hilarious and humanizing anecdotes she shows a general reduced to earnest pleading, a senator pushed into a public apology. Greenfield's depiction of wives, on the other hand, and the stultifying social rounds expected of them, makes the reader wonder how any Washington marriages survive.

When Greenfield started out in 1961 the position of women was such that she was not permitted to set foot in the National Press Club, not even to check the wire service ticker. She was routinely excluded from "old boy" meetings and patronized in interviews, a penchant she learned to exploit. Greenfield candidly explores her own complex feelings and acquiescence in this system, even to comporting herself so as not to "threaten" her male subordinates' egos.

Much of the old-boy network is changing, but not entirely for the better, says Greenfield. "This new culture is also redolent of high school, but high school at its most dangerously deranged." The appearance of taking a stand has become more important than getting things done - for a politician it's a sound bite, for a journalist it's the headline. A freshman who would have voted as he was told in the old days in exchange for a good assignment or a morsel of pork now runs to any number of TV outlets to denounce the intimidation, possibly even propose hearings. Smear campaigns and self-righteous posturing have replaced much of the back-room dealing. Though Greenfield is far from waxing nostalgic about the old days, she does explain how private give-and-take worked to get landmark civil rights legislation passed, among others.

Greenfield concludes the book with a discussion of journalism - the delicate line between cooperation and collusion, the hypocrisy of virtue, the formulation of an ethics code at the Post. Ironically, this is the least compelling section of the book, not because of any reticence on Greenfield's part, but because journalistic soul searching has become so fashionable there is little new here.

A thoroughly enjoyable portrait of a peculiar and important place, written in secret before her death from cancer at age 69, Greenfield's account is enhanced by a warm personal foreword from Post publisher Katherine Graham and an equally affectionate afterword by historian Michael Beschloss, who aptly sums up Greenfield's central theme: "how to live at the center of political and journalistic influence in Washington without losing your principles, detachment or individual human qualities." Engaging, witty, and humanizing, Greenfield's "Washington" can be appreciated even by those who feel alienated by and cynical about our nation's politicians.

Rating:
Summary: Looking Out From the Inside
Review: Meg Greenfield was the consummate insider for 30 years in rough and tumble Washington D.C. She was the powerful editor of the editorial page on the Washington Post and had a weekly column in Newsweek. She counted among her friends Post publisher Kathryn Graham, many powerful politicians and fellow journalists. Her political inclinations are hard to pin down because of her diverse opinions, her friends from all sides of the political spectrum and her even-handed reporting.

This is not a 'tell-all' book. If you are looking for scandal and in-the-know tidbits on the famous players, you will be disappointed. She writes what it is to be in the middle of the whirlwind of national politics. The first danger is losing yourself, not your ideals. The role politicians must play to survive (and get re-elected) is for public consumption, and all too often the human being behind the spin ceases to exist. She likens D.C. to high school with twice the stress and all of the infighting necessary to be one of the Golden Boys. In D.C., there is no relaxing and reaping of rewards when you reach the exalted Senior status. You must constantly build your warehouse of favors owed to you while not alienating the voters or your peers.

Miss Greenfield has not written a memoir. I think that would have been impossible for her, as she was a completely private person. She maintains she had to be or she would have "lost" herself. Her writing style is economical and clear. She comes across as humorous, amazingly approachable with a very clear and unblinking eye on what has gone on around her. She has an ease with writing that only the best journalists can carry off. The book raises questions and answers others.

Unfortunately, Miss Greenfield died before completing the last chapter. I believe it was her wish that it not be published in her lifetime. When I completed the book, I felt as if we were such good friends that she wouldn't mind at all having lunch somewhere and clearing up any questions I might have. Perhaps she knew there would be many just like me.

Rating:
Summary: What a Town
Review: Reading this book make you feel like you were partaking in a nice little gossipy talk over coffee with a close friend. The author had a wonderful writing style that kept me interested even during sections that I normally would have skipped. I really did not expect the type of book this turned out to be, the author covers her impressions of the type of people that make it to elected government office and what they have to do to stay there. She also covers her thoughts on the people that make their living covering or helping these elected officials. It makes for funny and insightful reading.

The only thing I would have liked were more names of the people she covered. She does a classy job of covering nasty little items, but leaving out names or even strong hints as to who she is talking about. Overall this is an interesting book that covers her impressions and time in Washington. It is not a dry year by year run down of major events, but her impressions of the people. For example she spends time talking about the similarities between Washington and a clicky high school with the popular kids living on perception over substance. If you are interested in Washington and the people that make it run then you will enjoy this funny, witty book.

Rating:
Summary: "Man doesn't change politics,politics changes the man"
Review: This is great book that gives dead-on insight into the various Washington personalities. Those "inside the beltway" will recognize the characters and the games they play, while those in the real world will come away with a better understanding of why Washington is the way it is. Required reading not only for political junkies but for anyone who wants a better understanding of how Wahington really works.

Rating:
Summary: Get to the point already!
Review: With all due respect to the deceased - this book was awful! As was mentioned by a previous poster - this book needed some heavy duty editing.

I felt like I was eating a cake that layer upon layer of icing, never getting to the acutal cake. And about the time you realize that there is no cake - along comes another beautiful cake with loads of icing - so you switch to that cake, and go through layer after layer after layer of icing, only to find, again, there's no cake.

After reading 129 of the 226 pages (not counting the afterward), I finally put the book down in frustration - and I don't know that I could tell you what the book actually says! There's supposed to be a whole breakdown on how DC is like High School, and how everybody reverts to, and longs after, their high school years. All I can remember about that is something about smart kids and David Stockman. No explination of the other various types in high school, jocks, nerds, geeks, cheerleaders, the "in" crowd, the Big Man on Campus, Captain of the Football team, or Student body president.

Looking at this, I think that it would have been much better served as a series of bite sized essays - because that's what they really are. None of the topics are really examined in depth, none of her suppositions are explained in depth or detail. Few, if any, real world, concrete examples to back up her suppositions about the various types of people in DC. It seemed as if she would make a statement, "dance" around the edges of it, acting as if, any minute, she would swoop in and provide some basis, or support for her statement. All the while using colorful, flowery, yet meaningless language.

What others call "rich" and "intelligent" writing, I call verbose, superfluos, overly wordy. I would have to sum it up as 129 pages of not much (and I'm guessing the remaining 97 pages wouldn't be much better).

This book was a monumental dissapointment.

Rating:
Summary: Why Washington is the way it is....
Review: Written as she neared her death, Meg Greenfield puts forth the argument that Washington, D.C. is much like high school.....that social code that is based on being seen with the right people, in the right places. It makes me shudder thinking of Newt Gingrich or Tom Daschill as the BMOC and greatful that while they may have had some say on public policy, my self worth is not based on either of them noticing me on the way to civics! Written with an insiders's eye and an acid wit, Washington is the ultimate insider's view of the weird world of the Beltway. While it is entertaining to read, and it is fun to try to guess who is who, I find myself wishing I knew more about the author. What a shame that there is not a book about Meg Greenfield.