Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Drawing on scores of interviews with White House scribes and on extensive archival research, Schlesinger weaves intimate, amusing, compelling stories that provide surprising insights into the personalities, quirks, egos, ambitions, and humor of these presidents as well as how well or not they understood the bully pulpit.

White House Ghosts traces the evolution of the presidential speechwriter's job from Raymond Moley under FDR through such luminaries as Ted Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., under JFK, Jack Valenti and Richard Goodwin under LBJ, William Safire and Pat Buchanan under Nixon, Hendrik Hertzberg and James Fallows under Carter, and Peggy Noonan under Reagan, to the "Troika" of Michael Gerson, John McConnell, and Matthew Scully under George W. Bush.

White House Ghosts tells the fascinating inside stories behind some of the most iconic presidential phrases: the first inaugural of FDR ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself ") and JFK ("ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country"), Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speeches, Bill Clinton's ending "the era of big government" State of the Union, and George W. Bush's post-9/11 declaration that "whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done" -- and dozens of other noteworthy speeches. The book also addresses crucial questions surrounding the complex relationship between speechwriter and speechgiver, such as who actually crafted the most memorable phrases, who deserves credit for them, and who has claimed it.

Schlesinger tells the story of the modern American presidency through this unique prism -- how our chief executives developed their very different rhetorical styles and how well they grasped the rewards of reaching out to the country. White House Ghosts is dramatic, funny, gripping, surprising, serious -- and always entertaining.

Average Customer Rating:

Great lessons for any speech writer

Customer Rating:

Schlesinger describes the men and women who acted as speech writers to every President from FDR in 1932 to George W. Bush in 2001. Each administration is given a chapter. Each President's relationship with his speech writers is outlined with an analysis of one or more key speeches. Sometimes an Inaugural Address; sometimes the State of the Union address; or a speech on foreign or domestic policy; once a resignation speech. What's fascinating is the unique relationship each President had with his speech writers and other close advisers. The games they played. The office politics. The late nights. Who `owned' the speech and at what point and to what extent the President gave direction. The best were intimately involved. Sorensen and Kennedy were so close that someone observed "When Jack is wounded, Ted bleeds." Carter kept speech writers at arms-length and "didn't much like the idea of using them, ever." It showed. In some administrations, White House staffers would rail against the power of a speech writer to make policy. In others, the speech writers were emasculated scribes left out in the cold. What's absolutely fascinating for anyone who has worked in communications in large commercial organizations (as I have) is how eerily familiar many of the trials and tribulations of the role supporting a CEO is to that of the White House Ghosts. Here's some which had a familiar ring: * Eisenhower's speech writer Bryce Harlow only agreed to take on the role "on the condition that he get to spend a great deal of time around the president so as to best understand how Ike liked to express himself, what his concerns were, how to capture the man's voice." (p. 82) * Eisenhower advising Harlow not to circulate a speech too widely for review. Ike himself was a speech writer (for MacArthur in the Philippines) and is quoted as saying "..one thing I know: If you put ten people to work on a speech, they'll kill anything in it that has any character." (p.85) * JFK used speechwriters to counter the "diplomatic blandness" the State Department bureaucracy produced. Echoing the same tin ear that many high-tech Product Marketing departments have when asked to submit speaking points for a CEO speech, the recipe the State Department used "was evidently to take a handful of cliches...repeat at five minute intervals...stir in the dough of the passive voice...and garnish with self-serving rhetoric." (p.131) * Speech writers in the Kennedy White House influenced strategy and policy "The two roles - writer and policymaker - were symbiotic. .. Active participation made accurate articulation likely.." (p.149) * In the Nixon White House Kissinger put the speechwriter "through so many drafts with short deadlines and with such insistence on his own organization and language" that the writer said "I'm sick of being Henry's stenographer." (p.206) * Regan's speech writer Josh Gilder observed that "writing the speech was a small part of (the) job". "Navigating a draft through the rounds of edits required political skills, negotiations, and compromises." (p.343) * In the Clinton White House the speechwriters claimed that the president only stuck to the written text about half the time. (p. 408) The writers would boldface the text they needed him to say. Been there. Done that. If you'd like to know what the job of a speech writer is all about, rad this book.

good stories- added a key point?	Customer Rating:
Great inside stories. Very interesting material that you probably can't get elsewhere. However, for a book so big on detail, I am surprised that the author missed the point that Harry Truman's middle name is S and does not stand for any name. Therefore, it should not have a period after it as it does in the book.

Great Read about Great Speech

Customer Rating:

Abraham Lincoln, probably the finest presidential speech writer of them all, allegedly said, "For those who like this sort of thing, they'll like this sort of thing." Well, I think Abe and anyone with even the slightest interest in US politics won't just like this book, they should be very impressed with it. White House Ghosts is a powerful, interesting, entertaining read. As a keynote speaker (business, humorous, cancer - quite a juxtaposition I admit), I am enthralled by the art of good speech-writing. Schlesinger takes us on a journey from FDR to George W. Bush with some very entertaining anecdotes and commentary in a lengthy book which I am just about to re-read. Presidents who valued their speech writers have been well served by them, probably none more so than JFK who was much beholden to Ted Sorenson, the doyen of modern speech-writers. One of the reasons why Sorenson was so effective is because he was in general allowed a clear run to craft the final words which Kennedy would speak. He once said, "The boldness and strength of a statement is in inverse proportion to the number of people who have to clear it." Most sane people would agree with this, but it is a rule that is all but ignored in today's Washington. Schlesinger provides a brief overview of the development of Kennedy's inaugural. This is material that has been covered in depth in Sorenson's Counselor and two recent books on the topic, Thurston Clarkes' Ask Not and Tofel's better book Sounding the trumpet. The commentary on Nixon is interesting. This man will never be regarded as a great speaker, but I find many of his speeches - as written, to be really powerful and excellently crafted. This might not be surprising given that his writers included William Safire, Pat Buchanan and David Gergen, but what really intrigued me is that Nixon wrote much of his own material and that he very often spoke without a written text, but according to one speech-writer he was "painstakingly prepared." Presidents Ford and Carter had little time for speechwriters and knew even less how to utilize them, thus ensuring the writing process was confused as indeed was the message in many cases. Reagan, the great communicator was rarely involved in speech development. Indeed Peggy Noonan, the author of his much acclaimed Pointe du Hoc speech did not have her first meeting with Reagan until six weeks after the celebrated speech!! This and many other interesting insights are what makes this such a compelling book. If only more politicians would pay attention to what Kennedy and Nixon learned as they tried to understand what makes a great piece of communication - that the best speeches in most cases were the briefest ones.

interesting perspective

Customer Rating:

Schlesinger reviews each of the Presidential speech writers, from FDR through W. I found the book became increasingly engaging as he approached the modern presidential speech writers though that may be because they were the Presidents that I grew up with. The chapters on Reagan, Clinton and W are particularly interesting in that they provide a glimpse behind the idiosyncratic personalities that shaped much of our modern policy. Of the Bush team, he writes, "The troika [Skully, Gerson, McConnell] gathered to prepare the State of the Union. For eight, nine, ten days running, the routine would be the same: The three sequestered themselves in McConnell's office and word-by-word, line-by-line, wrote the speech. After several days, McConnell's office resembled, as he put it, 'the back of a cheap restaurant' - coffee stained papers piled up, books of food, half-full coffee cups and water bottles lying around. McConnell, who kept a supply of Wet Ones towelettes on hand, endured the chaos with good humor". (p. 476)

Amusing, Quick & Easy Light Reading

Customer Rating:

It was quick, easy, amusing read; lots of historical anecdotes from each White House since FDR....but apart from that, I can't say I know much more about what makes for a good speech, a good speechwriter, or a good Presidential speaker now than I did before I read the book. Apart from figuring out that speeches written by committee don't make for memorable prose, the anecdotes don't really add up to much--- not much insight as to what FDR, JFK, and RR shared in common, if anything, that made them great in this department, versus what Carter and the 2 Bushes shared, if anything, that made them so mediocre.... Look for a fun read, but don't look for any analysis or depth of understanding...