Rating: 
Summary: A good unbiased account
Review: A very unbiased and interesting account. This volume, which is well researched, does a good job looking at the Democratic party. From the split over the civil war to the party of racial suppression to the party of the 'cross of gold' under Bryan to Wilson and FDR. The party of the New Deal and the party that exposed the 'missile gap' and began the Vietnam War. The Party that took down Nixon and finally found victory in 1992. An interesting well written account that follows the Democratic party from its southern slave holding roots to its 'big tent' policies of the 1930s and 1990s.
Rating: 
Summary: I Enjoyed It - But A Disclaimer Or Two...
Review: I enjoy Jules Witcover's books. In fact, I recommend "Marathon" to anybody who enjoys reading about campaigns. But Witcover is promulgating a mainline Democratic lie - that Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson qualify as "Democratic Presidents." This is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Jefferson was a libertarian who believed in small government and would roll over in his grave at the notion of federally funded Social Security and Medicare or income taxes through the roof. Jackson changed the party name, but the change in emphasis came under Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland.
And it's difficult for me to believe some things Witcover says because he flat out changes what happened during my lifetime. Jules charges that the reason Clinton didn't pass his 'middle class tax cut' he promised in 1992 was because 'the Republicans wouldn't support him.' But Clinton made it clear that he didn't want Republican support - and scrapped his tax cut promise less than a week after being elected in favor of higher taxes that passed by one Democratic vote in each house. Yet Witcover blames the minority party for this. How am I to take anything prior to my own interest in politics seriously with such a blatant error in logic?
Witcover redeems himself, however, by talking about the split that developed in the party over Civil Rights in 1948. The party has never really recovered from the aftermath of that period of time, losing nine of the last 14 elections - and nearly losing two more (JFK and Carter) in the electoral college.
A good read - but do some other research if you're preparing a thesis.
Rating: 
Summary: A comment about the cover
Review: I have not read this book, so please don't base your purchase on my review of this book. My comments are merely about the cover of this book and what that may say about the content therein.To put Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson on a book entitled "Party of the People: A History of the Democrats" is somewhat puzzling. Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Democrat, he was a Democratic-Republican, which was a party built mainly around himself and James Madison. The Democratic party as such was built around the personality of Andrew Jackson. My main point in that this should be a two volume work, Democrats from Jackson to Cleveland and then from Wilson to the present. This is because there was a major ideological shift in what the party has stood for. Jackson's major political issue was eliminating the Bank of the United States, what modern Democrat or Republican is advocating getting rid of the Federal Reserve? Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (the three Democratic Republican presidents) would veto road bills because that wasn't a power of the congress as expressed by the constitution. What politician would veto something as "trivial" as a highway bill? The cover of this book associates, illegitimately, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson with FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton, which in terms of intellectual history is utterly absurd. If the latter three consciously analyzed the philosophies of the two former they would reject those philosophies out of hand. The other two, as far as I know, never commented on the actions of the latter three, but from the writings they left behind I seriously doubt they would approve of anything those modern Democrats (or Republicans) have done. For a serious discussion of American political philosophy I would look for a book that doesn't just lump all presidents together because they may have been called Democrats at a particular point in time. Remember, Liberal used to mean someone who advocated economic and political liberty, free speech and free trade. These definitions are subject to change over the years and from the cover and editorial review it doesn't sound like this book takes this into account in any serious way.
Rating:
Summary: A Decent Book on the Democrats
Review: I liked the book, but I found it very curious that Random House had to let a partisan liberal Democrat write the book on the Democrats, while allowing another partisan liberal Democrat write the book on the Republicans. (Further evidence of liberal bias in the publishing industry.) It is interesting as well that the critical analysis ends with the middle of the twentieth century. From roughly 1930 on Party of the People is basically a puff-piece.
Rating:
Summary: Good and interesting reading
Review: It was very hard to put it down, I wanted to keep reading as it
was very interesting what length the Republicians will go to to
stay in office. Senator Daschle has really been put thru the mill, I admire him for his efforts in every way. It is really sad
that we can't accept each others opinions and get along. After all everyone has some good ideas and why can't they get together
and come to an agreement.
Rating:
Summary: A Terrific Book on an Important Subject
Review: Jules Witcover's Party of the People is an impressive attempt to crunch the 200-plus year history of the Democratic Party, from its beginnings in the 18th Century to the ignominious debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, into slightly more than 800 pages of text. Such efforts are always open to objection that the author left out this or that aspect of its subject that is worth attention - here, however, I am left amazed at how successfully the author has marshaled his facts. Witcover is no party hack. When the Democrats have disgraced themselves during their long history, he is not afraid to say so. Parts of the story that might ordinarily seem to be somewhat less than interesting (such as the long absence of the Democrats from the White House in the decades after the Civil War) are made more interesting than they otherwise might seem. Controversial matters, such as the sex scandal that engulfed President Clinton's second term and almost toppled him from power, are dispatched with both admirable objectivity and amazing concision - it's hard for me to see how such a tawdry story could be told more fairly. Witcover's style is serviceable without being either obtrusively literary or academically pedestrian, although there is the occasional misstep - when he writes of House Speaker Newt Gingrich being compared to Darth Vader, I don't think labeling Vader as "the wicked villain of the Star Wars films" is quite necessary - besides, isn't the term "wicked villain" just a little redundant? But such stylistic gaucheries are rare - in general, this is a terrific book on a subject that all political junkies will find fascinating. In this year especially, it's probably a worthwhile thing for people to know what values the Democratic Party stand for, since this country is in need of those values now more than ever. Read this book.
Rating:
Summary: History of Democratic PRESIDENTS
Review: Not a bad book, but way too focused on presidential politics. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, given the author's long history as a Washington reporter, but believe it or not, there really is a Democratic party that exists outside the beltway. You would just never know it by reading this book. Instead of plunging into excruciating detail about FDR conversations with his staff, why not spend some pages describing the role of the Democratic party at least at the regional level? For example, the role of Southern Democrats with Jim Crow laws and blocking of civil rights?
Rating:
Summary: History of Democratic PRESIDENTS
Review: Not a bad book, but way too focused on presidential politics. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, given the author's long history as a Washington reporter, but believe it or not, there really is a Democratic party that exists outside the beltway. You would just never know it by reading this book. Instead of plunging into excruciating detail about FDR conversations with his staff, why not spend some pages describing the role of the Democratic party at least at the regional level? For example, the role of Southern Democrats with Jim Crow laws and blocking of civil rights?
Rating: 
Summary: Overly Focussed on Presidents and Very Biased
Review: The problems with this book are threefold: 1. As has been pointed out by other reviewers, the author focusses almost all his attention on Democratic presidents and Democrats running for president. For a book that calls itself "The Party of the PEOPLE," the people are largely ignored. 2. There is a significant disproportionate amount of the book given over to more recent events than say those of the 19th century. Half of the book covers the years between FDR and Clinton. 3. Unfortunately the author does little to hide his own personal feelings about many politicians. It is very easy to see that he is an unabashed Democrat and while that is perfectly ok, when writing a historical piece, you do not want your own opinions/feelings to play a part. Clearly biased remarks (often snide or condescending in fact) are interjected dozens of times throughout the text. By the time the book gets to the last 30 years, it is no longer reading as a history, but rather as an opinion piece. One also has to question the factual content. When (briefly) referring to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the author mentions that the planes departed from Boston (correct), and Washington (incorrect - the other airport was Newark). To allow such a glaring and recent error into a book that is supposed to be historically accurate has to call into question the accuracy of the rest of the volume.
Rating:
Summary: Overly Focussed on Presidents and Very Biased
Review: The problems with this book are threefold: 1. As has been pointed out by other reviewers, the author focusses almost all his attention on Democratic presidents and Democrats running for president. For a book that calls itself "The Party of the PEOPLE," the people are largely ignored. 2. There is a significant disproportionate amount of the book given over to more recent events than say those of the 19th century. Half of the book covers the years between FDR and Clinton. 3. Unfortunately the author does little to hide his own personal feelings about many politicians. It is very easy to see that he is an unabashed Democrat and while that is perfectly ok, when writing a historical piece, you do not want your own opinions/feelings to play a part. Clearly biased remarks (often snide or condescending in fact) are interjected dozens of times throughout the text. By the time the book gets to the last 30 years, it is no longer reading as a history, but rather as an opinion piece. One also has to question the factual content. When (briefly) referring to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the author mentions that the planes departed from Boston (correct), and Washington (incorrect - the other airport was Newark). To allow such a glaring and recent error into a book that is supposed to be historically accurate has to call into question the accuracy of the rest of the volume.
| 
