What do you think?
Rate this book
Hail to the Chiefs: Presidential Mischief, Morals, & Malarkey from George W. toGeorge W.
Offers a satiric look at the life, character, and accomplishments of each president from Washington to George W. Bush, in a hilarious study of the all-too-human sides of America's leaders. Reprint.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
2 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
About the author
Barbara Holland
56 books59 followersBarbara Murray Holland was an American author who wrote in defense of such modern-day vices as cursing, drinking, eating fatty food and smoking cigarettes, as well as a memoir of her time spent growing up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, near Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 2, 2009
I'm not going to spend too much time on this review, since I just did another Presidential history book back in November -
Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents
. What was true for that book is just as true for this one: we've had 43 incredibly interesting and varied men in the White House in our 221 years as a nation. We've had men of passion and energy, men who were weak-willed and lazy, men who preferred golf to governance and men who worked themselves to death. Good men, bad men, tall men, short men - this book reminds us of something we need to recall from time to time:
The President is a human being, with all that goes with being one.
Being the President inevitably means becoming a larger-than-life figure. People despised Bush, people adore Obama, venerate Reagan, abhor Clinton, all for what they see as virtues or flaws that only they possess. As if being the President not only means you have to be better than everyone else, but that your failings must be that much deeper.
The point of this book, and of any book on the Presidents, is that they were human beings just like the rest of us. Being President doesn't make you immune to the fundamental flaws of being human - greed, apathy, short-sightedness - nor does it bless you with any trans-human virtues. Learning about and humanizing these 43 men is a grounding and humbling experience, and can keep you from both setting your expectations too high and allowing your disappointments to overwhelm you when your President doesn't live up to your expectations.
Having said all that - if you want to read a book on the Presidents, this is a very funny one to read. The style is more narrative than O'Brien's, and exceptionally snarky. Holland wields her pen like a dagger, stabbing and poking as she goes. She's not really mean, but she has no problem making fun of these men when it can get a good laugh. And I certainly laughed a lot while reading this, much to the dismay of my co-workers. They come in short shots: "[Clinton:] was a big affable fellow who hugged total strangers and felt their pain, like some ancient Norse bear-god, probably named Potus, good-natured but with a weakness for milkmaids." And they come in longer passages, i.e. the Spanish-American War and the rather clever means by which we got the Panama Canal.
It's a hilarious, irreverent read... until she gets to Reagan, which is where either she's being so sarcastic that it's impossible to be sure what's serious and what isn't, or she's absolutely gushing over the Great Communicator. She imbues him with the same invulnerability that he seemed to have while he was President - showing the complaints of his critics, but then deftly removing the sting. George W. Bush gets much the same treatment, which disturbs me a bit, although since the book was published in 2004, I might be willing to chalk that up to post 9/11 fervor. But it does seem that, from 1981 to the present, she's not being quite as fair and balanced as she was to the other Commanders in Chief. Perhaps it's harder to be objective when you actually had to decide whether to vote for the guy in office....
Anyway, the final four Presidents aside, it's a fun book to read and another way to bone up on your Presidential history. They really all were interesting people, in their own ways. Even William Henry Harrison, who may have been too sick to be in interesting President, but still made for a fascinating person.
The President is a human being, with all that goes with being one.
Being the President inevitably means becoming a larger-than-life figure. People despised Bush, people adore Obama, venerate Reagan, abhor Clinton, all for what they see as virtues or flaws that only they possess. As if being the President not only means you have to be better than everyone else, but that your failings must be that much deeper.
The point of this book, and of any book on the Presidents, is that they were human beings just like the rest of us. Being President doesn't make you immune to the fundamental flaws of being human - greed, apathy, short-sightedness - nor does it bless you with any trans-human virtues. Learning about and humanizing these 43 men is a grounding and humbling experience, and can keep you from both setting your expectations too high and allowing your disappointments to overwhelm you when your President doesn't live up to your expectations.
Having said all that - if you want to read a book on the Presidents, this is a very funny one to read. The style is more narrative than O'Brien's, and exceptionally snarky. Holland wields her pen like a dagger, stabbing and poking as she goes. She's not really mean, but she has no problem making fun of these men when it can get a good laugh. And I certainly laughed a lot while reading this, much to the dismay of my co-workers. They come in short shots: "[Clinton:] was a big affable fellow who hugged total strangers and felt their pain, like some ancient Norse bear-god, probably named Potus, good-natured but with a weakness for milkmaids." And they come in longer passages, i.e. the Spanish-American War and the rather clever means by which we got the Panama Canal.
It's a hilarious, irreverent read... until she gets to Reagan, which is where either she's being so sarcastic that it's impossible to be sure what's serious and what isn't, or she's absolutely gushing over the Great Communicator. She imbues him with the same invulnerability that he seemed to have while he was President - showing the complaints of his critics, but then deftly removing the sting. George W. Bush gets much the same treatment, which disturbs me a bit, although since the book was published in 2004, I might be willing to chalk that up to post 9/11 fervor. But it does seem that, from 1981 to the present, she's not being quite as fair and balanced as she was to the other Commanders in Chief. Perhaps it's harder to be objective when you actually had to decide whether to vote for the guy in office....
Anyway, the final four Presidents aside, it's a fun book to read and another way to bone up on your Presidential history. They really all were interesting people, in their own ways. Even William Henry Harrison, who may have been too sick to be in interesting President, but still made for a fascinating person.
July 9, 2025
Original review, 10/2/20:
4.5 stars rounded down to four.
This book was a load of fun. I first read it for a communications class I took the spring semester of college in 1999. (More on that in a moment). The version I read back then stopped with Ronald Reagan.
(Daddy was never impressed with my Garbage Pail Kids, but he was so upset with these two that I believe he told me to get rid of them, which simply means I probably hid them somewhere.)
Ms. Holland updated it in 2003 and added H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Dubya, and they fit right in with the rest. I'm personally glad that Obama and Trump are absent. I still can't find anything funny about the former, but maybe one day.
This is sensationalist humor and should be read as such. Barbara gives us facts about the presidents, then spins them in a comedic way that makes this a delight to read. She also gives us some old rumors, some of which have since been disproved (such as Florence Harding poisoning her husband), but still gives us a conspiracy theory line that causes you to doubt the facts she just gave you. She directly addresses the reader often, and her sarcastic footnotes are a scream. Here's a random sample from the section on Ulysses S. Grant: "Julia was a fine First Lady, but Grant had trouble being First Man. It's specialized work, and some of us are better at it than others. I hear he'd never even read the Constitution.* [footnote 11: Unlike the rest of us, who gather the family around every evening and read it aloud after dinner.]" You'll find this kind of thing on every page.
The temptation for me to start discussing the Presidents and their idiosyncrasies is strong, but I'm going to avoid it because once I open that gate, I will go on and on and on and on and on ad nauseam. Researching the Presidents and the First Ladies is a hobby of mine, and you can't get me to shut up once I start. I can name all of them (in order if you give me a little time to think about a couple of them... and let me run a verse or two from this song through my head). I can also tell you a tidbit or two about most of them, and a whole hell of a lot about some. Some people find this impressive. I think it just proves that I have no life and never did. But if you like that, you should've seen my American history teacher at the first college I went to. He could tell you, in order, every President, his vice president, what year they were elected and what the issues were, and that's to say nothing of all the stuff he could tell you about what went on between the elections. But he had a life; history was his life, and knowing that kind of stuff was what made him a good teacher.
This book is great for anyone with an interest in the Presidents' foibles, but anyone using this book for a research paper deserves the F they'll get as it's very tongue-in-cheek. And that actually serves as a nice segue.
(Review is over now. The rest of this is memories from my college days.)
I did use this for a class, but not history. I had to do a group project in my communications class, and the other members of my group let me talk them into doing a report on various scandals the presidents were involved in. One did the conclusion, and three others did detailed analysis for Jefferson, Kennedy, and Nixon. I know that not because I have a terrific memory, but because I found my notes last night. (I seem to be a pack rat.) This meant I got to do the introduction which briefly covered all the others, and I pulled most of my material from this book.
It was during this project that I discovered I'm actually pretty good at public speaking. The class (and more importantly, the teacher) enjoyed my presentation which was only semi-scripted. I had notes jotted down that I glanced at as I went along, but the exact verbiage was off the cuff, and that seems to be how I do my best work. I even omitted and added stuff from the notes as I went along, and I think that works best for any public speaker. Anything read verbatim from notes or a teleprompter always comes off stilted, no matter how polished the speaker is or how great the material may be. (Just look at the presenters for any awards show. Barfeth!) You need to be able to gauge your audience and adjust and respond to it as needed. My part was such a smash that I was getting compliments on it for the rest of the day, including from people who weren't even in the class and from people I didn't even know! (Averett is a small university now, and was an even smaller college back then, and nothing was private at this private institution. Hell, every time someone took a shit, the number of plies of toilet paper used in the exercise was known by the rest of the campus before he was even out of the stall, and any extra activities that may have gone on in there was also thoroughly discussed. This is one of the reasons I transferred out to the biggest university Virginia had to offer my senior year.)
I felt a little bad for the others in my group who had to follow me because they didn't have the same penchant for that kind of thing that I possessed. I swear I didn't do that on purpose; it was kind of news to me since I used to be terminally shy (and still can be). But once I get up in front of everyone, I tend to roll rather well. I can't explain it, but there it is.
For another assignment in that class (this one solo), we had to give a demonstration on how to do something in under five minutes. I decided to show everyone how to make Devastator who was a Transformer gestalt comprised of construction vehicles.
(Shown here).
There I was in front of the class with the construction vehicles building Decepticon city (Trypticon) when the Dinobots attacked in robot mode. The Constructicons turned into their robot modes to defend, then the Dinobots transformed into dinosaurs which was too much for the Constructicons who merged into Devastator, and they all had a knock-down, drag-out fight... I can't remember who won; I think it was the Constructicons. Throughout all of this the teacher sat with his head tilted and mouth slightly agape as if he couldn't believe what he was seeing (which very well may have been the case), yet I got an A regardless. And let me tell you, it wasn't easy doing nine regular transformations, plus a gestalt merger, and providing a story in under five minutes, but I pulled it off.
I think I got an A for all of my presentations, but I don't think I got an A in the class due to the prof having to factor in test scores. The fact that my coke bottle had a lot of rum in it during my final exam might have had something to do with that. Still, the grade was high since the presentations were a major portion.
Anyway, anyone who enjoys fun, albeit not 100% accurate, history and wants something they don't need to take too seriously would enjoy this.
February 18, 2016
A few years ago my sister bought me this book as a birthday present. This is a funny little book where Barbara Holland takes on the nation’s chief executives one by one bringing them all down a peg. Here are some of my favorite examples.
Holland comments on President Washington and praying. There are many myths on Washington. Some are widely believed (wooden teeth) and correctly disbelieved (the cherry tree). Here Holland takes on the famous kneeling scene.
“There’s a pretty story about him kneeling in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge, and you’re welcome to believe it if you want, but he had a famous aversion to kneeling. When Martha dragged him to church on Sundays, he wouldn’t kneel at the customary points in the service. He was a big man and this made him kind of conspicuous, but he didn’t care.” (p.8)
John Adams and his famous wife with regards to their family.
“All the Adams men were very bright and had no patience with people who weren’t bright enough to see things their way. They even allowed their wives to be bright, so at least one person would see things their way, but this wasn’t always enough. The only wife to give full satisfaction was Abigail, and the other wives got pretty fed up with hearing about her.” (p.13)
When discussing Jefferson and the writing of the Declaration of Independence she points out that event was not the image the famous painting made for it.
“He wrote the Declaration of Independence, or at least the first draft. Adams and Franklin made some changes, and then the congressional committee made some more. Everyone’s an editor. Congress didn’t get around to signing it until August, but on July 4 they’d said they liked it fine and wouldn’t make any more changes, so we can go on having our Fourth of July parades on the Fourth of July.” (p.30)
In the Jackson chapter she talks about his duels.
“Jackson was touchy about this lapse, and when a man named Dickinson made some carry remark he challenged him to a duel, though Dickinson could drill a dime at fifty yards and Jackson had terrible eyes on him and could hardly see a dime. He let Dickinson shoot first and the bullet broke one of Jackson’s ribs, and then he took extra-careful aim and shot Dickerson stone dead. He said, ‘I intended to kill him. I would have stood up long enough to kill him if he had put a bullet in my brain.’”
On my ‘favorite’ president, James K. Polk in his expansionist dreams.
He said Oregon was really ours, because Lewis and Clark had spent the whole winter of 1805-06 there. Besides, in 1834 a couple of bird-watchers had gone out with an expedition and come home to write about how nice the birds were there. England said it was hers, because her Hudson’s Bay Company had been cheating the Indians there for simply ages. We won. Many people didn’t care much one way or the other. It was rainy and infested with Nez Perces, but the salmon fishing was first-rate.” (p.99)
She quite accurately sums up Lincoln’s time in the office.
“Lincoln never had any fun being President because of the Civil War the whole time. It was all ready to roll when he took office, and five days after it was over he was dead as a duck. He had the war, the whole war, and nothing but the war.” (p.139)
Holland explains some main differences between modern and early presidents.
“Grover Cleveland was elected back in the dark days before television, back even before we learned that Presidents ought to be charming, physically toothsome, and fit as fiddles. He was none of the above.” (p. 185)
She lets us know how conservation started.
“Teddy was as fond of nature as cannibals are of missionaries, and he didn’t just go backpacking through it either. He charged right in and shot it between the eyes and had it stuffed and mounted. When Gifford Pinchot, a man who knew a few things about trees, complained that the lumber companies were chopping them down left and right, Teddy was upset. He was afraid the outdoors would disappear and he’d be reduced to popping at squirrels in the Rose Garden. He and Pinchot decided to tell the lumber companies to go easy, and only cut down the large commercially valuable trees and leave some for the rest. They called this ‘Conservation’.” (p.217)
My grandfather can confirm this part.
“Roosevelt was President for so long that by the time he died, everyone under twenty thought ‘President’ was his first name and wondered what we were going to cal the next man.” (p.263)
The public view on going from President Eisenhower to President Kennedy:
“Ernest Hemingway said, ‘It is a good thing to have a brave man as our President in time as tough as these are.’
A senator said, ‘He seems to combine the best qualities of Elvis Presley and Franklin D. Roosevelt.’
John Steinbeck said, ‘What a joy that literacy is no longer prima-facie evidence of treason.’
An unidentified Kennedy aide said, ‘This administration is going to do for sex what the last one did for golf.’” (p.296)
Maybe Reagan’s mind was leaving him earlier than we thought.
“It is possible that Reagan stayed so cool because he thought he’d been shot in a movie. Sometimes it wasn’t whether he was in the White House or in a movie about the White House, or perhaps a movie about football players and fighter pilots.” (p.345)
Holland on why people liked Clinton.
“Bill Clinton was a very smart man who’d been a Rhodes scholar and knew way too much about most things, including such un-Presidential matters as modern literature. This would have disqualified him for President, or even—or especially—governor of Arkansas, if he hadn’t kept doing really dumb things with bimbos that everyone could relate to.” (p.359)
Explaining George W. Bush and his work ethic.
“Bush was no workaholic and cut himself a bit of slack on the job. He was crazy about fitness and worked out for hours, and he spent quite a lot of time back in Texas where, he said, the real people lived, on a place he called his ranch.” (p.375)
Holland explains in a footnote that Bush is ranch had no animals on it. It was just a big place he could ride a go-cart around.
If you want to read an amusing book on presidents than this is the book for you. I laughed through every chapter.
Holland comments on President Washington and praying. There are many myths on Washington. Some are widely believed (wooden teeth) and correctly disbelieved (the cherry tree). Here Holland takes on the famous kneeling scene.
“There’s a pretty story about him kneeling in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge, and you’re welcome to believe it if you want, but he had a famous aversion to kneeling. When Martha dragged him to church on Sundays, he wouldn’t kneel at the customary points in the service. He was a big man and this made him kind of conspicuous, but he didn’t care.” (p.8)
John Adams and his famous wife with regards to their family.
“All the Adams men were very bright and had no patience with people who weren’t bright enough to see things their way. They even allowed their wives to be bright, so at least one person would see things their way, but this wasn’t always enough. The only wife to give full satisfaction was Abigail, and the other wives got pretty fed up with hearing about her.” (p.13)
When discussing Jefferson and the writing of the Declaration of Independence she points out that event was not the image the famous painting made for it.
“He wrote the Declaration of Independence, or at least the first draft. Adams and Franklin made some changes, and then the congressional committee made some more. Everyone’s an editor. Congress didn’t get around to signing it until August, but on July 4 they’d said they liked it fine and wouldn’t make any more changes, so we can go on having our Fourth of July parades on the Fourth of July.” (p.30)
In the Jackson chapter she talks about his duels.
“Jackson was touchy about this lapse, and when a man named Dickinson made some carry remark he challenged him to a duel, though Dickinson could drill a dime at fifty yards and Jackson had terrible eyes on him and could hardly see a dime. He let Dickinson shoot first and the bullet broke one of Jackson’s ribs, and then he took extra-careful aim and shot Dickerson stone dead. He said, ‘I intended to kill him. I would have stood up long enough to kill him if he had put a bullet in my brain.’”
On my ‘favorite’ president, James K. Polk in his expansionist dreams.
He said Oregon was really ours, because Lewis and Clark had spent the whole winter of 1805-06 there. Besides, in 1834 a couple of bird-watchers had gone out with an expedition and come home to write about how nice the birds were there. England said it was hers, because her Hudson’s Bay Company had been cheating the Indians there for simply ages. We won. Many people didn’t care much one way or the other. It was rainy and infested with Nez Perces, but the salmon fishing was first-rate.” (p.99)
She quite accurately sums up Lincoln’s time in the office.
“Lincoln never had any fun being President because of the Civil War the whole time. It was all ready to roll when he took office, and five days after it was over he was dead as a duck. He had the war, the whole war, and nothing but the war.” (p.139)
Holland explains some main differences between modern and early presidents.
“Grover Cleveland was elected back in the dark days before television, back even before we learned that Presidents ought to be charming, physically toothsome, and fit as fiddles. He was none of the above.” (p. 185)
She lets us know how conservation started.
“Teddy was as fond of nature as cannibals are of missionaries, and he didn’t just go backpacking through it either. He charged right in and shot it between the eyes and had it stuffed and mounted. When Gifford Pinchot, a man who knew a few things about trees, complained that the lumber companies were chopping them down left and right, Teddy was upset. He was afraid the outdoors would disappear and he’d be reduced to popping at squirrels in the Rose Garden. He and Pinchot decided to tell the lumber companies to go easy, and only cut down the large commercially valuable trees and leave some for the rest. They called this ‘Conservation’.” (p.217)
My grandfather can confirm this part.
“Roosevelt was President for so long that by the time he died, everyone under twenty thought ‘President’ was his first name and wondered what we were going to cal the next man.” (p.263)
The public view on going from President Eisenhower to President Kennedy:
“Ernest Hemingway said, ‘It is a good thing to have a brave man as our President in time as tough as these are.’
A senator said, ‘He seems to combine the best qualities of Elvis Presley and Franklin D. Roosevelt.’
John Steinbeck said, ‘What a joy that literacy is no longer prima-facie evidence of treason.’
An unidentified Kennedy aide said, ‘This administration is going to do for sex what the last one did for golf.’” (p.296)
Maybe Reagan’s mind was leaving him earlier than we thought.
“It is possible that Reagan stayed so cool because he thought he’d been shot in a movie. Sometimes it wasn’t whether he was in the White House or in a movie about the White House, or perhaps a movie about football players and fighter pilots.” (p.345)
Holland on why people liked Clinton.
“Bill Clinton was a very smart man who’d been a Rhodes scholar and knew way too much about most things, including such un-Presidential matters as modern literature. This would have disqualified him for President, or even—or especially—governor of Arkansas, if he hadn’t kept doing really dumb things with bimbos that everyone could relate to.” (p.359)
Explaining George W. Bush and his work ethic.
“Bush was no workaholic and cut himself a bit of slack on the job. He was crazy about fitness and worked out for hours, and he spent quite a lot of time back in Texas where, he said, the real people lived, on a place he called his ranch.” (p.375)
Holland explains in a footnote that Bush is ranch had no animals on it. It was just a big place he could ride a go-cart around.
If you want to read an amusing book on presidents than this is the book for you. I laughed through every chapter.
September 5, 2019
Hilarious. Nonpartisan, artfully, especially in today's environment. Pokes fun at all the presidents with no holds barred, on every subject micro and macro and aspect of their personalities. Vanities, habits, spending, spouses, results, children, appearance, philandering, wastefulness - all covered here.
Holland's writing style is also very amusing, sardonic and sarcastic, extremely dry at times.
"Besides, there was trouble about a savings-and-loan scam, way back when in Arkansas, and his wife, a public-service lawyer, did okay in cattle futures back at the law firm."
The book is chock-a-block with statements like the above, very tongue-in-cheek and straight-faced, and much more effective than, say, if she's said "anyone but Killary" or the like. You get it.
Great book. It ends with the second George W, but I sincerely hope she updates it for the next two, ahem, characters who have inhabited the Oval Office.
Holland's writing style is also very amusing, sardonic and sarcastic, extremely dry at times.
"Besides, there was trouble about a savings-and-loan scam, way back when in Arkansas, and his wife, a public-service lawyer, did okay in cattle futures back at the law firm."
The book is chock-a-block with statements like the above, very tongue-in-cheek and straight-faced, and much more effective than, say, if she's said "anyone but Killary" or the like. You get it.
Great book. It ends with the second George W, but I sincerely hope she updates it for the next two, ahem, characters who have inhabited the Oval Office.
February 16, 2022
I decided to re-read this hilarious take on our first 40 Presidents. I wish the wonderful author were still living, so she could write an update. She devotes a chapter to each of our national leaders full of anecdotes and no one has her sense of satire when it comes to describing them. I first read this about twenty years ago and enjoyed it just as much the second time around. Her last chapter is on Ronald Reagan, in which she described the entire "Bedtime for Bonzo" plot--obviously she didn't think much of the man. I simply love this book and was in the mood for something deliciously funny.
September 9, 2017
Light and breezy account of our presidents through George W. This was obviously written by a comedian, and one looking more for the quick joke than anything nuanced. The author loves to point out all the personal foibles of the presidents, and has a pretty over the top and sometimes grating far left bias. I was hoping for more factual information and less milquetoast humor.
Overall the book wasn't bad, but it wasn't too fulfilling, and falls a few degrees short of anything I would recommend.
Overall the book wasn't bad, but it wasn't too fulfilling, and falls a few degrees short of anything I would recommend.
March 14, 2024
I'm not entirely sure who this book is for....if you know much about the presidents, there's very little new here. If you don't, the chapters are written in such a breezy style that I can't imagine they would be of much use. I'm also disturbed by the lack of any citations or reference work in the book. It is occasionally amusing, and its a pretty quick and easy read, but I don't think I can recommend it.
November 17, 2020
Interesting topic, but nothing earth shattering here.
December 24, 2021
A great and fun combination of history and humor!
December 17, 2023
Maybe close to 4.5 . In addition to being humorously written, this book is full of interesting information.
November 11, 2013
I picked up a paperback bargain-book copy of "Hail to the Chiefs" and admit that I did not expect to get much out of it. I ended up spending several evenings being kept very entertained by the book, and feeling rather sad when it was finished.
I will not bother to repeat too much what others have said -- Holland is a witty writer, shares a glimpse of each president's personality, gives little tidbits about the political climate of each administration and who the main figures were, and in general makes the presidents seem more human than you're led to believe in high school. It's not a very deep read, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
Her "footnotes," which can take up to a quarter of each page, are amusing but occasionally tiresome. Much of the time, the comments should simply have been included right in the paragraph, and other times, they are simply unnecessary, even as footnotes. She recycles a lot of the same jokes, but her writing style is enjoyable enough that you can overlook this for the most part.
The main issue with "Hail to the Chiefs" is that, while Holland may go overboard with including every random thought she has had as a footnote, she also -- like many other pop culture generalists who don't specialize in any particular area -- includes absolutely no endnotes or sources. You are left at once delighted with all the new things you're learning, and also wondering if any of it's really accurate. Serious students of history, prepare to be frustrated. As a reader, you don't doubt she's making it up, but at the same time, you have no reason to believe she's right, either.
Holland reminds the reader of that eccentric uncle who loves to tell wild stories that are probably mostly true, but who never says how they know any of it. As a result, she makes claims that can't easily be verified by the reader. This is particularly troublesome when she makes controversially definitive statements, seriously going so far as to say everyone else is wrong, about subjects like James Buchanan's sexuality and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemmings debate. She doesn't have the qualifications to back these assertions up -- actually, no one's really sure what her qualifications are -- and if she is so certain to be correct about things, why not prove that? She also gets some secondary names wrong, which is minor...but not really.
"Hail to the Chiefs" is best with the pre-20th century presidencies. By the time she reaches Wilson, she starts losing her control; by the time she's at LBJ, you're skimming. Her commentary on these presidents seems to turn into the tabloid-style writing she manages to avoid prior to that. Holland seems to be writing her own observations on the most recent presidents rather than those of a historian. Her descriptions of Ford, Reagan, and Clinton are basically "Saturday Night Live" sketch caricatures in print.
Then again, this isn't a serious history book, so what more can one expect. Holland has written for everyone from "Entertainment" to "Playboy" to "Cat Fancy," so a generalist's take is as much as you can anticipate. "Hail to the Chiefs" isn't intended to go in-depth with any of the figures it discusses. It's intended to get you to smile.
There's certainly more substance to the book than its main counterpart, Cormac O'Brien's "Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents." If you're looking for an actual read with some length to it, this is the one of the pair to select. Then again, if you want a serious examination of the American presidency and those who shaped it, "Hail to the Chiefs" is not for you at all. This book is for amusement and little more -- and that's fine if you anticipate it.
I will not bother to repeat too much what others have said -- Holland is a witty writer, shares a glimpse of each president's personality, gives little tidbits about the political climate of each administration and who the main figures were, and in general makes the presidents seem more human than you're led to believe in high school. It's not a very deep read, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
Her "footnotes," which can take up to a quarter of each page, are amusing but occasionally tiresome. Much of the time, the comments should simply have been included right in the paragraph, and other times, they are simply unnecessary, even as footnotes. She recycles a lot of the same jokes, but her writing style is enjoyable enough that you can overlook this for the most part.
The main issue with "Hail to the Chiefs" is that, while Holland may go overboard with including every random thought she has had as a footnote, she also -- like many other pop culture generalists who don't specialize in any particular area -- includes absolutely no endnotes or sources. You are left at once delighted with all the new things you're learning, and also wondering if any of it's really accurate. Serious students of history, prepare to be frustrated. As a reader, you don't doubt she's making it up, but at the same time, you have no reason to believe she's right, either.
Holland reminds the reader of that eccentric uncle who loves to tell wild stories that are probably mostly true, but who never says how they know any of it. As a result, she makes claims that can't easily be verified by the reader. This is particularly troublesome when she makes controversially definitive statements, seriously going so far as to say everyone else is wrong, about subjects like James Buchanan's sexuality and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemmings debate. She doesn't have the qualifications to back these assertions up -- actually, no one's really sure what her qualifications are -- and if she is so certain to be correct about things, why not prove that? She also gets some secondary names wrong, which is minor...but not really.
"Hail to the Chiefs" is best with the pre-20th century presidencies. By the time she reaches Wilson, she starts losing her control; by the time she's at LBJ, you're skimming. Her commentary on these presidents seems to turn into the tabloid-style writing she manages to avoid prior to that. Holland seems to be writing her own observations on the most recent presidents rather than those of a historian. Her descriptions of Ford, Reagan, and Clinton are basically "Saturday Night Live" sketch caricatures in print.
Then again, this isn't a serious history book, so what more can one expect. Holland has written for everyone from "Entertainment" to "Playboy" to "Cat Fancy," so a generalist's take is as much as you can anticipate. "Hail to the Chiefs" isn't intended to go in-depth with any of the figures it discusses. It's intended to get you to smile.
There's certainly more substance to the book than its main counterpart, Cormac O'Brien's "Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents." If you're looking for an actual read with some length to it, this is the one of the pair to select. Then again, if you want a serious examination of the American presidency and those who shaped it, "Hail to the Chiefs" is not for you at all. This book is for amusement and little more -- and that's fine if you anticipate it.
July 26, 2009
Let me start by quoting the most retarded and the funniest thing in this book. “…a nasty hurricane called Katrina hit New Orleans. Bush and everyone had been warned about it for days, but, since it was an act of God, nothing much was done to prepare, and 160,000 homes and quite a lot of people were washed away.” So for starters New Orleans is BELOW sea level on the Mississippi River, second they KNEW and were WARNED to LEAVE there DAYS in advance, but pretty much no one left. There were buses there to shuttle the people out of there so don’t go blaming Bush is all I’m going to say. Next this was supposed to be a quirky “funny” book on the presidents but I only laughed once and it was at this: “When asked about his future, Clinton said he planned to list on his resume, ’Designed, built, and painted bridge to the twenty-first century. Supervised Vice President’s invention of the internet. Generated, heightened and maintained controversy.’ “ All I can say here is HA-HA-HA, that’s a good one (for those who don‘t know Al Gore was the Vice President). I was born and raised in Florida, and I am a republican. This book is biased to Florida saying all we are know for is Disney World, and is not sure why John Quincy Adams bought us from Spain. We have fantastic beaches, provide like ¾ of Americas oranges, and ARE one of the most popular tourist locations in the USA. Of course the author treats Kennedy like God, which I extremely disagree with (he was looking for nothing but a good time with other women like Clinton) I can now clearly see why I found this at the dollar store, if you plan on reading a book about presidents don’t make it this one. Bad, horrid and biased. One out of Five stars.
August 3, 2011
This book was fun. I was drawn to it for the very simple reason that I could only trace my presidents from the modern day back to Herbert Hoover. Who came before?, I wondered. (Turns out it was Warren G. Harding. And then "Silent Cal" Coolidge before that. And then Woodrow Wilson. I remembered him from History Class -- the Great War, League of Nations, all that.) But the unexpected treat in Hail to the Chiefs is the unbridled snark & sarcasm of Ms. Barbara Holland. A sample or two? OK, how about this little passage about John Adams (Pres. # 2): "John moved into the presidential mansion all by himself, because Abigail was back home farming & being sick. There weren't any chairs or sheets or blankets because everything had belonged to George & Martha, and they'd taken it with them. Then Rhode Island sent him a cheese weighing 110 pounds, and it just seemed like the last straw. Anyone would get discouraged, living in a house with a 110-pound cheese and no chairs, and besides, his teeth hurt. Abigail didn't show up to straighten things out until May, and in the mean time he just sat on the cheese and felt sorry for himself." Or this one about soon to be Vice Pres (& later President) Theodore Roosevelt: "Teddy had been crashing around being governor of New York and Boss Platt, who was in charge of New York, wanted him out of there before he broke something." Or finally, about our boy Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge -- "He knew nothing and refused to learn." Magnifique! This book was fun. The perfect combination of real history to fill in the gaps, and snarky, funny, irreverent commentary. Woo hoo!
December 30, 2009
Very well written humorous book. It was extremely unbiased (honestly it was! I looked for bias and found none). Full of interesting facts and little tidbits of information. Very good stuff here, highly recommended to any history buff or anyone who just wants a laugh. You'll certainly learn something. I read more than half of it in one sitting, the very laid back writing style made it easy to just keep going and i couldn't wait to find out more about the presidents. For me to say that is a big deal since i'm not very much into american history.
May 27, 2012
One of the very funniest books I ever read ! It was so funny that I purchased an additional 8 copies for friends and family! Barbara Holland takes a brilliantly satirical and humorous slant on our presidents. As a friend noted in his review, the footnotes are just another excuse for more one liners. When that friend's house sadly burned to the ground, the very first book he replaced in his library was Hail To The Chiefs by Barbara Holland. It truly is a LOL book, often hysterically funny!
August 17, 2016
Picked this up for light reading, and it basically was. Not to be taken as solid truth, I would say. It perpetuates a lot of the rumor and gossip about all the presidents. Was really disappointed at how cavalier she was about Clinton. Downgrading the positive things he did and spending way too much effort on all the pseudo-scandals. She wasn't much kinder to the Bush's. She touched on their relationship with Cheney, and oil, but not as honest as she could have.
May 26, 2024
I can't explain it, but I find this book endlessly entertaining.
February 17, 2009
Hilarious quick read and informative if (like me) you've never learned about all the presidents...
October 14, 2015
very funny and even has facts!
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews