With its meticulously documented and compulsively readable portrait of JFK as a man whose reckless personal behavior imperiled his presidency, this monumental work of investigative journalism reveals the Kennedy White House as never before. The book argues that President Kennedy's private life and personal obsessions -- his character -- affected the affairs of the U.S. and its foreign policy far more than has ever been known.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse the best books of summer including blockbusters, beach reads, and editors' picks in our Summer Reading Store. |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
If the Kennedys are America's royal family, then John F. Kennedy was the nation's crown prince. Magnetic, handsome, and charismatic, his perfectly coifed image overshadowed the successes and failures of his presidency, and his assassination cemented his near-mythological status in American culture and politics. Struck down in his prime, he represented the best and the brightest of America's future, and when he died, part of the nation's promise and innocence went with him. That, at least, is the public version of the story.
The private version, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, is quite different. His meticulous investigation of Kennedy has revealed a wealth of indiscretions and malfeasance, ranging from frequent liaisons with prostitutes and mistresses to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro to involvement in organized crime. Though scandals in the White House are nothing new, Hersh maintains that Kennedy's activities went beyond minor abuses of power and personal indulgences: they threatened the security of the nation--particularly in the realm of foreign policy--and the integrity of the office. Hersh believes it was only a matter of time before Kennedy's dealings were exposed, and only his popularity and charm, compounded by his premature death, spared such an investigation for so long. Exposure was further stalled by Bobby Kennedy's involvement in nefarious dealings, enabling him to bury any investigation of his brother and--by extension--himself.
Based on interviews with former Kennedy administration officials, former Secret Service agents, and hundreds of Kennedy's personal friends and associates, The Dark Side of Camelot rewrites the history of John F. Kennedy and his presidency.
Review
The big casualty in the Marilyn-papers fiasco is the five years of hard work Hersh put into his book. One may quarrel with his judgments but the man is a great investigative reporter, no lie, and when he says somebody told him something he makes it easy for doubters to check it out. Nothing in The Dark Side of Camelot gives off even a whiff of the dead-fish aroma of the trust fund from Marilyn's Mom, but Kennedy loyalists, joined by others who just don't want to know, are using Hersh's terrible misstep to dismiss what he has dug up as trifling gossip and unsupported heresay. -- The New York Times Book Review, Thomas Powers
This warts-and-more-warts bio is so determined to kill off the Kennedy mystique it should be subtitled The Second JFK Assassination.... Hersh packs so much sleaze and scandal between the covers, he makes Kitty Kelley look like a pussycat. Much of it is old news, of course, even if Hersh does document the allegations more assiduously than ever before. -- Entertainment Weekly
This warts-and-more-warts bio is so determined to kill off the Kennedy mystique it should be subtitled The Second JFK Assassination.... Hersh packs so much sleaze and scandal between the covers, he makes Kitty Kelley look like a pussycat. Much of it is old news, of course, even if Hersh does document the allegations more assiduously than ever before. -- Entertainment Weekly
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
105 of 115 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
First, the disclaimer: although I am a conservative, I like and admire much of what JFK did as president, and I admire the man. Few readers will begin reading this book without a pre-existing opinion of Kennedy. That is/was mine.
Hersh does a workmanlike job illustrating the apparently undeniable fact that Kennedy had medical problems, integrity issues, and personal problems that the country would probably not tolerate in a president today. This book appears to be well-researched and well-documented. It does not present a flattering portrayal of Kennedy and it does not intend to.
First, the infidelity. Hersh goes into depressing detail as to his theme that JFK's marriage was a sham. According to Hersh, JFK never missed an opportunity to philander whenever Jackie Kennedy was away, and sometimes when she wasn't away. Much of JFK's inner circle conspired with him in this regards (according to Hersh) to a degree that is hard to imagine. Hersh speculates that part of Kennedy's abnormal libedo was induced by various drugs he took for his Addison's condition. Hersh develops this theme further in his discussion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and speculates that the cocktail of steroids and other drugs that Kennedy evidently needed to get through the day affected his judgment and his willingness to take risks. This in turn may have caused him to be more prone to the kind of brinksmanship that Hersh claims characterized Kennedy's handling of the Missile Crisis.
Personally I'm not so sure. Despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming nuclear and overall military superiority over Soviets in 1962, Kennedy did not bomb the missiles out but instead negotiated. Here I felt Hersh was unfair to Kennedy.
On the other hand, it seems clear that Kennedy's marriage was a sham and his image of youthful vigor was even more of a sham. Hersh is convincing that Kennedy could not get through the day without a battery of probably illegal drugs. Kennedy was suffering from Addison's disease, which is a very serious condition, and had many other health issues, including the famous back problem, which put him in constant pain.
Personally I found this book convincing as regards the infidelity, drug, and health claims that it made about Kennedy. Hersh is on thinner ice when he theorizes that these issues caused Kennedy to endanger the country. While this book or one like it is probably needed to balance the fluff pieces about Kennedy (and all the Kennedys) that abound, it is not itself a balanced analysis of JFK. To its credit, the book more or less admits this, in its title if nowhere else.
49 of 57 people found the following review helpful
By sandalista
Format:Paperback
"This warts-and-more-warts bio is so determined to kill off the Kennedy mystique it should be subtitled The Second JFK Assassination.... Hersh packs so much sleaze and scandal between the covers, he makes Kitty Kelley look like a pussycat." (Editorial Review from Entertainment Weekly, a respected journal of political & historical analysis.)
The Kennedys were entertainment, daily, for a nation becoming addicted to the drug of television. Jack, Jackie, Bobby, Teddy, and even strange Robert McNamara were stars, mainlining glitz to the masses in a perpetual party where the best & brightest women, wearing Casini gowns, pushed each other into Georgetown swimming pools and where their men fiddled with Faddle in John Kennedy's hide-away pool at the White House.
Seymour Hersh, respected and sometimes venerated for his expose' journalism about My Lai, Cointelpro, and Abu Ghraib, was reviled by the eastern liberal priesthood for exposing in this book a naked liberal icon. Spit and vituperation flew about Hersh's sloppiness, his near miss in almost going to print with some bad intel about Marilyn Monroe. That single slip-up became the firestorm focus of a mainstream media seduced by John Kennedy in 1960 and 1961 (JFK said in January '61 that it was our "moment of maximum danger" ... and indeed it was; we had entrusted the free world to an amphetamine kid and to the kid's kid brother) and that's seduced by him now.
Historian Michael Beschloss said that while the public is still enamored of the Kennedy phantom, most historians now know better. But historical honesty and accuracy are hampered by the priesthood I mentioned. 42 years after Dallas, the Kennedys and their protectors -- who bought absolution for Teddy at Chappaquiddick -- are still buying cover for the darkest corners of Camelot. There's a priesthood or palace guard blocking access to information, and it's reminiscent of Florence Harding, widow of another randy president, burning his papers before historians could see them.
(Anyone disputing my assertion about media seduction should review the media's failure to question or challenge Kennedy's failure at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. For a fumigation of smelly liberal pieties about the Missile Crisis of 1962, read liberal Eric Alterman's excellent discussion in When Presidents Lie. For perceptive analyses of assassination plots against Castro, go to Gus Russo and Ronald Steele. I'm astonished, though, that even now there is more concern about inept attempts to kill a tyrant than about the assassination in 1962 of America's ally Ngo Dinh Diem. That assassination, which locked us into a decade of no-win war, must have been approved by Kennedy or by someone close to him.)
The Kennedys were entertainment, daily, for a nation becoming addicted to the drug of television. Jack, Jackie, Bobby, Teddy, and even strange Robert McNamara were stars, mainlining glitz to the masses in a perpetual party where the best & brightest women, wearing Casini gowns, pushed each other into Georgetown swimming pools and where their men fiddled with Faddle in John Kennedy's hide-away pool at the White House.
Seymour Hersh, respected and sometimes venerated for his expose' journalism about My Lai, Cointelpro, and Abu Ghraib, was reviled by the eastern liberal priesthood for exposing in this book a naked liberal icon. Spit and vituperation flew about Hersh's sloppiness, his near miss in almost going to print with some bad intel about Marilyn Monroe. That single slip-up became the firestorm focus of a mainstream media seduced by John Kennedy in 1960 and 1961 (JFK said in January '61 that it was our "moment of maximum danger" ... and indeed it was; we had entrusted the free world to an amphetamine kid and to the kid's kid brother) and that's seduced by him now.
Historian Michael Beschloss said that while the public is still enamored of the Kennedy phantom, most historians now know better. But historical honesty and accuracy are hampered by the priesthood I mentioned. 42 years after Dallas, the Kennedys and their protectors -- who bought absolution for Teddy at Chappaquiddick -- are still buying cover for the darkest corners of Camelot. There's a priesthood or palace guard blocking access to information, and it's reminiscent of Florence Harding, widow of another randy president, burning his papers before historians could see them.
(Anyone disputing my assertion about media seduction should review the media's failure to question or challenge Kennedy's failure at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. For a fumigation of smelly liberal pieties about the Missile Crisis of 1962, read liberal Eric Alterman's excellent discussion in When Presidents Lie. For perceptive analyses of assassination plots against Castro, go to Gus Russo and Ronald Steele. I'm astonished, though, that even now there is more concern about inept attempts to kill a tyrant than about the assassination in 1962 of America's ally Ngo Dinh Diem. That assassination, which locked us into a decade of no-win war, must have been approved by Kennedy or by someone close to him.)
34 of 41 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
Format:Paperback
Basically, how you rate "The Dark Side of Camelot" all comes down to how you feel about the Kennedys, as the previous reviews on this book have clearly demonstrated. If you admire the Kennedys, then this book is "trash" and Hersh's claims about John F. Kennedy's Presidency are "wildly exaggerated" or "just not true". But if you don't like the Kennedys, then Hersh's claims are "without doubt" and "undeniably the truth".
Books about John F. Kennedy usually fall into one of these two groups - the scholarly, mostly admiring "serious" books which concentrate on the issues Kennedy dealt with as President and look only briefly at his many personal flaws; and the so-called "sensational" books which focus primarily on JFK's wild private life and only briefly examine the major historical events of his term of office (the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.). I tend to look at Hersh's book somewhat differently - I think that many of Hersh's allegations are indeed true, and there's little doubt (as many other books and sources have confirmed Hersh's allegations), that JFK was anything but a saint in his private life. However, I'm still not convinced that his private behavior had much effect on his judgments and decisions in the great historical moments of his Presidency. For example, does anyone (except his strongest critics) believe that Kennedy consulted Marilyn Monroe (or one of his other mistresses) before giving the order to allow Cuban exiles to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs to overthrow Fidel Castro (would Monroe even know where Cuba was)?
Most of Hersh's claims have been made elsewhere, although he does come up with new testimony from ex-Secret Service agents, aides, and others to buttress his arguments. Specifically, the major charges are: 1) That Kennedy, with the help of his sinister, enormously wealthy father, "bought" the 1960 presidential election by stealing enough votes to defeat JFK's great rival, Richard Nixon. There was some evidence of major vote-stealing in Illinois (Nixon carried 92 of 101 counties in Illinois but still lost the state by only 9,000 votes, mostly because of a huge Kennedy vote in Chicago). President Eisenhower encouraged Nixon to contest the results there, but Nixon, in a graceful move, refused to. Hersh implies that the mafia in Chicago, specifically mob boss Sam Giancana, stole the votes necessary for JFK to win in Chicago, and that Kennedy and Giancana privately communicated through a woman they shared sexually, Judith Campbell-Exner. Exner's story has been repeated in other books, and there is little doubt that she and Kennedy had a relationship. However, Illinois alone wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election, and Nixon would still have needed to win another big state to change the result. His best bet may have been in Texas, another state that JFK won by a close margin and where there were also claims of vote fraud (courtesy of Lyndon Johnson, JFK's running mate). However, the Texas angle has never been investigated as thoroughly as the Illinois vote, and we may never truly know who should have won the 1960 presidential election - we can only speculate.
For his second charge, Hersh provides plenty of eyewitness testimony that President Kennedy had literally dozens of mistresses, extramarital affairs, and one-night stands, thus leaving himself open to blackmail from foreign governments or hostile internal forces (such as the mafia). Again, there's considerable evidence from other books that Kennedy did fool around - two of his secretaries were nicknamed "Fiddle" and "Faddle" and often took nude swims with him in the White House pool. Again, the real charge is whether or not these women compromised JFK's ability to do his job, and that's harder to prove. That Kennedy treated most of these women like live sex toys is undeniable - he didn't seem to take most of them seriously (nor, according to author Gore Vidal, a relative of Jackie Kennedy, did his wife. According to Vidal, Jacqueline Kennedy often used the word "it" , not "she" or "her", when referring to her husband's many mistresses). Kennedy also supposedly had a fling with a woman who was later suspected of being a spy for the Communist East German government, and who was quickly deported when Bobby Kennedy learned of the suspicions about her. These are serious charges, and Kennedy does seem to have been guilty of, at least, extremely poor judgment.
And, finally, Hersh charges that Kennedy systematically used the power of the Presidency to cover up his shenanigans, thus breaking the law repeatedly and committing criminal acts. If true, this would place Kennedy in the Nixon range of Watergate-type scandals, which means that he should have been impeached. Again, there is little doubt that Kennedy used the Secret Service and other federal agencies to hide his behavior from outsiders, and his brother did use his power as Attorney General to silence embarrassing stories and try to dig up dirt on potential enemies (such as Nixon, the Kennedys had the IRS audit his taxes several times from 1961-1963, with no result). Of course, MANY politicians have done the same, and while it may not be morally right, the Kennedys were neither the first nor the last politicians to do so. Whether this makes them especially evil or sinister is dubious. In short, it is my belief that Hersh's claims, although largely true, still don't provide a clear link between JFK's private life and his public (political) life. Was Kennedy a terrible person? Hersh makes a strong case that the private Kennedy was often a sexually deviant, amoral man. But as for Kennedy the President (and they are different things), I don't believe he was a great President, but he also wasn't the awful leader that Hersh and some others make him out to be. Today many historians rate JFK as about average - in the middle of the pack. And that's about where I would place him, too. And that's also why I'm giving "The Dark Side of Camelot" three stars - Hersh's research and allegations are worth reading, but whether there's a link between what Hersh describes and Kennedy's political behavior and decision-making remains to be seen.
Books about John F. Kennedy usually fall into one of these two groups - the scholarly, mostly admiring "serious" books which concentrate on the issues Kennedy dealt with as President and look only briefly at his many personal flaws; and the so-called "sensational" books which focus primarily on JFK's wild private life and only briefly examine the major historical events of his term of office (the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.). I tend to look at Hersh's book somewhat differently - I think that many of Hersh's allegations are indeed true, and there's little doubt (as many other books and sources have confirmed Hersh's allegations), that JFK was anything but a saint in his private life. However, I'm still not convinced that his private behavior had much effect on his judgments and decisions in the great historical moments of his Presidency. For example, does anyone (except his strongest critics) believe that Kennedy consulted Marilyn Monroe (or one of his other mistresses) before giving the order to allow Cuban exiles to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs to overthrow Fidel Castro (would Monroe even know where Cuba was)?
Most of Hersh's claims have been made elsewhere, although he does come up with new testimony from ex-Secret Service agents, aides, and others to buttress his arguments. Specifically, the major charges are: 1) That Kennedy, with the help of his sinister, enormously wealthy father, "bought" the 1960 presidential election by stealing enough votes to defeat JFK's great rival, Richard Nixon. There was some evidence of major vote-stealing in Illinois (Nixon carried 92 of 101 counties in Illinois but still lost the state by only 9,000 votes, mostly because of a huge Kennedy vote in Chicago). President Eisenhower encouraged Nixon to contest the results there, but Nixon, in a graceful move, refused to. Hersh implies that the mafia in Chicago, specifically mob boss Sam Giancana, stole the votes necessary for JFK to win in Chicago, and that Kennedy and Giancana privately communicated through a woman they shared sexually, Judith Campbell-Exner. Exner's story has been repeated in other books, and there is little doubt that she and Kennedy had a relationship. However, Illinois alone wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election, and Nixon would still have needed to win another big state to change the result. His best bet may have been in Texas, another state that JFK won by a close margin and where there were also claims of vote fraud (courtesy of Lyndon Johnson, JFK's running mate). However, the Texas angle has never been investigated as thoroughly as the Illinois vote, and we may never truly know who should have won the 1960 presidential election - we can only speculate.
For his second charge, Hersh provides plenty of eyewitness testimony that President Kennedy had literally dozens of mistresses, extramarital affairs, and one-night stands, thus leaving himself open to blackmail from foreign governments or hostile internal forces (such as the mafia). Again, there's considerable evidence from other books that Kennedy did fool around - two of his secretaries were nicknamed "Fiddle" and "Faddle" and often took nude swims with him in the White House pool. Again, the real charge is whether or not these women compromised JFK's ability to do his job, and that's harder to prove. That Kennedy treated most of these women like live sex toys is undeniable - he didn't seem to take most of them seriously (nor, according to author Gore Vidal, a relative of Jackie Kennedy, did his wife. According to Vidal, Jacqueline Kennedy often used the word "it" , not "she" or "her", when referring to her husband's many mistresses). Kennedy also supposedly had a fling with a woman who was later suspected of being a spy for the Communist East German government, and who was quickly deported when Bobby Kennedy learned of the suspicions about her. These are serious charges, and Kennedy does seem to have been guilty of, at least, extremely poor judgment.
And, finally, Hersh charges that Kennedy systematically used the power of the Presidency to cover up his shenanigans, thus breaking the law repeatedly and committing criminal acts. If true, this would place Kennedy in the Nixon range of Watergate-type scandals, which means that he should have been impeached. Again, there is little doubt that Kennedy used the Secret Service and other federal agencies to hide his behavior from outsiders, and his brother did use his power as Attorney General to silence embarrassing stories and try to dig up dirt on potential enemies (such as Nixon, the Kennedys had the IRS audit his taxes several times from 1961-1963, with no result). Of course, MANY politicians have done the same, and while it may not be morally right, the Kennedys were neither the first nor the last politicians to do so. Whether this makes them especially evil or sinister is dubious. In short, it is my belief that Hersh's claims, although largely true, still don't provide a clear link between JFK's private life and his public (political) life. Was Kennedy a terrible person? Hersh makes a strong case that the private Kennedy was often a sexually deviant, amoral man. But as for Kennedy the President (and they are different things), I don't believe he was a great President, but he also wasn't the awful leader that Hersh and some others make him out to be. Today many historians rate JFK as about average - in the middle of the pack. And that's about where I would place him, too. And that's also why I'm giving "The Dark Side of Camelot" three stars - Hersh's research and allegations are worth reading, but whether there's a link between what Hersh describes and Kennedy's political behavior and decision-making remains to be seen.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent work
First I must admit I was taken in by the legend of JFK, a legend pushed by the US media and the world who adored the man. Read more
Published 2 days ago by B. Morley
4.0 out of 5 stars
Corruption, Arrogance, Entitlement
I have known for some time that Joe Kennedy bought the elections for Jack, but the extent of the corruption in this family is mind boggling. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Kathy Edens
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great book with 1 minor quibble
Hersh's book is a wealth of well-researched information that never bores as he rolls back the myths surrounding JFK and Camelot and uncovers the sordidness underneath. Read more
Published 2 months ago by William J. Harper
4.0 out of 5 stars
Dark?
A/the subtext is that Joe was a totally self obsessed b'tard. There are implications in this characterisation that John and Bobby could well have been abused/bent to the point of... Read more
Published 2 months ago by wblakesx
4.0 out of 5 stars
Camelot was just an Illusion
If the public knew what was going on behind the scenes of the 1960 presidential election,
JFK would never have been elected. Read more
JFK would never have been elected. Read more
Published 3 months ago by James E. Allison
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a great book to read to it also has alot information to.
This book keeps you on your seat because it has alot information, suspense and alot of drama. I recomment this book to all my friends to buy for they can like it to.
Published 3 months ago by Alejandro
4.0 out of 5 stars
One of the Better Books...
This is definitely one of the better books written about the Kennedy administration.
It is NOT an assasination conspiracy book. (Thats why I like it...). Read more
It is NOT an assasination conspiracy book. (Thats why I like it...). Read more
Published 5 months ago by J. J. Techead
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Dark Side of Camelot
This is one of the most interesting historical books that I have read in a long time. It certainly takes some of the glint & glitter off of JFK and creates some very interesting... Read more
Published 6 months ago by Kathleen
3.0 out of 5 stars
Hersh jumped the gun.
I just read this book, a little late I guess. Hersh should have waited a year or two to write this then he could have added a couple more chapters, in light of the many... Read more
Published 6 months ago by JOHN FRANCIS
4.0 out of 5 stars
Suspicions Confirmed Again
Dark Side of Camelot, penned by the brilliant Seymour Hersh, doesn't disappoint. We've been hearing for years now of JFK's personal behavior and this book confirms it once again. Read more
Published 6 months ago by Lois Lane
Citations (learn more)
This book cites 57
books:
See all 57 books this book cites
99
books
cite this book:
See all 99 books citing this book
- Playa Girón/Bay of Pigs: Washington's First Military Defeat in the Americas by Fidel Castro on 12 pages
- One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964: The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Aleksandr Fursenko on page 267, page 362, and Back Matter
- Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy on page 88, page 116, and Index
- Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers on page 129, page 413, and Back Matter
- The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the CIA by Evan Thomas on page 174, page 393, and Back Matter
See all 57 books this book cites
- Kennedys: Stories of Life and Death from an American Family (Adrenaline Lives Series) by Clint Willis on 5 pages
- The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency by Ph.D. Philip H. Melanson Ph.D. on 4 pages
- Intelligence Wars: American Secret History from Hitler to Al-Qaeda (New York Review Collections) by Thomas Powers on 4 pages
- Awaiting Armageddon: How Americans Faced the Cuban Missile Crisis by Alice L. George on 4 pages
- The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America's First Family for 150 Years by Edward Klein on 4 pages
See all 99 books citing this book
Books on Related Topics
(learn more)
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Listmania!
|
|
So You'd Like to...
|
|
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Historical > United States
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Political
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Rich & Famous
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( K ) > Kennedy, John F.
- Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( K ) > Kennedy, Robert
