Jeff Shesol's book is an evenhanded account of the deep animosity that pervaded the relationship between LBJ and RFK, fed by stark personality differences, real and perceived slights, and the stunning reversal of fortune that turned their balance of power upside-down.

Their animosity dated back to the race for the Democratic nomination in 1960, when Johnson hemmed and hawed about whether he would officially entered the race. By the time he committed, it was too late; to Johnson's surprise, the Kennedy machine was unstoppable. Yet there had been a brief bit of competitive mudslinging: when Kennedy's aides wondered aloud whether Johnson's previous heart-attack might be an issue, Johnson's aides leaked the "explosive" news that JFK was afflicted with Addison's disease and being kept alive by large infusions of steroids. Though completely true, the Kennedys vehemently denied this charge. Shesol believes that although JFK saw the episode as politics-as-usual, RFK was unable to forgive what he saw as a personal attack by Johnson on his family.

Given this, RFK was apoplectic when he learned that Johnson would be his brother's running mate. He was not alone in his chagrin, and though JFK's role is ambiguous, RFK visited Johnson in an attempt to have him withdrawal. Told by Johnson that this request would have to come from JFK himself, RFK left in defeat. No such request was to come from John Kennedy, and one can imagine Johnson's bitterness in what he may have perceived as an attempt by RFK to sabotage him. While there would be an element of truth to his suspicions as their relationship progressed, Johnson managed to take paranoia concerning Robert Kennedy to incredible heights.

According to Shesol, Johnson was treated shabbily by the Kennedy crowd, especially RFK. With his Texas manners and sensibilities, he was an easy target for mockery from such paragons of east coast sophistication. Also, RFK was particularly intolerant of those he thought were two-faced, disingenuous, or downright dishonest, while LBJ had a famously ambivalent relationship with the truth. At one point, RFK was given a gift of an LBJ voodoo doll, a gesture which was the cause of much "merriment". Johnson, in turn, chafed at newspaper articles which designated RFK the "number two man" in Washington. Even with his largely ceremonial office, Johnson felt that he should be considered the number two man. With unrealistic expectations of continued power over the Senate, Johnson was increasingly unhappy with his position.

Then, of course, everything changed with the assassination of JFK. Johnson's unnecessary insistence that he take a formal oath of office before leaving Dallas reportedly rankled the Kennedys considerably. Furthermore, Johnson's disingenuous claim that the oath was being taken at RFK's request was particularly "galling". Also, many of Kennedy's aides felt that the trip to Texas was made to help Johnson politically, though others feel that it was exactly the opposite situation, and JFK was trying to shore up his shaky position in the south. Memories of the flight back to Dallas vary considerably, with some calling the transition of power Johnson's finest moment, and others describing his behavior as "obscene".

From this point, everyone was in an extremely difficult political position. Feeling that his legitimacy was dependent on his support of the Kennedy legacy, and dependant on support from the popular Kennedys themselves, Johnson was stuck with RFK's continuing influence, both as the Attorney General and as the head of the Kennedy clan. Over time, they were bound to have conflicting ideas about where the Kennedy legacy would lead. On top of this, RFK was no longer the number two man in Washington. He could "hardly countenance" the fact the LBJ was sitting in the Oval Office. Aides and White House staff, as well as others in the Democratic Party elite, felt compelled to take sides. The contentiousness escalated until, finally, in 1968, RFK and LBJ enjoyed their final split over Vietnam War policy, and Kennedy announced a challenge for the presidential nomination. Though Shesol says that LBJ was convinced that he could win, RFK was extremely popular, and the tide of opinion on Vietnam was turning in his favor. He would have been a very formidable opponent, and may well have given Johnson the final push to decline seeking another term.

If so, Shesol's subtitle could be correct: theirs was the "feud that defined a decade". Certainly, the actions and attitudes of one, whether real or inferred, profoundly affected those of the other, and Johnson policy was sometimes determined not by how effective it might be, but how effective it might be in needling or embarrassing Kennedy. Shesol does not really dwell on the broader implications of the feud, however, and declines to spell out exactly how the decade was "defined" by it, choosing instead to present the animosity in its full, unsavory glory, and to let the reader draw his own conclusions.

With so many books about the Kennedys and LBJ, it is strange that this is the first to focus specifically on Bobby Kennedy's feud with Lyndon Johnson. Their animus was visible to all who knew them, from family and close advisors to junior staff and reporters. The hatred began before the 1960 campaign, but really seemed to blossom at the 1960 Democratic convention, when LBJ was chosen as John Kennedy's running mate. It only got worse as time went on. Johnson's ascent to the presidency following JFK's tragic death seemed like usurpation to Bobby and other Kennedy loyalists, while Johnson's resentment at the way he had been treated as VP did not provide any incentive for him to reach out to Bobby. What gives this rivalry more historical importance is the long term effect it had on the Democratic Party. According to the author, it was this feud that caused a rift between the different parts of the Democratic coalition, leading to the McGovern campaign, and the alienation of traditional, working class and Southern Democrats. Whether the reader agrees with that conclusion or not, the book provides an interesting portrait of two men at odds, even though their views on most issues were not.

Robert Kennedy and LBJ were truly at political, ideological and philosophical swords' points. As one reviewer aptly noted, was their "feud" really one that defined the 1960s? That point is questionable at best, doubtful at worst. The very position these men occupied during that period (Attorney General and later Senator/President respectively) certainly does command the world's interest and attention.

Both men are drawn in stark relief to each other. One point I think is worth mentioning is that they really did have a lot in common. Both men were very bright, very aggressive and very determined. Both men had strong convictions and personalities to match. As has been duly recorded over time, one major point of contention was the Vietnam War.

I agree with one reviewer who questioned the harsh description of Johnson's character. I happen to believe that Johnson was a good, effective administrator. As for the Vietnam War, he inherited that headache and as an unfortunate consequence, followed bad advice about that war instead of bailing out sooner. RFK seemed to feel LBJ was wholly responsible for the war escalation. He neglected to note in his arguments and criticisms of President Johnson that the Vietnam conflict began in the late 1950s! (ca 1957, under Eisenhower's administation). During President Kennedy's tenure in office, the Vietnam conflict was well underway, but it is interesting to note that this author does not really point out that fact.

In this reading, one gets the feeling that Robert Kennedy was still working to protect the interest and reputation of his late brother. Since President Johnson assumed office after President Kennedy's death, one could sympathize with the Attorney General's resentment of anyone assuming that office.

The whole description of the "feud" is really a clashing of ideologies; it is really the parting of ways over issues. This author, to his credit does a thorough job in researching this subject and portrays historical events accurately.

It is hoped that in time, the general perception of LBJ will be softened; LBJ was by far and away the most progressive administrator on domestic issues since FDR. LBJ had more bills enacted during his tenure in office than any other president to date. He took a strong stand on environmental, education and civil rights issues that have positive impacts to this day. He was the president who negotiated and succeeded in securing public/subsidized housing, Head Start programs for underprivileged school children; MediCaid/MediCare and the 1965 Voters' Rights Acts which have today a positive impact on the large number of minorities who vote today. It is the opinion of this reviewer that President Johnson was a good and decent man whose many bills, budgets and proposals have had many positive impacts on the world as we now know it.

Robert Kennedy, the tireless worker who actively became involved in Civil Rights after the death of his brother, provided a parallel view of the work Johnson was already immersed in. Both men shared a vision and a quest for a better world with more advantages extended to all persons and with the rights of all persons more fully protected and enacted.

Robert Kennedy was in many ways not too different from President Johnson in objectives.

After reading this book, one can hardly contest the author's assertion that Johnson and RFK disliked, feared and resented each other even more than is the case in most political relationships. That no doubt arose largely because of the exceptional circumstances created by JFK's assassination. But did their feud really "define a decade"? No, because the political and social canvas on which their rivalry was played out was far greater than the author allows. That said, the book is extremely well researched, and the wealth of primary sources that are used enables the reader to reach his own conclusions. My main complaint is that the author seems unduly influenced by the views of some of the young "radical" advisors who surrounded RFK. The book also seems to tilt in a slightly bitter manner against Johnson toward the end. Was Johnson really that bad? Looking at what came after him, one is permitted to think not.

Given the recent market for books about LBJ, the consistent market for Kennedy books, and the play the LBJ-RFK relationship gets in almost every book about either man (and about JFK), it's surpising that no one has tackled this subject in a book before.

But, as good as this book is, one has to wonder if it's really worth the 500+ pages Shesol devotes to it. (Chris Matthews covered the just as interesting JFK-Nixon relationship in his much shorter, more piquant book "Kennedy & Nixon.) Shesol goes to some length to justify this book's subtitle -- "the feud that defined a decade" -- but doesn't really succeed. Say what you will about either LBJ or RFK, but both were far too canny politically to let their personalities completely overpower the events of the 1960s.

This book is comprehensively researched, sensitive, clear-headed, and impressive...just as you would expect from an academic history paper, which is what the genesis of this book was. But for all that, this book lacks the narrative force, drive, and passion that, say, Robert Caro is likely to bring to this topic when he covers it in his comprehensive, controversial series of "The Years of Lyndon Johnson" books--which are recommended to readers who like this story.

Especially early in this book, Shesol goes off on tangents (for example, on William Manchester & Jackie Kennedy) which might impress a history professor but aren't really necessary in this depth in this type of book.

Readers interested in RFK in particular should check out a very underrated RFK book by Jules Whitcover called "85 Days: The Last Campaign of Robert Kennedy."

Readers can argue forever who, in the end, Shesol likes better. My vote says RFK, but that's far from certain, and it really doesn't matter anyway. Enjoy this book for what it is - a good, somewhat dry, tackling of a subject that is both more simple and more complex than Shesol says.