Although this should not be so, historians reconsider presidencies based on how the presidents conduct themselves after leaving office.

I certainly don't think that the heirs of the American Revolution were a particularly noble class.

Booker Washington was essentially the head Republican boss in the South. He was a power broker.

The more of my readers I encounter who say, often apologetically, that they are actually listeners, the more I write for the ear rather than the eye. Small things like identifying speakers in dialogue rather than relying on paragraphing to mark the shifts.

Presidents are evaluated not by what they did by the stroke of their own pen; it's what they persuade Congress to do.

There is a certain kind of sobering, civilizing effect that being president imposes on people. There is a certain kind of dignity with which you comport yourself. As an observer of the presidency, I have to wonder if Trump would follow that pattern.

I've probably written some books - I know I've written some books that were more interesting to me than to a large audience, but that was mostly when I was first getting started in academia and writing for a narrow audience.

He used humor more effectively than any president since Abraham Lincoln. Reagan was not an especially warm person, but he appeared to be. Many people disliked his policies, but almost no one disliked him.

I'm often asked, 'Why didn't Benjamin Franklin ever become president?' My short, easy answer is: He died.

Reagan's enduring value as a conservative icon stems from his resolute preaching of the conservative gospel, in words that still warm the hearts of the most zealous conservatives. Yet Reagan's value as a conservative model must begin with recognition of his flexibility in the pursuit of his conservative goals.

I had this grand plan for writing the history of the United States in six volumes. This was in the mid-1990s; I was fairly young and very ambitious. I pitched it to a publisher, who just laughed at me.

Presidents have to decide what their popularity is for. Lyndon Johnson probably understood best that political popularity is a wasting asset. You had to use it when you had it.

Members of Congress are somewhat reluctant to tangle with a president who seems to have the backing of the American people.

America can change its presidents, but the world doesn't change.

Booker Washington was branded an accommodationist by many of the people who criticized him.

When you're actually president, the spin matters a lot less.

The president is the one person who potentially could be the unifying figure in the country. And if the president or a presidential candidate basically writes off 40 states, then how in the world do the people in those 40 states feel like they have a stake in that person or that election?

Once you become president, you don't even have to stop for red lights. And if it looks like traffic's too bad, you just take a helicopter.

I'm more inclined to say the presidency has changed Trump rather than Trump changed the presidency. He has moderated or reversed himself on most of the positions he took as a candidate. Reality has set in, as it does with every new president.

Every work of history is a combination of argument and narrative. The longer I write, the more I emphasize the narrative, the story, and the less attention I give to the argument. Arguments come and go.

In some ways, I would be absolutely fascinated if Trump gets elected.

In modern times, the American military has become more bureaucratised.

I cannot think of a president or administration that has taken seriously the 100 days.

The shelf life of a seventh-year State of the Union address is about five minutes. Presidents can propose stuff. They're probably not likely to get it done.