The late Cornelius P. Cotter is a towering figure in the study of American party organizations: his work with Bernard Hennessey on national party committees, and his leadership of the team of researchers who studied the renaissance of local party organizations are widely cited as major contributions to the field. This paper presents excerpts from his manuscript on Presidential Party Leadership, supplemented by commentary from major scholars in presidency, parties, and in use of the historical methods. Neil Cotter’s ms. is based on original research in the national party committee, White House and other archival sources available principally at the presidential libraries, as well as limited other archival sources and secondary materials to chart the interactions between presidents and their national parties--the Republican and Democratic National Committees--and illustratively, presidential interventions in state and local politics. The period covered by the ms. focuses on the development of institutionalized parties and the evolution of the modern presidents. As discussed in the ms., the institutionalization of the two national parties, beginning in the 1920s, includes the processes of conversion from committees of correspondence to party bureaucracies with fixed headquarters in Washington, operating twelve months in the year, in election and non-election years. Attendant features are regularized budgeting, staff specialization and professionalization, development of programs, and generally, a sense of institutional identity transcending presidencies. While the roles of the party organizations and their chairmen do vary with in-party and out-party status, the national party committees were not mere passive instruments of candidates and presidents. According to Cotter, the resulting need for candidates and presidents to reach accommodation with the party apparatus has been mistakenly read as evidence of declining presidential party leadership. Instead, as Cotter stresses, it should be read to reveal transformation of the presidential parties and of the nature of presidential party leadership. This manuscript, being edited for publication by Denise L. Baer, represents a major contribution to the fields of both presidential leadership and in political parties, and represents an highly developed use of the historical method using political concepts, theories, and tools in ways that advance our understanding of contemporary American institutions and processes. This ms. includes a number of overarching themes about parties, about presidents, and about political science theorizing: 1. Institutionalization of parties is a process that began much earlier than previously thought by political scientists -- as early as 1928. 2. Presidents played and play a key role -- largely unrecognized -- in party institutionalization in the period of 1928-1968. 3. These efforts not only encompassed party reform and congressional party reform, bu7t they led to a restructuring of how the electorate relates to parties. 4. The incentives for presidents to have a strong hand in party organizations are enduring, even as the techniques of campaigning and organization have constantly changed. 5. While the influence of individual presidents is fleeting, just as presidential scholars have noted in their assessments of the institutionalization of the White House, their collective influence on the institutionalizaiton of party is palpable and measureable. 6. Responsible party govenrment in an empirical quesiton. 7. The APSA Report excluded the presidency - focusing primarily on the party organization. 8. Presidents are the center of American politics and the focus of national voting. 9. Efforts to lead both prior to 1968 and since have little staying power unless infused with organizational impact. 10. The key organizations are the national parties. 11. Political parties are greatly affected by the short-term and the long-term strategies of political leaders -- which are impacted by what they understand a political party to be, as well as their operational goals. 12. Political scientists -- and political leaders who work within them -- do democracy a disservice when they misunderstand and perpetuate misunderstandings about political parties. The ms. and the Roundtable commentary is designed to review both the contributions of Cornelius Cotter, as well as to make this ms. and its research available to the profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]