I saw a copy of it today at Barnes and Noble and flipped through it very quickly (I only had about 5 minutes time) but I was somewhat dissappointed in what I saw. Two things stuck out immediately. First, the book seemed overly Whiggish in its disposition and characterization of the period between the Monroe administration and the Civil War. It was very critical of the Jacksonian view (and there is plenty about Jackson to criticize), but seems to approach this by supplanting him with undue favor shown to the Whigs in return.
Second, I glanced over the first page or two on the civil war chapter. While this will ultimately require a closer view, what I read appeared to claim that southern secession in 1861 was conducted by a small group of power elites without significant popular following or support - I believe it claimed that only 600 or so men decided the issue of secession. It also claimed that no southern state seceded with a popular vote, which is either a serious historical error in the book or a falsehood that has apparently been repeated from other sources.
The truth, of course, is the southern states of Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia all seceded by referendums that carried by a landslide in all three states. Several of the other southern states seceded by secession conventions that were composed of directly elected delegates who represented their county's position on secession and thus exhibited the popular will through a representative system. What is NOT the case, however, is the claim that no state seceded as an act of the popular will, which seemed to be the implication being made. While this will ultimately require further examination of the chapter (and perhaps one of you with access to the book itself can confirm its contents), that seems to be a very substantial error on a major point that was used to open the chapter.
You're exactly right on both counts, and we stand behind both views. You might look at our notes and the research behind those positions.