Rating: 
Summary: Very Readable and Interesting
Review: Although I am a Democrat and hate negative books about the president, I feel this book give a fair and accurate account of this unsavory scandal. This book is also a very easy and entertaining read.
Rating:
Summary: "Just the Facts, Ma'am"
Review: This book very much reminded me of "All the President's Men"; it was very thorough and the book never lost my interest,which at times I wished it would so that I could put the book down and get other things done, like housework or sleep.The actual ongoing investigation had a constant flow where one bomshell had barely landed before another one was dropped; Isikoff manages to give the readers that same beat, beat, beat energy with his style of writing. I even changed my workout routine to squeeze in some extra time to read the book (I stopped running on the treadmill because it is hard to read whilst running fast, but not so difficult when on the treadmill) Mr. Isikoff seemed to struggle with (but eventually separate) his own personal ethics (the president is a sexual predator who champions women's rights but sexually harrasses and assaults them and he should be held accountable) and the principles he learned when he started his career (if I listen to the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes while Tripp is still taping Lewinsky, I become part of the process of taking down Clinton), which I thought was an interesting sideline to the main theme of the book. I also liked some of the personal anecdotes, most of them self-deprecating humor, such as when he (Isikoff) met Lucianne Goldberg and Tripp to listen to the tapes for the first time and left the coffee table littered with pistacio nuts. I thought the book was non-partisan. That is to say, it reports the facts. The extent of the deception in this administration is mind-boggling and you will uncover facts and details that you probably were unaware of. If I would have to state a complaint of the book, it would be that Mr. Isikoff should have created a "cast of characters" he writes about in the book. Lawrence Schiller has done this with his books on the O.J. Simpson and Jon Benet Ramsey cases, and it is most helpful when there are many less-significant people (lawyers, mostly) mentioned, and it would help to have a reference as to who this person is and what role they play. I look forward to another Isikoff book!
Rating:
Summary: Uncovering Clinton, A great look at the truth
Review: To anyone who has an interest in politics, this is a great source of information concerning the Clinton administration! Very well written, and non paritsan. Worth every penny! Kevin
Rating:
Summary: Of all the books, this is the one!
Review: No wonder this book won an award. I've read two dozen books on the Clintons and their administration, and this is the best account of the Lewinsky scandal I've read. It is a clear and clean account, and shouldn't be missed by those who want to know how it happened by someone who was there from the beginning. This book defines as no other the role of Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg: they're not the innocent players some would have you believe. Uncovering Clinton also shows the errors of the Starr investigation that I have read no where else. If you want to read only one book on the Lewinsky affair, this the the one to read.
Rating:
Summary: Isikoff's Uncovering Clinton
Review: The Editor and most other reviewers have done an excellent job in reviewing this book, and here I would like to concentrate on some aspects that are important to me. Isikoff points out that Nixon and Clinton both hated their enemies, but that they were different in an important respect: Nixon deep down had a suspicion that his critics might be right, but Clinton deep down believes that his enemies are scum. He also concludes that Clinton is far more psychologically disturbed than the public ever imagined, and goes into considerable evidence involving Clinton's previous behavior with women. What I myself find unpardonable about the whole issue is the effect that the events had on the young people of the USA. I was in the High Schools, the Middle Schools, the Universities, and even the Elementary Schools as a teacher when the stories broke and the President contradicted himself and finally admitted some of his mistakes. (I go back and forth between teaching mathematics and private math-physics consulting.) The young generation took Clinton and Lewinsky's behavior as role models to an enormous extent. In and out of classes, they cheered the two of them, and the more blatant their "alleged" affair became, the more the immoral and unethical conduct itself was cheered. Students did not merely support Clinton and Lewinsky. They supported what they did, how they did it, when they did it, why they did it, and they publicly stated again and again that in effect they intended to do it too. It was no longer merely Democrat against Republican. It was getting thrills by cheating on your wife or husband, by having sex and thrills in public or via public exposure, and having thrills by stepping on your subordinates and hurting others. This is the generation, in Southern California at least, that is being defended by the teaching and school administration establishment as really doing well in their grades - contrary to the repeated evidence of testing scores compared to other states and other countries. I found, on the contrary, that except at the university level there were only a handful of students interested in studying rather than "cooling it" and abandoning their responsibilities. I know the argument of the Democrats, and I sympathize to some extent, but not enough to tolerate incompetence and immorality of the type that was present before the collapse of Ancient Rome. The Democrats usually say: he's our only hope for Higher Education Funding and Social Programs. What kind of social program is the collapse of Ancient Rome? What kind of social program is the Crucifixion of Christians or the incineration of Jews which Ancient Rome in its worst days developed and handed down to its admirers and imitators like the Nazis and Fascists? What kind of social program creates a young generation of monsters? Maybe there is a poor choice between liberal immorality and conservative unconcern. But if we reward and perpetuate the social program already put in place by monsters, we become monsters. We then agree with Marcus Aurelius that the good of Rome is buried while the evil lives on. Is that what we want?
Rating: 
Summary: What's Not There
Review: I just read it, largely as background for Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy" (A 4 also) and Conason's and Lyons' coming "The Hunting of the President". Isikoff's book is a good rendering of the Tripp/Goldberg/Jones Boys machinations, but one is left wondering how much more Isikoff knows about Starr's boys machinations, but is not telling us. The clumsy way he tries to cover for his sources (in Starr's office? ) over how Newsweek got one of Tripp's tapes on that key Friday (the 16th) in January 1998 is particularly revealing. The cryptic rendition in chapter 20 of the book reads: "Late that afternoon, Linda Tripp later testified, Jim Moody showed up at Newsweek's Washington bureau with one of the tapes." The timing cited for receiving the tape conflicts with the 12:30 am Saturday cited in both Isikoff's January 21, 1998 post on Newsweek's (then) AOL site and in Newsweek's February 2, 1998 print issue. (I'd also read somewhere that the pre-publication galley's for the book described the later transfer). Reread chapter 20 and you'll also see that Moody didn't have much time to arrange the transfer on Friday afternoon. Why would Isikoff choose to muddy the timing with Tripp's version when he had first hand knowledge? To cover for Starr's boys? Isikoff comments at one point in his book that he doesn't know how much the "elves" haven't told him. Unfortunately the reader has to wonder how much Isikoff isn't telling. And this is especially unfortunate as Isikoff likely knows more than anyone else who is likely to commit anything to paper in the foreseeable future.
Rating: 
Summary: Noncovering Clinton; Uncovering Isikoff
Review: This book uncovers little about the Clintons, but it does allow inferences about how beltway reporters operate. In entertaining time-line detail, Isikoff walks the reader through his travails as the reporter caught in the middle of the Clinton/Lewinski perjury scandal. But although he was the reporter best-positioned to chronicle the scandal, he will forever be as Buzz Aldrin was to Neil Armstrong - constrained from a historical pinnacle by his superiors. Isikoff's editors at Newsweek refused to report Isikoff's story, so Matt Drudge will forever be the Man Who Broke The Monica Story. To his credit, Isikoff avoids self-pity and sticks to the story. But he discredits himself, and the whole book, in the last chapter, where he reveals his true allegiance. Isikoff relates how he watched Mr. Clinton's attorney, Howard Ruff, before Congress during the impeachment, blatantly lying about Isikoff's actions to in a way that would materially help Mr. Clinton. When an acquaintance standing next to Isikoff nudged him and said something like, "Are you going to let Ruff get away with that? Are you going to report what you know to the prosecutors?" Isikoff replied that he would remain silent, for he had had enough of being inside this story. With that decision, Isikoff passed up his one chance to protect Truth when it really mattered. Yet Isikoff ends his book, only paragraphs later, with a statement about the ultimate importance of Truth. Following his non-performance during the impeachment, that statement rings hollow, and suddenly so does every other statement in the book. Mr. Isikoff's credentials and social standing among the beltway media elite are safe, for he has done nothing to uncover Bill Clinton. Unwittingly, however, he has uncovered the arrogance, hard work, biases, and initiative of the mainstream media. Persons interested in the media and its workings will learn from this book. Those who read it to gain insight on our secretive, Nixonian leaders will be much better off reading Margaret Olson or David Brock. Such readers consulting this book by Michael Isikoff will be digesting only air.
Rating: 
Summary: Cover your own behind
Review: Isikoff goes out of his way to cover his own tracks and erase all the fingerprints. He neglects to mention that he himself was one of the "elves" involved in the coup plot. The book makes no mention of his "special relationship" with Kenneth Starr nor does it mention that he was practically an adivor to Paula Jones. Isikoff tries very hard to play the role of the objective journalist. For people who know the story well it just doesn't wash. There is no mention of the role he played as a go between with Tripp, the Jones lawyers and Starr. He insists he was just taking notes. Me thinks he protesth too much. Kenneth Starr in unsealed court documents says some of the Washington reporters worked for him as "informants". Isikoff was certainly one of them. Don't expect to read about it in the book. Isikoff covers his behind and covers up for his friends.
Rating:
Summary: Who makes the news, and how?
Review: I found this fascinating, and very hard to put down until the end. The extent of the low moral tone of Wm. J. Clinton is even more evident than it was just from the daily papers and from CNN, but that is just part of the attraction of this book. How Isikoff did his job says much about how a real professional journalist goes about his (or her) work. Put aside any Clinton-loving or Clinton-hating partisanship, surely the methodical methods of Isikoff must be admired. The ethical dilemmas, the struggles he had to be objective rather than partisan, the urge to get a scoop while avoiding reckless charges against innocents is admirasbly described. Thus, apart from more details about the sleaze in the White House, this book is also about high-level journalism. The issue that I still cannot resolve is why not a single member of Clinton's cabinet felt the need to resign in disgust. Not Allbright, not Rubin, not Cohen. What would a resignation have done to poor Gore's 2000 campaign? I'm glad I read this book - thanks, Michael!
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic
Review: Fantastic Book that finally shows Clinton in the light of what he really is and how he really lives. The disturbances of many people are never uncovered when there is so much hoopla surrounding them and when there are so many people who cover up every red flag and sign along the way. Those of us who know of the decades of problems will be glad to see this book go all the way. It's about time. People unfortunately only see what they want to see about others, skipping the real problems until it becomes too late. Hail to this reporter for doing what needed to be done.
| 
