Rating: 
Summary: Why???
Review: This book is a joke. It has no value to any reader. I thik that the Clinton's need to like do something about this. This is a book that has no soul behind it.
Rating: 
Summary: Reads like a tabloid
Review: Think about this -- what if one-fourth of it is true! What a horrible example Hillary is setting for other women in this country. This guy is such a jerk and she's an even bigger one for staying with this guy. Actually, this book is pretty insightful. It is simply an example of power being the most important thing in two people's lives. What a waste of talent and education. Remember --- what if only one-fourth of it is true.
Rating:
Summary: Buyer Beware
Review: Warning: IF you are offended by poor journalism, if you decry the use of invalid sources, if you don't like reading about trash, then stay away. Stay far away from Bill and Hillary: the Marriage. In fact move to Bulgaria, I understand it hasn't come out there yet. I don't mean to say that everyone should move to Bulgaria, its a small farmers country with not much to really offer, but the point is that it is Andersen-free. Free at last, free at last, Bulgaria is free of Andersen at last. I wish I had a biscut right now, boy am I hungry. Poor journalism makes me hungry.
Rating:
Summary: A complete waste of money!
Review: If I use one word to describe this "book" it is trash! If I use four words they are "a waste of money". It is insulting not only to those unfortunate enough to be mentioned in this lurid and unconfirmed account of a marriage but to those who make the mistake of spending any money buying it. Use your money more wisely, just go buy the STAR or National Enquirer. I wish I could have rated this as a big Zero!
Rating:
Summary: Not at all fair.
Review: I read the book and am writing to say it is not at all fair. Bill never cheated on Hillary with anyone but me. And he loved me. So there. The book is utter nonsense.
Rating:
Summary: I've had meatloaf read better
Review: Come on - this is for the birds. Anyone really interested in learning about the Clintons should stay away - if you want to learn about the gossip and unproven lies about the Clinton's then this book is for you. This book is also for those who just like to make up stuff about the Clinton's. I hate meatloaf, but I hate this book even more. I'm sure he's a good man, but I wonder why in the world he would use so many sources that have been previously paid to tell their story and not disclose that information in his book - he gladly disclosed lies, but he doesn't disclose that his sources were paid, that's just wrong in my book, wrong I say, wrong.
Rating:
Summary: This book is probably a work of fiction.
Review: The book is a very good read, but I don't believe half of it. This author is either a liar or a mind reader. You be the judge.
Rating:
Summary: Lurid fluff written to satisfy people who hate Clinton
Review: Conjecture, distortions, lies, half-truths, rumor, and outright fantasy are available in one package in this rag. No description can do this book justice - it's that bad. Your money would be better spent buying the National Enquirer the rest of your life. The research behind the articles in that tabloid is more sound.
Rating:
Summary: A Book about Nothing
Review: This book is about nothing - why do I say that? Because I cannot believe anything in the book because the author does such a poor job sourcing his information. I saw Lanny Davis tear him to shreds last night on live TV. My uncle, a hungarian cabinet maker, once told me that if the fish is smelly, then it is a smelly fish. I think that applies for this book, don't you. I mean who likes smelly fish, and who likes poor journalism? See what I mean. Ivan Duda - now there's a credible source! The guy gets his PI lisence revoked for waving a gun around a bar claiming to be a CIA agent. Oh boy! Clip-Job Chris has done it again!
Rating: 
Summary: Hmmmm...
Review: The best way to read this book is to ponder what the American people should know about their politicians before they elect them to the highest offices. Those who dismiss this book as rumor overlook the extent to which so much which had been dismissed was corroborated over the past year.Would Clinton have been elected if Anderson had written this book in 1992? My suggestion, the answer is clearly no. To what extent should the press vette candidates before they're elected? If the New York Times had published this material before the New Hampshire primaries they would have been accused of attack dog politics, and yet better that than what the country went through last year.
|
