Rating: 
Summary: Hunting: Map Needed
Review: This expose was badly needed, and I wish the networks would pay more asttention to THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT. Why do we have Jerry Falwell still permanent guest on Geraldo? Why does Trent Lott still have any clout at all? Conason and Lyons tear both of them to shreds as they target the right wingers who have been hunting the President for so many years. But what we readers really need are some maps of the territory covered. Just where is the "Bait Shop" mentioned so frequently, the spot where so many conspiracies emanated? Where are these coffee shops and bars where the conspirators met to discuss Clinton's fate? And where does the mysterious Scaife hang out? It was hard enough keeping the various conspirators' names straight. What we really need is a map. Or at least some great black and white photos of the hunters and their lairs.
Rating: 
Summary: and now for the rest of the story
Review: A remarkable, well documented expose of the right wing and their influence on journalism in the 90's. It was startling to discover the relentless and well financed campaign to destroy the Clintons by the far right and the complicity of their annointed flunkies in the press. I can only hope that millions of Americans will come to understand the depth and scope of the collusion between the KKK, Mr. Sciaffe, Mr. Starr, and a Republican party that was only too willing to foment the ugly politics of the past 8 years in their quest for unbridled power. This ruthless and dishonest campaign makes Watergate pale in comparison.More than anything else, I am amazed at the courage and determination of the Clintons who stuggled against truly evil people to serve their nation. I want to thank the authors, for their perserverance in pursuit of the truth. It's too bad that most of their colleagues in the press don't have enough honor to own up to their part in churning the brutal nature of the body politic in the 90's. Up to now I have been an independant voter, from here on out, I'm proud to call myself a Democrat!
Rating:
Summary: Seems to Confirm What I Always Suspected
Review: It's frightening to see how easy it is to convince the masses of certain "truths" with misinformation, omissions, innuendo, misrepresentations and outright lies. I was surprised to see how the Washington Post and the NY Times were complicit -- either by design or by ineptitude -- in the Salem witch hunt that has been the last 7 years. It's scary to see how a hateful prosecutor, behind-the-scenes operatives and a scandal-happy press almost succeeded in their goals with virtually no evidence. Yes, "Monicagate" was an embarrassing episode, but not nearly as reprehensible as the transgressions of the right-wing's hit men (and women).
Rating: 
Summary: Hurry! Before anyone notices. Let's kill the messenger!
Review: Worth reading, but only in the context of all of the many books about Clinton since 1993. For all of the happily surprised liberals out there, the book does contain quite a few references. It does build an effective case against Whitewater, but falls very short on Monicagate. For those of you not familiar with Conason and Lyons, they were the President's first line of defense in 1998, first denying vehemently that any such thing happened. Then, as the evidence piled up, they became staunch defenders, and finally apolgists for the Clinton escapades. This book does a great job of linking together several of Clinton's strongest adversaries in the saga of the last seven years. What the book fails to do, however, is exonerate their hero. The authors aim squarely at the messengers and prosecutors, by showing their partisanship, but fail miserably at showing Clinton's innocence in all of the scandal areas. For example, the Republicans did not philander, grope employees, rape campaign workers, lie under oath, obstruct justice, sell our country's security for campaign contributions, etc, etc. Yet there is substantial evidence that the hero of this book did. Yet the authors ignore all of this and go after the messengers. If readers like this book, then I suggest also books such as Betrayal, Year of the Rat, Clinton Chronicles, and others. They also, are well documented and referenced. Read both sides. This one is simply not that definitive, nor will it re-write real history!
Rating:
Summary: Finally, someone checked the facts
Review: This book is invaluable, not only because it details the well-financed and well-organized attempts to smear the Clintons, but also because it shows that the truth was there, but not reported throughout the so-called "scandals." If the media had done its job, the country would have been spared much agony. It is also instructive to note that the enmity towards the Clintons was not only "Baby Boomer" vs. the previous generation, but Old South segregationists vs. New South Democrat. Much of Southern politics can be explained by the movement of segregationist Democrats to the Republican Party. The likes of Jim Eastland, Strom Thurmond, and Herman Talmadge haven't disappeared, they've just changed their party affiliation and seem willing to use any tactics to attack and destroy their enemies. This book makes that very clear. Everyone should read this with an open mind and examine the state of the nation with its facts before them.
Rating: 
Summary: But Guys: They're Still Lawless And Amoral
Review: The authors try to defend the indefensible: Bill and Hillary Clinton. They argue, and sometimes convincingly, there are indeed a few "Clinton-haters" who are low lifes and have tried everything to bring down the Clintons. However, the Clintons have proven themselves to be just as low or lower than these detractors. The Clintons and their defenders engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone and everyone who tries to bring attention to their lawless and amoral behaviour. That Bill & Hillary can still exist in the political arena speaks volumes about the state of the union. In defending the Clintons liberals have had to abandon principles and make excuses for every illegal excess Bill & Hillary have committed. I can't help but think that most liberals dislike the Clintons, but defend them merely because they're Democrats. I can no longer in good conscience do so. It's time to quit making excuses for them and their ilk. There are plenty of honorable and true liberals in our nation, but before they can be elected we must clean house and get rid of the current crop of extreme left-wing socialists. My biggest criticism of this book is that the authors spend too much time on the Clinton detractors and do not give enough attention to the deplorable and illegal actions of the Clinton-Gore Administration. This book is of little value unless you are Clinton defenders, no matter what the evidence.
Rating:
Summary: A Book with a 'tude
Review: Finally, a book for the left! Supporters of the president will see this as a "see-I-told-you-so" defense of the Clintons. For those of us trying to learn the facts of the Clinton presidency, this book is just another tedious tale of half truths, though told from the left instead of the right. It is about the bigoted leading the stupid leading the incompetent who bungle and spend a fortune on their way to infamy by being Clinton-hater hunters. Unfortunately, Hunting the President is flawed with a definite "'tude." And it's a shame. It would be a much better book if the authors had not written it with a sneer. Their animus toward the "vast right wing conpiracy" shows on almost every page with terms like "right wing ghetto" and "scandal seeking national press" and "Newt Gingrich's catchy 'Contract with America.'" However, the authors slip up and unintentionally show that President and Mrs. Clinton had a close personal and business relationship with an array of criminals, fourteen of whom are now convicted felons, which they never, of course, explain. Included in this book's revionist history is such a lenient stand on the actions of President Clinton and the First Lady that credibility is lost. For example: the incident involving the papers taken from Vince Foster's office after his suicide is treated lightly with the statement that "...transfer of the papers was of little significance. At the time there was no Whitewater scandal..." That was not what the stink was about. Foster was a taxpayer-supported deputy White House counsel. He was not the Clinton's personal attorney. Therefore, there was a question of privilege and whether Foster's office should have been immediately sealed because of his status as a governmnet empolyee. This the authors fail to mention. They further state that "there had been some differences between [Bernard] Nussbaum [White House counsel] and the Justice Department over the exact procedures for searching Foster's office..." It was more that just "some" differences. Nussbaum finally was forced out of his White House job in part because of those "differences." With regard to Mrs. Clinton's trading in cattle futures, earning her a miraculous profit, the authors treat the incident as though this is done every day by someone. "In essence," they write, "they had been done a favor by a shrewd friend who had little to gain apart from something he already had: the new governor's ear." And while the authors admit that she lied about it, they don't try to explain why so much energy by so many was expended to hide and lie about "nothing." And when will the shady dealings of the shrewd friend be revealed, the next book? At the same time, maybe they could tell us why the Clintons had so many criminals as friends and associates. Failure to give the whole story also will make students of the subject skeptical of the book's reliability. In the Travelgate scandal, for instance, the book mentions that the Travel Office director, Billy Dale, made an "attempt to plea-bargain the criminal charges." What they fail to relate is that, according to Joyce Milton's book, The First Partner, to quote just one source, in order to "minimize his legal bill, Dale offered to plead to a misdemeanor." This tells the whole story, and gives it a less sinister spin. Hunting the President claims the mainstream press got it wrong. No one checked their facts; they had a feeding frenzy; they had to have an agenda to draw the conclusions they did. This, they say, is also the case with most of the other books and magazines that devoted any space to the topic. But according to Micah Morrison in the Wall Street Journal of April 20, 2000, it is Messrs. Conason and Lyons who didn't check their facts and got it wrong as it concerns Morrisons's part in the affair. It leaves one wondering why, if all the facts reported here are true, it was necessary for the authors to lie by omission? With all the incompetence surrouding the "conpiracy," why was so much abuse of power perpetrated by the Clinton minions? It is a subject conveniently avoided here as are the accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice committed by the president while in office. Soon, I hope, someone will write a factual, unbiased book about the last decade of the second millennium and the Clintons who inhabited it, and to do so without the enimty displayed here and in other books on the matter. I'm afraid I'll be too old to read before there is such a book.
Rating:
Summary: It's amazing
Review: This book finally shows how the country got taken for a ride by the hypocritical right-wing zealots who couldn't accept that a baby-boomer anti-segregationist and feminist had stolen their birthright of US control. These people like Jerry Falwell who spread lies (The Clinton Chronicles! All verifiably falsehoods!) and spent money, until all they finally came up with to try and topple him with was 4 pathetic blow jobs the guy got on the side over a period of 2 years. It is amazing that the media that I used to respect were so willing to spread the lies of disgruntled con men. Thanks for this book. Unfortunately a good but flawed man's life has been ruined, and lies have been spread so far and fast that they are already accepted as truth.
Rating:
Summary: Why no one should blindly accept the truth of news accounts
Review: Having followed this story both in Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal" and in the coverage in Salon e-zine, there is not a lot of "new" information here. However, both the contents of the book and the criticisms of it make it clear that the Washington Post and the New York Times have made a mess of this story from the start; and the obfuscations continue. Even the reviews of the book mis-state its point and attack the authors on an ad hominem basis rather than refute its arguments. Just recently, President Clinton pointed to the Pilsbury Madison report (which was ignored or buried in the NY Times when it came out, and not mentioned since) as a reason why he did not need a pardon; once again the Times did not see fit to bringup the fact that the report cleared the Clintons of Whitewater years ago.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning Research
Review: The authors did a stunning job of digging out background info and following up on each rumor, charge, etc. leveled at the Clintons over ten years. This book is worth every cent paid. Why is it not on the best-seller list?
|
