Rating: 
Summary: All the King's Men and then some...
Review: This is an absorbing tale of southern gothic politics achieving national critical mass through arm's length injections of cash by reactionary zealots aided by the dumbed down and bumbling egoists in today's media who pass for reporters/columnists/analysts. Conason and Lyons do a great job getting maybe two or three levels below the surface to reveal the self-interested hustlers who started out trying to roll a governor who they believed to be fat, dumb and happy, and ended up in some kind of pathological blood sport with surface tones of Faulkner and Tennessee Williams and undertones of Harold Lloyd. The Javert figure, Mr Starr, holds the law to his breast like a Bishop might clutch a cross in the presence of vampires. Envision Mr Starr, moss hanging from his robes, pursuing the truculent Mr Clinton through plantation swamps not at all certain this is the right swamp or even the right plantation. Conason and Lyons do a marvelous job detailing the reality that the object was to find a crime to hang on the suspect. Any crime. The central figure of this bizarre affair, Mr Clinton, happily commingled the personal and the political in his life until it didn't suit him. He conveniently forgot, then denied, that THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL, at least according to a large segment of his supporters from 1990 until the Lewinsky issue became public. That is where the book ends. Mr Clinton locked in denial and bathos, and everyone standing in the graveyard of dreams looking at each other, sort of like the climactic scene in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". Conason and Lyons might lean a little toward Mr Clinton being the 'good', Mr Starr being the 'bad', and the assorted miscreants from Arkansas and other points South, as the 'ugly'. I'm not sure there are any heroes, and I'm not sure Conason and Lyons see any either. All in all, along with Richard Posner's book "An Affair of State" this is top of the line stuff. Exciting, clear, and thoroughly referenced. Willy Stark can be put to rest now. Buy it if 1998 interests you still, but be clear I didn't get the same message from it as either the Clinton Choir who parse it like tobacco road evangelists parse the Bible (for every wrong reason) or the nutcases who dismiss it (because they can't handle the truth).
Rating:
Summary: Just the facts
Review: One has to be careful when one uses terms like "apologist". In the context of the so-called Clinton scandals it suggests an attempt to justify or explain away the actions of Clinton in these scandals. That is NOT what this book does. Lyons and Conason do not try to "get inside the head of Clinton" or defend actions that Clinton took. In the one case when they do make a subjective comment about the president they call the president's behavior as "reckless and foolhardy". Lyons and Conason do not criticize those who brought "facts" to light. They criticize those who concocted and helped spread obvious falsehoods and those who kept exculpatory evidence hidden. You don't have to rely on the word of the authors that there were such falsehoods spread about the Clinton. They have gone deep into the public record and have interviewed many of those directly involved. They have provided 27 pages of source notes. Conason and Lyons have been criticized by certain news organizations, most recently by a New York Times reporter in that paper's Book Review. This is perhaps not surprising given the Times' investment in the Whitewater story. Who knows why the Times made such an effort to find something, anything in Whitewater that was damaging to the president. Perhaps because they were scooped by the Washington Post in Watergate. What is sometimes more interesting than what papers like the Times reported is what the newspapers did not report. The authors document many instances where exculpatory information was ignored by the papers of record. Not all news was deemed "fit to print". While the media was quick to report that "indictments are imminent" they failed to report that, during the trial of Jim McDougal, the OIC's own prosecutor argued that the Clinton's were VICTIMS in the Whitewater scheme. They failed to report that the "Joan of Arc" of the crusade against Clinton collapsed and fainted during a Senate Hearing when she was faced with information that severely damaged her credibility and reputation. The New York Times hid on page 12 on their Christmas Eve edition information about an independent report by the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro which cleared the Clintons of any wrong-doing in Whitewater (even as many expected a partisan report especially given the fact that one of the partners of the firm was a Reagan and Bush administration U.S. attorney who had been fired by Clinton). Lyons and Conason do a great service by filling in the gaps in the coverage by the major media of the Clinton "scandals". Because they make such an effort to document all their research and to give a full picture of all the players the book does sometimes get bogged down in details, However it is still very readable and this densely researched work gives one of the first complete pictures of those that felt it a responsibility to find something that would damage the president. Clinton eventually provided his enemies with the ammunition they needed by his own (what the authors term) "brainless behavior" when he had an affair with a young intern. However the details of that affair have been picked through by other journalists enough times. Lyons and Conason instead present us with a highly entertaining account of the figures and forces that would eventually turn Clinton's personal foibles into a Constitutional crisis.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, HRC, there really was a right wing conspiracy
Review: Thank you, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. I pre-ordered your book before its release and just ordered a 2nd copy (didn't want to give mine up) for a friend. Reading it gave me reason to hope that perhaps genuine investigative reporting is not extinct. Your exhaustive research documented in the source notes clearly proves that the relentless, unfounded allegations against the Clintons gained credence only through unchallenged, unending repetition in tradional, respected print media. This book is a must have/must read wake up call for all those who still believe in national news outlets, who still think if it's printed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times, etc... then it must be so. Among the many sad revelations of this book is the general devolution of the news media and the frantic race to the bottom, to be the first to expose a scandal, real or imagined, no matter what the sacrifice to truth or ethics. Anyone reading this book will forever after challenge those who report on or analyze the national political scene with such questions as: who are you, what/who are your sources, what are your/your sources' grievances, who's padding your pockets? For anyone wavering, consider the poignant final words of Vince Foster (recounted on page 84): "I did not knowingly violate any law or standard of conduct. No one in the White House, to my knowledge, violated any law or standard of conduct... The FBI lied... The press is covering up the illegal benefits they received from the travel staff. The GOP has lied and misrepresented its knowledge and role and covered up a prior investigation... The public will never believe in the innocence of the Clintons or their loyal staff. The (Wall Street Journal) editors lie without consequence. I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport." Read this book and understand how true and telling those words really were and are.
Rating: 
Summary: I give it a big yawn
Review: Once again Joe Conason shows us his love and devotion for Bill Clinton in his light hearted new comedy called "The Hunting of a President". He basis his story on half truths about a 10 year Vast RW Conspiracy that began when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Ann Coulter said it best when she said "It wasn't a Vast RW Conspiracy but a small one". This book doesn't hold water and he comes to some conclusions that he can't prove.
Rating:
Summary: Anger.
Review: About two years ago at this time, I was cheering on Ken Starr's investigation. A major reason for this was because of The New York Times. Since high school (15 years ago), the Times had served as my major source of news. So when it came to the investigation of the Clintons, I had no reason to distrust the paper's portrayal of the them as devious criminals who needed to be prosecuted to the fullest extent at every opportunity and destroyed. Even the Washington Post was saying the same thing. How could they both be wrong? Then, the Starr report was released. Something seemed so horribly wrong with it that I felt I should search out new voices to help me understand the Clinton "Scandals." I soon found the writings of Gene Lyons and Joe Conason (and others) at Salon and The Nation (and other places). Needless to say, I was shocked. There was another side to the Clinton "scandals" that had been 100% completely ignored by the Times (and others.) Worse, some of this reporting had been done over a several year period. I felt a tremendous amount of anger at a newspaper I trusted and began to doubt nearly all of its reporting on the Clintons. I felt that same feeling of anger while reading this book. While I had become familiar with the work of Conason and Lyons in varied sources, this book does a remarkable job of compiling in one place, "the other side of the story," a full recounting of the craven partnership between the press and right-wing to bring down the Clintons. After reading this book, what truly stands out about the Clinton "scandals" and the conventional wisdom attached to them is a body of "mainstream" journalistic reporting whose words, messages and slant have been shaped by a band of Southerners steeped in a dark, reactionary and racist sub-culture. If you take anything from this book, it should be the recognition that the national press, namely the Bill Rempels, Mike Isikoffs, Susan Schmidts, Jeff Gerths, served as mouthpieces for this element of society. That these reporters (or their editors) didn't have the dignity nor decency to harbor any skepticism about their sources (nor convey any hint of it to their readers) is a mark of shame these writers deserve to carry to their graves. What also stood out about the book was how little the Impeachment farce meant in the Press/right-wing campaign to destroy the Clintons. When I first heard that Lyons and Conason did not focus much on Lewinsky (only about 10% - 15% of the book), I was disappointed. What this book shows, however, is that the impeachment effort was an all too predictable endgame in the mission to ruin Bill Clinton; The effort by Starr and his cheerleaders in the press to destroy every element of humanity in Clinton had been going on for years. Only a few years later does the story become a little more clear. (For a better look at the Impeachment farce, Jeffrey Toobin's book serves as Part II to the Lyons/Conason work.) The examples of this hateful alliance are too numerous to name. Worse yet, the craven and duplicitous reporting on the Clinton Administration continues. From "Clinton Fatigue" to the misreporting on Al Gore, the press continues its freightening aversion to decency and care in reporting. About all you need to know about this long sordid history is whom the New York Times and Washington Post chose to review this book in its pages. The Times chose its own Washington Bureau Editor (a bureau whose credibility is thoroughly debunked), while the Post selected an editor at the National Review, home of the Arkansas Project. Not surprisingly, both reviews are dismissive of the book, though even the Post review had some semblance of balance. (To illustrate his contempt for the book, the Times editor misreports a specific element of the book.) If you have that nagging feeling that something is amiss with these reviews, you are encouraged to read Anthony Lewis's (one of the few NYT columnists with a shred of decency on the Clinton beat) review of both this book and Toobin's book in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books. Like Lewis, Lyons and Conason stayed committed to their independence and have produced a book that deserves to be read by as many people as possible. While it has already been dismissed by the right (which is to be expected) and the Times/Post (which is also to be expected), this book need to be shared with that vast number of Americans, who through no fault of their own, took their lead from the monotony of the National press and saw nothing wrong with the pursuit of the Clintons. This will become even more important with Susan Schmidt's new book and Iskioff's re-release just weeks away. I will end where I began...with the New York Times. Whether I should be thankful to Lyons or Conason or not, because of its reporting on the Clintons, I no longer believe a single thing I read in the paper, nor trust the values of its reporters or editors. In fact, no one should.....
Rating:
Summary: Revisionism lives.
Review: Usually historians wait a few before trying to revise history. In the internet age we don't have to wait so long. The authors forget one basic fact: Clinton did some of the most despicable things ever seen in American political history, and deserves the avarice many feel to him. However, mutual dislike does not make for a "vast right wing conspiracy" or even a "cabal". Please do not confuse conspiratorial tactics out to get someone no matter what the cost with legitimate political tactics. History will remember Mr. Clinton for the impeachment and his (likely) subsequent dis-barrment more than for anything else. This book cannot change that fact, no matter how many pages of footnotes and citations they use. Sad.
Rating:
Summary: An obscene and absurd apologia for the Clintons.
Review: Conason and Lyons' obvious desire to whitewash the Clinton scandals and minimize their impact on the country is not only disappointing, it is scandalous in and of itself. Bill Clinton lied under oath to a Federal grand jury, illegally obtained several hundred FBI files of his political opponents, (Nixon was castigated for simply being SUSPECTED of obtaining ONE), and solicited illegal campaign donations from the Chinese in exchange for critical U.S. military technology. These are the facts - to attempt to blame those who brought these facts to light is simultaneously ridiculous and obscene. This book is nothing more than a rehash of the Clintons' time-tested formula of attempting to destroy their critics, rather than defend their actions. Although the book appears to be well-documented, the facts mentioned above are indisputable and speak for themselves. Only die-hard apologists for the Clintons, or complete ignoramouses will be fooled by this smokescreen.
Rating:
Summary: excellent the real truth
Review: this is a must read for political junkies. Hey guess what THERE WAS RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. Tell us what you think Chris Mathews ,Cokie Roberts , George Will , William Saphire. You were wrong....... This is a well written very interesting book that will make avery thinking Americans blood boil.
Rating:
Summary: Answers
Review: Maybe the media reports the truth, but it definitely does not report the "whole truth." If you want answers to questions about the past 10 years of scandals, the motives, the money sources, news leaks, or how Ken Starr's OCI knew every move of the Paula Jones's camp; then "The Hunting of the President" is the best source. With almost 700 names (including 8 Browns and 8 Larrys) and over 100 groups listed in the index my simple mind had to struggle to keep it all together. But I did quite well, thanks to authors' help. When a new character was introduced, the authors would give a background. When an old character returned, the authors would put in a quick reminder. Was there a conspiracy? It all depends on what your definition of "Conspiracy" is. My answer is yes. I'm betting that after you read this book, you would agree. With "E-Mailgate" on the horizon, I am sure we will hear "indictments will be coming" again. Will we have "The Hunting of the President Part 2" in another 8 years?
Rating: 
Summary: Is it okay to throw stones at a prostitute?
Review: Mary Magdalene may have been the hooker, but the whores threw the rocks. This book captures what is most wrong with mankind--besides not being kind, that is. It seems that people, especially those of the political persuasion, can see clearly the spec in their neighbor's eye, but somehow miss the redwood protruding from their own. For me, this story clearly illustrates that more than Monica Lewinski got their knees soiled during this whole sordid affair. This is not to say that Mr. Clinton didn't invite the attacks--he certainly did--this is only to say that those investigating him should have acted as righteous as they purported to be. Let's face it, Jesus was investigated and attacked at every turn. The difference being, however, that none of those attacks stuck because He was without sin. That difference is a significant one, though, because, as we all know, most of the attacks on Mr. Clinton did stick and will continue to stick. In fact, we could probably say that about most politicians these days. Does Mr. Clinton share in his own Waterloo? Sure he does. But so do the whores that threw the stones. I, for one, am not a Clinton supporter, but I expect this type of behavior from him. I was ashamed, however, at my fellow Republicans when they began to act like the priests that condemned, however indirectly, Jesus Christ. Just yesterday, I finished reading (in a single sitting) a truly fascinating and provocative non-fiction which deals with the type of duplicity profiled in this book, only ten-fold. The book, "Inside Job: Deep Undercover as a Corporate Spy," is the most Orwellian story I've read since the novel "1984." The only difference is that this story was true and Big Brother, it seems, has become your company not your country. Isn't that just like the government to give up another one of its responsibilities to the private sector? The reason I mention this is because what strikes me most about the Clinton debacle is this whole concept that privacy should be suborned by the people's right to know when the people decide that the crime, or the criminal, warrants it. A slippery slope indeed, my friend. And finally, on a lesser note, I couldn't help but notice that the number of stars one gives this book is directly proportional to the number of helpful responses his or her critique receives...hmmm? It seems we demand objectivity and fairness from our politicians, but can't seem to muster up any for ourselves.
| 
