Rating: 
Summary: Cast of players with bios greatly needed
Review: For the Washington and Arkansas "outsider", this was a very difficult book to read. In striving for accuracy and detail, the authors lost me with continual references to names. I managed to read approx 5 chapters but grew tired (unfortunately, for I was greatly interested) from creating my own list of characters and the parts they played. I will probably persevere and finally finish the book, however it was disappointing in this regard.
Rating: 
Summary: The Blind Using Self Created Confusion To Hide The Truth!
Review: When any many lies under oath in a sexual harrassment case, it is perjury, not hunting anyone. When any man can't remember details but has the vision to know people in the Travel Office have committed a crime, but found innocent by a jury in 2 hours, well that dog can't hunt! When one is accused of being trailer park trash, isn't the man with her made from the same garbage?Sorry, after reading false reports about how Reagan slept in the Oval office, that an unproven October Surprise never happen, and J. Edgar Hoover wore women's underwear, all reported in the main stream press. It is hard to believe this book of confusion that only shows as real stories row in the media. When te media is fair and unbias to all, it will win its reputation back. However, a book like this is nothing short of revisionism, excuse making and magical slight of hand writing as well as poor research. Just The Facts, Madamn. This book has few of them!
Rating: 
Summary: The truth with its boots on, and on the march
Review: If, as it is said, journalism is the first draft of history, this is the way the story will be told. I hadn't really paid attention to the details of the so-called scandals, largely because I knew the credibility of some of the people hyping them was suspect (something that never was addressed in the media). Most of the chief accusers seemed to be like the handful of right-wing losers criticzing this book here, subliterate morons with drool and foam on their keyboard who can't even use words like "avarice" correctly. Notice, dear readers, how they write in the most general terms and seem to use the following argument: I hate Clinton and believe him to be a completely amoral scumbucket, so therefore any negative accusations against him must be true and you don't need to read this book. (However, it's interesting to note how few of them insist on the veracity of Whitewater, the prime focus of the book. Obviously its message got through at least in part, and if the major scandal was all ado about nothing, isn't it quite likely that the files and travel office things are probably hype as well? But I read this book because I knew from what I'd read of Lyons on Salon that we weren't getting the whole story. And when I did, like so many other people here, I got angry. To think we let this cast of characters convince the nation that they stood for the rule of law! I hated the Coulters and Ingrahams of the world before; now I feel I was being too forgiving. It was all about money and egos for so many of these people and nothing else (They even screwed over some of their own in the process, it was nice to see). The vaunted "sex attacks", even, come off as nothing. Kathleen Willey is shown to be a manipulator trying to play the president for a job, Juanita Broaddrick's credibility is shattered and Gennifer Flowers is pretty much a dead issue (They all shared a lust for cash, though). The party that comes off the worst over this, however, is the New York Times. Whitewater turns out to be just the worst in a decade of ignominy on West 43rd Street ... John Markoff's highly profitable and questionable reporting on Kevin Mitnick, Wen Ho Lee and now the bullying of Renata Adler for daring to question the integrity of Judge John Sirica. How long will we let them get away with this? And how long will we let some of Clinton's accusers get off ... Tom DeLay for his undeniable perjury in a lawsuit brought by a former business partner ... Richard Mellon Scaife for possibly having his brother-in-law murdered and making it look like suicide a la Vince Foster ... Linda Tripp for lying about whether the tapes were copied or not (even the Starr Report raised this possibility). I would have liked to see some additional material on those things. That's the book's only shortcoming. (And hey, righties, remember your great Reagan Administration saw far more people leave under ethical clouds than Clinton's ever did?) I do not defend the president's actions with Monica. Nor his evasive (but not perjuriously so) testimony in a lawsuit that should never have been allowed to go as far as it did (and in fact, we learn, was sustained by right-wing subterfuge of Mrs. Jones' best interests). They were acts of bad judgement. But his accusers and pursuers were evil.
Rating:
Summary: Journalists take note
Review: I'm sure this book incites people on both sides of this so-called ``issue,'' but this book is also important for any journalists out there. I'm one and frankly I was shocked by the numerous mistakes, half-truths and sometimes even outright lies printed, over and over, by reputable publications such as Newsweek and the New York Times. Believe me as a journalist, I know writing a big story is a difficult proposition and requires nerves of steel, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and do a damn good job. Writers at the New York Times and Newsweek, as well as some others, failed that test and Lyons and Conason rightfully call them on it. What's a wonder is that no one else has really seen fit to do so? The second place where this book works is the exposure of the Anti-Clinton Arkansas contingent that basically took those big newspapers and several Republicans for a ride worthy of a bitter vindictive episode of ``Green Acres.'' It would be funny if it hadn't nearly led to the downfall of a President. An interesting read and a good look at the real story. Talk about burying the lead!
Rating:
Summary: Spellbinding
Review: I have just completed this masterpiece and I have to give it the full five stars. Everyone should read this book and then mull over why the President felt justified in lying to the Jones lawyers in a civil deposition (under oath). The writing is excellent, the narrative compelling, the Arkansas political scene painted for the first time. I have one very serious complaint about this book however and I urge the authors and publisher to rectify it in their next edition. There are way too many propositions and declarations that are not sourced. If you write that the Washington Post portrayed testimony unfairly or incompletely, for example, what is the harm in citing the date, page and byline of the article? It damages your credibility every time I look for the source in your end notes and find none cited. It seems that this is merely laziness and not intentionally deceptive. But I can't be sure in some contexts within the book. I encourage you, the authors, to give this book the most comprehensive going over, and cite all your materials, even if they are confidential and unverifiable. This will greatly enhance its effectiveness as a scholarly work (of which this is an otherwise exceptional example). Thank you for all the love and care you have put into this project and the great gift of truth you have bestoyed upon the American people. P.S. What is the penalty for treason?
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent effort to further obscure the obvious
Review: The 3 stars are for the effort and literary skills Mr. Conason. The book swamps the reader with details and minutiae apparently intended to muddle up and shroud the obvious corruption of the Clintons. It's a common defense strategy (O.J. trial, Warren Commission) to distract the audience with so many unanswered questions, questionable motives, conflicts of interest and possible conspiracies that the forest becomes obscured by the trees (O.J. is guilty, Oswald could not do the shooting, Bill and Hillary have - at the very least - lied under oath and to the American people repeatedly. I will never understand how the prosecutors shortcomings or questionable activities should result in the exoneration of the perpetrator. I'm talking about things outside the courtroom. A 'vast right wing conspiracy' or 'Ken Starr representing a tobacco company' does not excuse the Clinton crimes nor does it provide some moral high ground for any criminal. Thank you.
Rating:
Summary: Joe & Gene Hit a Homer
Review: This is a thoroughly researched history of the rise and near fall of Bill Clinton -- and the invention of a number of pseudo-scandals by a few colorful and influential Arkansas good ol' boys, filled with hate. In some instances the hate seems to be rooted in white supremacy, or just plain male jealousy. These Arkansas characters reached all the way to Washington -- with the help of such lame reporters as the NY Times' Jeff Gerth -- to undermine the Clinton Presidency. The origin from within the sordid roots of Arkansas politics of the festering ooze that squeezed its way into the impeachment crisis -- this is perhaps the best contribution of this book, largely the doing of veteran Arkansas reporter Gene Lyons who wrote the earlier thigh-slapper, "Fools For Scandal," on how the NY Times got Whitewater so completely and utterly wrong. Oddly, though "Hunting the Prez" is obviously an indictment of the press, as most other reviews here have mentioned, you'll notice that Amazon's "search" feature (below) lists every associated subject under the sun EXCEPT the most important topics for readers of this book to explore further: the press, the media, media criticism, media reform, journalistic ethics. They list "Conspiracy and Scandal Investigations" but not investigations of the press. This omission is interesting because the "scandals" involving the Clintons were (and remain) mostly spurious and unworthy of the absurd degree of Federal investigation they received, whereas the wrongheaded actions of the press are the REAL scandal that cries out for investigation. One wonders whether the empty scandal crises that struck Little Rock and Washington (and hurt so many people's lives, not to mention the Presidency) would have done so much damage had the press been scrutinized and held to account long before. Amazon, please make note and add these subject areas.
Rating:
Summary: THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT:THE TENYEAR CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY
Review: FRANKLY, I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO VERBALIZE ALL OF MY THOUGHTS. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORS DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN RESEARCHING INORDER TO MAKE THEIR BOOK A QUALITY PIECE OF WRITING. TO ANYONE WHO IS OBJECTIVE WITH AN OPEN MIND CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THEREWERE MANY OUT TO "GET THE CLINTONS." FRANKLY, I WOULD LIKE TO RE-READ THIS BOOK BEFORE COMMENTING FURTHER-IT HAS BEEN QUITE SOME TIME SINCE I READ IT. IN ANY EVENT, PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THE CLINTONS, WOULD CHOKE ON THE BOOK'S BELEVIBILITY. THE AUTHOR'S WORK IS FIRST RATE UNLIKE LOTS OF THE AXE GRINDING WORK OF MANY OF THE WRITERS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. (ESPECIALLY THAT OF WILLIAM SAFIRE)
Rating: 
Summary: thought provoking, disagree with some points...
Review: This book is a thought provoking account on how various groups and enitites sought to bring down President Clinton. The book covers just about every scandal that has dogged Clinton for his entire political career. One large omission which should have been discussed however are the campaign finance and China connection that the DNC and Clinton engaged in. The selling of the Lincoln bedroom, tea parties in the White House, and how China was able to donate to the DNC, and Clinton's very amorous attidutes towards China needed a deeper discussion that what was given. This book details the over zealous efforts by Clinton's enemies to bring him down. It is a well documented work, and persuasivley argued. I am not a Clinton supporter, I do not like Clinton and think he is one of our worst presidents however I must admit this book is a good one to read. In thier "Aferword" section the authors suggest that Clinton's shenanigans did not hurt America or the Presidency. I strongly disagree. I think Clinton lowered the moral standard needed for public office, he damaged the credibility of his office, he was/and still is a poor role model for our children.
Rating:
Summary: Finally The Truth Emerges!
Review: This is a balanced and well written look at the disgrace that was the so called "Clinton Scandals." The book is researched and documented giving this disgraceful time in our recent history it's due. The authors pointed to the failings of our press to live up to the task of professionalism in covering this matter. The main stream newspapers did not do their job in fairly covering the farce called the "Clinton Scandals." In the end, our country paid the price for the failings of our free press by allowing our President to be consumed by this jibberish. Well done to the authors. I'm reading it again.
| 
