Clinton Books

This book CAN be hazardous to your social life- merrily reading this book while on my bus route to and from work, often led me to laughing out loud which is never good when you are a single girl hoping to meet interesting men. But while it may not get me a date, it did help keep some of the crazy people from the empty side of my seat. So there is an up side!
For those of you out there who are either true Clinton fans or true political junkies- this book will not only quench your desire for all the Clinton WH trivia, it will also open an eye into the behind the scenes stuff we all crave. Mark has written a book that is not only laugh-out-loud funny but also insightful and chockful of the kind of little details that true political junkies are dying to hear about. Thru his eyes, we not only meet the President but we get to see the WH on good days and bad, and see the cameraderie as well as the push and pull of who is on the hot list. Mark is so funny and so talented that you will find yourself reading over the best parts just cos you enjoyed 'em so much. And apart from the WH stories, his little asides, footnotes and redactions are hilarious!! Those are maybe the best parts. I also really responded to his honesty- whether he is detailing how he felt (from being dazzled by Barbra to drinking too much and spewing his dinner) or admitting to a real need for praise, he is as honest as he is funny.
Maybe the best part.....as a kid who grew up similarly to him, I found it wonderful to discover that sometimes not fitting in means you end up in a place that fits you. Mark Katz certainly did, and his very great book makes us all glad of that!

If laughter is the best medicine, then Medicare providers should prescribe Mark Katz' book Clinton and Me. More so, after waking up with a political hangover from this last presidential cycle, this book is an important reminder that our democracy is less tragedy and more comedy. Mark Katz, of course, knows this since he earned his stripes as President Clinton's joke writer. This book will not only teach you about the joys of government service but will do so while laughing out loud. This is part memoir, part political history but two parts joke book. Clinton and Me is not irreverent but revealing. Mark Katz' wit demonstrates that our politics would be far less divisive and negative if we learned to take ourselves a little less seriously. One thing we should take seriously is Mark Katz' hysterical book Clinton and Me which is by far the best political read of the year.

Katz tells what has to be the best story to come out of those working within the Clinton White House.

He of course is not a major player in the administration but through his number of trips to work with various people in preparing speeches he is able to give an uncommon insight to the people who led this country.

Very good flow and entertainment. A definate must buy for anyone even if you were not a Clinton supporter.

Although I am not a great Clinton fan, I am more of one now and a big fan of Mark Katz. If you have any interest in politics this is a MUST READ.

Writing jokes for political people is unlike writing jokes for someone like Letterman or Leno. If the President or Secretary of State tells a joke, chances are everyone is going to laugh, whether the joke is funny or not. People tend to hold Letterman to a higher standard, humor-wise. So the guy who writes jokes for the President only has to make the President laugh. Which may explain why I didn't find Mark Katz's book very funny.

While I was interested in how someone becomes a joke writer for the President, I was not as interested in Katz's rather boring, suburban New Jersey childhood. I really did not like his revenge-tinged stories of teachers who found him disruptive in class, or his kiss-and-tell story of how, after he became successful, he got lucky with a woman who wouldn't go out with him in college.

The story drags until he gets back to the political stories. I enjoyed reading about Katz's dealings with Madeleine Albright, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. I even enjoyed the story of the bizarre negotiations to get Big Bird and Barney on the same stage with the President. And the book ends with a pretty good story, too.

Oddly enough, the jokes Mark Katz tells here are not funny. On the other hand, George Stephanopolous, Al Gore, and Katz's friend, Fisher, come across as very funny. And what is with the footnotes? I usually read footnotes, but Katz goes crazy with them here, and this isn't even the sort of book that really merits footnotes.

So, my advice is to quickly skim the first half of Clinton & Me, skipping the footnotes, and enjoy the second half.

"The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and oeconomy, have notwithstanding been productive of the signal advantage, of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation, which used to mark the progress of war, prior to their introduction." I assume this is a quote from the federalist papers. Nevertheless, I had some interesting thoughts from the passage and wish to expound.

Because a state's army is impregnable, or atleast its will, defense of freedom and welfare are not necessarily the cause(I derived that from the passage, and the rest will be questions which came to mind). How can someone hold an injurious intent towards freedom and to his or her nation's welfare while, at the same time, claiming to defend such things? Can people defend something for which they wish ill will towards? Maybe they can defend the nation but not the mentioned causes.

Brandon Williford
Tulsa, OK

I rate this book 5 stars because the content is so vital to understanding what our founding fathers were thinking as they tried to convince the Americans in New York that a "Foederal" government, rather than individual states or territories, was the best way to bring the new union together.

OK, now readability. Does anyone else have trouble understanding the writing style of the late 17th century? I appreciate that the book is true to the original newspaper articles, but sometimes my eyes glaze over and I lose the gist of what the author was trying to say. For example: "The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and oeconomy, have notwithstanding been productive of the signal advantage, of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation, which used to mark the progress of war, prior to their introduction." I think he's saying that a standing army will prevent foreign powers from easily invading your country. But I have to do this "translation" in my head as I read each sentence, so the reading really gets bogged down.

So, this work is not something that most people can just breeze through - it takes some thought and understanding of the culture and style of the time. If there is a modern-language translation available, I would buy that as a supplement, because the content definitely is worth learning!

Everyone who has taken a civics, government or American history class has heard of the Federalist Papers. These 85 essays, published anonymously in New York newspapers during the debate over whether New York would ratify the Constitution, are the best "footnotes" for the Framers' intent when devising the Constitution, the powers of the three branches of government, and the overall shape of the federal government. It is simply impossible to understand the Constitution without taking the time to read the Federalist Papers. And this edition has the very useful feature of cross-references in the Constitution back to the relevant essays of the Federalist Papers.

Some of the essays now seem irrelvant (i.e., the ones dealing with minting of coins). But others are just as powerful now as they were when first written - the role of the judiciary; the conduct of foreign affairs; the division of governing authority between the President and the Congress; the destructive power that special interest groups could have on the legislative process.

The Federalist Papers are often-cited by those who argue that it is the only source of interpretation of the Framers' intent. This may be true. But even the Framers themselves later argued vehemently over what their intent was. While Hamilton supported a strong centralized federal government, Madison eventually supported a weak federal government with strong states acting almost as independent sovereigns. That same political division - between states' rights supporters and strong federalists - continues today among Democrats and Republicans. Both sides cite to the Federalist Papers as supporting their respective positions. Yet neither side can conclusively resolve what the Framers' intent truly was since the Framers themselves seemed to have changed their original intentions as the political winds changed in the years following ratification of the Constitution.

This book is an essential reference guide for anyone with an interest in the American system of government. It is a valuable tool to probe the truth behind politicians' talk of "activist judges" versus "strict constructionist judges". For those who want to be educated on the topic, rely on the Federalist Papers thmselves rather than on others telling you what the Federalist Papers really mean.

You don't need to be told that the Federalist Papers are not for everyone, but for a niche audience of which I happen to be a member. And so, the qualifications: you need to have a pretty fluent command of the English language, and not just modern usage but also more archaic structure and vocabulary; you have to have a good grasp of history, at least a rough outline of it solidly in mind; you have to have a love for politics, political science and the Constitution.

If all of that is true of you, you'll probably enjoy reading this. At least, to a point. The Federalist Papers, written mainly by "Father of the Constitution" James Madison and "Shot by Aaron Burr/Closet-Monarchist" Alexander Hamilton, is a very lengthy defense of the then-proposed Constitution, point by point. And what I mean is, they will take items over which there could be seemingly no substantial debate and then write a series of three or four essays on that point. And so, it is possible that even the die-hard history/political science buff will be bored by the thirtieth page of the debate over whether standing armies should be allowed to be kept during peace time.

The most laugh-out-loud moment (and yeah, there are a few) is when the "Interstate Commerce clause" is dismissed in a slip of a paragraph, which is, of course, one of the most important and controversial passages to the modern reading of the Constitution, forming the basis for a good deal of our current legislation. Whatever one feels about our current "construction" of the Constitution, I think a fair reading of the literature will show that it is not the same construction as that of its authors.

Not laugh-out-loud at all, however, is the roaring silence on the subject of slavery. It does come up, from time to time, but the lack of debate on these matters (there are, maybe, 2-3 pages on the 3/5 compromise and a paragraph on the ending of the slave trade) proclaims the volatility of the subject matter, even 100 years before the Civil War. Madison wasn't looking to offend his audience, after all.

Of course, all of these debates are mostly moot (with a couple of exceptions) and so the Federalist Papers are largely a historical artifact... but there is something very telling about them. That is, how incredibly learned, intelligent and eloquent our Founding Fathers really were. They debate calling on historical antiquity, philosophies ancient and modern, then-current foreign political systems, the Constitutions of the several states and the Articles of Confederation. These people knew what they were doing and it all mattered to them, very much. It's kind of sobering to see with what care and deliberation they forged this Constitution, and then to compare it with the "guardians of the flame" today who can't even seem to agree on the meaning of terms like "liberty," "democracy," or, in the case of one former President, "is." When reading, you'll wish we had Madisons and Hamiltons today, or even politicians who bothered to read them... or, maybe we do, but the general level of care and education of our country today does not allow men such as those to rise. The Federalist Papers is an interesting insight into the incredibly well-thought-out origins of our country.

When Hamilton began the Federalist papers there were many anti- Federalists in the land urging against ratification of the Constitution. It was 1787, and Hamilton enlisted John Jay and James Madison to work with him on the papers. In the end there were eighty- five papers, five written by Jay, twenty- eight( most probably) by Madison and the rest by Hamilton.
The most influential of the papers were according to Wikipedia "number 10 calling for a large strong republic and including a discussion on factions, 51 explains the need for separation of powers. Federalist No. 84 is also notable for its opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights."
The Federalist Papers are written with great elegance and with a deep knowledge of the history of political forms. They are one of the many proofs we have of the special greatness of the founding fathers of the American Nation.

I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergan speak at my daughter's commencement last month. After hearing him in person, I couldn't wait to purchase his book. I am not normally interested in political history due to the dull reading of most, but David Gergan really makes the information come alive. His elaboration of the former presidents really gives you a tremendous sense of his deep interest & admiration of each of these men. While being truthful with the information, he finds the good to present to us in an honest way. I purchased this book for an upcoming young leader in our family, who I hope will gain insight & wisdom from reading this book. I only wish that he too will feel the same way & have the opportunity to hear David Gergan live. It is certainly rare for me to be just as interested in listening to a speaker at the end of their presentation as I am at the beginning of it. David is as good an author as he is a speaker. An excellent read for present & future leaders!

Quick turn around and received the book, just as it was listed. Thanks. I'll look for your books again.

This book has been an eye opener to the strengths of even the most despised Presidents. I learned a lot about the importance of bipartisanship in getting a President's initiatives passed. It also made me realize that the press will not give me the real image of the "Big Guy." Going into an election year we need to realize that all of the slander politics are not as important as learning about the candidates' thoughts and hopes for their and our future. Reading the candidates' autobiography or biography may be a great way to really get an understanding about a person who thinks they have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world. Look forward to seeing reviews on a few books from our upcoming candidates.

David Gergen provides important insights into leadership. He was worked for several Presidents and has observed what creates successful leaders. He lists his observations by President and concludes the following: Leadership is something one finds internally, it is driven by a compelling goal, it is successful when it persuades others, it requires understanding how the involved process works and how goals may be attained, it often uses an atmosphere of assurance from the beginning, it involving choosing and considering advice form good advisors, and it is able to inspire followers to work toward the goals. These are only a foundation of principles which do not assure success yet should be a guide to expand upon.

The manner in which leadership is used does influence outcomes. A good knowledge of past experiences is valuable yet this knowledge must be used appropriately. The early periods of Presidencies often provide opportunities for achievement yet, simultaneously are also when some of the worst mistakes are made. David Gergen argues the Presidency requires someone who has an excellent knowledge of public affairs as well the proper temperament. He rates Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan as two of the best Presidential leaders.

The book provides many direct insights from someone who worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. He tells how Nixon was inspired by DeGaulle to rely upon both intellect and instinct, how Ford was a strong believer in the truth, how Reagan upped the ante in the arms race so the Soviet Union could no longer compete, and how Clinton understood history and established policy victories. This is a good book that uses first hand information and uses it to explain what leadership principles worked and which ones did not.

Politics is such a contact sport, with the opposing party trying to bring down the President. A house divided cannot stand, yet here in America we no longer rally around the President after the election. The losing party tries to destroy him.

I have always like Gergen and I appreciate his wisdom in this book. Even the most liberal Democrat will find much to admire about Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan if he reads this book with an open mind. Likewise, the most conservative Republican will find many positive traits about Bill Clinton, faults and all.

These men were not perfect and they all had their weaknesses, which their enemies ultimately used against them. But these men all had what it takes to make great Presidents. Sadly, Nixon was forced to resign, Clinton was impeached, and Reagan survived the Iran/Contra scandal.

Today in 2006, we hear that if the Democrats gain control in Congress, they might try to impeach the current President for his failings. Will we ever learn? Can a President ever serve an 8 year term without the threat of impeachment by the other side?

All men have faults and we will never have a President that is perfect. In "Eyewitness to Power" we learn that anyone who becomes President must have leadership skills to be able to rise to this high office. Maybe future leaders can learn from the mistakes of past Presidents. They better because in today's political climate, the other side will be waiting for any misstep.

The Federalist Papers need no review. They are classics in American History and were the basis for convincing the Colonials that the Constitution was a sound structure for the new Government.

Must read for those who wish to understand the US Constitution in it basic understanding from the writers of the USC

You will not know American History without reading these papers. I am a history major and forget or never realized the importance of these papers. I know I never read them in college.

The details have already been well covered so let me just add another five star vote for must read(or for many of us reread). Whatever your political views you simply cannot understand the basis of our countries principles without working through the Federalist Papers. Step away from the bloggers and bar stool pundits(same thing really-just different delivery) and do your own homework on the founding of this great country. I am not a flag waving, rah, rah patriot type but it is hard to come away from a reading of the Federalist papers without a profound respect, admiration and in my case awe of the principles which form our government.

Lastly, this is a review of the Signet series which is very good but frankly I suggest not spending too much time worrying about which edition, publisher etc. The main point is to get a copy and start studying.

The Federalist Papers provide an outstanding basis for comprehending the foundation in the principles of creating and maintaining the U.S. government. It is very interesting. If you are studying American politics you can not continue without reading this book. It will also give you a better understanding of how the older laws of the U.S.A. were developed.

If you are a right wing nut, stay away from this book, you might actually appreciate and respect Bill Clinton. Maraniss really sheds light on the former President's childhood, initial interest in politics, Arkansas' governorship and his announcement for the presidency. Unbiased and definitely a page-turner. I have read a bunch of Bill Clinton books and this is definitely one of my favorites. You do not need to be a policy wonk or even a political hack to enjoy learning about our 42nd president. Even some of my Republican friends find his ascent interesting and even revealing as to some of his decision making during his time in the White House. A great book, a greater president, two thumbs up!!

First, the title of this story can be misleading. In highschool, college, at Oxford and Yale, Clinton was never "first in class," based solely on grades. But, who cares? Clinton is one of the best presidents in United States history and Maraniss gives an inside look into the life of this great man despite not interviewing anyone in the Clinton family. He uses research based solely on interviews from those people closest to the man himself. When you reach for this book don't think it will give you an inside look at the presidency. It rolls along in chronological order from birth to announcement of candidacy for the 1992 presidential election so never gets to the presidency. It does however provide some interesting insights into the Clinton marriage, and the Clinton psyche. His temper, although rare is described well in this biography. Overall, it is a great read for anyone who wants to know more about a former president. Everything from his Oxford years and apparent affairs with other women not named Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones. Perhaps the greatest thing about this book is how Maraniss remains neutral. Regardless of his like or dislike of Clinton, he never shows it.

he nails a lot of truth about clinton's early years and presidency...

and/but

david maraniss is also fair... approaching it all as a Fellow Human just trying to get along in the world...

this book was fascinating to read and, like all good biography, taught life lessons ~

it was so interesting because ~ say what you will about bill clinton ~ he's the most interesting capable man of a generation...

anne coulter, christopher hitchens and ALL the folks of that Ilk who are not nearly as impressive as the people they love to skewer... lack everything someone like david maraniss demonstrates: for starters, insights that MATTER...

I decided I hated Clinton a few days after 18 of my brother soldiers were slaughtered in Mogadishu. It was the day the first load of wounded Rangers came back to the states. I dont expect Presidents to be standing tall every moment wounded troops come back. But I do expect they would have enough decency not to tout their health care initiatives by visiting wounded gang bangers on such a day (as Clinton did). I read this book a few years after that incident. Still hate Clinton and her husband......just not as much!

Mr. Maraniss paints an interesting picture of Bill Clinton. Here is a truly brilliant man who learned the ins and outs of the American political system. A man who can spend a law school semester on the campaing trail yet manage to pass with some intense studying at the least moment (Im a law school grad an freely admit I couldnt do this!). But he also shows us the spoiled child side too. A person who was doted an indulged in his early years and who essentially got everything he wanted. Its no wonder he thought he was too good to serve in the military! Speaking of that Mr. Maraniss puts to bed for all eternity the draft issue. He makes it quite clear Clinton received an induction notice and then did everthing in his power to avoid service. Why should he serve his nation or follow his marriage vows? He was the best of the best and should be above the law!

So there you go. The good and the bad of a very polarizing character in a very intriguing format. Clinton lovers, nows the time to hit the not helpful button and get the hate email flowing!

I'll just start this by saying that I recommend this book wholeheartedly. Maraniss does a fantastic job of creating an incredibly readable work and his research here shines through. Interviews with former friends, old letters, yearbook signatures...! If you want to gain a better understanding of Bill Clinton, both his strengths and weaknesses, I strongly urge you to read this book.

Republicans blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11, saying he cut the military and weakened the intelligence community. It is just as valid to say the Republicans weakened the country by impeaching Clinton and trying to destroy his presidency. We have reached a point where each party puts itself ahead of the country. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, came on television and praised the Democrats for their greatness. Problem is, we can not have a democracy without two great parties. Reflecting on the Clinton presidency, it is hard to think of anything he did. He kept the peace. He said his goal was to have no major wars. His goal of universal health coverage failed. In retrospect, his 8 years were a series of scandals from Jennifer Flowers to Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky. Clinton learned from Nixon's mistake. He knew that if he hung on, the impeachment process would run its course. The country did not need another Watergate nor a second president resigning. Republicans ignored this, seeking revenge for Watergate. One thing about Clinton, he had charisma. His womanizing ruined Al Gore. And his bridge to the 21st century became a bridge back to the Bushes of Texas!

This is an excellent book that gives the reader lots of interesting, insightful information about President Clinton.

Remember the political nineties? I remember my own early enthusiasm for the New Democrat as political antidote. Bill Clinton's maddening foibles (sins?) have always in my mind had to be balanced with some real achievements like a balanced budget and welfare reform. If anything, Clinton personified a new kind of leader in that his private life and inner mind were exposed in ways Presidents had not been before. A President just simply wasn't supposed to feel our pain or twaddle with interns. I learned about "compartmentalization" watching Clinton as President on 24-hour news cycles.

John Harris does an admirable job navigating partisan invective and still sore political wounds. Harris tells key stories well, weaving throughout the narrative an intriguing capsule of the political survivor. I give his work four stars as I don't know that I gained any new insights beyond what I observed living through the nineties. Survivor is an enjoyable series of linked essays vividly recapturing the political nineties from a view alongside Clinton.

This is an excellent book, which gives a thorough a balanced account of the Clinton presidency. The author gives good details about all of the controversies of this period ("Travelgate", "Whitewater", the numerous guest stays at the White House, etc.), so that the reader can get the facts about these events. We also get good information about many of Clinton's advisors, staff, and cabinet and who was influential and why and what the Clintons thought of them (e.g., George Stephanopoulos, Dick Morris, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Reich).

If you feel Franken, M. Moore, Hannity or Rush are credible, than this book probably isn't for you. This is as close to fair and accurate as your going to get. While it's obvious the author is favorable to Clinton, he doesn't hesitate to point out his mistakes. Someone might complain the book doesn't mention every single incident, but what book can? Even "War and Peace" can't. I am very much enjoying the book. It's virtually impossible to find an unbiased book. Everyone has an opinion, just give me the information and let me decide. I despise Bush, I liked Reagan, and I don't believe either Nixon or Clinton should have been impeached. try it!

The love affair of the Ragin'Cajun and the hippie-turned-conservative, the election of '92 with him running Clinton's campaign and she stumping for Bush sr., a cast of thousands; and it reads like a novel.

Wonderful insider view of politics, told in alternate blocks by the two, with writer Peter Knobler keeping the flavor of each's speaking style. Amazingly the pair was able to keep their work out of their personal life, marrying a year later with a jazz band procession through New Orleans's French quarter, naming their first daughter Matalin Mary, called Matty to acknowledge Mary's stature). Intimate looks at the candidates, with James's high regard for Hilary, Mary seeing Bush sr. as warm and personable.

A must-read in this election year!

I can boast of having a copy of this book kindly sent to me by James Carville when it was first published. It's no exaggeration to say it's amongst my most treasured possessions.

There's no denying that James brought the role of the politial consultant into the public eye. Sure, there had been people like Roger Ailes before him, but they'd tended to be shadowy figures, working behind the scenes and known only to political insiders. Carville started the cult of consultant-as-celebrity and his relationship with Matalin - an equally intelligent, equally interesting, but naturally less ebullient figure - whilst both were working for opposing Presidential campaigns catapaulted them both into the public mind.

Perhaps because it was written at the time, the book doesn't have much to say on the subject of consultant-as-celebrity. Of course it was written pre-Stephanopolous / Morris / Rove et al, but it'd be interesting if Carville and Matalin re-issued the book with an epilogue. I for one would like to read their reflections on the trend.

Without Carville and Matalin it's doubtful there'd have been as much focus on the role and influence of Morris and Rove, for instance. Certainly the film "He said, She said" would probably not have been made. Perhaps even "Wag the Dog" mightn't have got off the ground. But have things gone too far when a series like "K Street" makes consultants and politicians players in an imaginary drama?

But for an insight into the Clinton years that's less about the personal and more the political, this is an excellent, lively read. In many ways it comes closer than James's other books to giving an insight into the campaign techniques that made both Carville and Matalin the most successful consultants of their day, as it charts their day-by-day activities.

A cross between campaign diary, a love story and a political how-to manual probably wouldn't work with anyone but the authors at its center. But with Carville and Matalin, it serves to provide a unique way of looking into the inner workings of two Presidential campaigns.

There's probably no other book quite like it - certainly all that comes to mind is Joe McGinniss's "The selling of the President" - for mixing personal observations with professional insight in the midst of a high level political campaign.

It's a book well worth adding to your library, whether you're a political junkie or a romance reader.

I know that this is the first book I have ever read with two senior people on the opposite sides of a presidential campaign combining on one book. As far as I know this might be the only one out there like it. Just the fact that both sides of the total campaign were discussed point by point would be enough to give this book a high rating, but these two authors (and probably the added professional writer) helped to make this book a very entertaining read. The authors struck the right balance between the exciting blow by blow of the campaign and the day to day decisions that most people would find dull. It was just so interesting reading both sides of each issue as it came up in the race. Reading how each side perceived a situation and then reacted gave the reader a rich understanding of how the campaign played out.

The one area that I found a bit annoying was the rabid partisanship of Mary Matalin. I actually thought that James Carville would be the rip it up partisan trash talker that was going to spell out the red meat attack on every issue. Now I tend to lean a little left so I at first thought it was just my liberal sensitivities getting a bit out of joint, but the more I read and tried to be fair I really got a negative view of Matalin. It is one thing to attack Clinton, heck stand in line, but the over blown attacks on average Democrats was a bit much. It just made me doubt much of what she said when balance was required and it eliminated any sympathy I should have had for her being she was on the losing side.

Another area I found interesting was how much she truly respected and adored President Bush. Now this might be a symptom of any campaign worker, but make no mistake about it, Mary held her love for the candidate front and center. With this being said it is understandable that she would take the loss hard and find some avenues to place a little blame, but her dislike of the press was only surpassed by Bill Clinton himself. Every bad decision or misstep on her side was somehow laid at the feet of the press for simply reporting the event. If Clinton was leading in the polls then Matalin made the claim the press was favoring Clinton. It got to be so pervasive that it took on the appearance of the town drunk arguing that he does not have a drinking problem. It might have been an underling factor as to why the Bush team did not pull it out at the end. Overall I really liked the book and if you are a political junkie then so will you.

Even though the Clinton vs. Bush campaign was 12 years ago, this book is well worth a re-visit. The book is relatively long but I found every page of high interest.

Mary Matalin's sections on the Bush re-election were wonderful reading and I am an avowed liberal. She perfectly captured the patrician nobility of Bush Senior and the campaign that destroyed itself. From the disasterous reign of John Sununu as Chief of Staff, the tragic death of Lee Atwater, the paralysis of Margaret Tutwiler, the insanity of Ross Perot, the mean-spiritedness of Patrick Buchanan, the shrill defeatism of Rich Bonds, and the often confused and muddled voice of an out of touch President, George Bush, the characters are vividly drawn and almost sympathetic.

Carville on the other hand is masterful in his analysis of the consciousness of the American Everyman. The strength of Carville's strategy is common sense played offensively. He respects the middle class American sense of irony and skepticism trying to move toward optimism and problem solving.

Even though the book is 478 pages long, it is really a fast read. Both Matalin and Carville are witty, strategic professionals with years of experience. I didn't get the book to read a sappy love story and I was glad the book focused on the considerable professional experiences of this couple rather than on their fledgling romance.

Carville's desciptions of Bill Clinton do the man justice as a flawed but brilliant leader. Matalin's desciptions of George Bush do the man justice as a man who believes his class, gender, and race was destined for leadership but he just can't navigate the reality of the average American experience.

Where both Matalin and Carville converge is in their perspectives on Patrick Buchanan, a mean hateful old man, and Ross Perot, a crazy old man.

Besides a blow by blow detailed story of the Clinton vs. Bush campaigns from beginning to end, the book is full of political wisdom and strategy.

Ever since I saw the documentary "The War Room," I have been a huge fan of James Carville's. It also helps that I am a big liberal Democrat. However, for the longest time I did not know that he was married to Mary Matalin, a longtime top Republican strategist. I also was unaware of the fact that they were more or less opposite numbers in the 1992 campaign, when Carville worked for Bill Clinton, and Matalin for President George H.W. Bush.

This book shows the inner workings and machinations of both the Clinton and Bush campaigns in 1992, from the viewpoints of Carville and Matalin respectively.

The book is written in turn; first Carville tells a little of what was happening in the Clinton camp, then Matalin offers the contemporary perspective of the Bush camp. This style works really well. At some points it develops into quasi-conversation, as if they were speaking to each other. There is ample room for the airing of their own personal views of what was going on as well.

There were two overriding themes in the book: the way Carville ran Clinton's operation, best known as The War Room, clearly changed the way political campaigns are conducted in this nation, and, partially because of the innovations of The War Room the Bush effort was off its game big-time. At times it was amazing to see the sheer ineptitude of the Bush campaign, such as when Mary Matalin describes how the White House and the Bush campaign were unwilling or unable to effectively coordinate their activities until the Republican convention.

There is also a lot of discussion of how the media, especially television and newspapers, influence the way a campaign is run these days. Predictably, there is a healthy amount of negativity expressed toward the press, especially Matalin's railing at the so-called liberal media, even though Carville makes some good arguments that Clinton was not receiving the best coverage, either.

A must-have for anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of political campaigns, especially for people who want to get involved in the higher operations of politics.

There's an old gag: laws are like sausages - you really don't want to know how they're made.

Here, in the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections, this book is still a worthy read - and not just because of the potential for the Clintons to find themselves back in the White House.

Breach makes clear some very important points. First, it becomes evident that the frequent bitter charges of 'partisanship' made during the run-up to the impeachment were purely tactical - and driven by the White House.

The book is oddly comforting in several respects. First, it reveals how gut-wrenching members of both parties found the situation - and how seriously most involved took it. Contrary to public opinion, this episode actually wasn't a partisan food fight. The majority of Republicans are shown as being concerned primarily with the rule of law and the concept that the President cannot be above it. The majority of congressional Democrats viewed Clinton with extreme anger and disappointment - after all, he had lied to them as well. Indeed, the earliest threat to Clinton's presidency came not from Republicans but infuriated Democrats. Views softened as the tale wore on - and most congressional Democrats sincerely did not feel that the case rose to the level of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

That there were partisan attack dogs on both sides of the aisle is almost secondary to the fact that most members of Congress, regardless of party took the situation extremely seriously and agonized over it.

There are no heroes in this story. One might argue that there are really no villains, either - although if not a criminal (and that's certainly still open to debate) Bill Clinton certainly emerges as a self-obsessed cad of the first order.

The book is a little dry and extremely dense. Still, it's a fascinating look inside the machinations of Washington - and if it lacks for one thing, it's a better understanding of Hillary Clinton's role throughout. She's virtually invisible throughout most of the book. Given her latter-day national clout, one might wish to have a clearer view of her activities - although the idea that she would make a serious run at the White House herself was but a rumor at the time Breach was written.

I don't know where the author got all of his insider material, but it is fascinating and ridiculously insightful. I could not put this book down, and began it with little interest. It was given to me by someone who accidentally bought two copies, and I am glad they did.

I am always a little hesitant to pick up a book on the impeachment or any troubles that Bill Clinton had because they are usually so partisan on one side of the story or the other. The number of books that try to stay in the middle and give a fair telling of the story is a somewhat limited group. This book has to be the gold standard for fair and impartial reporting. The author tells a story that is both infuriating and disappointing all at the same time. He does a good job of detailing out the sometime rabid prosecution of President Clinton and the rather slimy way the Democrats and Clinton got himself out of trouble. I kept looking for any bias on the authors part, especially when he was covering areas I did not feel too comfortable in reading and I just could not find any.

I have always enjoyed the way Bob Woodward tells a story with all the detail. The reason I bring it up is that this author comes close to the Woodward standard. I say comes close as he has not mastered the technique of impartial, detail soaked story telling with a touch of drama. The detail was here but it did get a bit dry at times. This is a minor point as the few parts of the book I felt were a bit slow were few and far between. The author also gives the reader a nice inside look at the process. Who did what and when. I enjoyed the detail as to what the members of Congress were doing and saying. Who would have thought some many Democrats were so upset and so many Republicans were on the fence as to if the trail was right. About the only area that put a smile on my face was the actions of the Chief Justice. From the yellow arm bands to the poker playing, it was all humorous and remarkably common activity.

The book ends with a small side story of who the only winner was in the whole mess. Hilary Clinton is about the only one who came through this process with something better. Even here the author stayed above the fray and gave us a straight telling of this briefly touched on topic. What I find ironic is that Bill Clinton wanted nothing more then a strong legacy and to be remembered positively in the history books. The impeachment trial grantees that an average President that would be relegated to the mediocre pile is forever going to be brought up in history as one of the few Presidents to be impeached primarily due to partisan politics.

This is easily a five star book. A reviewer of David Schipper's unsurprisingly one-sided and surprisingly naive book "Sell Out" recommended this book for a unbiased view of the impeachment and I echo that recommendation!

What was Mr. Baker's opinion or attitude about the impeachment process? I guess he was opposed to it. The key word in the previous sentence is "guess". My guess is based upon him being a journalist, a profession that is regrettably over populated with liberals and Democrats. His employment with the Washington Post (a.k.a. the Washington Pravda to many conservatives) further enforces my guess. However, it is just a guess because I do not recall anywhere in the book where Mr. Baker revealed his true attitude. He offered criticism to the Republican leadership as might be expected, but also criticized the Democratic leadership. Conversely, he also presented good reviews to both the Republican and and Democratic leaderships when it was called for. He even, in my opinion, sympathized at times for the poor House managers who were ridiculed and chastised for daring to take the case to the Senate when conviction was a virtual impossibility.

Mr. Baker explores how the Democrats were less than satisfied with Mr. Clinton's post-grand jury speech to the nation on 17 August 1998 and how they were seriously contemplating a trip to the White House to request a resignation. Of course, the mid-term elections offered a "reprieve" and from that point on the end result of his survival was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But his actions and unconvincing words of grief and apology to all concerned were not able to prevent the actual impeachment process from continuing.

I do wish Mr. Baker had waited until after Mr. Clinton left office before publishing the book. I would have been interesting to read his assessment of how the impeachment affected the 2000 campaign. But, on the flip side, his publishers might have felt it would be better to get the book out before impeachment faded completely into history and oblivion.

This is a very balanced view of the impeachment. The cards were laid out for Gingrinch and his difficulties, the Managers and the Senate. No one was demonized, but it is obvious that the former President Clinton is a spoiled sociopath that at some point is going to have to be dealt with. After what this book describes in detail the House vote and the Impeachment trial in the Senate, the Country was brought to a standstill on a matter that is so ridiculous, but was brought on by one silly man!With kind of distraction, it is no wonder that September 11 th happened. This book clearly brings the depth of a crisis in our government and how this dominated the agenda for a better part of almost a year and a half. The most stunning part of the book is the end, where the Author does not go into detail, but that Clinton could have generated another a scandal with the pardons after what happened in the Congress is incredible! Great book, read it in a weekend, and I am wiser for it.

This book could have been better with more diligent editing. There are too many needless details, too much bragging, too much laundering of personal lives, too many names dropped, and too many photos of operatives that would likely prefer to not have their face shown. You may feel like a case is being built...which possibly happens to be true since the author was suing Time for defamation.

On the other hand, it is a thorough and frank history of an exciting story that is probably hard to tell. There are many disclosures that may be impossible to find in more mainstream publications. It will probably never become a movie because the story is simply too explosive.

You will find shocking revelations about the so called 'banana republic of Arkansas', Clintons history with the CIA in the 80s, Oliver North, Reagan, Bush, Arkansas state police, Nicaraguan contras, jackals, government money laundering, extortion, bribes, drug running, agent extra ordinaire Barry Seal, arms manufacturing, Vietnam, Laos, intentional POW camp (with US soldiers) bombing, FBI, IRS, and of course the CIA.

The unintentional hero of the story is the IRS agent who quit his job because he refused to lie under oath for the....IRS. I tend to respect law enforcement that will not break the law while enforcing the law.

This could be a very interesting movie for a very brave producer.

This is a great book detailing one man's experience in the Contra operation. It has high officials and low, but it is written a bit rough. Particularly the absurd repetition of "Compromised" to the point I was hoping someone would lay a beatdown on the writer. Still, if you care for the genre it is an element of something.

I still have a cassette tape of Mr.
Reed on Dr. Stan's fine Radio Liberty
show discussing how the alphabet soup
lettered agencies came at him with
both barrels blazing under the overused
guies of (get this!) 'National Security.'
Get this book Mr. & Mrs. America!!!!!!

This book underscores and confirms Peter Dale Scott's paradigmatic expansion (appearing in his book Deep Politics and the Death of JFK), of the parameters of American politics to the cesspool of secrecy just beneath the waterline of normal everyday political maneuverings.

Here, Air Force Colonel Terry Reed tells the story of being assigned, as an "Operations Officer" in charge of a CIA-run transshipment drop-off-point, disguised as a parking meter manufacturing plant, somewhere out in the boondocks on the periphery of the small Hamlet of Mena, Arkansas.

According to Reed, while operating under various "deep covers" and "cut-outs," he later discovered, that he was in fact working for Oliver North's Nicaragua-Contra "drugs-for-gun" project. Quite by accident he had discovered that his small operation in Mena was a link in a much larger and longer chain of activities that led from Ronald Reagan's NSC, to the Medellin cocaine fields. Apparently, as Reed surmised, cocaine was being picked up and transshipped through Mena, enroute to being laundered for guns (pick up at the Pentagon, paid for out of cocaine proceeds), and sent on to the Nicaraguan "contras."

All of cargo that arrived in Mena was of course carefully concealed in the typical large steel locked-down transport containers. According to Reed (whose job it was to make sure such containers were securely locked and un-tampered with), he, somehow was able to see inside that they were packed full of "one-kilo sized bricks" of cocaine -- one of which he wriggled out to keep as evidence to later either "blow the whistle" on the whole operation, or at the very least, to be used as a hedge against being called a "conspiracy kook and liar" once his revelations were made public. That is the essence of Reed's story.

Well, that theft by the "good old colonel" was a big mistake: For the rest of book is about what happened to him and his family as he was forced to "go on the lam," to avoid being "terminated with extreme prejudice" by his U.S. government handlers and overseers. According to Reed, he and his family are still being pursued all across the U.S., Canada and Mexico in a harrowing odyssey with enough twists and turns in it to make a move that would rival "The Bourne Identity," of Matt Damon fame.

At the time this book went to print, Reed's story seemed like so much "out there" conspiracy theory by the kooks, who were again weaving their familiar and always un-substantiated tales about the "goings-on" of people in power. However, the revelations since the book was published all seem to have produced nothing but a constant stream of cross-confirmation and convergence with Reed's facts. And here I mean the arrest of Eugene Hasenfus shot down in Nicaragua on October 5, 1986; the incredible well-written and revealing book by Gary Webb called "Dark Alliance;" the ultimate expose on the Clintons written by the renown British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard called "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, and the roller-coaster ride down the dark side of American history by Daniel Hopsicker called "Barry & `the boys," about the life and times of the Soldier of Fortune and known CIA agent Barry Seal.

According to Hopsicker, it was none other than the infamous Barry Seal who was piloting the plane that crashed in Nicaragua and who flew all of the other planes on regularly missions both into Colombia for the pick-up and back to Mena for the drop off, and on to Nicaragua with guns for the Contras. Seal in fact even had his own private "financial interests" invested in the whole Mena operation.

And as is by now well known, from Gary Webb's Dark Alliance, it was "Contra cocaine money" that was sold in America's black ghettoes that led to the "crack explosion" and that financed the whole "Reagan Contra" Operation (At the same time that Nancy Reagan was preaching "Just Say No!"). But it is Evans-Prichard's book that tied all these various loose strains together: from Mena, directly to the backdoor of the Clinton White House: Once the then Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, got wind that a big CIA drug smuggling operation was taking place on his back porch, in Mena, Arkansas, he wanted "in on the deal" and "wanted his cut." Apparently he got both with a flourish, by utilizing the likes of Dan Lasater (Chapter 19), who became the Arkansas "Cocaine Kingpen," laundering most of his money through the Arkansas Development Finance Corporation (ADFC), which in a very short time became the largest bonding company in the world. The ADFC was such an improbable place for such spike in bonding activity that this activity alone actually triggered the IRS investigation that eventually led to Lasater and others arrest. [There is another whole story of how that investigation was eventually stifled and then completely snuffed out.]

As one of many postscripts to Reed's expose. Barry Seal was released to a halfway house in Baton Rouge, La, with a bulls-eye painted on his back, and the predictable happened: He was gunned-down in a hail of bullets from a Uzi, presumably by Colombian hit men. The May 23, 1992 (?) Washington Post entitled "Iran-Contra Figure Shot Down Again (by Guy Guliotta) relates how a Congressional Bill to award Eugene Hasenfus $805,209 for his injuries, was shelved: Bill Clinton had written Hasenfus' lawyers in Arkansas, saying that "he would not look favorably on the bill." In the mean time, Oliver North, who lied to Congress, almost won a Senate seat in Va., and then went on to lucrative book deal and an additional lucrative deal as a Rightwing Talk Show Host. Elliot Abrams, who also lied to Congress, did 100 hours of community service and wrote a book about how the Democrats had scape-goated him.

If this does not confirm Peter Dale Scott's theories, I don't what will. Five stars.

This book is simply amazing. It details the life of a CIA asset, pilot and businessman as he falls further and further into the rabbit hole and learns the truth about the CIA and its control of the government. In the book we find that Bill Clinton, George HW Bush and many other politicians are "compromised" and beholden to the secret government known as the CIA. If you think that there is a difference between political parties, prepare to experience a paradigm shift.

A fascinating account of yet another bungled White House cover-up. The author is to be commended not only for writing a compelling book but also for his excellent research skills. It is obvious from reading some of the negative reader reviews that many people write reviews without reading anything but the flyleaf. Books like these only make me more grateful to be a Canadian!

In this book Chritopher Ruddy provides many facts about the strange death of Vincent Foster. That death is historically significant whether it was suicide or homicide,after all it's not often that someone close to a sitting president succombs to a mysterious death. Mr. Ruddy shares information from discussions with homicide detectives,medical examiners,and staff from the Starr investigations.

Here are some issues that the author touches on:

The gun supposedly found in Vincent Foster's hand. It was a 1913 Colt that was basically a cobbled-up "drop piece" made from combining two guns with two differing serial numbers. Most disturbing is the fact that it wasn't his gun. Add to that witness statements that claimed the gun was a different color and was a semi-automatic rather than a revolver. A lot of conflicting witness statements about something as important as the gun used in a potential suicide.

The different locations of the body. Mr.Ruddy clearly and logically explains where the corpse was discovered by those first on the scene.

The "crime scene" was not the place of Mr.Foster's death. The body was moved,that much is very obvious from the blood evidence! Unless of course blood can run uphill.

The problematic location of his glasses and the presence of gunpowder on them.

There were conflicting reports regarding Foster's briefcase,and it's likely location in the Honda car at the park.

The timeline within the White House and how soon they really knew about the death. The strange Secret Service memo that stated "Vince Foster shot himself in the White House parking lot". Helen Dickey repeated that before recanting later.

The search and subsequent destruction of documents from Foster's White House office. Another mystery surrounding the case.

The way that White House personnel obstructed or adversely affected investigations into the death. The long-standing relationships with investigators and the poor choice of some of the participants such as Fiske and Starr.

The possible motivation for having the Park Police investigate the case is explained by their less than illustrious history with crimes and coverups.

While this book doesn't prove a homicide or suicide,it does prove an obvious coverup. The body was definitely moved. Did Vincent Foster committ suicide in a White House parking lot? We'll probably never know the truth about the location and cause of death.
Christopher Ruddy has written an excellent book and I recommend it!

I picked up this book not knowing much about Vincent Foster, or the scandals that surrounded the Clinton's. I was younger then, and now that Hillary is running for President I thought I should know.

Firstly, Ruddy should be commended for his exhaustive efforts in putting together an informative book. No doubt he has sifted through countless documents and interviews, and probably spent countless nights digesting all of it.

Pretty much after the first ten pages I knew Foster did not kill himself, which left me to wonder what the remaining 300 pages would consist of. This book has a LOT of information and at times it can feel overwhelming. I thought it might have felt less so had Ruddy separated his book into chapters by points of concern or contradiction, followed by facts backing up each point. I realize this approach is difficult, for Foster's death is murky and had it been easy to discern the truth the case would be solved by now. Instead Ruddy's book goes back and forth with events discussed previously resurfacing later.

One thing's for sure, you get more from Ruddy's book if you come in with some pre-knowledge of other key players: McDougals, Webster Hubbel, Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, Travelgate, even Bill and Hillary, to name a few! This book is like a piece of a puzzle that fits better when you have all the pieces. These people and cases are important and Ruddy doesn't necessarily fill you in with details, (it's a bit annoying at times, but it certainly cuts down on the length of his book). Ruddy does include a couple pages in the Appendix covering a bit about these people, as well as a few timelines that are helpful.

Overall, this is no novel, it's an investigate study packed with facts and information and you'll certainly have your fill of it.

On July 20, 1993, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. On January 27, 1994, Christopher Ruddy became the first American journalist to write anything about the death that was both based upon actual interviews of witnesses at the park and called into question the official suicide ruling. With this book he reached another milestone. More than four years after the death he became the first person to have a serious, critical book on the Foster death published by a "mainstream" publisher.

The book, like his reporting on the case, first for the New York Post and later for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is thick with facts that contradict the official version, a version which we have, up to now, only been given by the initial Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske, in a sparse, double-spaced, 58-page report (We are not counting the numerous journalists, most notably James Stewart in the Simon and Schuster book, Blood Sport, who have also peddled the official suicide-from-depression story.).

Here's an outline of some of the most important evidence that Ruddy reveals to us:

The Body

Foster was laid out as though ready for a coffin with his legs straight and his arms down by his side.

He was neat and tidy. None of the gore that one would expect when a person has blown his brains out with a .38 caliber revolver was present. Only a trickle of blood was seen oozing from the nose and the corner of the mouth. No samples of skull, brain tissue, or hair were collected, or even reported seen, on the ground or vegetation. There was no large pool of blood. There was no blow-back on the barrel of the gun, his hand, or the sleeve of his shirt. His teeth were not chipped nor his mouth damaged from, as we were told, having held the pistol's barrel deep in his mouth when he fired it.

None of the witnesses in the park reported seeing the large exit wound at the crown of the head that is in the autopsy report of Dr. James Beyer, a man with a record of serious mistakes on autopsies resulting in suicide rulings when murder was more likely. On his report, Dr. Beyer checked that he took X-rays and an attending policeman wrote on his report that Dr. Beyer had told him that the X-rays showed no bullet fragments in the head, yet Dr. Beyer later said, and Fiske reported, that no X-rays were taken because the machine was not working. Service records on the X-ray machine, however, belie the claim that it was not working.

An emergency worker at the park has testified to having seen a small wound on the right side of the neck . Ruddy claims to have seen a photograph leaked to him from Kenneth Starr's office that shows a similar neck wound. Recently, a document was uncovered in the National Archives that indicates that medical examiner Dr. James Haut also reported seeing a neck wound. A good part of the Polaroid photographs taken of the scene have disappeared, and it has been claimed that the 35-mm photos taken by the principal police photographer were spoiled by under-exposure.

The Gun

Neither police nor FBI apparently ever showed the gun found in Foster's hand to immediate family members for identification. The gun was an old 1913-vintage Colt made up from parts of two or more guns. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was not Foster's gun.

The earliest witness said there was no gun in the hand when he saw the body. The next witness, a Park Policeman, also saw no gun, though he claims not to have looked very closely. One of the earliest emergency workers to arrive has given sworn expert testimony that the gun he saw was an automatic, not a revolver.

No fingerprints from Foster were on the gun or the bullet shell casings.

Powder markings on the webbing between thumb and forefinger of both hands indicate either that Foster held the gun in an impossibly awkward position, someone caused the markings to be there after the death, or Foster was trying to ward off a shot by grabbing the gun by the front cylinder gap.

No matching bullets to the two shells (one spent) in the gun were found anywhere.

The supposed fatal bullet was never found.

The police ruled suicide before ever testing the gun to see if it was functional and had been fired. Originally, the Park Police gave erroneous information about the testing of the gun.

The Note

The note that has been liberally interpreted as a suicide note was reportedly found in a briefcase that had been emptied, searched, and inventoried in front of several investigating officials.

Though torn into 28 pieces, none of Foster's fingerprints were on it.

The Capitol Hill policeman to whom it was unaccountably sent for authentication is not a certified handwriting examiner, and he used only one document putatively written by Foster for comparison.

A serious effort was made to keep a photocopy of the note out of the hands of the public.

A trio of respected handwriting examiners, including the world's leading authenticator of literary manuscripts from Oxford University in England, has declared that the note is a forgery.

Senator D'Amato's Whitewater Committee, seemingly forgetting about their subpoena power, refused to look into the authenticity question because "the family would not turn over the note."

One could continue in this vein with equally strong sketches under "The Spurious `Depression'," "The Car and the Keys," "Doctored Statements and Intimidated Witnesses," "The Time of White House Notification," and several other categories, but space is limited and we would not want the reader to think that he now has no need to read the book. The book is well worth its price if only for the truly splendidly-rendered morality play described in Chapter 9 (The chapters, unfortunately, are not named; they are only numbered.). Ruddy seems to be the proverbial fly on the wall as "the hero of the story," federal attorney Miquel Rodriguez makes what looks like a serious attempt to get at the truth, grilling witnesses before the grand jury, only to be undercut at every turn by his superiors, Mark Tuohey and Kenneth Starr. Rodriguez eventually gives up and unceremoniously resigns. Properly executed, this chapter by itself would make a very powerful movie.

The first thing that has to come to anyone's mind as he reads these shocking revelations is "Why haven't I heard any of this before? There is information here that would have sold newspapers by the ton and kept people glued to the TV screens. Whatever happened to the aggressive free press motivated, if not by a love of truth, at least by profit, and where are the sleuths of Watergate?" Ruddy has no answer. He doesn't even bother to ask the question. What terrible secret, incriminating to so many, must lie behind the Foster death? He also has no explanation as to why the supposed "opposition" Republicans have rolled over like trained seals. Again, he fails even to ask the question.

Instead, with as powerful a case as he has, Ruddy gives up the moral high ground by choosing to have his book touted on the dust cover by William Sessions, the man who directed the FBI at the time of the Ruby Ridge and Waco outrages. The tone of the endorsement, the first thing that most readers will see, is so timid and defensive that it almost amounts to damning with faint praise: "Mr. Ruddy has carefully avoided drawing undue inferences about the death. It is legitimate to question the process employed by authorities to make their conclusions."

Ruddy, seeming not to recognize the strength of his hand, echoes Sessions' tone near the book's end with a long, inadequate response to the patently spurious and insincere arguments that he has heard against his pursuing the case "not only from media colleagues, but from leading political and law-enforcement figures as well." Does he not realize that it is they, not he, who have the answering to do?

Finally, I am troubled by Ruddy's omission of a number of crucial facts about the case. To cite the worst example, he does not tell us that well before his book went to the printers the witness, Patrick Knowlton, had filed suit for witness intimidation against a number of individuals working for the FBI. Rather, there is only mention in a chronology in an appendix that Knowlton "file(d) suit in federal court alleging the government violated his civil rights." From what we are told it sounds like no more than a trivial nuisance suit, but it is far more than that. After Starr had closed the case the Knowlton suit was the public's best chance of learning the truth, but Ruddy would seem to prefer that we know virtually nothing about it.

The other major pressure point is with the Congress, and the Republicans there, particularly Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, once a lonesome Congressional champion of truth in the Foster case, completely escape censure by Ruddy. These omissions and others, sad to say, are more than enough to make one question Ruddy's motives. Does he, the outsider who started out at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York tabloid and then fell to the tiny suburban Pittsburgh newspaper owned by that notable funder of conservative causes, Richard Mellon Scaife, want too badly to be accepted by the cozy, thoroughly discredited club of "media colleagues" and "leading political and law-enforcement figures?" Some things, he should recognize, are more important than that.

There are certain occurrences which come into play during the Clinton administration like so many deaths during his reign, Chinagate etc. Read this and look deeper than what is written.