Clinton Books

Let's see. Ken Starr wastes the public money attacking Bill Clinton with false accusations while at the same time siding with KON-servative Mitch Mcconnel of KY to allow for more corrupt campaigns as if there aren't any already !!! This book is a perfect tool for neconservative NAZIS to enjoy and drool over but is otherwise useless trash for the rest of us who are already facing mass destruction by Bush/Cheney/Rove/Delay and GOP with of course a spineless opposition that barely got together to defend Clinton but easily caved into and defended Bush the liar-in-chief !

So Bill Clinton had his men muscle poor Ken Starr who did a fabulous job exposing this infidel. Clinton was disbarred and impeached but still allowed to finish his term, hand out pardons to criminals, steal furniture from the white house and take the economy right down the toilet.

I gues that saying about the golden rule: "the man with gold makes the rules" is very true.

Another reason why I am glad that I am no longer a democrat. Or is that democ(rat).

This smarmy little work of personal opinion, conjecture and gossip fits in neatly with its subject: independent counsel Kenneth Starr and the private lives of any human being that had any contact with President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary. Highly recommend wearing your gloves to keep the oil off your hands.

I just finished reading the Hunting of the President by Conanson and Lyon, and Truth at Any Cost. These books provide an instructive contrast. Thus, while Hunting provides copious footnotes for factual assertions, Truth far too often presents the judgments, feelings, assessments and views of Starr and his staff in subtle substitution for attributed facts and as though those statements were the complete truth and not worthy of further examination. This fault becomes more clear when combined with the artful and disingenuous sorting and choice of facts to support its assertions.

Some readers have expressed approval of the discussion of legal stategy presented by Truth and there certainly is plenty of discussion of these subjects which can serve to inform. But what a critical comparision of Hunting and Truth reveals is how an advocate's ordering of facts, use of conclusions in lieu of facts and reference to subjective views, judgments etc. as facts can present the distorted picture sought only by an advocate. Happily enough, in the context of appellate advocacy, such biased presentation of a factual or legal case is quickly dispelled by reply briefs of one's opponent before an appellate tribunal.

As an example of the difficulty with the facts presented in support of the author's presentation is that involving David Hale. Mr. Hale's statement are presented at one point to debunk critics of the Staff investigation. Yet, as Hunting points out, Hale has a long history of lying about anything involving Clinton, to say nothing of stealing, all of which Truth ignores.

Lastly, the book goes to on at length to justify Starr's expenditure of public funds to uncover Clinton's sexual behavior and lies about that. However, one striking thing to any civil litigator must be the number of times perjury is clear in an ordinary civil proceeding, and yet there is complete disinterest from prosecutorial authorities. I suggest that perjury is generally considered worthy of prosecution in the abstract by our society, but apparently not in the real world when compared against other crimes deemed more damaging to society. Yet when Starr as an independent prosecutor assigned to investigate only Clinton learns of possible future perjury in litigation he previously particpated in as an advocate for Clinton's opponent, that limitation on prosecutorial discretion goes out the window and requires the investment of millions of dollars and countless FBI agents. Clinton's behavior was unseemly. Despite Schmidt's and Weisskopf's efforts to portray Starr otherwise, his actions were also quite unseemly.

Truth At Any Cost does not pretend to be evenhanded. Instead, co-authors Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf examine the Lewinsky affair from the standpoint of those inside the Office of Independent Counsel. The result is a new perspective on an exhaustively covered scandal.

This book dwells little on Whitewater and the other investigations that led to the appointment of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. The authors instead concentrate on the sexual scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment and how Starr and his subordinates responded. It would have been nice to know more about the men and women who investigated the president, but the focus is on personality rather than biography. The authors depict Starr in a much different light than the oft-demonized caricature that was spoon-fed the public. Again, it would have been nice to know more about Starr's background, but the concentration is on his character. Starr is presented here as a conscientious but politically naive lawyer better suited to the bench than to the OIC.

Although relatively brief, the book drags a bit but picks up steam in the latter chapters as the independent counsel gathers and compiles evidence against the president. A few new revelations emerge along the way. Among them is Hillary Clinton's central role in the defense of her husband and in the counteroffensive against his opponents.

This book is worth reading just to see why, as well as how, the prosecutors pursued this case so vigorously. Their motivations often run counter to the stereotypes floated at the time, and this makes for a new spin on an old story.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., and myself are on the same page regarding Hillary Clinton: we both consider her to be a very dangerous threat to America. The author does not make the mistake of ignoring the nefarious Saul Alinsky in her political development. His cynical amoralism underpins Senator Clinton's own political vision. She is indeed a dedicated, hard-core leftist who may be only slightly to the right of those radicals of the 1960s. She is definitely far more to the left than her husband. Hillary simply knows that her natural ideological inclinations must be hidden from the general public. The woman must fly under the radar if she is to have any chance of being elected president. In other words, Hillary Clinton must be willing to be careless with the truth if it is deemed necessary. Tyrrell, alas, provides ample evidence that the senator is more than willing to even outright lie---and slander anyone who threatens to derail to grab for power. Is the author a Clinton hater? Not in the least. Tyrell is prudent and dispassionately careful. He is very well aware that Clinton's folks will exploit any mistakes, however minor. And no, Madame Hillary is not outdated because it was released some three years ago. It is still relevant and extremely valuable in learning how to derail her plans to replace our Constitution government with a socialist and authoritarian one.

You should also purchase a copy Whitewash: What the Media Won't Tell You About Hillary Clinton, but Conservatives Will. It is imperative that we keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. These two books will give you the critical ammunition to do your part. Please do not underestimate the damage Senator Clinton will do if given half a chance. Your children's future, if nothing else, depends on your taking her seriously.

I was hoping for some intelligent insight into Hillary Clinton when I bought this book. Clearly, much can be said on both sides of this subject. I am trying to listen carefully to both and then make up my mind about her.

This is the equivalent to a rant from a right-wing Rosie O'Donnell. Don't waste your money on this rehash of old news.

It is quite an amazing co-incidence that at least in some ways this book presented as "fact" seems to mirror a book presented as "fiction" which is entitled The Empress Project. Both books tell of an American woman of boundless and unbridled ambition seeking ruthlessly to become president of the United States. Author Tyrrell calls Hillary "Madame Hillary", while Dr. Little, author of the other book, writes a story of political intrigue about a CHICOM plot to make an evil American woman Empress of America. Are the similarities of these two books merely coincidental ?The Empress Project

In this book Emmett Tyrrell and Mark Davis explain in great detail why a Hillary Clinton presidency would be so dangerous to the country.
They expose her strategy,it's source,and her m.o. both as First Lady and Senator. It's a prophetic description of her as a presidential candidate also.
You will discover the cast of often dubious characters who surround her fund raising and campaign team. Folks who won't be seen on camera.

Her abuse of Barbara Feinman who ghostwrote "It Takes a Village" is an all too common character flaw in Hillary.

"The problem is that after a decade of scandals and expose's,there is now so much evidence revealing her culpability that only a Clinton true believer will be satisfied by her protestations to innocence."-page 74.

She has a curious habit of letting the skeltons tumble out of the closet and into public view to be debated again. A few prime examples are Roger Clinton's drug use which exposes Bill to possible scrutiny and the other is Bill Clinton's taking a pass on an offer by Sudan to deliver up bin Laden. The authors site a book "Losing bin Laden" written by Richard Miniter that tells how the Clinton administration downplayed terrorism as "criminal activity" in order to keep it on the back burner. He made an enormous error in judgment when he declined the oppurtunity to arrest and extradite a terrorist linked to attacks on the U.S. As a "copresident" this is part of Hillary's legacy too.

It's almost comical to read about Hillary's paper written while she was on the House Judiciary Impeachment Inquiry during Watergate.She claims that she was correct about impeachment triggers in 1974,while she took the equally correct and yet opposite view during her husband's impeachment procedings. An example of her belief that she is always correct and those opposing her are part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" against her.

A revisit for her health care debacle reveals the steep political price the Democratic party paid for it. They lost 52 seats and the Republicans got a Speaker in the House for the first time in 40 years.

All the warts are exposed to the light of day here. Travelgate,Vince Foster,the cattle futures investment,corrupt campaign financing,theft of White House furniture.

She is already using the same tactics and risks destroying the Democratic party with her egotistical,self aggrandised run for the presidency.
This book is worth the read for anyone that wants to explore Hillary and the multitude of reasons why she should not be president!

They're posted by irrational, biased Clinton lovers. This author has not "made a career" of bashing the Clintons. I have read other books by him as well as articles from his magazine. They are thoroughly researched, the dozens and dozens of reliable sources are all cited, and only an IDIOT would contend it's fiction rather than fact. Mr. Tyrell does a public service in exposing the Clintons for the corrupt liars they are. Highly recommended.

A really great collection of "Bruno's" brutality, faux pas' and bald-faced lies! Well written and catagorized, this work exposes her for the Socialist that she truly is. Only yellow dog Democrats and Clintonistas could even consider voting for her after reading this book!

Okay...........I heard some scary things about "Swillary". But this booked is a must read because the media, with the likes of Tim Russett, molds Swillary as the next best thing to sliced bread.

After reading this booked....I realized that it's all about her......and her socialist views on everything....from the economy to healthcare.

If everybody would just hear about this book........never mind read it ....she is out for 2008!!

I pray to God....for the sake of our country and "INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM", that this book gets popular in 2008, with the likes of "Unfit for Command".

BTW.....Who wants another Clinton in the Whitehouse after read ing this great book.

Also, isn't odd that CNN,ABC, NBC and CBS never make mention of this book ?

A note for Tim Russet, please read this book !!!

I thought it was funny.

In my family's defense, we are New Yorkers and we do not like Hilary Clinton. Therefore, I got it for my father as a gag joke. He got a kick out of it. We have always thought she was a phoney ("I've Always Been A Yankees Fan" - yeah right) and the book proves it.

Thomas D. Kuiper has outdone himself with the hilarious quote book, I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words by World Ahead Media, which takes pot shots at sayings Hillary Clinton has been known to have said and some aren't exactly something a future President would want others to know about. But, Tom is letting the cat out of the bag with such goodies as:

On Arkansas, "I had never before lived in a place so small, so friendly and southern, and I loved it (she should have stopped right there). I went to Arkansas Razorback football games and learned to call the hogs."

Ouch. Bad bad Hillary.

Oh, but there's more...

Talking to female friends about the lack of quality men in Arkansas, she is quoted as saying, "When I look at what's available in the man department, I'm surprised more women aren't gay."

Double ouch!

And poor womanizing-can't-keep-his-hands-to-himself-Bill received quite a few backlashings from his lady love in front of public eyes...and ears...

When wild Bill's womanizing was at it's peak, she was quoted as saying to a private detective, "I want you to do damage control over Bill's philandering...Bill's going to be president of the United States...I want you to get rid of all these bitches he's seeing...I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control."

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, when the chips are down, why is it everyone else's fault? What about your darling husband? Was getting the Presidency all that you were concerned about?

Hilarious, hilarious book. Tom Kuiper spent years of research to bring to you an enjoyable book showing you the real side of Hillary Clinton - and often it's the side of her she sure doesn't want others to see before the election.

Kudos to Tom for bringing us I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words. Highly recommended!

--Originally published at The Book Rack (www.thebookrack.wordpress.com)

Mrs. Clinton is already loosing ground to Mr. Obama. This book will help her loose more ground. Watch out Mrs. Clinton, you don't have the democratic lead you thought you would. We don't want Bill Clinton to be running after any more of our children.

A nationally syndicated columnist and bestselling author of two books, David Limbaugh performs the duties the mainstream media used to perform decades ago with his page-turning expose "Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department". Few non-fiction books in the past ten years have held me captive like this one.

During the 1992 campaign, and throughout the Clinton presidency, Americans heard reports of various Clinton administration improprieties. Sometimes, as was the case with Monica Lewinsky, we actually witnessed the scandals unfold. But rarely would the mainstream media afford the public more than a cursory overview of such activities. Simply put, David Limbaugh does the job the mainstream media should have.

With chapters that run the gambit on such topics as Waco, the Tobacco Wars, Billy Dale and The White House Travel Office, Monica Lewinsky, presidential pardons to benefit Hillary's Senate campaign, and Elian Gonzalez, Absolute Power is one of the premiere historical records cataloguing the innumerable scandals that plagued Bill Clinton's presidency. Surprisingly, readers will find little commentary. I can find no instance of the author offering his own opinion. Instead, his book reads like a newspaper description of a public event (or at least in the days before liberal media bias). The book contains extensive footnotes and source references, quoting FBI agents and high-ranking officials on the record by name, rather than by quoting "anonymous sources"...

The result is a genuine breath of fresh air. I was fifteen when the storming of the Waco compound took place. Yet despite the abundance of media coverage, I knew few details regarding the incident itself and the people surrounding it before reading this book. David Limbaugh fills in the details about the life of David Koresh, the history of Waco, and all of the other topics previously listed in a way the major media outlets have failed to do since those events occurred.

Readers of Absolute Power will be left breathless by its vivid illustration of a presidential administration willing to use the courts and agents of federal law enforcement to achieve its own political ends. Had David Limbaugh published this book just one year earlier, no American would have been surprised by Al Gore's attempts to circumvent election law in Florida. Although, optimist that I am, I'd like to believe that had this book been published one year earlier, the 2000 presidential election would not have been so close...

Britt Gillette
Author of "The Dittohead's Guide To Adult Beverages"

The two greatest organizations for enforcing the law under the Clinton and Reno administration politicized the law, weakened justice, and brought politics under the influence of big business because political partiesý differences eroded to a point where a single individualýs influence in the party was considered minimal; the goal of such erosion was to reduce polarization of ideas, allowing increased influence from the special interests groups; the special interests groups used money to open import businesses, get contracts, buy weapons, gain most-favored-nation status, decrease legal penalties and soften constitutional intent.

David Limbaugh hedges towards demonstrating how the Clinton and Reno administration found loopholes in the law, extended the interpretation of the law, used obscure laws to establish precedents, bombarded their opponents using trial-lawyer-rhetoric and accusatory, false witnesses as diversionary tactics, and pitted the United States against the United States by creating conflicting interests within government organizations; thus, the Justice Department became a political arm of the Executive Branch. The cases are: Waco (military usage in civilian affair), Linda Tripp (privacy act violation), Campaign scandal (soft money in the Democratic National Committee (DNC)), discrediting of Kenneth Star (conflict of interest), Elian Gonzalez (political pressure to overturn the courts). Waco is a wake up call! Clinton would say the incident at Waco was a tragedy, but he could not control a fanatic who decided to kill himself and everyone at Waco. A review board analyzed the governmentýs handling of Waco and found no wrong doing. Limbaugh presented a different story and revealed a number of blatant lies.

Why attack Koresh? Koresh's original name was Veron Howell. The Koresh group was a break-off, apostate, dissenting group from the original Seventh Day Adventist organization. Divisions occurred over the doctrine of spiritual (White: Something happened in heaven) versus physical (Davidic throne) manifestation of Christýs second coming and the particular date this event would occur. Howell claims to be the seventh messenger for the seventh seal as recorded in the Book of Revelation in the Bible.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) becomes involved in watching the activities on the Waco (Mount Carmel, TX) compound. Dispute over ownership occurs between Howell and Roden; Roden forces the ATF to petition for US military assistance because Roden has set up a methamphetamine lab, but at the time of the petition, the lab was dysfunctional; Roden challenged Howell to a contest to determine who was God; Howell had a sexual relationship with Lois Roden, who was sixty, thinking she was like the biblical Sarah, and he would produce offspring with her; Roden digs up a 20-year-dead corpse and challenges Howell to bring the corpse back to life; Howell declines; Howell reports Rodenýs activities to the authorities; Roden is charged with contempt of court; Howell gains possession of the property and the followers; Howell changes his name to David Koresh; Koresh claims to be the Messiah to bring about the end-of-time prophecy; reports of Koresh beating children surface (he boasts 17 wives and 11 children, many of the wives were under-aged); Marc Breault, a disgruntled member, prods the sheriff to take action; Child Protective Services becomes involved; June 9, 1992, ATF begins an open investigation. Dummy hand grenades were discovered, there were purchases of aluminum and black powder, and evidence of 40,000 AR-15 rifles (convertible to a machine gun). The Fed does not prohibit possession of a machine gun; however, it does require a registration for each weapon, a registration Koresh did not complete. A warrant is obtained based on this evidence; Koresh is seen leaving the Mount Carmel premises, no arrest is made because a dynamic raid is preferred; Koresh was tipped off according to Robert Rodrigues, 76 agents staged the raid, they were exposed to Koresh during unload, but no shots were fired.

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act restricted military involvement in civilian law enforcement because military is used to fight wars, not enforce the law, with the exception of drugs; there was evidence surfacing the Koresh residents were anticipating a peaceful resolution; Reno justified force because she believed 1) there was no reason to believe Koresh would voluntary come out 2) the health and jeopardy of the children were at risk 3) the Hostage rescue team was fatigued; the hostage rescue team wanted action, and the experts urged caution. The two groups were at odds with each other, but eventually, the team acted. A tank pushed through a wall and either knocked over the kerosene lamps, starting a fire, or Koresh committed mass suicide. Why would Koresh murder his people? He had not finished his mission. The tactics employed by the Hostage Rescue team follow a military strategy, and casualties are expected; "strike first, strike hard, no compromise" is the message. Why was a military force strategy employed in a local, law enforcement situation?

People who complain about the truth never have any facts to back it up. Womnder why? Those Facts do not exist. If the David Barrett report is ever realeased...Hillary and Bill will be in line for a prison term.

The truth is out there. Facts are out there and David L has put out a book that people who want truth and can think for themselves will find.

Its interesting because in the past 6 months so much had come out. Facts regarding WMD's and Al Quaeda's ties with Iraq. The tuth needs to be spoken and this book speaks out loud and clear. A must read.

Well of course this is biased nonsense. What did you expect? That's not my trouble with this book, as I expect nothing less from Rush's little brother. What did depress me was how lazily thrown together it was, like maybe Rush had a few of his interns dig up some Washington Times articles for David to weave together into a partisan rant. Also a tad distressing was the lack of any sort of historical perspective, on say what Ed Meese got up to let alone Nixon's crook Mitchell. (Though again this is standard party trick of right wing hacks so no surprise.) I am vaguely interested in whether David actually believes this stuff, as "The Legacy of Corruption" has the whiff of utter cynicism and making a buck off the rubes...

....is what the title of this book should read. Limbaugh clearly has an agenda here. If your republican you'll love this, if your democrat you'll hate it. Big surprise!!

After reading all of the impeachment books, and I mean all of them, including Benedict's fabulous book on Johnson's impeachment trial, this is the best. Posner removes the gloves for all parties involved and strikes many direct hits. While most of Posner's books are for the lawyerly elite, this book can be enjoyed by anybody who has a basic understanding of what happened during the Clinton scandal and is looking for a brilliant analysis.

Judge Richard Posner churns out books with the speed and depth of Danielle Steele. 'An Affair of State' was the second of his that I read, and it will be the last. This review was written six years ago. Nothing has been revealed since to make me change a word of it.

Richard Posner cheerfully admits he knows nothing of the background to the Clinton scandals, only what was published in the press or in legal documents.
This is not really true, as he does claim to know that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr is an upright fellow, with no sexual hangups, which is not an opinion that a reasonable man could form from any available reports.
Posner's obvious goal is to save Starr. But Starr is indefensible; not just suspect of many serious crimes, but vehemently suspect, as the medieval jurisconsults had it, meaning that no innocent explanation is possible.
Posner's strategy is to foist off Starr's transgressions on other players. For example, he asserts that the storm-trooper tactics of Office of Independent Counsel were the result of "aggressive" underlings, all "experienced prosecutors" who were able to maraud freely because their boss had no experience as a prosecutor.
This argument does not work. The previous special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, was removed improperly, as even Posner admits, by a panel of three right-wing judges. Joe Conason and Gene Lyons (in 'The Hunting of the President') have made an excellent case that the removal was a criminal conspiracy to impede justice.
The Three Stooges met with a right-wing Republican senator the day before Fiske was canned. Conason and Lyons believe the stooges knuckled under to right-wing pressure. Posner says since they all denied it, there is no "proof" that that is what happened.
Maybe not court proof, but is it plausible that that is not what happened? No.
Either the Three Stooges colluded in an illegal conspiracy to obstruct justice, or they made an honest decision to replace Fiske, followed by an unbelievably stupid one to appoint a special prosecutor with no experience. It was hardly a task at which the nation could afford to sponsor on-the-job training.
Even without a mealymouthed, self-righteous sicko like Starr at the top, the OIC was corrupt.
The strongest of many examples was the OIC's tampering with witness Sarah Hawkins. Conason and Lyons tell this sordid tale; Posner, revealingly, does not.
In the whole book, Posner does not devote even one whole sentence to the massive allegations against Starr.

Posner promises to rip the cover off the impeachment process by sorting through the spin and uncovering the truth of what Clinton was charged with, what he did, and how the impeachment process worked.

As a judge, he does a magnificent job (especially as he completed this book within days of the final vote) of cutting to the quick of the legal charges against Clinton, and examining the evidence that pretty undisputably proves Clinton "guilty".

But, and this is a very big but, his strength as a judge is Posner's weakness as a historian. He assumes, without proving, that the true issue in impeachment is (or should be) the legal issue. He virtually ignores the competing view, that the key issue is (and should be) political. Only by reading this book in combination with Rhenquit's history of the Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson impeachments can you get a more rounded view.

As a matter of law, Clinton was guilty. However, we were not involved in a criminal trial. We were deciding whether to remove this country's highest elected official. This is a highly political question, to which the legal issues are relevent, but hardly decisive.

By failing to grapple honestly with this dichotomy, Posner's book ultimately falls short of being the definitive work on impeachment it could have been, given his incisive analysis of th elegal issues and the evidence.

Judge Posner promises a far-reaching analysis of the impeachment and trial of President Clinton. In his introduction, he notes that the "ordeal" presented numerous axes of analysis: issues of law, issues of jurisprudence, issues of morality, theories of conflict, issues of political and cultural sociology. (p. 3)

In applying these analytical perspectives to the particular issues raised within the context of President Clinton's impeachment, I think Judge Posner does an excellent job at cutting through the political spin and identifying the essential legal points. He deftly exposes "it's all about sex" as the dishonest mantra that Clinton supporters, such as James Carville, used to divert the public's attention away from the basic legal issues. His discussion of the relevant legal charges--obstruction of justice and perjury--is clear and accessible. Once the political spin is redacted, the conclusion is inescapable--Clinton committed perjury and thus violated the law.

Yet Judge Posner's book is ultimately dissatisfying. His book promises more than it delivers, and what I think is a significant issue--the nature of impeachment as it has been understood and used within the American constitutional order--remains relatively untouched by Posner's book. This is frustrating.

Beyond passing references to Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson, Judge Posner never discusses their impeachment or their resulting trials. He notes the distinction between impeachment standards for judges versus the President, but he never discusses in any detail the impeachment and conviction of any judges. (The only discussion is Judge Posner's reference to Judge Nixon's impeachment and conviction for perjury in 1989, but this is made in a single-sentence footnote on page 103.) In his discussion of censure, Judge Posner writes that "Congress has used censure sparingly" (p. 191), but beyond a couple references to President Jackson, he never discusses any of the situations in which Congress has censured a government official and what this meant for Congress in 1998-1999.

Maybe I had unrealistic expectations, but with a chapter entitled "The History, Scope and Form of Impeachment," I was really hoping for some substantial scholarship on the constitutional issue of impeachment as it has been used against many judges and two Presidents in our nation's history. This type of analysis would have ensured that the latest edition of Posner's annual publications would stand the test of time and would always remain relevant, especially when President Clinton's impeachment simply becomes another paragraph in U.S. history textbooks. Unfortunately, I was left with the sense that Judge Posner should have spent a few extra months doing additional research to produce a true scholarly exegesis, rather than join the rush to publish in the wake of the media frenzy.

Judge Posner has written a concise and accurate analysis of the impeachment and trial of President Clinton, and included thorough and accurate assessments of all parties involved. Judge Posner concludes that the articles of impeachment filed against the President were indeed within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors; additionally, Judge Posner argues that, contrary to popular spin, the actions of the President went beyond that of a private matter, bringing shame, disgrace, and disruption to the executive office -- actions which by themselves supported impeachment. Of most interest, however, is Judge Posner's excoriating portrayal of all parties involved. A president, who deliberately lied to the nation, his family, his cabinet, and his supporters, in a blatant effort to obstruct justice. A prosecutor, who failed in his effort at developing a strong case against the president, provided an overly lurid account of the case, and then buried the record in mountains of evidence. A house of representatives, incapable of developing accurate articles of impeachment, and then failing miserably in the prosecution of the case in the senate. A senate, so inept as to have never developed appropriate rules for an impeachment trial. And finally, partisan groups from both sides, who in the urge to defend or defeat the president, daily set forth on a path of lies and insinuations, often with the sole purpose of damaging the characters of individuals under media glare. The book is well worth reading, and is an excellent reminder of the damage an impeachment trial can do. Readers who are further interested in impeachment generally should consider Michael J. Gerhardt's The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis.

GREAT CD! LETS HOPE THIS COMES TRUE! SHE WILL TURN THIS COUNTRY AROIUND & FIX WHAT W HAS DONE!!

This book does an excellent job of placing Hillary Clinton on equal footing with any rival she would come up against in the 2008 campaign. It helped me understand her strengths and intelligence more completely, and humanized her relationship with her husband. Although written before Mrs. Clinton officially announced her candidacy, it gives great insight into the type of campaign she would run in 2008. My one regret is that Mr. Barack was not known to Ms. Estrich as a possible contender as she wrote this book because she gives brief but insightful snippits about Mrs. Clinton's other rivals. I think political science majors would find the book interesting because Ms. Estrich speaks personally about other presidential campaigns and includes a lot of historical data. I recommend this book to all who desire to maintain an open mind about Mrs. Clinton.

When I did read this book almost two years ago, I thought her argument sounds rather reasonable, except that Rice is a very unlikely Republican candidate for the presidency in her list. However, when we approach the election year, not only Rice, but also most of other Republican candidates that she listed in this book appeared to be un-electable. Most importantly, Barack Obama who was not listed in this book became the most popular and progressive presidential candidate among the Democrats. In other words, in this book, she compared Hillary with any other un-electable Republican and Democrats candidates, and failed to compare her with the most electable candidate Obama, in an attempt to make a rather unfair case for Hillary. In reality, she should have written a more fair case for Obama, instead of Hillary. In my opinion, Hillary is too conservative to change the US politics. We need a young fresh Bob Kennedy-type candidate to slash the dark "Bush" policy for good. Above all, Obama would be the best Democrats candidate for beating the old Republican front-runner John McCaine.

The outcome of Pennsylvania primary (April 22, 2008) will tell us whether this author had a deep insight in this issue or not. If Obama wins this primary, this book would no longer be worth reading. Instead you had better read "Dream from My Father" by Obama, a honest story about young days of our future (and the first non-white) US president.

Please. This book is chock-full of selective memorials, parsing, and nostalgia. This book is also seriously flawed in its single-minded approach to courting women. I hope Susan doesn't think women owe Hillary anything, because she sure sounds like they do. What a blunderously simplistic proposal to women. Also, what an insanely preposterous title: "The Case For Hillary." This title suggests that there is going to be some empirical arguement; not some soft, parse-the-negatives, rewrite of the facts. This book can be so easily retorted, I am shocked this lawyer even put it forth. Shocked also that it has recieved decent ratings. They might just be the publishers or the Clinton Camp. Ignorance abound, its tough to say.

Make no mistake about it, Susan Estrich is, has always been, and will always be a DC insider, parsing the fouls of candidates and favored politicians. She will admit the ethical issues with regard to Hillary Clinton, then, in the same breath, talk about how the Clinton's have been done wrong. It is understandable, then, that she feels this way about Hillary: They both attended Wellsley (albeit, a few years a part), are friends, and are both highly ambitious women. Aside from the fact that Susan Estrich is a feminist, she has also been a long time confidant of Hillary's. There goes objectivity.

Now, as a lawyer, it is shocking that Susan Estrich argued such a petty and bad case for Hillary. Where she did succeed was in emotion. She made her arguements best via her passions for Hill. This is a great courtroom-drama technique, but is wholly irrelevent to building a real case.

For a real look into Hill's head, I suggest: "Her Way", by Jeff Gerth; or, "A Woman In Charge", by Carl Bernstein.

Go with the middle, stop relying on Hillary's friends and enemies for insight.

Susan, if you read this, we gotta talk.

Susan Estrich's book, "The Case for Hillary Clinton," was published in 2005, with the paperback edition coming out in 2006. Estrich makes the case that Senator Clinton will not only run for president but is the most qualified of the candidates at that time and has a real chance of winning the election. Well, Susan Estrich was correct: Senator Clinton did run for president, she was the most qualified of the declared and assumed candidates of the time, and she did have a real chance of winning the nomination (and possibly the election) for president. The author presents her case in a clear, concise way, using each chapter as an argument for the Senator, based on her political experience in the White House and in the Senate, and as a deflection of the stated attacks by her detractors. The author handles both pros and cons with efficiency.

As important, though, is the meaning of what a Senator Clinton presidency would do for both men and women in the country. While women have come a long way in this country, everyday examples show how much farther women have to go to achieve equality. A woman as president, as the author maintains, would go a long way in increasing the equality of both men and women in the United States.

The book is well-written, informative and makes its case. The author included the best and most relevant information available for the book, and presents a most readable book on the subject.

That being said, until the beginning of this year, Hillary Clinton was certainly the front-runner for the presidential nomination of the Democrat Party. As we know, she has not clinched enough delegates to receive the nomination. "Most qualified," in this case, was not enough. What happens in the future remains to be seen, but as Susan Estrich shows in her book, a future with Senator Clinton in power can be significantly brighter than one without her in office.

The Book: Not a Hillary (or Clinton) bashing book at all - very fair.
Its a well written, well researched compilation of the life and political career of HRC. They left nothing out. I even printed a Clinton White House time-line just to keep up with some of the chapters that jumped around a bit.
I learned allot about today's politics in Washington. How polititicians constantly position themselves on the issues in order to remain in good standing with their constituents and keep their jobs. The book makes it clear that the Clintons (especially Hillary) do this more profoundly then anyone one else. They have crafted it into an art form consisting of lying, telling half-truths, only taking partial responsibility (if any at all) on things gone wrong, blaming others, etc.

Yet somehow the authors can't avoid including details about the massive amount of energy, intelligence, education, connections, leadership skills, dedication and endless campaigning and speech writing it takes for people in the congressional arena to debate, argue and fight over issues they represent. In this sense i was taken aback somewhat by the amount of time these people put into public service - even in the face of what might be considered selfish motives, ambitions and ideals.

I thought the authors managed to brilliantly adhere Her story to the quote by Bertrand Russell which opens Part I: "It seems to be the fate of idealists to obtain what they have struggled for in a form which destroys their ideals."

This is HRC. For as smart as people say she is, this book shows her faults and bad decision making. The experience she brags about is nothing more than her cunningness, and experience in how to maneuver her way through the congressional labyrinth of rules, laws and regulations. The power she wields comes from the ability to maintain a staggering network of extremely loyal staff, rich and influential friends.

To quote the Book:
"The strategy Hillary developed in college to restore her sense of confidence and balance by refusing to look within has helped sustain her through a life of incredible accomplishment and heartbreak. But it has also resulted in a forced, artificial demeanor, a reinforced tendency toward arrogance and a belief that she is immune to the rules, and a sense that anyone who disagrees must be an enemy."

This is the book to read if you want some straight reporting on Hillary's life and career. It covers everything from her youth through 2006 without ever become an attack piece or hagiography. A bit more than a third of the book is devoted to her work as a candidate and then as the junior Senator from New York.

At first, I found the early portions of the book unsatisfactory because the authors seem to be giving her every benefit of the doubt. For example, on page 79 they try to say that Hillary's work at the notoriously leftist Legal Services Corporation doesn't mean Hillary holds leftist values. The evidence? A quote from the ultra-extreme leftist Mickey Kantor saying, "From my perspective, she was very moderate." OK. He admits he was a flamethrower, why does that necessarily make Hillary not a leftist? They also minimize the influence of Saul Alinsky on her career and manner of politics or even that Alinsky was much more than "a colorful Chicago community activist" (pg 33).

The book also avoids the well known scandals almost completely. Oh, the authors go over Whitewater, the options trading, and so on, but Hillary always gets a pass. For example, the problem with the options trading wasn't the fantastic series of trades, but that she was allowed to be under margin. They got a certificate from someone who said that options can payoff big, so Hillary gets a pass. Right. More believable would have been showing a similarly fantastic series of trades by anyone else. Ever. In the history of trading options.

But as I was getting worked up over the lack of discussion over the FBI files and so on, I finally realized what the I think the authors are doing. They don't want the book to get bogged down in the old muck. When they have solid and incontrovertible evidence about the Rose billing records, they present it. The case they slowly build is the fact that Hillary has a very poor track record in making good choices. Her instincts for secrecy and stonewalling, her willingness to misstate the facts, her tin ear for public relations, and sense of entitlement and arrogance all combine to demonstrate the kind of President she would be. In my mind, it adds up to a disqualification. However, the authors don't say that and others pre-disposed to praise her will likely conclude differently.

The authors are exquisite on displaying Hillary's maneuvering on 9/11, the Iraq war, and the way her political needs of the moment cause her to talk falsely about facts that are on the record and how hard she works to keep other facts from ever getting on the record or from being brought to public attention. This is the book's strongest material. It is this material that is most relevant to her run for President and I finally came to agree with the authors' choice to emphasize it and leave the old stuff out.

Whether you are for, against, or indifferent to Hillary, she is a major force in our present politics and you would do well to learn more about her. This book is among the best of the books written about her. I think it is the most relevant to her run for President.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

I couldn't believe that, Hillary in 1992 listened in on secretly-recorded phone conversations of political opponents.? But what is truly amazing is that, while she is eager and willing to listen in on political opponents, she has fought against giving our intelligence experts the tools they need to monitor terrorists who might be calling to activate their sleeper cells in the United States.? In 2006, she joined the far-left of her Party to claim that the Bush Administration was breaking the law by conducting surveillance on terrorists calling into and out of the United States.? A year later, when President Bush tried to meet Democrats halfway by proposing legislation to fix that loophole, she voted against it.

It is a stunning stance.? Here is an individual who is willing to listen into conversations conducted by political opponents, and yet, as she vies to be our next President, she opposes conducting surveillance against terrorists as they plan to kill Americans.? Can she possibly be serious?

I have read so many reports on the Clintons and their corruption, I can't believe she is running for President. there is so much evidence of wrong doing and law breaking on the part of this dynamic duo just slip by the lobotomies masses that I can't ever foresee them actually having to pay for their crimes. Nothing short of a murder committed in front of surveillance cameras will get either of these people so much as an indictment. Even then, I can see the Clinton spin machine on all the cable shows whining that the cameras were placed by Clinton bashers and we should all just put it behind us and move forward.

God help us, if she is wins the democratic nomination for President.

Those around the Clintons get killed, commit suicide, indicted and sent to jail. The Clintons themselves get elected to the Senate, and get $100,000 in speaking fees. History will lynch these two, but the law will never touch them.

Pulitzer Prize-Winning `New York Times' reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr. analyze Hillary Clinton's personal and public life. With their investigative background they delve into her years in Arkansas, the White House, the U.S. Senate and as a 2008 presidential candidate. The authors conducted interviews and researched documents in order to objectively portray Clinton's legislative career, faith-based social activism, and marriage. Though the book is powerfully written, there is not much new information shared if you have been keeping up with all the books released on the Clinton's. What makes this book different is that is written by two writers of mainstream press.

The prologue to Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s book ends with two ominous-sounding sentences: "For decades, Hillary and Bill Clinton, along with a core group of friends and supporters, have told one story. Now it is time for another."

Ouch! That tone of literary voice will certainly set off alarm bells among Hillary Rodham Clinton's legions of admirers. Gerth and Van Natta are both veteran hard-nosed journalistic hands. Jeff Gerth was the point man at the New York Times in stirring up the Whitewater controversy that caused the Clintons incredible trouble before it blew over with no charges against them. They know where and how to dig for facts and underlying documentation. In this book they may acknowledge Hillary's strengths and strong points, but they seem mainly intent on cutting her down to size as her bid for the presidency picks up steam.

HER WAY is not intended as a comprehensive Hillary biography, though it does adequately cover the basics of her early years. It is more a study of her methods of political operation and an effort to probe her way of thinking about the world, about politics and about herself. The portrait that emerges is that of a powerful and ambitious woman who brooks no opposition, never admits a mistake, carefully constructs a public image that may or may not reflect her real views and tries to ignore or suppress inconvenient facts that may undermine that public persona. As the book ends, the authors wonder who the "authentic" Hillary Clinton may be. It is certainly a question worth asking. They don't seem to know the answer and neither does the reader.

Gerth and Van Natta dutifully stir up the cold ashes of Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster's death, Hillary's commodities trading fortunes, her work for the Rose law firm in Arkansas and --- of course --- Monica Lewinsky. Their research is thorough, but there is a snide quality to their constant tendency to find some angle, fact or interpretation that reflects unfavorably on their subject. (Example: If Hillary sidesteps a reporter's question about support for improved auto fuel-efficiency standards, they add gratuitously, "Michigan is an important primary state, after all.")

For purposes of the upcoming presidential campaign, the most relevant part of this book is its detailed account of how Hillary arrived at --- and subsequently tried to justify --- her vote for the Iraq war powers resolution. This will surely be the deciding factor for a large contingent of voters in 2008 if she is the nominee. Gerth and Van Natta show that when Iraq first became a contentious issue she seemed to side solidly with President Bush, only drifting off toward hardnosed opposition as the strength of antiwar sentiment began to build. This is a road traveled by a fair number of senators in recent years, but the authors are quick indeed to question Hillary's motives and paint her as opportunistic. They fault her for being one of 94 senators who did not read the full classified text of the famous National Intelligence Estimate that cast doubt on the administration's rationale for invading Iraq. Among those 94 members were several others who later became candidates for President.

The overall impression created by this book is that two Hillary Clintons exist --- one a carefully airbushed and spin-doctored public woman, the other a real person driven by "raw political ambition" who will do or say anything, crush any opponent and seize upon any issue to get her where she wants to go.

That may be true, but we just don't know yet. Well, we have 16 months to find out --- and I'm not sure that Gerth and Van Natta are the most neutral of guides for the journey. They demonstrate that they "know" Hillary Clinton better than you and I do, but their own motives are not much clearer than hers.

[...]

Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage is perhaps the most scrutizized in the world. In this book, Oppenheimer presses his opinion that the Clinton's marriage is held together not by love as in a normal human marriage but by ambition. It is interesting to see how he has put together such a incredulous argument. I have to agree that his argument is logical. However, much of the evidence is unreliable. Such stories as one would find in a supermarket tabloid. It is an interesting but hard to believe perspective?

Okay, so it's a small thing, but on page 92 of the Harper Collins hard-cover edition, the author states that one of Hillary's relatives graduated from Stevens College in COLUMBUS, MISSOURI. NOT! Stephens College is in Columbia, Missouri, which is also the location of the University of Missouri, touted by many, ironically, as the leading journalism school in the country. I really do not understand errors like this. Is it just plain sloppiness or carelessness? In the presence of a stupid mistake like this, are there possible other research mistakes, larger ones, perhaps? I will add that this book, notwithstanding the fact that after page 92, I read with some degree of skepticism, was fundamentally a good read, well organized, informative, and interesting.

I first saw this book referenced in Michael Tomasky's Hillary's Turn. Tomasky described this book as a hatchet job. State of a Union is far from a negative attack on the former First Couple, and actually paints a more sympathetic portrait of the Clintons than their most fawning sycophants usually do. State of a Union is little more than fluff but gives a good overview of a complex and nuanced political partnership. Jerry Oppenheimer manages to give childhood and marital details without dabbling in pure psychobabble, but this is a beach book and not history---and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

I'm not familiar with the author but having finished most of the book by now, I consider it to be about 20% truth, and 80% fiction. To be honest, it is one of the most seedy collections of anecdotes I've seen on the Clintons matched only by the "accidentally revealed" impeachment depositions and documents of his second term. If ever there was evidence of grudge and harrassment against Hillary, this surely speaks for itself. How much is accurate is debateable, of course, but even a reasonably careful reading shows the book to have incorporated every negative possible of the interpretation of Clinton's Presidency and his wife's influence and involvement. Even a logical reading indicates that most could not be true, or if true, is such a distorted picture of the two lives that it renders it both inexplicable and unbelievable that anyone would spend time constructing supposedly factual information such as this and marketing it as nonfiction. For anyone who was even the most casual observor of the two terms, it will surely bring forth concerns of how authors use their writings to distort events, personalities, and circumstances to create an illusion of truth based upon circumstantial evidence and assumption. To the gullible, it can be quite damaging since it is presented as truth, and due to the quotations, reads like truth. If I had written the book, and was trying to discredit the subject, I couldn't have done a better job. No one knows exactly how much of previous books and materials published contain accurate information about the Clintons, events, or their relationship together, this is not likely to be one of them. But each person will have to decide for himself/herself. Good luck!

Unlike Peggy Noonan's trashy tome about Hillary Clinton which I lambasted in another review, this book was excellent, being factual, carefully researched and well written. The author delves into family histories of both Clintons, which helps the reader to better understand how their upbringing shaped their personalities. Oppenheimer interviews numerous friends and relatives who were close to the Clintons, and disputes some inaccuracies found in other Clinton biographies.
Of all the books I've read on Bill and Hillary, this one portrayed them the most objectively and fairly. It is not a one-sided, gossipy tell-all but a careful study of the Clinton's marriage and an analysis of their very diverse, but complimentary personalities: Hillary as a strident, intense, ambitious perfectionist from the Midwest and Bill, an affable, laid-back, shrewd, womanizing Southern boy. Their strengths helped them to achieve their goal of the Presidency; but their weaknesses proved to be their undoing.
Theirs is not a marriage of love but one of raw political ambition and power, a business partnership in which a deal was struck before their nuptials. Of the two, Hillary comes off the worse. Her foul mouth and vicious "go-for-the-jugular" attacks against opponents and friends are legendary. Bill, clearly eclipsed and overpowered by his strong-willed wife, resorts to behaving like an oversexed school boy, unzipping his fly at the drop of a hat. Possibly his excessive womanizing is because Hillary castrates him on a daily basis, so poor Bill has to make sure his equipment grows back and is in working order....hmm, that sounds like a familiar Greek myth, only instead of entails being ripped out by a vulture and growing back overnight, we have...,well you get the picture.

This book is out of print, but if you can snare a used copy here at Amazon.com, you're in for an intelligent, enjoyable read.

I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton. I found this book well written. I was not sure that she really thought the American people were so gullible but this book stripped away all those doubts. It certainly made my voting decision easier for this coming election.

This book was very helpful to my understanding of what makes Mrs. Clinton tick. It focuses more on her psychology than her behavior in public life. It claims that her overriding character trait is insecurity. It's especially strong in explaining how her mind works. According to it, she is a memorizer and regurgitator of information; she has an unchanging "consummate student" mindset, always eager to learn facts; and she tends to automatically make herself an expert on any subject she needs to understand (such as healthcare, in 1993). (From other reading, I know that this is exactly how Jimmy Carter worked. he was compulsive about memorization and preparation.)
But the book goes on to say that this habit is Hillary's compensation for her weakness: she is not an original thinker, not a visionary (Bill is the opposite). Also, all her life she has been extremely impressionable; this is why, when in the White House, she was always taking advice from political advisors, New Age gurus, psychics, etc.

The author of Extreme Makeover, Bay Buchanan, is conservative upfront (she is Pat Buchanan's younger sister), but is fair-minded and polite. It's not like reading an Ann Coulter book. Ms. Buchanan uses a folksy tone that gets slightly annoying at times, but it's not hard to ignore.

I recommend this book, along with the late Barbara Olson's book *Hell to Pay*, if you seek to better understand Mrs. Clinton.

This book is all about trashing Hillary Clinton which will appeal to some readers; however, the research is limited to information easily located with a fifteen minute Google search. The writing is sophomoric; as a result, Hillary comes off as a cardboard cut-out. I get the feeling Buchanan wrote this in a two hour stint on a Sunday afternoon when she was bored. Or maybe needing a little extra spending money. I am not a big Hillary fan, but she, like any literary subject, deserves fairness and accuracy. Read Hillary's Choice by Gail Sheehy instead. Carl Bernstein's book is also good but not as readable as Sheehy, although the Bernstein volume is more recent and addresses issues salient to Senator Clinton's bid for the presidency.

THE EXTREME MAKEOVER OF HILLARY CLINTON is a partisan sermon to the conservative choir. Bay Buchanan roasts "the old gal" for her stands on everything from national health care to the Iraq War and foreign policy. Unfortunately for the Clintons, they themselves have given her every reason to do so.

I think Buchanan would agree that Hillary and Bill Clinton have lied about so much, so often, that they have come to believe the lies are true and the truth is a lie.

Whitewater, cattle futures, travel-gate, 911 interviews about Chelsea, the vast right wing conspiracy, and on and on play into the hands of those who relish in her demise. The Clintons have lied to the press and the public about their transgressions; they shirk responsibility for their corruption. Hillary blames a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" for her husband's troubles as well as her own.

Buchanan asserts that there is nothing Hillary Clinton will not lie about to further her ambitions. The truth seems to bear her out. Hillary has even lied about her name and where it came from! (Sir Edmund Hillary, her erstwhile namesake, climbed Everest six years after Clinton was named.)

The central thesis of the book is that, in an effort to win the Presidency, Hillary Clinton has undergone a phony transformation from the left wing of the liberal party toward the center. Her real nature and values and views, however, remain militantly liberal. America is being presented a phony caricature: Hillary as a moderate candidate - in touch with and supportive of America's core values.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal feminist, devoted to the cause of left wing economics: redistribution of the wealth through higher taxes and bigger government programs. She supports socialism although it has been discarded onto the ash heap of history by most thoughtful nations. He supports unrestricted abortions. She believes government is the answer for society's ills. She thinks the rightful role at the head of the family is the liberal vanguard (she and her friends) and the government.

Americans are a forgiving group, by and large. Watchdogs like Bay Buchanan help us remember and recognize the obfuscation of history and be on our guard against the wiles of the enemy, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.

For some reason this country has made a sport out of hating the Clintons and eradicating all memory of the good they have done while recycling every twisted, malicious rumor. At least some of it has to do with the fact that she's a woman in power, and absolutely loathed for it. (Countries around the globe, from Pakistan--a MUSLIM nation--to the Philippines and the Ukraine--have or have had women leaders, but this hypocritical misogynist nation can't abide it. Too bad.) I think anyone who reads this should at least read "Living History" by Hillary Clinton, and get it from the horse's mouth--then they can make up their minds.

Not very funny. They mostly trash people they and most of us don't like. A lot of the stuff is a rehash of already published material.

Sadly, this book takes a great concept and goes nowhere with it. Sure, there are a few chuckles, but Jackie Mason is capable of a lot better than this snoozer. It consists mainly of lame potshots at easy targets. The Hilton sisters are spoiled; ha ha. Radical Muslim fundamentalists are "humorless." You don't say! Duke Cunningham is a greedy hypocrite. This is supposed to be clever? Some of the sections, such as the one that attacks "Reform Jews" for trying to be like rich, superficial WASPs (is that really what Reform Judaism is about, Mr. Former Rabbi?), are just plain stupid.

The book is also full of smaller factual errors, for example a reference to Mets "pitcher" (actually third baseman) David Wright. That's a pretty embarassing mistake for a couple of New Yorkers to make. And there are plenty of other lazy inaccuracies throughout. The fact-checker (assuming there even was one) should find another line of work.

I get the general feeling that very little effort was put into this book. The authors often forgot about the "humor" part of "observational humor." You can't just point out something ironic or foolish and call that comedy. To be fair, some of the jokes are good, but too many of them are just cheap name-calling. I had high expectations for this book and was sorely disappointed. All the more so because the world could use more *good* right-leaning humor -- too much of it is more concerned with being right-leaning than with being funny.

I guess I thought it would give me a laugh or two based on some of highlighted phases, "Jews for Jesus" etc. However, it was yet another comedian trying to join the Lewis Black, Daily Show or Bill Maher bandwagon of political humor. Too bad this comedian is not as funny nor has diverse content.
After the first few pages the book simply turns into a complaining/vent session of everything which the authors deeply disagrees with - let me summarize:
Any Jew who is against Israel
Any political organization against Israel politics
Any person who remotely supports the Holocaust
Any non-Conservative
and silly jokes to those in media which require teasing (ie. Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Britney, etc.)

There are many other comedian with similar content and jokes but they are really funny whereas this book just takes a small segment of its victim and highlights it as their basis for existence.

Save yourself money and time. If you want something funny watch a truly funny comedian. Allow Jackie to perform on Broadway and advise him to keep the stand-up act going but stay away from the typewriter.

It is an okay read, but I won't recommand buying it. Borrow it from the library or something.

Perhaps I'm just getting too old... I can vaguely remember back in the early days of television when some of what Jackie Mason said was actually funny.

But the only way this book could been any worse would have been if Alan Derschowitz had done the editing and Ann Coulter's face had been on the cover. (Although, to be fair, Neither Mr. Mason nor Mr. Felder is very much less unappealing to behold than Ms. Coulter)

Still, this book did add something to my store of knowledge. Based upon the definitions given in the introduction, I can now state with some authority that:

1. Anyone who either buys a book written by a faded borscht belt comedian and a celebrity divorce lawyer for more than 39 cents on a remainders table OR takes seriously anything contained in said book - is a schmuck.

2. Anyone who actually writes such a book as this one AND puts his own name on it - is a putz.