Clinton Books

This is a biography of the famous American romantic narrative historian who made the Hispanic world his subject. He had wealth and time and went about his historical tasks as if they were pre-ordained. Sir Walter Scott was his hero. An eye injury in college hindered his sight, meaning much of his research was read to him; but he was not blind. (It's amazing how our two greatest narrative historians, Prescott and Francis Parkman, could barely see.) He also had a lazy streak, and an addiction to writing for the North American Review, both of which cut into his historical writing work. Gardiner's biography is well written, but not deep; little is said about Prescott's works, and the ending is very rushed. Not a definitive biography by any means.

I have not seen one bit of bias in this book. It reads to me very fairly balanced and objective. Where is all of the stuff that the anti-Clintonites are jumping on (Hillary is a mean leftist/socialist, this book is proof!)? Where is all of the stuff that the Clintonites are yelling UNFAIR! (The portrayal of Hillary is disgusting and mean, it's obvious that the author is biased against Hillary!) about? It's just -not- there. I don't see how describing Hillary's childhood the way the author does is anything but even-handed, though one may read into everything as Hillary being an overachiever (the author never states that outright, but from the list of accomplishments, that's what MY mind says to me; but also, since when is it BAD to be an overachiever?).

If your brain is not hotwired to overreact towards stretches of the imagination, then you'll find this biography a decent read about a fascinating woman with facts about her childhood, upbringing, personal and political life to be absorbed and deferred to whenever you hear a mention of Hillary's character in the current election cycle news. She does NOT descend from a wealthy family, she is NOT a bad person. Don't buy into the political hype (and certainly don't buy into the extreme hype of the reviewers here). It is way too obvious that the people leaving reviews are not at all fair people (be they Obamatrons, wingnuts or just plain vulgar people).

Picked up this audio cassette edition in a remainder bin for $5, and thought I was swindled...

The author clearly wants to work a policy agenda, which disagrees a lot with Hillary's position on a wide variety of issues. An especially recurring theme is Hillary's position on family issues; the author would assert that Hillary wants the state to raise children and not mothers and fathers.

That being said, there is a lot of stuff in this book which, if halfway true, does form an image of Hillary as a post-hippie policy wonk who has a powerful intellect and strong will. I do think that, nearing the age of 60, Hillary has outgrown a lot of the viewpoints and beliefs attributed to her in this book.

And, as others here have said, this book is a scandalmongering exercise, but, well, we must educate ourselves on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, right? If this is as bad as anyone can possibly paint her, I'd say she's electable...

I could not even finish the book. The negativity in virtually every chapter oppressed my soul. I wanted facts and to gain some knowledge about Hillary, and all I got was nausea. Milton's bias was oozing from every page. The information was second, third, and fourth hand, unsubstantiated, and based on assumptions and innuendo. It was like reading a tabloid that went on for over 400 pages. Milton spent too much time explaining what Hillary thought and what all of her "ulterior motives" were for virtually everything she has done in her life thus far. Did she know Hillary's inner thoughts by osmosis or through some Vulcan mind meld? Come on! Don't buy it, don't even check it out from the library. I would have given it a negative 5 rating, but that was not an option. A complete and utter waste of paper and ink.

I got this book used and thought it would be interesting to read after the fact of HRC's moving on to other things. Without a doubt I believe the Clinton administration was filled with lies, deceit and well, just plain politics. This book is a discredit to thoughtful readers. I've only thrown away a handful of books in my life and this is one of them.

I bought this biography because I have always been fascinated with Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in her husband's administration. I was hoping for an objective look at her contributions to policy, instead, this novel is full of acrimonious allegations and innuendo. It seems that the author is completely unable to separate HRC the person from her politics. This book is horribly slanted and I would not recommend to someone who truly desires insight into either one of the Clintons.

More perhaps than with most books, it's difficult to separate the merits of "How to Destroy a Village" from the biography of its author. On its own, it's just one more recitation of the crimes of "the most ethical Administration in history" and the lasting stain it left on this country. Unreconstructed Clintonistas have all kinds of derogatory terms for such recitation, but there is unquestionable value in it ... especially in an election year.

But over and above its straightforward contents, what really makes this title interesting is the author, Jason Fodeman. It's rare, in my experience, to find a teenager so articulate (especially over the course of a sustained argument) or one who can research and marshal his facts so well. The book does in fact read like it was written by a seventeen year old, but under the circumstances this is authentic, not distracting. Fodeman is clearly still finding his voice and experimenting with language and expression. How many of us were so far along at his age?

That's why, if Amazon.com offered this feature, I'd give the book three stars, but the author four or even four-point-five.

Where I think Fodeman could have done a better job is in expanding his analysis beyond his own life and mindset to include a portrayal of his peers. His general method is to digest the facts of a particular Clinton scandal, and then to reflect on how the Clintons' immoral or unethical behavior differs from the principles his parents taught him. Though his arguments from logic are valuable, I also would have liked to see more concrete evidence of how (or whether) other kids were affected by the Clintons' negative moral or ethical examples.

Also, I wish his editor had done something to improve Fodeman's high-school-English-class typography. For anyone not using a manual typewriter, book and magazine titles are italicized, not underlined. And the "scientific" practice of citing sources in parenthesis at the end of every sentence is unnecessarily distracting -- especially when the same source is cited six times in succession, as on pages 173-175. God has blessed us with footnotes, and we should make use of them.

On the whole, this is an interesting addition to the five-foot shelf of books decrying what blogger Billy Beck has called "the Clinton Long March." Not the most ground-breaking, nor the one that will arouse the most passionate response from Slick's knee-jerk defenders, but certainly a perspective worth noting. As the reviews on this page show, reactions from both sides of the aisle are pretty much what you'd expect. Mostly, I'm looking forward to seeing whether Mr. Fodeman has anything else to write in the future.

Jason Fodeman is the best author ever, but ]=[3 l_1l<35 17 1l\l 7]=[3 455. ]=[3 473 0l_l7 70l)l) 3lvll2'5 4l\ll_l5.

Besides that, he balanced the budget and he vetoed the accounting deregulation bill in 1996. Too bad that the Republicans over-rode the veto. that deregulation made possible most of the giant failures in people's retirement portfolios--Arthur Anderson, Enron, Worldcom, the list goes on. Now George W. Bush's friends are looting the treasury and causing a mess that young Jason will be paying for his entire life. I'm already 50, so I got to live during part of the time that the average American made a living wage.

This reminds me of my efforts to get out the vote for Carter in 1980. I even rented a car, not owning one of my own. The first little old lady I took to the polls told me, as I let her out back at her home, "Ha! Ha! I voted for Reagan." I looked at her, and said, "Lady, I'm going to finish medical school and be a doctor. But you, you're on a fixed income. Reagan is going to hit you so hard in the pocket book, you'll wish he would have knocked out your false teeth instead." And I was right.

If young Jason is so smart, he should start reading past the major news media, which is almost entirely controlled by 4 white guys and the Sultan of Brunei. You can bet they want the candidate of the wealthy to win. Over 90% of the hard money campaign contributions come from 1/2 of 1% of the population. All our politicians serve that 1/2 of 1%--otherwise not enough money to run. Our campaign system is dominated by a smaller percentage of the population than almost any other country in the world--developed or not.

I say, Young Jason, check out Voluntary Public Financing. Average people--Right wing religious housecleaners who make $25,000 per year could run if they convince enough citizens to put them on the ballot. Check out Cleanmoney.org. Go for it, straighten this place out. Everyone's voices need to be heard, even those you don't agree with. With corporate control of our media and our campaign finance system almost no one's voices are heard.

BEsides, look up Bush--he laughed about sending Carla Faye Tucker to death. He ran two companies into the ground. He took the state of Texas (my home state) from a budget surplus with good schools and a somewhat polluted environment to a state with a huge deficit, lousy schools and the second most polluted environment in the country. All while lining his and his friend's pockets. Then he lied to get us into Iraq and 1600 of our brave soldiers have died, as have over 100,000 Iraqis. Our military is so over-extended that North Korea knew they could go ahead an develop a bomb. Besides, from their point of view, they need it so we won't attack them next. The dollar has fallen almost as low as its lowest low. When it crashes, I hope young Jason knows how to grow vegetables and chickens, and has a place to grow them, because a lot of people are not going to be able to afford to buy food. many, many Americans died of starvation during the 1930's. Not something our government likes to make known.

"HOW TO DESTROY A VILLAGE" BY JASON FODEMAN IS A REAL EYE OPENER.
THIS BOOK SHOULD BE REQIRED READING FOR ALL HIGH SCHOOL , COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS CAUSE IT DOCUMENTS WHAT HAPPENS WHEAN CERTAIN POLITICANS GO BAD. IF ANYONE IS AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR BEING A VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE THEAN YOU NEED TO BUY AND READ HOW TO DESTROY A VILLAGE BY JASON FODEMAN CAUSE HE HAS ALL OF HER MISCHIEF DOCUMENTED IN THIS THIN AND EASY TO READ HANDY LITTLE PAPERBACK BOOK. PLEASE GET ONE FOR YOURSELF AND GET ONE AS A GIFT FOR A FRIEND, FAMILY MEMBER, CO WORKER, CHURCH MEMBER, OR CIVICS CLUB MEMBER. THIS BOOK IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND EVERY DOCUMENT HAS A SOURSE SO YOU CAN FIND IT FOR YOUR SELF. THIS WRITER IS VERY SMART AND HAS DONE AN EXELENT JOB RESERCHING AND PUTTING THIS BOOK TOGETHER.

Completely ridiculous twaddle from a silly misguided far-right child. Totally worthless book complaining about how Bill Clinton ruined his childhood... since when were polititians supposed to be our mothers?

As this book conclusively prooves, the War on Terror is a big waste of money and effort, as the real culprit is not Bin Laden, or the shadowy networks of Al Qaeda. It's actually Bill Clinton, who lives right here in the USA and can be easily captured and tried for perpetrating the crimes of 9/11.

The various authors detail Clinton's efforts to learn how to fly a 747 with Atta back in the old days. They also detail how he recruited an army of Clintonistas to carry out the 9/11 atrocities, all the while fooling people into believing he was relaxing in his home in upstate New York.

There is a side mention of Al Gore's efforts to poison the nation with anthrax, and how he was nearly busted when trying to sneak some of the white powder out of a secret government lab beneath the Pentagon. Also, the book discusses Hillary's secret training camps in upstate New York, where liberals learned how to make bombs and write propaganda.

But mostly, it's Clinton, who finally came through on his promise to blow up the World Trade Center, after his failed attempts in 1993. Granted, he was already on vacation at the time in 2001, but his plan had been delayed by a cigar obsession that lasted several months and derailed some of the operation's steps.

Unfortunately, the book doesn't cover Clinton's autobiography, where he gleefully boasts about how he pulled off the crimes and still remained popular. Perhaps a revised edition in the future?

The fact that Christopher Ruddy is a featured columnist for NewsMax should tell you something about the objectivity of his investigative journalism. This book hardly warrants a star for its sensational allegations which have no merit. Richard Clarke has shown in great detail in his book Against All Enemies that Clinton did most everything he could to curb terrorism while he was in office. It was George W. Bush who let the guard down when he assumed office in January 2001, unwilling to accept that al Qaeda represented a threat on American soil. It is too bad there isn't a truth in investigative journalism commission to challenge books such as these, keeping them from sullying the shelves of well-respected bookstores.

This book does not even deserve one star since it was published merely as a means to continue the right wing hate campaign against our last elected President, William Jefferson Clinton. The Clinton legacy has already been written and it was eight years of peace, prosperity and progress. No President in American history made terrorism such a focus of his attention and as a result President Clinton established the nation's first anti-terrorism policy and prevented numerous attacks. No man in the White House ever focused as much attention on his national security duties as did President William Jefferson Clinton.

Don't waste a cent on this trash that is not based on any factual information. Newsmax has a well earned reputation for total disregard for truth and they have now extended it to self-published books. The beauty of self-published books is that there is no editorial review or fact-checking process prior to publication so outrageous claims can be published.

Only the ill-informed and uneducated would believe the ridiculous assertions made in this work of fiction.

I find it very interesting all the bad reviews and not one person has the time or ability to point out with some detail where the book is wrong. The truth is, they can't. The only argument liberals have figured out is how to scream louder and hate the right wing. Perhaps its time the liberals came up with their own ideas on what Clinton did that was so wonderful and amazing. I would especially like to hear all the things Big Billy did to fight terrorism when he himself admitted in more then one interview he wished he did more to fight terrorism during his campaign.

The truly sick thing in all this is that liberals reading this will merely wright off all arguments as worthless without even a meager attempt to see if there is any truth to them. Whoever bangs their fists on the table harder wins!

Grow up!

This book is an absolute joke. Bill Clinton did more to combat terrorism than Reagan and Bush 41 combined and there was plenty of terrorism going on worldwide during their watch. In fact, in 1996 the Republican dominated Senate was stalling and not cooperating while Clinton was proposing groundbreaking new anti-terrorism laws. And now, 4 years after 9/11 Bush and the Republicans are finding out just how hard it is to find UBL even when he is the most want man in the world. And what did Bush have to say about UBL, the man who he claimed would be found dead or alive from ground zero days after 9/11? Now he says hes not that concerned about him anymore. You piece of garbage. Tell that to the face of my cousin's children who lost their father on 9/11.

And is it any surprise to anyone that everyone involved in this present adminastration who was at fault for failing to prevent or wrong about Iraq was not fired but actually promoted. This adminastration is proving to be a disaster and will go down in the annals of history as the worst in our great history. And the Republicans had the nerve to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ and lying about it. What guy doesn't deny hooking up with a fat chick. But who died when Clinton lied? Maybe Bill could have stopped Al Queada if the evil republicans didnt create an unnecessay distraction. Books like this by Christoper Ruddy are bad for America.

This book provides an intimate understanding of the president as well as a religious look at this entire episode in history. Rev. Wogamon is an intriguing and thoughtful writer. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Clearly a different perspective from most of the drivel out there (a la Andrew Morton's book, etc.).

What kind of world of moral relativism do you have to be living in to "forgive" (excuse) Clinton for lying under oath, while condemning in the harshest possible terms Clinton's opponents. This reverend's partisanship makes Sid Blumenthal look like a balanced observer.

The author is to be commended on taking up the topic of moral judgement and its associated companion of forgiveness in our rather primitive religious society where diversity is not the foundation upon which it is built. Not a criticizm, but a recognition that at the levels of CEO, or for a President, the weight of issues that crowd the mind (as well as the heart) are not easily dissembled into the primary parts that adhere to the simplicity of typical right and wrong assessments, for the mere fact that the reponsibilities of so many depend upon a fluid, or relative nature of morality in a context few people can imagine, and fewer still can manage. The offices do not lend themselves to the easy right and wrong answers that govern most people in their deliberations where only a few concerns need be addressed. That is not to suggest that being absolved of, or restrainted by a deep, abiding sense of moral justice is not required. Indeed, it alone is the guiding star of most persons in that position. But those fundamentals are woefully inadequate to the nature of the variables due to the stature of visibility and impact that is the natural result of the job, and the status. Modeling in such cases is not so easily obtained or reduced to its lowest common denominator of elements. Far too many Presidents (and CEO's) faced with difficult choices where someone will always be harmed by either decision, must grope with the multiple levels of moral judgement as described in the 6 steps of Kohlberg in 1981 who expressed the high level analysis that accompanies, or should accompany such positions that do not lend themselves to the toggle switch of morality that most religions teach as the process of making moral decisions. Getting to yes or no is, by and large, much more difficult in such cases, and may fall upon individuals who do not have those responsibilities as well, as, for example, in parenthood, in the teaching of values and how to reconcile competing interests. At onset, the dilemma may appear to be simple, and forthright to a casual observer, but may from someone else's perspective with greater knowledge and sensitivity to broader aspects of a dilemma, require different decisions to produce a desired outcome. The simplicity of historic and even current religious guidance is to quickly assume the need for conditioned responses which may not take larger consideration into account. Hence, toleration of both expression and decisionmaking in others is highly desirable, since few of us ever know exactly the circumstances and factors involved in someone's work decisions, much less their personal decisions, and especially not when they are uniquely combined in a position like President where carrying others concerns are as important as carrying one's own. It's good to see Dr. Wogaman undertake to help answer these questions to help relieve the moral burden from each of us, reminding us that morality is essentially a subjective perspective, even within Christian guidelines.

I'm a democrat, and no fan of the either the Republicans or the president, but I've got to say, this rambling, incoherent defense of Clinton actually ends up making the case for impeaching Clinton. And frankly, I was shocked that a Pastor would interject himself into a political debate and label his political opponents' actions as immoral.

In two words: shockingly dull.

If you appreciate "cheap grace" and relentless feel-goodism, this is the book for you, but for real commentary on the Clinton scandal that gives a less partisan angle, try Judgment Day at the White House.

Well... I'm from Sweden, and that's all there is to say! We love these sexual affairs that involves your president Bill Clinton. The book is well written with a great deal of wise psychological explanations of his behaviour. We would like to send our greetings to the author.

This book is a must read for everyone who is so quick to condemn President Clinton on the grounds of his "zipper problem." It is a poignant biographical book that follows his problem [addiction] through his life.

The only word I can think for this book is BUNK.

Prima Publishing, a small company known for appealing to a market segment of right-wingers who have $24.95 to throw around on tacky books like the Starr Report, was counting on this book to be their big bestseller this year. Whoops. It's a clumsily-written analysis of Clinton that will surprise no one. Near the end of the book, the author -- some bearded, wild-eyed quack who no one else would publish -- appeals for the President to get help by going to see a therapist like the author himself. How touching.

Dr. Levin is an expert on addictions and the psychological forces that fuel them. His professional knowledge, combined with a good deal of research on Clinton's life, make his "speculative" case compelling and convincing. Clinton's stormy childhood has been acknowledged, but Levin is the first to trace cause and effect, and to try to penetrate Clinton's psyche--the place, of course, where the Lewinsky scandal sprang from. Levin pieces together past and present, and makes a compelling case for sexual addiction and unconscious trauma. Levin needs a writer, however, to craft his argument into a more convincing and fleshed out whole. A voyeuristic psychological profile of a political figure is a treacherous endeavor, especially considering the moral miasma that political scandals wade in. And Levin's conventional and informal prose do not do his subject, or his professional knowledge and experience, justice. But if you realize that Levin is a psychologist, and not a writer, you will be rewarded with a much needed and convincing portrait of our President as a psychological being.

This book presents a good argument for why america turned right during the 60s and 70s ... I found it both interesting and informative. I would def. reccomend this book to anything interested in us history. i had to read this for a college history class and i honestly loved it

Earlier today I finished slugging thru "America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Clinton" by, William C. Berman, which turned out to be the biggest load of left wing revisionist history dribble that I've had to choke down in ages. Of course it was for my current master's class at college. The people that praised on the back cover either never read the book, or were paid to say something nice about it.
The basic thesis of the book is that social engineering by the US Federal Government is good, no matter how many tax dollars must be spent, and that all white people who vote Republican are racists who hate poor people. No wonder colleges are getting such bad press these days as the breeding ground of liberals at the expense of the student body. This book even went so far as to say that most issues were too complex for the general public to understand, so the Federal Government needed to think for them.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. Period.

Granted, this book was written by some professors so it will not
be the best read in the world. However, the author's do a good
job of getting the main point of the book across -- that America
has become increasingly conservative since the early 1970's.
(Nixon would have fit in well with the Democrats today and Clinton certainly would have fit very comfortably with the Republicans in the 1970's). I thought the authors were pretty clear that the Clinton years (and all the scandals) could not yet be completed or analyzed (the book was written in 1998) and hindsight is usually needed when writing about history. In any event, the authors were not kind at all to the democrats of the 1960's and pretty much imply that the democratic party and its candidates in the 1970's was a wasteland -- look for comment on the Clinton scandals in the next edition. As far as the Reagan scandals (he told his lies and had his scandals too), I would try not to confuse objective analysis with a witch-hunt (conservatives think any criticism of Reagan is unwarranted, despite *his* scandals, and liberals do the same with Clinton and Kennedy). Rather, I suggest you
read this moderately interesting, rather short book with an open mind. (We all know about Clinton's scandals, but a pretty good objective analysis of a few of Reagan's blunders and scandals is Ambrose's Rise to Globalism).

America's Right Turn does an outstanding job of explaining how the New Deal Coalition of Franklin Roosevelt--a powerful and pervasive force in politics for over forty years--gradually slipped away. All good students of history already know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is what ultimately led to the unraveling of Democratic Party unity. The solid south, which for years had blindly voted for the Democratic Party, no longer shared the values of a party that tried to include African-Americans, feminists, environomentalists and Union workers. In the mid-term elections of 1966 the Republican party picked up 47 seats in the House of Representatives, which made the Republican leadership smell blood. They learned the value of promoting wedge issues: race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...to get voters to forget about their pocket books and economic circumstances when they entered the voting booth.

The author of the book is clearly liberal and doesn't try to hide that fact. If you are a strong conservative you will have a hard time accepting reading some of the book. He accuses the Republican party of racism, class warfare and being economically recklessness. He blames Jimmy Carter for the Reagan revolution not because Carter was a liberal, but rather because Carter was too conservative! Furthermore he castigates Clinton as an idealistic Democrat that morphed into an economic conservative once he inherited a Republican Congress following the 1994 election. Clinton passed symbolic legislation to please the Democratic Party (for example the V chip) while he simaltaneoulsy passed welfare reform and NAFTA, two historically conservative issues.

The book is most effective when it illustrates the effect that the Conservative Revolution has had on the standard of living in this country. NAFTA enabled high paying blue collar jobs to leave the country and were replaced by low paying service sector jobs. Deregulation allowed the Savings and Loan scandal to take place, which led to massive government bail outs, etc...Massive government deficeits under Reagan, Bush and Bush have bankrupted our country for future generations.

I recommend the book because it effectively illustrates many of the pitfalls of the conservative revolution in this country. It also points out some of the tricks that Republicans use to control the electorate (wedge issues) and politicians (a massive defeceit that limits government programs). At times the book may seem to overestimate the value of "big government" but in era in which the term liberal is a bad word and conservatives control the government it is refreshing to read a book by an author that errs on the side of the left, rather than the right.

I will now end with one of my trademark haiku's:

'Merica's Right Turn
Huge Budget Deficeits--Ouch!
Limbaugh laughs...pops pill

(..) The Journal of Southern History in the back of the book calls this an "unbiased prose". I can not believe how far from the truth that is. The book speaks of the Republican conservatives as militants and pro rich and anti poor. Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Heritage foundation in the early 70's is described specifically as a militant, yet it is interesting that James Carville and Paul Begala escape this label. Also Dick Morris is described as the brilliant tactician yet he is able to escape any moral qualifications, such as the famous immoral phone call with Clinton. Reagan and Bush are described as Presidents that gained success because they "exploited" the conservative mood of the country. They are described in the framework as men who are entirely in control of their success and failures, yet Clinton is described as the great synthesizer of circumstances that are out of his control. It is interesting the negative moral tone he attributes to Iran Contra of the Reagan Administration, yet when Whitewater is discussed it is pointed out that Clinton is faced with insidious attacks by the Republican Congress and that the Republicans are waiting in the wings, with the tone as though they circling vultures waiting for Clinton's imminent political death. He conveniently notes that there is no conclusive evidence in laying any guilt upon Clinton's involvement in Whitewater while leaving no mention that upon the outcome of Reagan's involvement in Iran Contra their was no proof that he contained any knowledge of the event. He pays considerable time and space to the desire of Reagan, Bush, the Christian Coalition, and the Moral Majority as being forces who are trying to infuse the issue of moral virtues on society, yet he fails to mention that due to the lack of interest of the Democratic party concerning morality that Clinton is the shining example of this moral complacency. He seems to view Clinton as this great Messiah. His election was the result of bringing back the Reagan Democrats into the party. He is a brilliant and shrewd politician that is able to effectively co-opt the Republicans and their agenda. He describes Clintons desire to govern at the center as a man who is trying to synthesize, yet fails to mention that another potential reason that he does this and this is a theory that is out there and also out during the time is that Clinton is someone who cares only about himself and his personal ambitions that are directly related to his moral depravity. He is a man who has no personal beliefs, heavily relies on focus groups in order to act at all so that he can attain personal glory in the spotlight. He is a man who, such as the Oslo accords, who needs to infuse himself into and be responsible for everything even though he played no role in the event. This just concerns morality. As far as the economy goes any jobs that are lost during the Reagan revelation are placed at the feet of Reaganomics, yet any jobs lost during the Clinton Administration are due to modernization and technological breakthroughs. Successes in the Reagan administration are qualified with rising debt, higher control of wealth by a fewer percentage of the population. Clinton on the other hand is a President who gains successes in spite of the Republicans that control congress. What were his successes according to Berman but higher taxes on the rich, an increase in minimum wage, welfare reform, and a booming economy? With more time and space quality counter arguments could easily be made to each. It is interesting how the welfare reform debate is framed in this book. It is framed as something that he wanted from the beginning and due to his desire for fairness he vetoed it twice due to Republican extremism and yet finally accepted it on the third time through with "reservations". Yet he fails to mention that as function of liberalism, one is effectively for everything. So, I would challenge Berman to find something that Clinton is not for. He speaks of symbolism of both Clinton and Reagan but fails to come to the conclusion that Reagan used Symbolism with Substance and Clinton used Symbolism without Substance, because Clinton is a man who would prefer to have the issue over the solution. I could go on and on and on.
The point here is not whether you agree with my views on Clinton or not, the point is that there are other views out there that Berman fails to explore. He needs to be more academically honest and analyze each Administration to the same standard. Instead, he continually holds the Republicans to one standard and fails to hold the Democrats to the same standard. It is clear that William C. Berman takes the predefining view in which Republicans are pro business, pro rich, malevolent men who need to be fought against by the Democrats, by such men as Clinton, who are pro labor, pro poor, pro minority and benevolent in their desires to create a better America. This book is a veiled academic propagandist piece that is bent to support that notion. I recommend this book to no one.

I am a woman and an Independent voter who thinks this "Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit" is well deserved. It is not sexist because Mrs. Clinton is dishonest and power hungry. Having said that, though, I doubt Amazon will post this review. :-\

What a disgusting and sexist product, how can Amazon be selling this item? Is this what we want to teach our children, and especially girls, about public service and contribution to our country? Can you imagine the outrage if this was a product for an ethnic group, how long would it last? So, its OK to bash women Amazon?

I have made repeated requests to have this product removed. It is vile. Hillary Clinton is under Secret Service protection. Please get a clue, Amazon. Trying to reach Amazon is VERY difficult.

Those who'd like to explore the history of women running for President might want to read two collections of speeches by the first woman to run for the White House--Victoria Woodhull in 1872. She's a fascinating person. Even today, her ideas about sexuality and social programs make Hillary Clinton look like a cranky, hide-bound reactionary.

Free Lover: Sex, Marriage And Eugenics in the Early Speeches of Victoria Woodhull

Lady Eugenist: Feminist Eugenics in the Speeches And Writings of Victoria Woodhull

I did not buy the "kit" because it only promotes hate for both Hilary and for George W. Bush who also gets the dubious honor of a Turk Regan kit. Will it make the haters feel better, or will it promote their hate? This is disgraceful!

I read this book several times. It is excellent in it's exposure of the United States, Europe, and rich mega corporation's, rip off and genocide in Africa. The Congo, and central Africa in general, has always been a source of mineral wealth for Europeans and Euro-Americans. Yaa-Lengi Ngemi is to be congratulated on bringing this out in our modern day times. For a small book, he has a lot in it, but there is much much more of course on the atrocities in Congo. He should be applauded also for his translation from French to English of the African-Senegalese scholar Cheikh Anta Diop's book, "Civilization and Barbarisim". He is a great African Scholar and mentor of mine.

There's not a lot I can say beyond the title of this review. From reading the description of the book I expected to learn something about how the foreign policies of various countries combined with the poor leadership in the DR Congo to destroy the country. Instead I got a small book that was poorly designed and pretty much 100% content-free. There are lots of pictures though. If you're looking for pictures covering the various tragedies that have befallen the Congo this is the book for you. If you like reading poorly edited rants and pages of long, mundane lists this might be the book for you. ...

I purchased this book as research for a paper on genocide in the Congo, and quickly discovered there was hardly any information whatsoever - instead, each page is a photograph with one or two sentences underneath. What facts were given were strewn amongst run-on sentences, spelling errors, and horrific grammar.

This book is filled with photographs of corpses, dismembered arms and legs, and so on. While this is a legitimate aspect of the mass murders that took place in the Congo, it would have been most helpful if the book had provided the information the title promised - the links between the genocide and President Clinton, the Paris Club, etc.

I had no intention of purchasing a picture book - I could have read Time Magazine to obtain photographs and propaganda if I was after such drivel. The only reason I gave this book one star is no stars was not an option.

There's not a lot I can say beyond the title of this review. From reading the description of the book I expected to learn something about how the foreign policies of various countries combined with the poor leadership in the DR Congo to destroy the country. It's hard to find any good books in English on Francophone African countries, and I eagerly awaited the arrival of this book. Imagine my disappointment when I got a small book that was poorly designed and pretty much 100% content-free. There are lots of pictures though. If you're looking for pictures covering the various tragedies that have befallen the Congo this is the book for you. If you like reading poorly edited rants, this might be the book for you. If you actually want to read and learn... invest your [money] in a better book.