This book truly discribes the life of our president.

Since this Rookie Biography of Bill Clinton was written in 1995 it has little to say about his actual Presidency, so it does not have as much use today to young students as it did when it first came out. It will provide all the basics for how the boy born Bill Blythe became President Bill Clinton. However, in terms of politics, it is pretty much a toss up as to whether this book is naive or ironic (of course, I always go with irony). It ends with Carol Greene telling her readers: "Being president isn't easy. You can't please ALL the voters. Some are always mad at you. But Bill Clinton still cares about people and their problems. That should help make him a good president." This book is illustrated with both black & white and color photographs, including an enlargement of Clinton meeting President Kennedy in 1963. Most of the color photographs are from the campaign and after Clinton entered the White House. Final Note: The picture on the young girl with the Clintons sure looks more like Tricia Nixon than Chelsea.

First things first -- I've gobbled up several books about the Clinton White House -- the best of which is Ambrose-Pritchard's "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton." I found "Damage Control," the offical autobiography of Larry Nichols, to be a below-average read. Though Nichol's is an interesting personality, this book is poorly written. Most annoying is the fact that the author, David Breshnahan, constantly repeats himself from one chapter to the next. I remember doing this in Jr. High School when I needed to write an essay X number of pages long. Another disappoinment is the Appendix where evidence is presented to support Nichol's story. This should have been the beefiest part, but instead we only get an appetizer. Bottom line: If you have read books by Pritchard, Aldrich, et al., and you crave more, "Damage Control" still might be worth $15 -- one thing it will do is stir your anger, Liberal or Conservative.

gets the message through.
Either way, it shows how the liberal media covered-up Clinton with their stranglehold on the American minds through their media control.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to see how twisted and deviate the mind has become thanks to the liberal media.
To all my cnl 6 viewers.

Bad things happen in threes when it comes to J. Aundre Clinton's, Sins From The Past. January symbolizes for most of us a fresh start and the old adage "out with the old and in with the new." For Dae'Mon Greene, the new year of 1988 is full of surprises, pain and betrayal.

Living in reclusion from intimate relationships has been Dae'Mon Greene's lifestyle for the past five years. But when a chance encounter at a New Years Eve party with best friends, Kevyn and Justice, offer up romance with Milton Parker, sparks fly and so do fists before the night ends. Kevyn has chased Milton for three years, and Milton has chased Dae'Mon for nearly as long. Throwing caution to the wind, Dae'Mon and Milton begin a torrid love affair as Kevyn broods in anger with promises of bodily harm. Dae'Mon has finally found love, hope and prosperity until an accident forces Milton to divulge a secret he has known for three years.

Sins From The Past is a glimpse in the life of Dae'Mon Greene and his quest for true love. For this reviewer the homosexual theme was not as profound as the love story itself; however, the stereotypical behavior of gay men rang loud and clear and over the top. While characterization between Dae'Mon and Milton was excellent the story suffered from an underdeveloped plot causing this reader to feel disjointed near the end. Nevertheless, J. Aundre Clinton captured my attention emitting feelings of compassion for his male protagonist. I will follow up with Dae'Mon and his crew in the sequel to this engaging debut.

Reviewed by Nicki Lancaster
APOOO BookClub

Lee Hayes ...,
A Story You Won't Soon Forget
Sins From The Past is a refreshing, provocative and thought-provoking peek into the world of relationships and love. It is a story of laughter, joy, happiness and pain all tempered by a dose of reality. J. Aundre Clinton has done an excellent job of constructing realistic characters in a very believable world. The readers will find themselves turning the page to figure out what will happen next. Sins is well-written and forces the reader to critically examine their own lives, friendships and relationships in search of meaning, value and personal safety. Good job, Mr. Clinton...I wish you all the success in the world. I can't wait for the next!

This book was quite ridiculous. Although I applaud the author on his efforts, the book was among other things boring and without depth. The story somehow tries to paint Monica as highly intelligent, sure of what she wanted and able to speak her own mind. But she is also supposed to be lost, confused, and have low self esteem. Am I the only person who sees the contradiction here?

I honestly picked up this book simply because it was in the library and sounded interesting. I am not truly interested in either politics or gossip. Although I knew information about the Lewinsky scandal (who didn't?), I never defended one side or the other. I don't think Lewinsky is an evil women who should be burned at the stake. I also think that some people are too quick to criticize her without considering the fact that we've all done something we aren't proud of in our lives. I think she was truly in love with the President and that she didn't try to set him up. However this book goes way too far in trying to make her sound innocent. Any decent person will own up to the fact that they have done something wrong. But this book made Monica into the hurt little victim, without taking any responsibility for her own actions. The thing that bothered me the most was that no one ever considered Hilary or Chelsea seriously in the story. Monica somehow seems to almost completely write them out of the picture as if the family didn't matter. Of course she does mention that she followed Hilary's actions so she could know when the President would call her. For someone who is so intelligent it is surprising to me that she never considered what effect it would have on other people (namely the Clinton family) if she and the President actually did get married, something she often daydreams about in the story. Does she expect to just lovingly become Chelsea's stepmother? Although the author tried to avoid this he truly ended up making Monica sound extremely neurotic.

In life there is usually no black or white area. Most situations can not be interpreted as completely right or wrong. All people live in a gray area, meaning sometimes they do the right thing and other times they don't. In this book we apparently meet the first person who doesn't, because Monica Lewinsky lives totally in the white area. I wish I had picked up a book with much more depth.

This is book intended to garner sympathy for a thoughtlessly self-centered young woman who did not know enough to keep her mouth shut when it counted the most: whenever a man has his pants unzipped and whenever a secret is best kept to yourself. This person still does not seem to understand the gravity of the situation she helped to cause, namely, the impeachemnt of the President of the U.S. and the betrayal of his friends, family, constituants and collegues. All she does is whine about the treatment that she was subjected to as a result of her tawdry fling. She still misses her "Handsome", the man who used and manipulated her and then discarded her like yesterday's newspaper. One has to wonder what it would take for this girl to get the picture that all the men she's known so far have used her for one thing only and yet, she inexplicably longs for them and remembers them fondly. Monica needs to find some way for men to relate to her other than her "comfortable sexuality." Monica is a very beautiful girl who is not fat and undesirable. Her opinion of herself is seriously flawed. She needs to impose a vow of chastity upon herself before she destroys any more lives of wives, children and unborn babies. I write this review as a pro-choice advocate and a person who can no longer stand to look upon the face of Bill Clinton. I think Monica should learn a lesson from Joe Di Maggio and just keep it to herself. I, for one, would not like to travel the length and beadth of the earth being known only as "the queen of the BJ". This book did not change my perception of her one bit.

I found this book an interesting read. The acts of the OIC and Linda Tripp were fascinating -- imagine going through an emotional crisis, confiding in someone, only to discover later that your friend has been secretly taping you for months! Also interesting was the way that either the OIC and Linda Tripp distorted the story -- helped, in a large part, by the media. In addition, Clinton, with all those phone calls, played a larger role in the "affair" than we realized, although he was certainly not as interested as Monica realized.

But I have some problems with Morton's sweeping generalizations. He characterizes Monica as "honest". I do think she is warm-hearted, but honest?

Monica needs to stop defining her entire self-worth in terms of relationships with others -- particularly married men! And if she does decide to continue this sort of behavior, she should truly not talk about it, instead of telling all her closest friends, and telling Clinton she hasn't told a soul.

Actually, when you think about it, she and Clinton both "betrayed" each other. Clinton could not satisfy Monica's deepest emotional needs (although no one could, because she is far too needy) and she did not satisfy his main requirement of secrecy.

As I picked up this book and started reading I couldn't shake a nagging question: Why would a Pilot, a 'golden boy' with two OPRs signed by the Commander-in-Chief retire as a LtCol (O-5)? He should have been a shoe-in for Colonel (O-6) below-the-zone.

I admit to being less-than a fan of our former Commander-in-Chief. I have my own eyewitness accounts of questional practices and leadership travesties, so LtCol Patterson's accounts added to my belief that as a nation we are fortunate the Presidency is term-limited. Yet the editorial that is Chapter Five had no place in an "Eyewitness Account." Patterson's personal opinions were not conducive to telling this tale, and ironically his opinion about women in combat roles has already been discounted by the performance of women in Operation Iraqi Freedom. So much of the diatribe was sheer foolishness.

I would have preferred a fact-based, chronological account of LtCol Patterson's experience in this White House job. The story, devoid of the editorials, is worth reading (despite being poorly written), but borrow it or check it out of the library.

Read Chapter 3 of Patterson's Dereliction of Duty and you will not want to donate to Hillary's coffers.

"For instance he states that Gore's attorneys went to court to prevent military ballots from being counted. This is totally false."

Anyone who has a clear memory of events only a few years ago, or have the brains to do a google search on the net can find the evidence of Gore's lawyers going to court to prevent military ballots from being counted.

Gore lawyers sent a 5 page memo to the state's canvassing boards with details on how to disallow the overseas ballots and the worst part was that info was not correct concerning the date stamp on military ballots. Florida's law does not require a date mark on the outside but, does require one on the ballot itself and that has to be witnessed which is the way most of the military does their since their mail system often does not mark the mail with a date.

Bill Sammon, author of the book "At Any Cost", brings us up close and personal with Navy Lieutenant John Russell, on duty in the Middle East, who helped rescue the terrorist-attacked U.S.S. Cole. We learn of his patriotic sacrifices to safeguard democracy for all of us. Sammon details how Gore lawyers had Lt. Cole's absentee ballot thrown out for lack of a postmark, even though the election board had date-stamped it as received the day before the election. Having used such technicalities in one county to destroy the votes of 149 Americans in uniform, writes Sammon, "a pair of jubilant Gore lawyers exchanged high-fives."

"A Republican, visibly shaken by this sight," writes Sammon, "demanded to know how they could celebrate the disenfranchisement of U.S. military members risking their lives around the world. One of the Gore lawyers (one of whom was Leslie Goller) glibly replied: 'A win's a win.'"

"No matter which side you favored, any review of the legal wrangling in Florida would show that Gore wanted the manually counted votes (both military/veterans and civilian) included and Bush wanted them excluded."

This too is a lie. The Gore team tried to have military ballots thrown out, and the Bush team tried to have them counted.

The Gore lawyers protested ballots on which the return address of the attesting witness was incomplete. They railed against ballots on which foreign postmarks were smudged or partially illegible. "Our goal was to challenge every vote that didn't appear legitimate," says Mike Langton, Gore campaign chairman for northeast Florida.

Circuit Judge Brent Shore, chairman of the Duval County Canvassing Board, expressed incredulity at the tactics of Gore lawyer Leslie Goller, who went first.

"I want to make sure that I understand your position," Judge Shore told Ms. Goller. "As I understand your position, if a service person in Germany avails himself or herself to free postage through the military, provides the absentee ballot on or before November 7th to be mailed in the normal course of through the military postal system, or otherwise, and they get the free postage, if that absentee ballot envelope --probably unbeknown to the person who mailed it -- does not bear a postmark on it, even though it's otherwise proper, your position is that is an invalid ballot and we should not consider it. Is that correct?"

"That is our position," Ms. Goller replied.

"He also brings up the idea that Clinton was using the military for "experimentation". This is a common code word generally associated with racial integration in a negative way."

No. This is the way of putting racist words into the authors mouth without having the author actually spoken such things. They cant find anything "racist" about the author, so they accuse him of using code words. "Experimentation", is not a code word for anything. Clinton WAS using the military for experimentation. Anyone remember "dont ask, dont tell"? Or the issue of women in combat? Clinton was turning our military into one big PC zone.

"He argues that Clinton left the United States militarily unprepared when his term expired. This is pure nonsense. What nation has posed a military challenge to the United States."

Russia and China.

"The military Clinton left served this country very well in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Only thanks to the Bush rebuilding. And Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly great examples of having great militaries that could really challenge the US. Did Afghanistan have armored helicopters, or night vision, or jet fighters, etc.?

"He damns Clinton for using our military for "nation building" but has no problems with Bush continuing the same policies. He has publicly criticized Clinton for avoiding the draft. But has no problems with either Bush or Chenney.He abhors Clinton's behavior on sexual matters but says little about Tailhook or the Air Force Academy Scandels. Both of which pre-date Clinton."

Of course not. The point of the book is the authors experiences as a military aide to Clinton which went from 1996-98 and how Clinton dealt with the military. The scandals that pre-dated clinton are irrelevant to the book.

I served my country with honor in the US Navy for almost 13 years, and will not stand by idly while a witch like Coulter and her loyal (blind) followers refer to folks like me as TRAITORS simply because our political leanings are liberal. This is still America, where differing points of view are still welcome...or are they? What a shame that any American thinks the way she does. Save your money- you can read most of the contents of this insane rant on the Internet (the book is mostly recycled columns). I borrowed my copy from a friend... I won't give Coulter a thin dime.

Here's the thing. I am a UK national who voted Lib/Dem for tactical reasons in the last election as the best chance of unseating the Conservative incumbent. "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't swear-words where I hail from, although folks may be a little reticent about admitting right-wing allegiance at a dinner party. For the past two and a half years my family and I have been living in the DC metro area. I am staggered at how partisan the politics is in this country. This book gives me a good indication of the background to all the bad feeling that exists. Of course it is diatribe - I would expect nothing less from Ann Coulter - but I did find it funny. Books are meant to communicate ideas and, yes, to entertain. One thing that Ms Coulter alleges, that I have anecdotal evidence for, is the tendency of at least some liberals (no invective intended) to fail to engage in reasoned debate. As an example, when attempting to discuss the rationale for affirmative action, I found myself being cast as someone with a "right-wing Republican agenda", resulting in tut-tutting amongst others at the gathering as if nothing more need be said. There's more than a little irony in someone with my background being accused in this manner by people who claim to to hold the intellectual high ground. It seems that "Treason" - and the thought processes that lie behind both it and "Stupid White Men" (both impressive titles regarding their invective content) - may explain why folks' intellectual faculties seem to have become subordinate to their partisan fervor. Unlike in the UK, where the quality press is quite evenly spread (or so it seems to me), most of the broadsheets here do seem to be left-of-center (see how adapted I've become...), so I think "Slander" will be next on my list.

Coulter has again reaped a bountiful harvest in this current pig-killing season; the bacon and ham hocks are hanging ripe in the smokehouse after her searing indictment of the Democrat party leadership during the 40's and 50s. But don't be misled, this book isn't pork, or any kind of meat at all. It is that wonderful and honorable (although quite rare these days) discipline known as HISTORY.

The porkers on the left are squealing, and this time the wounds appear fatal to their corrupt, disingenous and treasonous ideology. With the revelations of the Venona Project, there can be no denying that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were filled with proven Soviet spies and Communist party lackies. Alger Hiss, Rosevelt's advisor at Yalta, was a Soviet spy. Julius Rosenberg, his wife and their cronies were Soviet spies who were responsible for holding the world hostage to nuclear Armageddon for 50 years, due to their providing of nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Of course Henry Wallace, former Vice President of the United States, was a Communist and Soviet sympathizer. And yet the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR et al continue to ignore the facts. But Coulter again (like her previous works) gives voluminous footnotes documenting the facts from which she demonstrates the truth about these matters.

Yet note all the 1-star ratings this great book has received from other alleged "readers". They are by in large one or two lines of name calling. Read any 5 of them and see how many times the word "hate" and "fascism" is used. See how little reference to specific content of the book they cite. Liberal partisans are obviously projecting their own hate onto the source of their unveiling and downfall. It is the hard left wing that are the professional "haters" in our society, as Coulter amply proves. Often times, this hard left is called "mainstream" by the hard left press (NY Times, etc).

Coulter demonstrates that liberal leadership has often been made up of wannabe totalitarians that are kept in check only by our Constitution and the liberty loving conservative patriots, like McCarthy, that rise up and stand in the gap at the critical times in history. But liberal leadership still has their shills in the old leftwing media. They are obviously staying up late at night to give 1 star reviews to this book they haven't read, and stating as "not helpful" all the reviews like this one.

If you're interested in Truth about Communism and the legacy of the Democrat party, read this book. If you don't like seeing facts cremating cherished ideological beliefs, stay in the dark and go on believing the lies. If you consider yourself a liberal and a patriot, then most likely you don't understand the realities your leaders represent, or the treachery. Read Coulter's version of the facts, check her sources (don't just start name calling), and make up your mind based on reality.

Read this book. Either believe the facts she's documented or do research and produce rebuttal. Card-carrying, rank-and-file liberals should look to their "great intellectuals" on the left to disprove Coulter's well-documented proofs that have destroyed what little credibility the liberal ideology represents. If she's making it up, prove it.

Proving Ann Coulter to be a liar would be a strong move to the hoop for the left. But you'd best get better round-ballers than so-called comedian and minus IQer Al Franken, or crackpot autistic Michael Moore. Otherwise, prove your superior intelligence by demonstrating that brilliant intellectual function: change your mind to line up with the facts!

And to you 1-star reviewers: give just 1 FACT clearly rebutting a footnoted documentation of fact in Treason. Just 1, come on.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"...

This book is not a biographical tract but a personal statement on Hillary Clinton. Way to go Ms. Noonan, you have put to words what I have thought all along!

Noonan cuts to the core of her argument with a caustic wit and great flare. Modern liberals and other dupes of the Clintons' truth-spinning vortex will whine that there's "nothing new here" (hmm... there's alot written about gravity but that sure doesn't invalidate the theory... funny no one in the mainstream media gets tired of talk about vast right wing conspiracies...)and the author is yet another "Clinton hater..." but they never seem to get around to making a persuasive argument defending these people other than 'they haven't been proven guilty'. It stirs the passions to know that leadership in the new millenium can now be summed up as "indicted yes... but no convictions!"

If you're looking for a dull biography complete with timelines and old family pictures move on but if you've been suspect of the Clintons you'll find this a great read and if you're Clinton fan then I'm sure you'll be able to easily refute the author's arguments (but given the unfavorable reviews that I've read I personally won't hold my breath).

Noonan's beautiful, experienced voice makes this book a sharp but lush synopsis of Hillary's career, or lack thereof. (She also has a lovely audio voice. "What I Saw at the Revolution" on tape is tops). These 180 pages are perfect for a first time examination of Hillary's issues (or lack thereof) or as a refresher. Noonan goes way beyond typical "who, what, where," books on the Clintons that read like a series of 2-D newspaper articles by mixing in some creative fiction and a dream sequence

The book's voice is simple but poetic and concerned. Like Reagan's speeches, maybe? National Review wrote that the voice of Reagan eerily calls from the pages of this book. This seems true at times and this is a credit to Noonan's past work as speechwriter. Still, I think at times she projects Reagan onto Hillary. She focuses a lot on Hillary as image crafter, as photo opportunist, as contrasting issue stands with words and pictures that say something else. Sound familiar? Noonan writes that "Reagan used words to cut through the fog" where Hillary adds to it. I think Hillary! has a lot more in common with Reagan than Noonan might think. This is a great book about Hillary! but perhaps it is also about Reagan and the current political era he helped shape.

I love this book! It is Peggy Noonan at her finest as she skewers that lovable, large-hipped leftist known as Hillary Clinton. I truly believe that open-minded liberals (oxymoron?) will appreciate Noonan's ascerbic style as she sets the stage for Hitlery to tell off the Hollywood socialists at a meeting, proving herself to be a woman of integrity and mettle. Read the book to see how beautifully this scene plays out.

To give this book fewer than five stars is a shame! The reader must jettison misplaced anger and defensiveness to enjoy this fine journalistic effort. True, the kind and coy Hillary is effectively portrayed as ruthless, egotistical, and well, ok, a little maniacal. But it is also true that this book is great fun to read and you will find yourself laughing (or weeping) out loud at the sorry state of liberal politics.

To sum up, Peggy Noonan is one of the truly great political writers of our day and, unlike Hillary, she actually writes her own stuff! Get this book today and give it a prominent place in your library. You'll reach for it again and again as those wacky, slaphappy Clintons insinuate themselves into every situation for attention and face time. Which reminds me...never get between Bill and a camera or you risk serious bodily injury!

Whether you love or hate; defend or condemn the Clintons, there is one thing for sure: they can still bring passionate debate on issues like whether or not the President has a right to privacy or not for example. Mrs Clinton was put in a tough position during those years or was the position she found herself of her own making? That is just another debate waiting to happen. Go away? No way...President Clinton's book is due out next year I believe.

I read this book as I would any other political novel (fiction or non-fiction). There were parts of this book I felt were quite plausible and other parts, I had my doubts about the honesty. So as long as you read this book knowing that there is an agenda, you probably won't start mumbling to yourself and develop book rage. What I find interesting is that the Clinton critics are buying the books. One note, if you don't want to add to the reported income of the book sales, buy the book used, check it out from the library, or borrow a copy--I did...lol

All right, let's be honest. Everyone who thought that she was going to confess that she was an axe murderer who enjoyed cross-dressing and drowning newborn kittens please raise your hand. Right, no hands.

Normally, people write autobiographies to tell their version of events, and cast themselves in as positive a light as possible. That is what Hillary Rodham Clinton has done in "Living History." If you are a fan of Senator Clinton's, you will enjoy the book, not least because she offers plausible explanations for some of the less savory accusations that have been hurled against her over the last three decades or so, including Whitewater, the national healthcare debacle and those commodities trades. If you are not a fan, you will not enjoy the book for exactly the same reason ' many of the explanations are plausible. Even less appealing to the Senator's detractors, her prose is very readable (though I do wish she wouldn't use "impact" as a verb), her life has been (and continues to be) interesting and she is more charming in print than she often seems in public appearances.

Granted, some of the prose (particularly in the early years) is self-serving: "The keynote speaker at the League convention was Marian Wright Edelman, whose example helped direct me into my lifelong advocacy for children" sound more than a bit self-serving. In her defense, however, she works through the pre-White House days very quickly, so it all becomes a blur of good deeds as a child and honors as a student, right on through graduate school (student government, political activist, first student commencement speaker at Wellesley, etc.). One wonders if she ever got a B in a class or missed a lecture because she overslept. The only exception is her hair, which she treats as a running joke throughout the book.

The other running theme -- no surprise here -- is her belief in a right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. Read that either as an accurate statement, as the Senator's paranoia or somewhere between. There is no denying, however, that mentioning the Clinton name in certain conservative circles produces the same effect of throwing an ear of corn into a pen of pigs ' both are devoured in seconds.

Whether Senator Clinton does or does not plan to run for President in 2004, or after, one intention of this book is clearly to give her an opportunity to explain herself, and thus reintroduce herself, to the American voting public. That clearly raises the question: why? Perhaps, like Nancy Reagan, she just wanted to tell it her way, or perhaps she is just planning for all eventualities. In any case, this is an interesting read, if not an overly revealing biography of a very complex and ' like it or not ' influential woman in American politics, not a must read, but certainly on the short list for consideration.

I bought this book as a present for my dad (for father's day) and was reading through it. I am not a big fan of the Clintons and have been a life long republican. Despite this, I found this book well written and a fascinating inside glimpse of marriage and politics. The book was also nicely illustrated and filled with photos of her from childhood to present.

I expected this book to be very political but Senator Clinton has given readers a look at her background and college years, how she and her husband met in school, her decision to go back to arkansas with him and eventually enter the political arena. Even her detractors have to admit that she is an accomplished well educated person.

Most fascinating are the White House years and all the associated scandals. She writes candidly about her time as First Lady and the various battles she had- with healthcare, with white water, with her marriage and monica lewinsky etc. She came across as very likable and sympathetic ( and this from a die hard republican!)

All in all this book was a worthwhile read- it is giving us a glimpse of the inside workings of washington during turbulent times. Everyone from all political spectrums can appreciate this book .

A real disappointment in the non fiction area. Andersen portrayal of the Clinton's and their marriage leaves a lot to be desired. While Andersen does cover the scandals and portray Bill as a weak, womanizing man, he fails to reveal anything new. The Book is certainly for those who want more of the tabloid trash. This book lives in baseless innuendos and hopeful partial truths. The writer' style is good, but his ability to capture the reader will leave you regretting your purchase. The book has some interesting areas, Hillary's affair with Vince Foster, Clinton undisclosed medical records, but these are far and few between any real reporting. Andersen tries desperately to get the reader to look at the Clinton's as a normal family and he fails miserably. I think you would do better to save your money and wait for the movie. While Andersen may want the reader to think this cover new and undisclosed material, you find it shows you nothing new at all. The emperor's clothes are really off with book.

There has never been a marriage more controversial in the American public eye than this dynamic duo. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been rumored to have questionable personal lives since Bill was the Arkansas governor. While this has certainly been proven true, "Bill and Hillary" acts in the same fashion as "Year of the Rat" by Triplett and Timperlake in that it pulls all the punches and makes connections and assumptions that are iffy at best. While there is no doubt both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been proven to be not- so- faithful to their wedding vows, the idea that Bill engaged in cocaine use and street- side sex with a prostitute could not be based on anything more than hearsay. The accusations are certainly interesting, but much of them seem to be no more than sleazy yellow journalism.

Basically a "tell more book" because everything in the book just reinforces the scandals we all heard about. There is lot of detail covering the escapades of Clinton, but most of everything had already surfaced.

The marriage is a business partnership. Hillary needed Bill to get to the top (in the political world only) as she was her own smart person without him. He needed her, knew she was smarter and could help his career. They were a poor match for each other, so it was understandable that they have a "partnership marriage."

Bill's family life is best described as "twisted family history" filled with violence, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, bigamy, poverty, illegitimacy, and plenty of addiction. Hillary's father is said to have run his family "like a drill sergeant mentality that extended to corporal punishment." Easy to see why Hillary was "devoted" to him and understandable as to how she could be so "cold blooded" and dispassionate about love and true marriage.

Yes, Bill is and always has been a WHORNEY, pathetic soul who is addicted to sex! And Hillary has spent her life covering up or battling the press for him. I think Bill Clinton played with his own mind "trying to keep things from Hillary" but deep inside HE knew he could do whatever he wanted and she wasn't going to do a thing about it!

I can't get over his "jogging" shenanigans: He pretends to go out for his jog, has the taxpayers' troopers drive and follow for a block or two, gets a quickie on the road or someone's house, then drives back to the mansion, huffs and puffs into the office/home as if he did a jog! He gives Joggers a bad name!

Hillary and Bill - Quite a goonball pair! .......MzRizz