Rating: 
Summary: The Hawking Of America
Review: Yet another tiresome, inaccurate litany of bogus sins from a writer too lazy and too inept to think about policy above and beyond the personally politicized environment of the Clinton years.This is simply further proof that conservatism died a quick and apparently very painful death in November of 1992, and that what we call the Republican Party is nothing more than a nattering group of flailing, antiliberal hacks whose sole reason for existing is to recapture the 1950s and punish liberals for the Cold War that never got hot. Your time would be better served reading up on the Democratic candidates and figuring out who the next President should be among that field of nine than supporting this ridiculous, embarassing, and wholly unpatriotic group with your hard-earned money.
Rating: 
Summary: The facts in their own words about a corrupt administration
Review: This is not another "right-wing" rant. Lowry's extensive research brings out historical facts in the words of those involved, including Clinton supporters. For example, from Abbe Lowell, chief investigator for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment evidence: "Perjury in the deposition. No question that [Clinton] lied." Lowry includes facts only recently available, such as the courts clearing Ken Starr of any grand jury leaks, and of the Federal Election Commission levying $700,000 in fines on the DNC and the Clinton/Gore 1996 election campaign -- in April, 2002, long after it matters, exactly as the Clintons had planned. This book's detailed coverage of Clinton's many falsehoods reveals a president who treated the truth and the law with contempt. The current crop of anti-Bush books tries to portray Bush as a liar on a bigger scale than Clinton, but it won't wash. The "everyone does it" defense is old and tired, and Clinton's wrongdoing included perjury, obstruction, and tampering with witnesses; nobody does deception like Bill.
Rating:
Summary: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years
Review: It looks like one of the reviewers has gotten another Liberal's attention...which produced a childish reply. I agree that the Left reacts emotionally and without facts. There's a reason for Liberal denial of this book: Adam Wolfson writes "The Left almost as a matter of ideology shuns all such unpleasant realities. The Clinton administration, after all, proposed calling rogue states - nations who starve and torture their own citizens and threaten their neighbors - 'states of concern.' Bush simply calls them 'evil.' The Left vilifies Bush because he insists on calling a spade a spade, and in so doing threatens to bring down their entire intellectual edifice. Even after the horrors of the 20th century, the Left has yet to recover from its Rousseau-induced hangover. Liberals still insist on seeing human nature as basically good. Nothing is more offensive to such a mentality, not Hussein's torture chambers, not al Qaeda's wanton killing of innocent life, than one who dares to speak so plainly of 'evildoers.'" It's a real tragedy that Liberals are so closed-minded. They seem to be cowards, refusing to accept what's going on and insisting that everybody else just "move on" with them. Bush is moving on. As Rich Lowry writes in this book, he's moving on from the single biggest Presidential failure in our country's history. Maybe if the Liberals faced facts -- like Clinton preparing fertile ground for terrorism or their denial of his own foreign military escapades -- they could help defend the country instead of sacrificing it to wishful emotionalism.
Rating: 
Summary: The Bias opinion of the Clintons
Review: This book has failed in many ways to represent the Clinton's and what they did for our country. It focuses on all the negative things and skips over details that are positive. Even though many of the things that are said in this book may be the truth they are not always the full truth. In conclusion I think the book misrepresented the Clintons and was bias towards the Republican point of view.
Rating:
Summary: sad
Review: having borrowed this book from a library, and not being able to finish it because it was so bad, I would just like to say that it is sad that conservatives still haven't gotten over the clinton years, especially when they chastise liberals to get over the stealing of the 2000 election.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Yet...
Review: Having not read this book yet, but planning on doing so (too late right now), I'd like to just add one little comment about all the reviews - In every substantial review with less than two stars, I can expect to see the words "Bush" or "Rush Limbaugh," with the exception of Mr. Barton's review, which I found helpful. With this element in mind, this book should be good if you do not have a deep distain for the Republican party, and even better if you are central.
Rating:
Summary: Tellingly predictable responses to this ignorant work.,
Review: Just like today's useless FOX News' rant about Bush's magical "re-energized" economy, we'll undoubtedly see ample evidence of the Right's insatiable desire for self-affirmation in their comments on this book. You see, all five-star "reviewers" will invariably resort to defending their man on the basis of the most flimsy, most emotional, and hence the most unsupportable knee-jerk and subjective of whims. King GWB of America, they'll claim, baldfacedly, was somehow responsible for all the many perceived benefits to come the country's way even while he played fast and loose with his position. And his cocaine addiction and general Ah yes, and this same useless, anti-Constitutional thinking will likewise indict Clinton: Slick Willy is singlehandedly responsible for the mental agitation in all the most pathologically evil (and stupid) places on Earth while Bush, at the behest of some 80% of Americans and backed by a Coalition of 150 nations, accomplishes the restoration of global security (post-Bush Sr, ironically.) Meanwhile, the 3,000 lives lost 9/11 bear absolutely no weight. For shame. I so love our liesurely conservative friends - not a solitary logical point of refutation among their shooting-range hordes. Their's is a myopia of self-importance, ignorance, and wishful thinking. The cognative dissonance must be thundering in their ears as they embrace the fiction this hate-filled screed describes.
Rating:
Summary: Tellingly predictable responses to this important work.
Review: Just like today's useless Time magazine's rant about Bush's magical "polarization" of the US, we'll undoubtedly see ample evidence of the Left's insatiable fear of self-governance in their comments on this book. You see, all one-star "reviewers" will invariably resort to defending their man on the basis of the most flimsy, most emotional, and hence the most unsupportable knee-jerk and subjective of whims. King BJ of America, they'll claim, baldfacedly, was somehow responsible for all the many perceived benefits to come the country's way even while he played fast and loose with his position. And his interns. Ah yes, and this same useless, anti-Constitutional thinking will likewise indict Bush: Dubya is singlehandedly responsible for the mental agitation in all the most pathologically evil (and stupid) places on Earth while he, at the behest of some 80% of Americans and backed by a Coalition of 150 nations, accomplishes the restoration of global security (post-Clinton, ironically.) Meanwhile, the 3,000 lives lost 9/11 bear absolutely no weight. For shame. I so love our liesurely liberal friends - not a solitary logical point of refutation among their coffeehouse hordes. Their's is a myopia of self-importance, ignorance, and wishful thinking. The cognative dissonance must be thundering in their ears as they deny the reality this important work describes.
Rating:
Summary: The difference between pos and neg reviews of this book
Review: Why is it that the people who like this book write about it's factual basis, research, thoroughness and compellingness, and the people who supposedly don't like it write about... the people who liked it. They don't respond to any of the substance of the book, or to any of the conclusions in it. They only write generalities and sarcastic comments. And that is telling in itself. This book is solid. Anyone who really reads it, be they conservative, moderate or liberal, will come to the calm conclusion that Clinton was not a leader. He was a man with many problems that leaked all over his job and our country. I thought Lowry's tone was objective, well-reasoned and intelligent. While he certainly doesn't think highly of Clinton and his presidency (and he lays out those reasons in detail), he doesn't resort to generalities and name-calling. If you are at all interested in understanding recent American history and the impact that Clinton had on our country, you have to read this.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive books has now (already!) been written.
Review: Since it took awhile for historians to catch up with President Reagan's greatness, I had wondered how long it would take for us to see an accurate historical review of President Clinton. Well, Lowry's book has set the standard and it took less than three years to come to market. The book is comprehensive in its scope and thorough in its research. The book details a history that is, in turn, an elaboration of the theme set forth in a comment by George Will, who described President Clinton (to paraphrase) as, while not our worst President, he was certainly the worst person ever to serve as President.
| 
