Although his subject matter (from the promised Clinton/Elvis thing to Kurt Cobain, Bob Dylan, Whitewater and more) is diverse and entertaining, Marcus takes an academic tone that sometimes failed to draw me in.

Still, he's well versed in politics and pop culture, and able to draw thought-provoking connections between seemingly disparate topics. Marcus is master of the insightful bizarre trivia detail - like the fact that Clinton-accuser Paula Jones' husband played the ghost of Elvis in the 1989 movie "Mystery Train". Like music, sometimes it feels forced, and sometimes it all comes together.

As someone who remembers Cobain much more clearly than Elvis, I found the book was a great crash course in some of the themes that influenced both today's rock stars and politicians.

As rock/pop culture criticism, it actually makes an interesting companion piece for the Lester Bangs anthology I just finished reading ("Psychotic Reactions & Carburator Dung" - interestingly enough, it was edited by Marcus, Bangs' former Creem cohort). Except that Bangs puts a lot more passion into his rants, while Marcus seems determined to stand back and make observations. Ultimately, that tone left me standing on the sidelines as well.

In Double Trouble: Bill Clinton And Elvis Presley In A Land Of No Alternatives, Greil Marcus examines a metaphor suggested by, among others, filmmaker Oliver Stone and New York Times columnist Frank Rich: Bill Clinton as Elvis Presley. Woven in & out of this central thread are the stories of other Americans living in the spotlight during the Clinton years: among them, Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain, Allen Ginsberg, and Hillary Clinton. It's an interesting idea, and certainly (on the face of it, at least) no less tenable a springboard for a book than the theses that any of Marcus' other books are based on. There's only one small problem: it doesn't wash.

The quality of Marcus' writing isn't an issue here: stylistically, I'd put him up against anyone working today, and his erudition remains astonishing (reading him, I frequently find myself asking: "Is there a book this guy HASN'T read? A piece of music he HASN'T heard?"). Nor is it the individual chapters: many of them are great - opening up vistas in music, films, and politics you hadn't imagined were there.

No, the difficulty lies in Marcus' conclusion: simply put, I find the notion that Clinton approached Elvis Presley as a force for cultural liberation absurd. Clinton is obviously a very intelligent man and was an extraordinarily charismatic leader, but at the end of the day, he was just another politican. Elvis Presley broke - exploded - American culture in half. I don't think Clinton, as either president or cultural leader, can make a claim half so big.

This book should probably rate somewhere around 3 or 4 stars. It isn't Marcus's best--that would be MYSTERY TRAIN or LIPSTICK TRACES--but anything by this fine critic is a whole lot better than the average nonfiction tripe out there (e.g., another cash cow "case" against one or both of the Clintons).

Granted, the connection between Elvis and BC is no stronger than the connection between, well, me and Mahatma Gandhi, but if you hold a magnifiying glass up close enough to a watermelon and squint your eyes, you can see an image of the Virgin Mary. And a number of pieces collected under this misleading title are not concerned, even in a Marcusian "world in a leaf of grass" way, with either Elvis or Clinton.

Having said this, no one understands the relationship between rock and American culture, past and present, better than Marcus. He is always wise, trenchant, and--though sometimes overly mystifying--strongly moral. As I read Marcus I always think, "This guy's on my side; he's saying what I would like to say if I could think of the right words." This applies to a lesser Marcus work (like this one) as well as the major ones (and he's about due for one sometime soon).

When I purchased this book I thought I was in for a treat. Being an avid reader on political/social issues, I have been treated to many great books. This is not one of them.

From the first page the book bogs itself down with many, many obscure words, and places them in sentences with many other obscure words. In the first 20 pages you will frequently ask yourself: "What in the world did I just read?". I found myself often re-reading pages over and over again to figure out exactly what the author's point was. Unfortunately, after 60 pages I gave up on trying to extract a point, and set this book aside.

Remember that pseudo-intellectual crowd from college? You know the ones...they rattle off endless strings of words that were pulled from deep, dark pages of a thesaurus, in an attempt to make themselves seem more intelligent. The essays in this book are all pseudo-intellectual babble. No insight. No challenging thought. Just pure ego stroking.

You may be saying: "The reviewer might...not have the capacity to handle material like this." Unfortunately for the author this is not the case. I have read everything from Homer to Shakespeare and Lao Tzu to Hemingway. I have a deep appreciation for literature, writing and critical thinking. I love good analysis spread across pages using elegant and clear text. This book is not clear. This book is horrid and unreadable, and virtually pointless.

If you want to get better acquainted with you thesaurus, please buy this book. If you want to learn about 'Law in the wake of Clinton', seek out other authors because you will find nothing decipherable here. The essays are not written to be read, they are written to impress. Obscure prose serves no one, for the meaning in context is easily lost. Be prepared to read, re-read and lose interest.

If you want a good book on life in the post-Clinton era that is well written and insightful, read 'The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America' by Philip K. Howard. It will motivate you to learn more. 'Law in the wake of Clinton' will will only cause eye-strain and brain drain.

I'd have to take exception with the review below written by Steve Shaw. This book is not filled with big worded, mumbo-jumbo as he suggests. He may be good at reading Homer or Shakespeare. But apparently, he understands little of legal analysis, which is precisely the subject of this book.

That said, perhaps the book is not for the average reader. I have a law degree, so I find the legal analysis to be easily readible. Others may not.

But as a critical thinker, one certainly comes away from this book wanting better, less biased analysis. Some of the chapters are very well written and very well argued.

Others, however, are downright sloppy ... not worthy of a first year law student. One particularly poor chapter is written by none other than Ted Olsen - President Bush's Solicitor General (the person who aregues on behalf of the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court). This is disturbing, as it demostrates that Bush appointed a Solicitor General who so clearly has an ax to grind against Clinton, that his bias blinds him to the many gaps in logic in his own analysis.

In fact, Olsen's chapter is so poorly reasoned, I'd go so far as to suggest it was intentionally misleading. If Olsen wins any cases before the Rehnquist court, the "legal realist" will have much case law to support their beliefs.

The same critique particularly can be lobbed against the poorly written chapters by John Yoo and Daniel Troy, those others are also lacking.

But the initial chapeters in the book are both well written and well reasoned, which in some ways only makes the contrast with the mentioned chapters more stark.

One only hopes that after the Bush Presidency, the Cato Institute similarly puts out a book on "The Rule of Law in the Wake of Bush." For if the arguments are applied consistently and without bias, readers would come to learn that Bush is far more like Clinton than Al gore ever likely would have been! If Bush is held to the same standard to which the Cato Institute holds Clinton, then intellectual honesty would demand that they conclude that President Bush is doing far more damage to respect for the rule of law than his predecessor.

Given the stellar legal backgrounds of its contributors, I purchased this book expecting it to be more about the assault on the rule of law that has taken place over the last thirty years than about specific misdeeds of the Clinton Administration. To my surprise, these essayists do an exceptional job of addressing both issues.

As Pilon states in the introduction, the book explores the legal assault taking place on the ideas of limited government and individual rights. He explains that leaders can violate their Constitutional authority either by pursuing a legitimate end that is unconstitutional or by violating people's rights. He then introduces the thesis of the book-that members of Clinton's Administration worked to expand Presidential or congressional authority while oftentimes receiving only token opposition from many Congressional Republicans or members of the Supreme Court.

Some of the authors focus on steps taken by Clinton's staff to encroach upon congressional regulatory initiatives. For example, in his essay on "legislating via executive order," Douglas Kmiec points out that although Clinton did not break the record for most executive orders issued, he frequently refused to cite statutory authority for his actions. Kmiec explains that the Supreme Court has traditionally been willing to review questionable orders and that Clinton has, at times, done everything he could to find ways to reenact initiatives that were struck down.

James Wootton offers a similar analysis of the Justice Department's support of "regulation by litigation." Specifically, he focuses on how the department worked to impose liability on selected industries by weakening traditional legal rights over time. He concludes by pointing out that even Robert Reich eventually felt compelled to express his distaste for Justice's efforts to circumvent the democratic process.

The highlight of the book is clearly Senator Fred Thompson's discussion of how the inability of our political institutions to hold Clinton accountable for his role in the fundraising scandal of 1996 was so severe that it led many Constitutional scholars to question the efficacy of our legal system. He does an excellent job of explaining how the failure to apply the law to the highest-ranking officials in our nation has contributed to the cynicism people feel toward the democratic process. However, he concludes by offering a beacon of hope: "Perhaps it is true that we have begun to rely too much on the courts and legal processes to resolve matters that are best left to the political process, because that is where such issues are ultimately resolved in a democratic society. As frustrating and disheartening as it is to see a breakdown in the rule of law, we know that in the end the American people will have the final say. And we will always have the kind of government and rule of law that we deserve."

Pilon's collection contains stellar analyses of ongoing efforts to undermine the rule of law as well as abuses by Clinton's senior officials. It contains a powerful indictment not just of Clinton's supporters, but of all those who feel that our legal institutions should be trampled to abide by the unfettered will of the majority. It should be read by anyone interested in how our legal institutions are being sabotaged and what can be done to stop it.

Reporter with the Sussex Countian

The Clinton Scandals by William A. Whitaker is a political satire set to poetry on the public and sometimes alleged private life of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The story is told from Bill Clinton's point of view in a gun to temple manner (instead of tongue in cheek) and is very hard hitting. This book is not recommended for young children or those who agree with or are left Rush Limbaugh on the political scale.

The 160-page book starts swinging at the Clinton dynasty from the cover and only lets up when the book is placed in the drawer. This book is funny in many ways and gets the point across that the president is less than faithful or even discreet.

With 45 pages of political satire cartoons, which are minorly risqué, this is not a book for children or those of the Democrat persuasion.

Whitaker begins this yarn with Clinton explaining how he became president. "My fellow Americans, I've got a song to sing about how I became

y'alls scandal king first I shucked my morals, ethics and all soon I was sleazin' and havin' a ball..."

The opening lays the groundwork for a Clinton roast that would make a Texas barbecue seem like an English tea party. The tale takes pot shots at everyone ever associated with Clinton.

Intertwined in the Clinton tableau is a "Clinton Scandal Quotient" quiz. It can be taken while the reader is going through the book the first time. But I don't recommend it. It stops the flow of sometimes foul poetry that takes many of its hits Clinton style-below the belt.

Not one scandal has been untouched. It is almost Ken Starr style in which Whitaker may have spent too much time grinding his ax. Portions of this book kneeled lower than Monica. Especially the parts that deal with Vince and Ron and the controversy surrounding their mysterious and untimely deaths.

One cartoon depicting the scene of Ron's death is rather graphic in its nature and done in poor taste. Perhaps death should not give all people absolute respect. However, their families should be considered.

The book ends with the following excerpt: "I'll be moving to Hollywood in pursuit of my new career where my good buddy Stephen will help me turn into a profiteer nobody else could accurately portray this scoundrel, don't y'all see? the leading role of the disgraced president is custom made for me."

If you enjoy political satire and can get beyond some of the seedier side of this book, which may or may not reflect the core of the Clinton Administration, I encourage you to do so. The book is thought provoking and makes you wonder how much is satire and how much is truth.

But it bears repeating this book is not for those of the Democrat persuasion.

An angry, often insightful, and sometimes tirade against the "corporate takeover" of the once-liberal Democratic Party written by a media critic for Fairness and Accuracy in the Media. The author's leftwing bias is clear and upfront as he documents the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (Senator Leiberman is the current chair - and VP candidate) as the latest chapter in neglect and oppression of poor minorites. Solomon concludes, "to accept the mirage of a humanistic Clinton administration it helps - enormously- to be white and not poor." Written in 1994, this book anticipates the tensions between Clinton and more hardline environmentalists and union activists concerned about the World Trade Organization.

False Hope's harsh, and it is very harsh, critique of the Clinton Administration's origins, motives, and consensus solutions sounds too harsh for my ears. Still, False Hope offers a breezy if depressing read that might be helpful as voters consider whether to promote Gore and Leiberman to the White House. The question remains whether false hope is better than no hope?

This book is a rant against what Joe Armey (uncle of House majority leader Dick Armey) views as the creeping influence of the religious right in the American political sphere. Yet it reads more like an attack on the right from an unabashed Clinton supporter. Armey seems to think Clinton can do no wrong. The book is shoddily edited, with many grammatical errors. Nevertheless, Armey does offer quite a few solid points on the idea of what Noam Chomsky calls "rollback" -- the trend towards scaling back social gains made during the last few decades. If you can handle Armey's Clinton-chauvinism, the book is an interesting vision of what the "Republican revolution" means to the general population.

Professor Shannon has a knack for perking our interest in politics through warm hearted writing. It's a fun little read even if you know nothing about Iowa politics.

after reading others reviews i thought i needed to say some things are correct and others not. for example wayne dumond did not live in a trailer he lived in a 3 br red home. how do i know? well, i am married to his son.

Webb Hubbell is a tragedy in life and Public Service. He cheated, lied and stole and then blamed others like Ken Starr, the media and his family. The book is an excuse of misjudgments not an admission of guilt, repentance or atonement. The same justification of deeds he should be ashamed of but instead makes claims of shame as a badge of honor. What is more tragic is that when it is all over. And the Clinton'' have left the scene and pities of power he will be forgotten as much as he forgot about them under cross examination. He will be like his wife, avoiding laundry by sending it out, because she was to lazy to change. In the end, he is will rue the day he undermined the Rule of Law, ran from the truth and remained silent in the face of justice calling out for vindication. No one believed him then, and after this book no one believes in him now. Webb needs to know that penitence and forgiveness does not mean avoidance of punishment. He has done neither, and thus, cannot really go on in this life proud of anything he has accomplished. He will and is a failure just like this book was trying to tell us he is innocent. When one tells half lies they often forget where they placed the truth ever again! This will be Webb Hubbell's legacy. The book will be forgotten sooner than when you close it. if you open it at all? I suggest you won't!

Webb Hubbell's begins his long climb back to manhood. The book outlines the short glory and long tragedy of a fellow colleague Webb Hubbell. Some call him a cover up artist, others brand him a liar, but whatever description one might try to apply to Mr. Hubbell one can never say he is snitch. Webb was given two choices, either inform on your President or we are going to burn you. What the hell does that mean, "Inform On Your Friends To Save Your Hide?" There was a time Webb Hubbell could see the difference between right and wrong. Like all who aspire to learn and practice the Law one cannot wait to be put in positions to help many. Webb got to the mountain of power and after his fall he could have gave up. Webb didn't sale out, he refused to buy his future by selling out his friends. Some would describe this as twisted integrity, others misplaced loyalty and a few such as I as uncommon character accompanied by the courage to accept his fate, punishment and seek out atonement. I won't judge what Webb did as right or wrong. I will leave that to others with far more thoughts of their ability to do so regardless of rank or position. He no longer deserves to be hounded by reporters, destroyed by opponents, laughed at by peers or condemned by the public. If there is one thing this life teaches us it is we all fall sometime, we all get muddy and many have a cold and friendless tide find us leaving us with an amputated spirit. Well, Webb Hubbell did his time, protected his family and has repented and now needs acceptance so he can atone. If another colleague Ken Starr saw no reason to call for his incarceration upon a third conviction plea, then I see no reason to condemn Webb any longer. He now needs to be embraced, protected and given new opportunities to accomplish new endeavors. I am satisfied with less so long as Webb continues on his path towards righteousness and now there is no reason why he will not and deserves another chance.

This is an excellent look into the world that revolved around Webb Hubbell in Little Rock and Washington DC. Mr. Hubbell is an adept storyteller who cuts through all of the partisan politics and simply tells the truth about his relationship with The President and First Lady. Mr. Hubbell also does something few men are willing to do nowadays. He accepts responsibilty for his mistakes without casting blame and doesn't try to glorify his standing with the Clintons or blame Kenn Starr for his failures. A good read that provides one of the only truly first hand accounts of the Clinton's days in Little Rock.

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.

Joyce Milton provides a very objective account of the personality, actions, power, and influence of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Unlike some books that I have recently read, Milton presents the reader with an refreshingly unbiased depiction of Mrs. Clinton. I finished the book with a greater sense of understanding and knowlegde of the events, scandals, and rumors that have surrounded the First Lady -without feeling biased by the author's personal viewpoint. I recommend this book to anyone interested in First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As a strong woman who has always had trouble understanding why a well-educated woman who is supposed to be at least as strong as I am would stay in such an abusive relationship, this book provided more than enough reasons.

This book is a must-read for those who do not understand why women with much less education and promise for their futures would make a similar decision, despite continuing abuse.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is much more socialist than I ever would have guessed. She has a head stuck firmly in the 60's, coupled with the attention span of a 5-year-old whose Ritalin ran out a week ago. Her ignorance of the economic realities of life are appalling, and her inability to understand how sweeping revisions of the social structure will adversely affect those least able to adjust to those changes is equally disturbing -- and flabergasting!

While differing views of various people interviewed for this book may be a turn-off by some readers, one need only look at the spectrum of emotions elicited by Hillary's husband to understand how people can see one human being through so many different prisms and come to so many different opinions of what they have seen.

I would recommend this book to anybody who is a news junky, Clinton-watcher -- on either side of the issue of them as human beings, or just interested in a good read with more than a bit of spice.

Catastrophe should be required reading for all U.S. citizens. This book shows exactly how Clinton's administration led to the lack of security that allowed the terrorists into our country, and for each one to obtain a driver's license, as well as a piloting license. Articles from Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and especially NewsMax link in detail the negligence displayed by Clinton throughout his two terms in office. Clinton is responsible for everything from weakening our national security to allowing bin Laden to escape. There is no denying the information in this book, which every American should own.

This book contains a dated historical record of events and opinions of a variety of issues surrounding the terrorist attack of Sept 11th. Written largely as a series of short 1-2 page news items (many from Newsmax staff) but with additional sources admixed, I found this 350 page book impossible to put down. It is not merely a detailed indictment of the Clinton administration's impotence in defense/intelligence matters, but covers a range of wider issues and serves as an excellent 'memory jog' for things which we knew 1 year ago but which are already slipping from the public memory. After reading this, a thinking person cannot help but have concern for the shortcomings in the still-weakened CIA and full support for our current efforts in the war on terrorism.

Bill Clinton would have been as concerned with America's safety and maintaining a strong military as he was in cutting back on the military, this Catastrophe never would have happened.

On a positive side, at least Al Gore lost nd we didn't have to deal with another 4 years on Clintonomics.