Hillary's Turn is predominantly about the 2000 Senate campaign in New York. Most of the focus is on Hillary Clinton, but there is also a lot of information on Rick Lazio, Rudy Giuliani, Al Sharpton, and other notable New York politicians. Even though it is sympathetic to Senator Clinton, the Republican Party in New York gets very even handed treatment. In fact, the most interesting parts of the book are about the inner conflicts of both parties. I would say that the only problem with the book is that it mostly talks about New York City, and not other parts of the state. It is a very well written book, and since the author, a reporter, covered the campaign, he makes some good first hand observations. The reader also gets the feeling that the author sees a possible Clinton vs. Giuliani race in either 2006, for the Senate, or 2008, for the big prize.

I'm very much involved in New York State politics - yet I learned much from this insightful and thoroughly enjoyable book. HILLARY'S TURN is written almost like a series of news articles. Even the layout of the cover suggests that the book is merely a hardbound tabloid. Indeed, news coverage of the campaign is one of the book's main themes. The effect is to move the action of the book along in a dramatic and concise manner. Tomasky doesn't stop much to reflect, which seems somehow ironic considering his portrayal of most of the players as unreflective. But that's fine because as campaign accounts go, this one is all action.

Tomasky's three major characters are Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giulliani and Rick Lazio. He somehow manages to paint them all in a fairly good light, while dramatizing their oddest characteristics. He seems particularly fascinated by Giulliani, who he claims did the "most bizarre thing a politician has ever done, ever." Tomasky seems to believe that Hillary herself is sort of boring, but the events that were happening around her were anything but.

For all the fun of this book, it has a few flaws. Most outstanding of these is the great disparity in Tomasky's reporting when it comes to upstate rather than New York City politics. Tomasky's sources and knowledge of NYC politics are first rate, but his knowledge of upstate seems to be limited to what he saw on the bus. Much is left out, not the least of which is a full appreciation for Hillary's use of the upstate economy as an issue, and Lazio's perplexing refusal to do the same.

But that's a subject for someone else and not reason enough to skip this book. HILLARY'S TURN is a real page-turner!

Michael Tomasky's HILLARY'S TURN not only gives a comprehensive account of all of the events that affected Hillary Clinton's quest for the Senate, but also does it in a way that's balanced, free of cliche and surprisingly literary. Tomasky is a gifted writer and a great stylist, but he doesn't bang you over the head with his talent. A phrase just catches the eye; you re-read it; you re-re-read it this time aloud and you say to yourself "wow! this SOB can write!"

I'm sure everyone else is commenting about the politics, so I'll leave that alone. Let's just say that I'm one of those who felt that Hillary was TOO CONSERVATIVE -- the death penalty, the drug war, the HMO/INSURANCE CO/AMA health gin-up, advocating abstinence, all the DLC bs, etc. -- and this is the first book that takes the opinions of our small cohort seriously. Tomasky also makes very clear how and why people of different ideological stripes loved her or hated her.

Most of all, we get a great insight into what's important in NYC and New York State politics today. We see the "gears grind" as Tomasky might have said.

Super reading.

We reviewed this book for our library's book club but unanimously threw up our hands and declared "no way!" The author appears to hate smart women and the First Lady in particular. Made us wonder just how insecure he is and why. There is no documentation, a lot of "hmmmmm"s to try to insinuate something, but the reader can't be sure. We told our library not to purchase any of this title. We asked them to spend the resources wisely, i.e., forget this one!!

I am often skeptical about "unauthorized" biographies, they're usually no better than tabloid trash. However every rule has an exception and She Took a Village is just that book.

Gottlieb certainly knows his stuff, his display of the First Lady shows exactly where she stands or in most cases where she stands until confronted. Gottlieb exposes things in this book you will not find anywhere else.

From the early days of college to Whitewater to every other scandal of this administration, a woman who is power hungry and will stop at nothing to get what she sees as hers confronts the reader.

After reading this book I had to stop and think - just who is the president of the United States. After reading this book the jury is still out. With a great price tag, this book is certainly one for the collection.

This book contains extensive footnotes for all the disclosures about Ms. Clinton so the reader can check out the facts for themselves. I found it fair but not good for the Clinton campaign for the New York Senate.

Included in this book is some of Micah Morrison's finest work, covering material that has yet to reach the full comprehension of the public, but which someday will seem like the writing on the wall for believers in the American ideals of integrity and individual freedom.

The title and pictorial representation leads one to believe that the book would share some light on the past and present exploits of the Clinton's political arranegements. However the book is in fact a catalog of ramblings about unsubstantiated charges of corruption at all levels of government. Additionally an inordinate portion of the text is dedicated to the struggles the Clintons went through in their early lives. It also goes off on tangents that only remotely relate to the Clinton's felonious life style. To the interested student of power brokers this book is replete with redundancies that leads to a boring and sophomoric exercise.

This book detailes the corruption of not only the Clintons but Arkansas and Washington D.C. as well. The book paints a picture of the idealistic and somewhat tortured personal lives of two people who get caught up in the corruption of not only Arkansas, but Washington D.C. The book does get kind of bogged down in discussing tangents to the main theme of the book, the Clintons, but its meant to show what kind of Arkansas and Washington D.C. they came into politically. The book, although defintely not pro-Clintons, avoids purely polemical and emotional language and writing. It is a sad commentary on politics in general and our country when corrupt people can get into high places.

This is an excellent read! If you are unconvinced of the corruption we have had for the last eight years, then this book will cause you to reconsider. It also goes into detail as to how Bill Clinton got into this terrible state.

Anyone who dismisses this book as unsubstanstiated is obviously partisana and also hasn't been paying attention to the news for the last eight years. An objective and reasonable person will see the truth and the truth is what is written is true and well documented. Mind you this is a close friend of Bill Clinton who wrote the book! No agenda - just truth for those who can accept it.

This book highlights the pattern of deceit, drug use and corruption. Frankly, I'd rather not be in denial but admit the obvious about this man. Hopefull the American people will never allow someone of this low calibur ever become President again.

I had a great time reading this book! Enjoyable from beginning to end! In fact, I read the whole thing pretty much straight through once I started. AP reporter Beth Harpaz conveys her experience of covering Hillary Clinton's campaign through a series of sometimes funny, sometimes touching and always interesting anecdotes about suriving life on the campaign trail with Hillary. She creates a uniformly interesting story without dipping into the typical "kiss and tell", dirty-laundry type fare we see too much of these days. At the same time, however, there are enough revealing bits about the various players in this campaign to satisfy the voyeur in all of us. Somehow, in reading this tale I became fascinated by the job of a political reporter and was intrigued with Harpaz's descriptions as to what constitutes news in a campaign and how that news is created and controlled. And of course, there were the many related stories about how the campaign itself desperately strove to create an image, appeal to constituencies and control the news themselves.

Harpaz also strikingly relays her personal struggles in balancing the demands of the all consuming campaign trail with her even more consuming job as mother of two young boys. And she openly discusses her conflicts about her choices as a professional and as a mother. We all know what that's about! Harpaz also has some interesting thoughts on the role that sexism may or may not have played in press coverage of the campaign and in Hillary's role as a candidate and First Lady.

But "Girls in the Van" is not really a heavy, ponderous book. It's actually alot of fun. I laughed out loud a number of times while reading this book, for instance when reading the lyrics of the naughty songs the reporters on the press van made up about Hillary or while reading Harpaz's account of how the press lost it at a campaign rally where the singing group "10,000 Maniacs" opened the program and Hillary followed by stating how great it was to be there with 10,000 maniacs.

In the end, I really didn't know how Harpaz felt about Hillary, but I also didn't care. I was simply taken with the story. Check this book out. It's a really good read. - (***)

As a New Yorker and a political junkie, I've been waiting for the inside scoop on what really went on during Hillary's campaign. Beth Harpaz has finally shed some light on one of America's most celebrated and enigmatic public figures -- and she's done so from a woman's distinct perspective.

Why do we love Hillary? Why do we hate her? Would we like her more if we knew her personally? less? Why does Hillary inspire such a range of emotions in New Yorkers and Americans? And how, after all she endured, was Hillary able to get such a plurality of New Yorkers to vote for her? Harpaz asks all the right questions, and has some inspiring and entertaining answers.

Not to mention the fact that the book is a highly enjoyable read - I couldn't put it down, and I breezed through it in one weekend.

Ms. Harpaz has allowed us to view Hillary's Senate campaign from the perspective of the reporter covering her. This is not a book about Hillary or her views. This is a book is a first-person account of the trials and tribulations of covering her campaign. This is a book in which we learn first hand of the "joys" of juggling a family (with little kids) with the pressures of reporting on a grueling campaign. This book also gives us a glimpse of the differences in styles between Hillary's and Lazio's campaigns.

Reading the book is like what one would imagine it is like having a conversation with Ms. Harpaz - only one cannot interrupt her to ask her more questions. She's honest about when she did it right, when her fellow reporters did it right, and brutally honest about when she got it wrong. I have to say that her point of view, through all of this, provided me with a lot of insight and laughs about Ms. Harpaz, the other reporters, the campaign, Hillary, and the opponents that Hillary faced throughout the campaign.

I could not put the book down. It is one of the best books that I've read in a long time. A great way to romp through a weekend

I am writing these comments in the early part of August. The real question, though, is how will this book be perceived the day after the national election in November. It is virtually certain, whether it's fair or not, that Hillary Clinton's attempt to become New York's next U.S. Senator has been destroyed by the charge of an anti-Semitic remark of over two decades ago. Is it true? Also, even if the accusation is accurate, does Mrs. Clinton deserve forgiveness? One could engage in much abstract speculation and moral inquiry into the larger issues of Hillary Clinton's predicament. Nevertheless, in the practical realm, she is in dire straits. The First Lady needs solid and overwhelming Jewish support if she is to have any realistic chance against her Republican challenger, Rick Lazio. Recent polls already indicate that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to regain the trust of a sufficient number of Jewish voters to salvage her campaign.

I am uncomfortable that there are not more witnesses to confirm this allegation. Yet, isn't Jerry Oppenheimer simply doing his job? Some people will question Oppenheimer's credibility because of his National Enquirer past. That argument is simply fallacious. The National Enquirer is admittedly a scandal sheet, but it is still highly regarded for meticulously and thoroughly double checking facts before approving them for print. A former campaign worker has gone on record with his incendiary claims. How can the media not report the story? Shouldn't we be outraged if these charges were ignored? I think that a fair and objective person, regardless of how they feel towards Hillary Clinton, must conclude that the media are placed before a rock and hard place when forced to decide how to handle such a dilemma. The reader may notice that I am ignoring the other aspects of Oppenheimer's book. I am doing so because in the long run the anti-Semitic charge is the only reason why it will be remembered. Historians may very well refer to this book as the one that demolished the Clinton family's last hope for political and perhaps even personal redemption. The impact of this book far outweighs its intrinsic value. I am sure that we will still be discussing it many years into the future.

Because the author goes into so much detail about both Bill and Hillary Clinton's childhood and personal families, I was able to get a fuller, more human picture of them. It was very helpful to me, as I have been honestly unable to comprehend why anybody would trust or like either one of the Clintons. Reading this gossipy book with all its quotes from childhood friends, stories from Hillary's mother, brothers, cousins; the friends of Bill's mother, etc. honestly helped me to flesh out these people and realize that they are not, after all, monsters. They have become something much different from what they envisioned in their youth because of their willingness to sacrifice personal principle for political power, but they are not monsters.

I appreciated learning that many people liked Hillary at Wellesley and Yale Law School because she was genuinely friendly and did many kind things for others. I could imagine why Bill fell for Hillary and vice-versa, and how their relationship began as a genuinely passionate one.

Likewise, I found it very believable that Hillary said something to the effect that she would never be able to go through all the rigors of politics if she didn't know that "they were saving the world." From the beginning of their relationship, Hillary believed that Bill was a semi-messianic figure who would attain the presidency, that he and she would be able to get into the government and create lots of positive (to her mind) changes that would help lots of people. Just like any messianic figure, people would oppose him. Unfortunately, that's a delusion. If she had been less idealistic and more realistic, she might have demanded faithfulness and either forced him to change or divorced him. Either of those outcomes would have spared us from the Clinton presidency. At any rate, I liked this book very much.

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

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

This is the "Absolutely, positively, without a doubt everything you want to know about Whitewater" book. I really do not think there is one shred of info left out, the Independent Prosecutor would be hard pressed to put together such a detailed and complete history. I doubt even the combined recollection of all the people involved know as much about Whitewater as what is in this book. That should give you a pretty good idea of what the book is about, the author does through in a little about the campaign, travel gate, Vince Foster and a few other early Clinton scandals, but the true heart of the book is the Whitewater investigation.

The book does not flow as quickly as his last book "Den of Thieves" nor is it as gripping. It is, however, a very well constructed and researched book. If you are interested in this particular issue then I have not come across a book with a better non-partisan telling of this story. If you are looking for an overall detailed account of the election or the first four years in the Clinton White House I would suggest the Woodward books "The Agenda" and "The Choice" and the Elizabeth Drew book "Showdown: The Struggle between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House".

When I opened this book I was hoping for all the juicy details on the Presidents dirty deeds in Ark. In some ways I got what I wanted and I didn't. The book has a ring of truth and fairness about it. On the one hand Stewart lets the President off on the Whitewater charges but spills the beans on all the other dirty little secrets. Those who want to see Mr Clinton fall will be disappointed with this writing and those want to see the President exeronated will also be disappointed. But then again the truth is usually disappointing. Read the book, it's a good read. But be prepared to wade through a lot of detail to get to the truth.

If anyone is still interested in what the fuss was all about, they should read this. Blood Sport is written totally objectively and deals with all the players involved in every Clinton scandal except for Monica, which broke after publication.

The book details the business partnerships the Clintons had with the McDougals from the 1970's on the 1990's and its fall out. The story stretches from Arkansas to the White House and even goes a bit into the suicide of Vince Foster.

Stewart makes no judgments as to whether any impropriety occurred in any business dealings, so this is a good place to start for an objective reader who wants to make up his own mind about the whole sordid mess.

In page after page of "facts" based on assumptions, presumptions, and lies, he produces a tale of flimsy accusations of improperity against a woman who is much brighter, quicker, and kinder than her male counterparts. It was easily apparent that he manufactured much of the "facts."

I read this book when it was first issued. The more time passes, the less impressed I am by the work.

At the timethe book was issued, I noted what must have been a very painful episode in the subject's life, at least as Brock reports it.

According to Daivd Brock, for her entire life, Hillary Rodham's mother urged her daughter to excell at academics. Yet when Hillary received the singular honor of giving the commencement address at her college, an event that brought her national attention at a young age, Brock reports that Hillary's mother was not in attendence. That struck me as what must have been a particularly bittersweet moment in the young Ms. Rodham's life. To work so hard for approval and then receive none.

Several years later, in a biography that received cooperation from the First Lady, Gail Sheehy reported that it was Hugh Rodham, Hillary's beloved father, who had skipped her famous commencement address in lieu of other pressing activities.

Mistaking the subject's mother for the subject's father strikes me as a rather serious factual error for a biographer.

I disagree with the other reviews of this book. It is even-handed only if you consider damning with faint praise to be even-handedness. Brock's thesis is that while Bill Clinton is a sleaze bag; Hillary is a sincere committed radical--sort of a Emma Goldman with a law degree. While he does at times acknowledge that a double standard has been applied to the Clintons, as compared for example to the Bushes, he repeatedly denigrates Hillary by resorting to guilt by association. He trots out every associate she has ever had who has been involved in any liberal or left-wing cause and gives you their background in lurid detail. According to Brock, Hillary's intellectual development stopped in college or law school. I await his new book to see whether he really is ready to write an even-handed appraisal of the current political scene. In this book, he assumes that the liberals are naive or out to destroy basic American values. For example, he assumes that there wasn't merit at all to the Vietnam war protests or that anyone could actually believe that the war was both immoral and not in the interests of the United States of America.--Arthur Amchan

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!

According to a friend of mine who reads scripts for a living, you can tell whether a script will be decent or not by simply reading the first few pages. "I don't know of any film that's been able to salvage a bad first act," she said.

It is in this spirit that I checked out Hillary's book this afternoon. I think it's safe to say that you'd have to idolize Hillary to get through it without falling asleep.

From the first sentence on, it reads like a whitewashed memoir, perhaps of the head of some bland corporation. Hillary has had a pretty interesting life, as these things go, but she is so determined not to burn any bridges that she's sucked all possible life out of the narrative.

This has already been exposed by others as a memoir that was, well, economical with the truth. That might be forgivable if it was an entertaining read. But it feels like it was written by someone who'd ghost-written biographies of particularly dull corporate executives, using the drab style corporations love, and then sent to the Board of Directors for vetting by ten different people.

What's left has been squeezed hard and tight of any form of brilliance or eloquence.

I'm sorry, Hillary; I really wanted to give your book a fair shot. But in the end, I would recommend it only to masochists and insomniacs.

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.