This is actually my favorite in the series of political books by Germond/Witcover (henceforth, G/W). I will praise it and then criticize it.

It is worthy of praise for its excellent coverage of the immolation of Gary Hart and Joe Biden. It also does an outstanding job giving the history of Republican and Democratic parties in elections since 1960.

The weakness comes from the obvious liberal bias that Germond has. They get angry with George Bush and the campaign he ran - although when they get back around to covering the 1992 election, they don't mention the dirt that Bill Clinton threw without any network complaints.

They book also demonstrates that the liberal elite just don't get it. In the final analysis, there's a complaint about the GOP hanging Vietnam around the necks of Democrats as being "unpatriotic," and imply Bush merely continued that. But Bush actually succeeded in playing the kind of superficial game that Democrats usually play at the polls - and their only anger is because he won.

For example, it is common for the Democratic Party to say that the GOP will "cut" Social Security. I have debates on tape going back to 1960, and this argument has been made by every Democrat since 1976 (at least). But they know full well this is mere demagoguery. In fact, G/W do not bring out enough the fact that Dukakis was demagoguing that very issue - or the fact that he said he was a "card carrying member of the ACLU" in the primary but considered it "negative campaigning" when Bush hung the ACLU around his neck. The only problem the journalists have is NOT with the superficiality of elections, but the fact their chosen guy got beat.

However, if one looks past the usual liberal jargon, it does read very well. They also have an excellent chapter on the Michigan caucus (GOP side) that Pat Robertson exploited. Their hatred for Robertson is evident in the book, too.

Seasoned Washington professionals Jack Germond and Jules Witcover take the proper critical approach to a presidential campaign that in many ways represented a tragic slap in the face of democracy. Voters were so turned off that participation plummeted to 49%. This was the campaign where Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance dominated. The book's subtitle of "The Trivial Pursuit of the Presidency" was accordingly apt.

When the media-orchestrated campaign of Roger Ailes, known as "the mudmeister," along with cohort Lee Atwater, who had been trained by none other than Richard Nixon, reached fever pitch, and a "news event" consisted of Republican nominee, Vice-President George H.W. Bush, visiting a flag factory, Dan Rather and his CBS news cohorts refused to cover the event. CBS explained to the Republicans that if they wanted serious coverage then the campaign needed to get serious and talk about substantive policy matters rather than hide behind the flag and expect to receive prime time attention. Voters in other states envied the Nevada prerogative of voters, which permitted the alternative of the truly turned off, a vote for "None of the above," which turned out to be a popular category.

Germond and Witcover present a detailed account of a campaign where glossy imagery and mud slinging obscured the real issues, beginning with rising American debt, which would continue to burgeon after Bush's victory over Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis. A highlight of the Republican's campaign was his promise at his party's New Orleans convention of, "Read my lips! No new taxes!" This was an irresponsible promise in view of the pervasive reality that economic circumstances vary and policies need to reflect those current circumstances.

Fellow political junkies think I'm crazy for considering 1988 such an entertaining election, and they have a point: '92 featured the Perot boomlet and the eventual winner running third in the polls in summer; '96 had Buchanan's shocking New Hampshire win and Clinton's strange comeback; and 2000, was, well, 2000. Maybe it's just that '88 was the first campaign I followed. But it was a dirty, sleazy fight, with two unappealing nominees. Both campaigns were riddled with mistakes -- Bush's choice of Quayle, then-frontrunner Dukakis refusing to campaign during August. Most interesting is the desperation inside the Democratic Party as they see their best shot in years collapse before their eyes. This is just a good, solid campaign book in the tradition of the old Making Of The President series.

The few occasions where I tuned into the McLaughlin Group I found Jack to be "odd man out." I found his comments thoughtful and insightful, never loud and boorish. I never could figure out what he was doing on the show; now I see that it was a mistake on his part.

This is an enjoyable book, more anecdote than analysis. I'm a political junkie and knew about most of the subjects he covered and it was fun to read his take on them. From reading the book I got the impression that a Journalism 101 student sat with him, turned on a tape recorder, and said: "Tell me about your life in journalism, Mr. Germond."

It was puzzling at times that he alluded to aspects of his personal life but didn't go into detail (his daughter's death, the breakup of his first marriage, etc.). He certainly doesn't owe anyone and explanation, but I'm not sure I would have mentioned them at all.

But the book was well worth the investment and it was a good read.

Jack Germond writes with the same gentlemanly charm that he once brought to the otherwise tawdry McLaughlin Group. Perhaps his most valuable insights concern the personalities and egos of various politicians - few journalists realize, as does Germond how important such characteristics are in politics and governing. I particularly liked his insights on Nixon, Carter, the first (and clearly elected) Bush, and Clinton, not to mention such would-be leaders as Rockefeller and Averill Harriman. Germond dislikes pretensions, nor does he kowtow to the high and mighty. Some readers may occasionally disagree with his views, but all should respect this man's intelligence and sense of fair play. Germond also discusses his Louisiana upbringing, race relations, horse playing, the insides of newsrooms, and his daughter's tragic illness.

Germond gained fame from television, but he's far more captivating on radio. His book contains much similar charm, with readable prose, excellent insights, and unfortunately, too few pages.

This is a must-read for anyone even slightly interested in American politics of the late 20th century. I have admired Jack Germond's straightforward, thoughtful manner for years on the McLaughlin Group, and can remember thinking how fascinating it would be to end up sitting on a plane next to him. Imagine my surprise and delight when the title of his memoirs was "Fat Man in a Middle Seat." Germond pulls no punches in his descriptions of politicians he has known, from Averill Harriman and Nelson Rockefeller to George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Most of the other reader reviews here are on the mark, but I would add one important point: Germond's discussion on race relations in the US, from the civil rights era to the present, is as insightful a commentary as I have read anywhere. He went to high school in Louisiana, and travelled through the South in the 60's covering the civil rights movement. He has known the players from George Wallace to Jesse Jackson, and, as with the other people in the book, describes their personalities and motivations with great insight. I rarely re-read a book, but when I finished the book I immediately re-read the chapter, "Race and Politics."

Germond's constant references to his drinking and skirt-chasing were a little distracting, but since this is a memoir from someone who tells it like it is, one should not be surprised that he included his own vices as part of the narrative.

I have read the bulk of the Germond/Witcover (G/W) series and most of the books have been very good. This one was no exception. G/W take you through the strange politics of 1992 where a womanizing, draft dodging, uninhaling dope smoker won the election against an incumbent who had posted a 91% approval rating just 21 months earlier.

The Good: they give you the close-up story of Ross Perot's pyrrhic attempt to buy the White House, Clinton's favorite color as "plaid," and Dan Quayle's inability to spell potato. They also go into the weeds by viewing the election through the lens of abortion politics, implying that Bush was behind because of his pro-life stance. That leads us into the bad.

The Bad: It becomes obvious from reading the book that G/W hate Bush for some reason. They refer to him as "ever-whining" and repeatedly bring up Bush's 1988 election where Bush "went negative" against Dukakis with "racial politics." But they NEVER MENTION Clinton's race baiting by critcizing Bush's Haitian policy by saying, "I wouldn't be shipping those poor black people back." Since the book was published in 1993, they had a chance to tell this story and set the record straight: 400 people died just days after Clinton's inauguration trying to come to America because of CLINTON playing racial politics. For all of Bush's "Willie Horton," Bush never hurt a single person with his campaign. They also pillory the pro-life position and imply that although the voters split evenly on abortion, there are enough Republican women who will vote Democrat if the other issues are clearly defined. This fails to explain the so-called "angry white male" that supposedly appeared out of nowhere in 1994.

The Ugly: For some reason, when George Bush went out with balloons and slogans and Arnold Schwarzenegger, it was "politics as usual." When Bill and Al rode through the Rust Belt like two good old boys looking for the Jack Daniels distillery, it was "a bold stroke." Apparently, Democrats are permitted to "play politics" but Republicans aren't.

The Unmentioned: Why didn't G/W mention the following things that would have made Gore and Clinton seem just as ignorant as Quayle: 1. Gore referring to that great Tennessee President James Knox (note: it was James Knox POLK); 2. Clinton saying, "I hope you'll give Al Gore and I a chance (this from a Rhodes scholar who should have known it was "Al Gore and me"); or 3. Bill Clinton's history of "reinventing" himself. They take Jerry Brown to task for it in the book, but remain silent on Clinton doing that very thing.

Still, it is a worthwile book, just be aware of their own prejudices.

The Germond/Witcover series is the best set of "campaign books" in recent years. And while the solid reporting continues in this effort, there's something missing. Many political junkies rank 1992 as the oddest election in memory, stranger even than the de facto tie of the 2000 race. Why? Two reasons: the inexplicable buoyancy of Bill Clinton, and the Perot phenomenon -- that brief springtime period when a businessman on a third party ticket shot to 40 percent in the polls while the Democratic nominee fell to third place (less than 25 percent!) and then recovered to win the election -- and oust an incumbent Republican who had polled a 91 percent approval rating less than two years earlier. Germond and Witcover tell the whole story, but the sense of the bizarre that pervaded that election is lacking.

Germond and Whitcover carry on the tradition of Theodore H. White's "Making of the President" series with their recap of the 1992 election. Theirs is the most complete recap available of the campaign that put Bill Clinton in the White House. They are experienced and vetran reporters who have seen many campaigns and are able to capture every nuance in a complete and readable manner.

Germond missed the Gary Hart story, both personally and how that would relate to Hart's 1988 "blow-up" and most immediately, how these personal flaws would allow Mondale to simultaneously win the nomination and loose the election. Interestingly enough, as a first hand observer and caucus participant in Iowa, this book taught me the lesson that the best of reporters (like Germond) sometimes get lazy and take their information second hand. When that happens, both history and the art of understanding politics suffer. In this case, Germond never talked to Hart supporters; his information came second hand from Mondale supporters who could only guess the real story of Gary Hart's second place win in Iowa and how it allowed Hart to take New Hampshire.