An introspective look at Danforth's and Thomas's reactions and activities during their personal crises during the infamous Senate confirmation process. Interesting from not only a historical and political perspective, but more so about the human reactions that they both had. Danforth, who was Thomas's Senate sponsor throughout the confirmation hearings, provides some insite about Senate machinations, his team's contemporaneous thoughts, as well as a self critical analysis of where they failed and how they succeeded. He dramatically retells how close they each came to quitting, and how they each were able to channel their faith to continue on to win a battle that ultimately in their minds had little to do with winning Thomas's confirmation to the Court, but rather more with bringing him back from the virtual death inflicted by his accusers and the cruel torture inflicted on himself! Could be a good read even if you don't like what the Justice stands for, since you might revel in his crisis. But this story shows how that how you can maintain a positive attitude through the assumption of the worst possible result. Only a naive reader would conclude that this is simply a historical recollection of the hearings.

I read this tome when it first appeared and have re-read it twice. Timothy Phelps is the reporter who broke the news story about Anita Hill charging Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. Phelps' own liberal bias comes out in the process. But there are a few areas of praiseworthiness in the book.

Phelps tells the truth in that this entire fiasco was NOT about sexual harassment, it was NEVER about sexual harassment, but it was all about the abortion issue and the possibility that Thomas was pro-life and might overturn Roe v. Wade. Phelps does a good job of giving down the middle reporting about the conservative movement's obsession for making up for the sinking of the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. There was no doubt that that tarnishing was still solid in the mind of conservatives in 1991.

Phelps, however, is on less stable ground when trying to portray Clarence Thomas as a right-wing sex nut. Phelps, of course, was the one who had the confidential FBI file leaked to him and blew this whole thing out of proportion. It was actually Phelps who caused the entire dilemma because he was interested in making a name for himself. After all, Phelps did say, "a reporter could make a career by sinking a Supreme Court nominee."

It also becomes obvious that while admitting that everyone he talked to who was friends with either Thomas or Hill found the charges against each one impossible to believe, Phelps decides to covertly imply that Thomas was willing to perjure himself to make it to the High Court.

Phelps also delves in dirt by stating that the first President Bush was a man who "played politics with race and worried about integrity later." Did Bush play politics with Thomas' nomination? Of course. He put the Democrats who supported affirmative action in the position of defending or admitting it was wrong. But did the Democrats also play politics with Thomas' nomination as well as his life? Yes. The simple fact that Phelps didn't want to report is that BOTH political parties play "the race card" when it suits them.

I cannot recommend this book without recommending David Brock's rebuttal, "The Real Anita Hill." Some will point out that Brock has renounced it, but he has yet to name even a single person who misinformed him. Brock's motives were no purer than Phelps', but he writes well versed on the issue.

It is probable that one's reaction to this book will be colored by one's political ideology (and I can't hold myself as being exempt from that), which is unfortunate. The book is never boring, and the authors seem to go out of their way to be scrupulously fair to both sides, perhaps even too fair. Because what this book says about the state of our judicial system and the stunted, superficial level of our political discourse, is deeply depressing. One can be ideologically opposed to men like Renquist and Scalia and Brennan, but one would be loath to question their competence. Example after example is given of just how mediocre a jurist Thomas was and of how unqualified he was for the position he ended up receiving, a tenure that will last his lifetime and insure the composition of the Supreme Court as an ultra-conservative cabal. The cynicism of the Bush administration, its callous use of race for its own agenda with little regard or respect for the integrity of the judicial process, is clearly delineated. When one reads about the cavalier and contemptible way the issue of sexual harassment was handled by the old-boy politicians who dominated (Specter and Hatch are just 2 of the most egregious examples) the nomination hearings, it's impossible to be anything but disturbed about where this country is heading, whatever the nature of one's political sympathies. Women will be outraged upon reading this book. Any fair-minded person will be outraged, as well as saddened, on reading this book. All in all, this is a comprehensive behind-the-scenes examination of one of the more reprehensible episodes in recent American history, and it seems unlikely that there could be another book on this subject that will be as cogent or sobering.

"Capitol Games" is a very revealing book that takes the reader behind the scenes in one of the most controversial Supreme Court appointments in this country's history. Phelps and Winternitz have written a well-researched tale of how Thomas was picked by the Bush White House over several more qualified candidates to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall on the Court. If you ascribe to the principle that only the best and the brightest should be appointed to the Court without regard to race or ideology, you will be surprised or, as I was, angered. Although this title is out of print, I strongly recommend finding and reading it to find the truth behind what amounts to little more than blatant manipulation of the appointment process (I will admit to having some bias in writing this review, by the way).

If you have not been near a Biology syllabus in a while, this is the book for you. The authors do not assume that you know everything. The chapters cover all the major topics (the only supplementation you may need is diagrams such as those of plants). I found that the practice tests could have been better structured because the Ecology tests are separated from the Molecular tests without the common core section that's used in the actual exam. All in all, a good book - using this book alone I earned a score of 660!

this book is of course dreadfully bad as journalism; read it only as a window on the recent upsurge of rightist political fantasia, and as a supplement to brock's latest, *blinded by the right*.

in reading his latest, he will explain what the score is for this one, what he called "character assassination."

i am somewhat disturbed by some of the other reviews, here, though....witness brock: "i could see that my reportorial method for *the real anita hill* was shoddy, not only in the sources i had trusted, but in the obvious fact that i had missed significant evidence that showed that hill's testimony was more truthful than thomas' flat denials after all. my version of the thomas-hill controversy was wrong, my belief in it as truth was a delusion. perhaps the errors of *the real anita hill* could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. in the review of *strange justice*, however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, i consciously and actively chose an unethical path. i continued to malign anita hill and her liberal supporters as liars. i trashed the professional reputations of two reporters for reporting something i knew was correct. i coerced an unsteady source, i knowlingly published a lie, and i falsified the historical record" (brock, d. *blidned by the right* ny: crown, 2002. p. 248).

as can be seen here, the author of *the real anita hill* is admitting that it is not true.

David Brock has publicly admitted in his latest book, "Blinded by the Right", how "The Real Anita Hill" came to be - the unverified half-truths and suppositions, the missing leads and facts that, had they come to light before Thomas was appointed, would most likely have stopped his ascension to the Supreme Court, bundled up neatly with a hard right spin.

In "Blinded by the Right" he reveals the sources, the money, and the politics behind the writing of "The Real Anita Hill", the true right wing conspiracy behind it all, and the eventual disgust and guilt he felt over the slandering of this woman. In fact, he ended up writing an apology letter in an attempt to absolve himself of the guilt of being a shill in a well planned, funded, and orchestrated conservative movement, and for betraying his journalistic integrity.

Therefore, "The Real Anita Hill" should be read only in conjunction with "Blinded by the Right", to keep the reader from having his mind poisoned by material the author himself has recanted, and that facts that surfaced after the book's publishing came to disprove. It is quite interesting from a historical perspective, and also as a chilling demonstration of the conservative movement as Brock reveals in "Blinded by the Right".

This is a book that that caused emotions to run high when it was first published, and still continues to cause readers to break out into impassioned argument, some of it not very polite. My own perspective is that Brock got it right on this one, a well researched investigative report on Anita Hill and the left's campaign to discredit a man whose only crime was being black and conservative. Of course those who believed Hill and dislike Thomas will have a totally different viewpoint, which is fine. My own advice to both groups would be to read both this book and the "Strange Justice" which was the hatchet job commissioned by the vast left wing conspiracy. Contrary to what some have said, Brock did not disavow this book, rather he said that he went into writing it with the purpose of looking for evidence against Hill and for Thomas. Of course the author of "Strange Justice" did just the opposite. Until we actually have an unbiased look at the Thomas hearings (and we may not have that anytime soon) then this book still deserves to be read. Some other authors to try after this book are Paul Johnson, Ken Hamblin, Shelby Steele, George Will, Dinesh D'Souza and David Horowitz. All of these present a viewpoint that tends to support Brock's conclusions in this, his first book. However, be warned that you're either going to hate the book or like it. Unfortunately there appears to be no middle ground in this long lasting debate. Regardless of your political views this book is a must read, if just to find out what all the hullabaloo was/is about.

In honor of Black History Month I encouraged my son to read this biography of the second black man to become a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I would not recommend this book to any other readers, except for its unintentional humor.

The author never mentions one of the primary obstacles that Judge Thomas had to overcome, namely, that he was raised speaking the Georgia Sea Island dialect of Gullah, and had to learn English before attending school.

The author states that young Clarence Thomas approved of the community outreach of the Black Panther Party in California. No clarification is ever given to that statement, leaving one with the impression that a Justice of the Supreme Court condones the violent form of Marxism they espouse.

He states that the Senate "investigated" but never "decided" the Anita Hill controversy. Doesn't a confirmation vote of the majority of the Senate qualify as a "decision?

Perhaps the unusual tone of the biography is due to the author's sources. While he cites several issues of "Jet" magazine, he never includes the one source that would most accurately reveal the man and his beliefs; namely Judge Thomas' own eloquent record of his opinions as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

While the author did an adequate job of explaining how the Supreme Court works and provides other, basically factual information, his tone is suspicious and unenthusiastic. He obviously does not comprehend how an individual can be both conservative and a person of color.

One wonders why the author chose Clarence Thomas as a subject in a series of books called "People to Know." Ultimately, Judge Thomas is unknown to the author, who leaves his young readers with the highly inappropriate suggestion that the most powerful black man in America may have acheived his respected position by "selling his soul to the devil." I kid you not.