My 2 1/2-year old son fell in love with this book. The flaps pull out not once, but twice on each page to reveal more of the story. Colorful, sturdy pages (but not cardboard). Not a good choice for those under two, in my opinion, simply because of the delicate nature of the flaps. My son destroyed almost every book he got his hands on as a young toddeler, but by 2 1/2 he was able to handle this book without incident.

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).

I was sorta disappointed with this book. I expected more wide-angled shots, instead i get endless queues of close-ups. Monochrome Home makes a nice coffee-table book nevertheless, but if you're seeking pages and pages of pretty examples with varied shots..then forget this..browse on.

I would like to share my thoughts with everyone that wants to buy this book.
I'm obsolutely agreed that this book is full of buggy codes and errors, even the finished files that provided in the CD are not working. This is really a waste of time and money for just figuring out the bugs!!

I have been designing Web sites for years, and was a Network Engineer for years before that. This book is well written and talks about great examples, but it doesn't work. I know Flash. I know a bit about Flash Action Scripting, but I have not been able to get one single script to work correctly. You shouldn't have to read a second book just to get the one you bought to work right. Like someone else said, even the finished examples don't work right, so you can't look at that code to see what's wrong.
I expect much more than that from any book, and I would return this book if I still could. I spent too much time thinking I was doing something wrong to be able to return it now, though.
In summary, buy another book. You will probably be happier.

This book is decent...but leaves a lot to be desired. The cd that comes with the book includes source files to work on the different chapter projects...but it does not contain final versions of them....so you'd reason that they would be on the flashmxmagic website for download....that seems to have "magically" disappeared as well. Instead of rushing to publish this book so it would come out close to the release of Flash MX, the publishers should have made sure the website was up and that the cd contained final source files rather than demos of other macromedia software. This book is alright, but if you really want something intuitive, I'd recommend waiting until Phillip Kerman's Actionscripting in Flash comes out in July...or buying his book on Flash 5 actionscripting.

This book was a compilation of anecdotes from 40 years of working in the White House. Although I found some stories to be humorous, I enjoyed very little of the book. Although the cute stories humanize our nations presidents, knocking down their "God like" image, I believe that there was no reason behind writing this book besides the fact that she could.
I found some stories interesting, and I even cracked a smile on a rare occasion, but for the most part, this was just a silly way for Ms. Thomas to get money for a whole lot of who cares. Maybe if I had grown up during the past 40 years she was referring to, I might appreciate it more, but for the younger reader, it offers very little in entertainment.

Much to my chagrin, most of the "memories" within the book are NOT those of Helen Thomas. She compiled various anecdotes from various members of the White House staff and the press corps and threw them together with no overall sense of cohesion (save the chapter division by president).

I have a beautifully autographed copy of the book and cherish it because I know Helen Thomas has been capable of a lot more "wit and wisdom" in her many years as a journalist than what this book reflects. If you are looking for and endearing memoir of Helen`s time in the White House, this isn`t it. One does not get a feel for how Mrs. Thomas` job has affected her (aside from her usual cantankerous quips which are readily available from other sources), and the "writing" can`t be evaluated as it is simply a bunch of secondary source material strung together by lengthy quotations. In a word, disappointing.

Helen Thomas shares the lighter side of nine presidents and their wives with the people whom do not know them so well. She re-tells jokes and conversations held between herself and nine presidents in her time of being "dean of the White House Press Corps".
She implies that not all presidents are alike. Every one of them is different. While the chapter on Kennedy was quite humorous, that of Reagan's was less humorous and more about how he handled the press. There are many examples of humor in chpt 1. On page 19 it tells of how on the way to one of the campaign trials, Kennedy had to wear a dark blue suit with brown shoes because black shoes were not packed. After finding out that nobody had an extra pair to lend him and he would have to attend like so, he took it very lightly. He laughed when made a joke out of and found it quite amusing himself.
Helen Thomas also implies that no matter how serious the job of being president is, they are just regular human beings. Just because they are president does not mean they do not have characteristics of an average man. By giving each and every president a sense of humor with their own little edge added to it, we see that they are regular people who like to laugh and make others laugh here and there. It makes the president's more familiar and relatable to the average man. Everyone can appreciate a little humor and by showing this average man quality in every one of these nine presidents the people find them to be more real, more life-like. Humans are the only animals who can be humorous or have a sense of humor. Dogs cannot laugh at your jokes, and kangaroos do not tell them. Therefore when this trait is put in the spotlight as the defining traits of people whom appear to be larger than life, it humanizes them.
The author's thesis can be argued. One could easily argue that the presidents are nothing like an average human being and they deserve to be held up to a high standard, and are to be considered the very highest of flawless humans. A big deal was made of President Clinton's flaw, therefore showing that as average people, we have much higher standards for presidents and do not see them as being capable of having characteristics of our friends. Therefore it can be argued that Presidents are not like the rest of us.It can also be argued that maybe the humor that is portrayed is a tool in trying to convince the people that they are their friends. Like the method of campaigning, "I am just like you", they might be trying to make themselves seem to have the same characteristics as the people, but in reality do not. It may be a ploy for support.
I would recommend this book for the humor and the side of a president's life that we as people critiquing the government hardly ever see. The book was fast paced and very entertaining.

Although I enjoyed the trivia in this book and learned a lot of tidbits, the longer I read, the more I was put off by the obvious political bias. It's subtle, but after awhile it becomes unmistakable. The Harding scandals, for instance, are characterized as follows: "Harding was personally honest but exploited by his business cronies." Rosalynn Carter, we are told, "wore an old dress to the inaugural" (she could have instead been characterized as "economical"). Nixon's scandals are never mentioned without an accompanying comment regarding the poor character traits of his Democratic foes. George W. Bush is called a "fine student," while we are told that Clinton "never earned a degree at Oxford" (he was not in fact on a degree-granting program). The author gives an account of Teddy Roosevelt's attitude toward muckraking that does not comport with what I have read by other historians. The instances of bias compile the longer you read; these are just a few of the numerous examples.

James Humes is a former speechwriter for Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the first Bush, so I suppose this bias is not surprising, and I personally have no problem with partisan argument per se. I'm an Independent voter so I have no particular axe to grind in either direction. What bothers me is that a clearly partisan stance is packaged in an apparently neutral and innocent, "fun" wrapper--"tantalizing trivia and fun facts." It's disingenious and deceitful. I believe readers deserve to know when they are getting something different than what is advertised. If Humes is trying to make a case for Republican "honesty" and superior values, it is ironic that he does so in a most dishonest manner.

Had I known there were so many "mini-sermons" embedded among the "tantalizing trivia," I would have saved my [money]. Good presidential trivia books abound, and most of them are marketed more honestly than this deceptive little volume. Truly irresponsible reporting and marketing. Mr. Humes, your prejudices are showing.