Customer Reviews

Bill Clinton: An American Journey: Great Expectations

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Engaging but flawed--something one could say with equal confidence about this book and about its subject. Bill Clinton is a fascinating, appealing, brilliant, larger-than-life character with tremendous gifts and profound weaknesses. Nigel Hamilton's new biography--the first of two parts (like his earlier, much-acclaimed JFK: Reckless Youth, the sequel to which has yet to appear)--is full of fascinating information and suggestive analysis, but, like Bill Clinton, it is imperfect.

To begin with the obvious: this is a thoughtfully written, carefully researched examination of Bill Clinton's first forty-six years (it ends with the 1992 election). It helps the reader understand not only Clinton but also his times: Hamilton's subtitle, An American Journey, points to the book's focus. It depicts Clinton as a representative American of his generation, a man whose individual career mirrors the collective career of the Baby Boomers he so ably represented--in the minds of enthusiasts and detractors alike. As an Englishman, Hamilton brings an outsider's perspective to bear on American culture, politics, and history. He helps us get to know Bill Clinton and the many fascinating people who have surrounded him, from Arkansas senator William Fulbright (pictured in a memorably testy moment on the campaign trail) to Hillary Rodham (equally testy) to Gennifer Flowers. Hamilton enriches our understanding of issues and personalities alike. It's a must-read for anyone interested in Bill Clinton, in American politics, or in the Baby Boom generation and the cultural transformation American has undergone during its ascendancy.

The book is flawed, though, in at least three ways.

First, Hamilton's usually invaluable outsider perspective sometimes gets him in trouble, as when he confuses liberal stalwart Eugene McCarthy with anti-communist witch-hunger Joe McCarthy (126) or characterizes "Whittier [home of Richard Nixon] and the Pedernales [stomping ground of Lyndon Johnson]" as among Clinton's (and Cliff Jackson's) "law school texts" (254).

Second, the book may have been written too early. By Hamilton's own admission, he has had to rely to a significant extent on published sources. Others might prove more available in a few years (and will, we can only hope, help to inform the second volume of this two-volume biography).

Third, Hamilton seems to be on a mission to justify Clinton's sexual behavior as an outcome of an irresistible evolutionary logic. He returns repeatedly to flaccid sociobiological explanations of the sexual choices of Clinton and men like him (e.g., "Feminists in particular deplored and rejected patriarchal libertinism, however much it might still be part of man's ancient, evolutionary makeup. Nonfeminist women, emboldened by changing attitudes toward equality between the sexes, also failed to take account of men's genetically determined promiscuity" [322-3]). Those readers skeptical of sociobiology will find this refrain tiring--a distraction from a generally first-rate book.

Clinton has always fascinated me, the same way Reagan has. How can one person who is deified by so many also be despised by so many? And how can a man like Clinton, who is universally acknowledged as brilliant, make so many horrendously stupid mistakes? Given the overwhelming number of outrageously biased biographies out there, I hoped Hamilton would provide a more objective and honest look at Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, Hamilton has read all the other biographies and was unable to determine which ones were legitimate and which ones were unsophisicated, invalid screeds. As a result, he frequently documents as facts statements that are either certainly untrue or, at best, deserve more support than he provides. Not that any of his outrageous claims are new--not only did he inhale, he was heavily into cocaine; he had people murdered for political objectives--but none of the supposed research backing these more damning claims are documented in the endnotes. He also includes some of Gennifer Flower's more peculiar claims--such as their fantasy games, or the fact that she put makeup on him--and accepts them as true without considering whether she possibly had an ulterior motive for making these claims (e.g., to sell more books?).

Before conservatives start thinking Hamilton is their man, they should be aware that Hamilton is greatly intrigued by the evolutionary theory of sex, which he thinks explains Clinton's propensity for adultery. Hamilton's repeated explanations of this theory, which he clearly supports, are unnecessary and explain nothing (even if you accept that men are biologically/evolutionally wired to cheat, why did Clinton do so at such an incredible rate, and why do many/most men contain themselves?). In fact, Hamilton humiliates and discredits himself by including some of the most ridiculous references available to support his theories, including numerous titles that seem like bizarre sex manuals.

Hamilton's attempts to place Clinton in context are sporadic and uneven--for example, he goes into great detail describing the church sex scandals of the late 80s and early 90s, though they have little to do with understanding Clinton. He occasionally sets the tone of the times, but these attempts are rare and often half-hearted.

Hamilton has done little apparent additional work to understand the man he attempts to describe. There are few interviews noted and most interviews are quoted extensively, resulting in the impression that he wanted to make the most of the little actual leg-work he did.

In short, Hamilton has developed a portrait of Clinton based almost solely on other people's research, and he has made no effort in determining whether the other works were legitimate, valid, or useful. He adds nothing to understanding Clinton as a politician, a husband, a father, or a man that is not readily available elsewhere. An understanding of Clinton and all his contradictions, as far as I can tell, has not been developed.

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton is a fascinating character. (Full disclosure: I grew up 4 years after and 35 miles south of Clinton in Arkansas. I've never met him, but I know lots of people who have. I was in school at the University of Arkansas when he was a law professor there, and I remember seeing him around town when he ran for Congress in 1974.) How could someone with such outstanding political and personal talents, someone so obviously intelligent-how could a person like that be so stupid? What is it about his background as the child of a single mom, and then of an alcoholic and abusive stepfather, that explains his personal behavior?

Inasmuch as we are ever going to get an answer to that question, we are probably not going to get it from Clinton himself. The ability to see himself honestly is not one of his many talents, so we will have to rely on testimony from others, and on the biographers who collect that testimony for us. The relevant question then becomes: how reliable is the biographer in filtering the material for us, at making sense of what can often be contradictory evidence?

In the case of Nigel Hamilton, I can't say that I completely trust his judgment. He must have read every tell-all tale ever written by anyone who ever spoke to Clinton, and accepts every tale as equally credible. There is no doubt that Clinton's personal life is a mess, but some of the allegations made against him are questionable, at least. In Hamilton's book, you would think that rape and murder allegations are as well-attested as the infamous blue dress.

And then there is his pop-psychologist take on American culture from the `60s to the `90s. Over and over, we are given his version of evolutionary psychology (basically women want one sexual partner while men are driven to spread their seed around-It's not my fault! Evolution made me do it!), and the word "postmodern" is used to describe everything from Jimmy Swaggart to Lorena Bobbitt. Yes, every sleazy press story of the last two decades is in here, with Mr. Hamilton explaining to us what it all means and how it all relates to Bill and Hill.

So is this book worthless? No, not at all. He has interviewed dozens of friends and foes of the Clintons, and quotes extensively from those interviews. And they are fascinating. These interviews are what make the book worth reading. It is as though you got to ask a whole range of people who knew him at all different stages of his life, "What was (or is) he really like?" and then got an earful!

Still, THE book to read is still First In His Class, by Dave Maraniss. Read that first. Then, if you're still curious, read this book. Just keep in mind that you may periodically feel the need to take a shower.

Once upon a time there was a first-rate biographer named Nigel Hamilton. Twenty years ago he wrote the definitive three-volume life of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, one that is still the essential source for understanding the man. Then in 1993 the first book of his projected multi-volume biography of John F. Kennedy, JFK: Reckless Youth, was published, a work that will probably remain the essential source for understanding Kennedy's pre-political life for decades to come.

At some point after that, though, Hamilton changed. Perhaps it was a consequence of immersing himself in JFK's salacious life or perhaps it was some sort of traumatic personal experience, but Hamilton's focus changed. The shift emerged in 2001 with his atrociously-named "Full Monty," a reinterpretation of his earlier subject that focuses on Montgomery's sexual orientation. Now we have his latest book, the first of a promised two-volume life of Bill Clinton that covers his life up to his election in 1992. Like the Kennedy biography it is an "unofficial" life; unlike the Kennedy biography, though, Hamilton did not have access to any of the papers from the Clinton Library, which obviously limits much of its scope.

Even when this is taken into account, though, Hamilton has written a lousy book. His primary focus is on Clinton's personal life, which he covers in salacious detail (enough to ensure that his book will occupy a prominent place on the bookshelves of most Clinton-haters) and follows up with superficial psychoanalysis. While I do not doubt the accuracy of his account, the result is Clinton the libido, with little about the political career which is the reason why he warrants our attention to begin with. I grant that Hamilton did not have access to Clinton's papers, but would it have been so hard to glean something about Clinton's tenure as governor from newspaper accounts and interviews with other Arkansas politicos? Without it, the reader is left with the impression that Clinton was elected president based on his charm - a facile impression that does a great disservice to anybody seeking a true understanding of the man.

First the good. Despite approaching 700 pages, this book is a relatively quick read. Insightful,well-researched and mostly dispassionate, it provides revelations that may come as a surprise to even the most knowledgeable Clinton observer. Hamilton gives perhaps the most compelling case for the "real" paternal history of little Billy Blythe. Also, the book is very persuasive in detailing some of the reasons for the polarizing nature of the former president. On the personal level, it's his charm, intellect, talent, good looks, and compassion, but also his lack of discipline, looseness with the truth, and apparent immaturity. On a larger scale, it stems from the generation gap, culture war, and changes in the way the media operates. Hamilton is most strong when he supports these convincing arguments with facts and well-thought out analysis. Where he struggles is when he digresses into psych-babble and testimonials from less than reputable or fair-minded sources, such as Dick Morris, Paula Jones and Paul Greenberg. That's the bad...Also, though the book is very long, that doesn't excuse Hamilton for his factual mistakes, such as misnaming the rap artist Clinton sharply criticized in the early 90's. All in all... I would recommend this book. It provides a (mostly) balanced account of the life of President Clinton, his education and political career, and the motivations of the subject and his admirers and detractors alike.

This book could have EASILY been chopped down to 500 pages. The first indication that something is afoul is how tiny each "mini-chapter" was. (Mr. Hamilton breaks down each major chapter into these little mini-chapters that can be as small as 2 paragraph or as "large" as a page and a half.) It's distracting, especially in light of the fact that those mini-chapters force a redundancy. He repeats items and ideas over and over again. He even used the same quote twice- with only 1 page of each other! This redundancy goes unchecked and over time, you start to think that he uses them as if repetition by itself is proof. I completely agree with most reviewers that he stresses the sex thing too much. Unless you confuse supermarket rags with serious writing, there's really no need to repeat the same thing over and over again about Clinton's known sex "problems". Yes, Clinton had lots of sex. Yes, that should be written in his biography. But to go on and on about it in every single page of the book (I am not exaggerating- once in college, Clinton and his "appetite" get mentioned in every single page!) is just too much. And then he states as fact that men must cheat- it's written in their genes! They can't help it! And women don't cheat (despite the fact that he makes several quotes from Washington insiders stating how the WOMEN cheated just as much as the men! He even quotes a Kinsey statistic that states that men's extramarital affairs outpace women's by only 1 or 2 percentage points! Sometimes, his blathering about evolutionary theory seems almost like he wrote this book to explain to his wife why HE cheated. It's mentioned so much that it feels like there has to be an ulterior, personal, motive. And just as his "evolutionary" cheating theory is stated as fact, despite being questionable at best, he states things from disreputable sources as truth. Was fact-checking so difficult? Was Nigel spending too much time making unsubstantiated claims about Clinton's psychology (based on what? Other people's interviews? Quotes from Gennifer Flowers?) In fact, I noticed that it seemed like once Clinton became governor (the first time) Mr. Hamilton appears to have become much lazier- he relies, from this point- on so many lengthy quotes. Most quotes in the chapter pretty much say the same thing, and they ramble. Did Nigel Hamilton edit his own book?

On top of this shoddy work, there's also Mr. Hamilton's penchant for really BAD puns and even worse metaphors. At one point, he quotes the biographer of the Rev. Jimmy Swaggert who referred to Swaggert's similar sexual needs as a "groin demon". Then Mr. Hamilton goes on to use that same, childish and inelegant term for the next several pages. He'll return to that gem over and over again. It's not an offensive term. It's just so... stupid! And his puns! Ouch. Quote from page 585(I added emphasis): " 'He needs to contact me to discuss my ROLE.' Betsey had replied...- but for the moment Bill was on a ROLL."
Now, for the good news- this is an easy read. I found the problems numerous and very distracting. But at the same time, you're compelled to keep turning that page. Does that owe more to the interesting life that Bill Clinton led or is it a testament to Nigel Hamilton's writing? A little bit of both. At times, I wanted to throw the book. I wanted to personally yell at Mr. Hamilton for being so repetitious, so sleazy and so ham-fisted with his "humor". But I'd pick that book back up and keep reading. My final say on the matter is: if there's nothing better out there (this is my first Clinton bio, so I can't help you there) then go for it. You'll find yourself skimming pages but you could do much worse. Unfortunately, Mr. Hamilton could have done so much better.

Did Kitty Kelley write this book? Hamilton writes more about Clinton's penis than his politics. Pages of psycho-babble, rumors and quotes from an all-time Clinton enemies list.
I cannot believe this author is on the faculty of the University of Massachusetts. This book should be avoided by anyone, both Clinton haters and Clinton admirers, who is looking for a good biography of Bill Clinton.

This is the type of biography that performs so well in some respects while failing miserably in others. The first part of the book focuses on Clinton's childhood, especially his family problems, and the Vietnam draft dodging afterwards. Nigel Hamilton provides a great impression of the culture & mentality associated with the Vietnam War.

Unfortunately afterwards the book loses its touch. Very little time is devoted to Clinton's emotional state when dealing with actual political decisions. Hamilton assumes without any evidence the reasons behind Clintons cheating. It seems like emphasizing Clintons sexual exploits is the purpose of this biography. Too many times we're reminded how Clinton compares to JFK in regards to womanizing. This comparison while interesting the first 3 or 4 times mentionned rapidly becomes redundant. Hamilton also has an immature view of the Darwinism theory of evolution. He justifies Clintons cheating with this theory & just like JFK he has to remind us of this theory every few pages.

To summarize, this biography has some interesting sections, especially the beginning, and the last 100 pages when Clinton runs for president. Otherwise the author is obsessed over sex. He also believes himself capable of knowing how every single person that Clinton dealt with viewed Hillary. The content contained therein could have been reduced to 400 pages instead of 700 without losing any of its content. I'm sure there are better biographies out there, or to be released in the near future.

Perhaps it is a result of the author being British, but for a biographer with an honors degree in history, Nigel Hamilton seems to lack a clear understanding of President Nixon's actual involvement in the Watergate affair. For example on page 286 he mentions the "President's clearly personal involvement in the plot to break into the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate building, then to cover up such transgressions." While it is true that the White House tapes proved Nixon's involvement in the cover-up after the break-in had occurred, I am unaware of any evidence produced then or now that Nixon had any personal involvement in the plotting of the break-in itself.

On page 291 Mr. Hamilton speaks of Nixon's "political misdemeanor - the attempted theft of rival political and personal documents." We know from the evidence that there was also a break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in an attempt to obtain derogatory information on him but since Mr. Hamilton makes no mention of that particular break-in, the reader is left with the impression that the "attempted theft of rival political and personal documents" for which Nixon was being "hounded" was solely the one at the Watergate.

Mr. Hamilton greatly exaggerates the effect of the work performed personally by Hillary Rodham in the Watergate investigation. He erroneously describes her on Page 285 as working on the SENATE Judiciary Commitee's Watergate Investigation Staff when she actually was working as one of forty-four attorneys on the HOUSE Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff. Mr. Hamilton describes her duties as mainly listening to and transcribing the White House tapes. However much she might have longed for the ultimate impeachment of Nixon, it is certainly a stretch to claim that simply performing her job of transcribing tapes evidenced her "determination to help impeach the President."

His exaggeration of her role and power continues on page 287 when he writes that "Hillary's investigation should under no circumstances be prematurely concluded," since doing so would give Republicans time to recover before the fall elections and thus help her future husband's GOP opponent defend his Congressional seat. By dubbing this "Hillary's investigation" Mr. Hamilton could cause an unknowledgable reader to come away with the mistaken impression that Hillary Rodham headed up the entire Watergate investigation, rather than simply being one of forty-four attorneys and that she alone possessed the power to move it forward or to conclude it at any time. The late Mr. Nixon would probably be greatly amused if someone told him that it was solely Hillary Rodham who was "hounding" him toward impeachment and trial and that if she had simply refused to continue listening and transcribing tapes, he could have been spared having to resign his office.

On page 295 Mr. Hamilton claims that the one White House tape that would finally tip the scale against President Nixon and force him to resign "was leaked." A casual reader might infer that since Hillary Rodham was the person listening and transcribing these tapes, she could have been responsible for the leak of the smoking gun tape and thus responsible herself for forcing Nixon to resign. Mr. Hamilton neglects to mention that the disclosure of this tape actually occurred when the White House itself released a transcript on August 5, 1974. It was only after that official release, and not after any leak, that Nixon chose to resign on August 9, 1974.

As another reviewer has already noted, on page 126 Mr. Hamilton confuses Senator Eugene McCarthy with the infamous Joseph McCarthy. This glaring error should have been easily seen and corrected by a vigilant fact checker. Any knowledgeable American editor should have recognised the author's mistakes regarding the Watergate affair and his overexaggerations of the role of Hillary Rodham in the investigation. I can only assume that these errors slipped through the cracks since the publisher probably wanted to get this book onto the shelves before Clinton's own autobiography is released. This seems a poor excuse for the release of a book containing so many errors. Since I have only read one-half of the book, I wonder how many more I may find.

Considering that Hamilton is a respected biogragher, I cannot imagine what was in his mind when he wrote this ridiculous piece. Aesthetically, the book reads like an adolescent book report. There is an awkwardness to the writing that is distracting. A case in point is his peculiar choice of diction. In writing about a neighborhood, he refers to its "oldness" when "antiquity" screams in the reader's mind. He speaks of one of Mrs. Clinton's biographers as "egregious', and then quotes the biographer in full. He makes long, unnecessary digressions about human sexuality that are so generally known there is little need to summarize them. And his persistant obsession with President Clinton's sexuality grows old fast. ...Hamilton continually stresses that women are biologically monogamous while men are not. At times it seems that he is making a case for sexual freedom while at the same time criticizing President Clinton for his extramarital activity. There is also an element of distain in the writing. I have never used as many eclamation marks in my entire writing life as Hamilton uses on each page. It makes Hamilton seem snide!! It diminishes his quotations! One might get the impression that Hamilton finds Southerners stupid! Even more serious discussions seem mere amusements!! Not a single page is footnoted. Perhaps I am too conservative regarding scholarship, but there are times one wishes to know exactly what source supports Hamilton's rather sweeping conclusions about the choices and concommitant motivations fueling the Clintons rise to power. His habit of referring to the Clintons as the MacBeths is childishly supercilious. This is not a serious work.