Clinton Memoirs Slammed As "Boring"

[russian33]

Former American President Bill Clinton's eagerly-awaited memoirs My Life have been branded "eye-crossingly dull" by respected paper The New York Times. Interest in the tome - which comes just a year after his wife Hilary Rodham Clinton published her own autobiography Living History - has reached fever pitch across the world, with pre-release sales breaking records. But in a front-page review, the New York Times has slammed Clinton's work as "sloppy, self-indulgent and eye-crossingly dull". In the book Clinton charts his incredible rise to power, his marriage, the Monica Lewinsky affair and his fury at the impeachment process which threatened to overshadow his presidency. But the New York Times review reads, "(This is) the sound of one man prattling away not for the reader, but for himself."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#1

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...respected paper...HAHAHAHAHAHA

Also, on that page:

Michael Moore's controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has been given another big boost - the queen of pop, Madonna, is telling her fans they have to see it. Moore went backstage at one of Madonna's Madison Square Garden shows in New York on Wednesday to thank her for her support after hearing the singer praise his film to the masses. She urged fans during the concert to go and see the provocative new anti- George W Bush film, stating she seen the documentary and it "really affected" her. Moore screened the film to a crowd of celebrities and members of the press last Monday at New York's Ziegfeld Theater. Madonna told fans, "I don't think I've ever cried so hard at a movie in my life and I'm sure I still have a lot to learn from it. Not only is it inspiring and educating, but it's proof that people can make a difference, that we can make a difference."

[Killarney]

1. mediamatters has a bit about the "reviewer"

I guess he/she just recycled the same trashy review he/she did of Hillary's book.

And in neither review did the person mention that both books criticized the NYT.

Hmm...

[LTR]

2. Speaking of Hillary's book...

...THe review of Bill's book was very similar to the one on his wife's:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406200001

Compare New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani's June 10, 2003, review of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir, Living History, with Kakutani's June 20, 2004, review of former President Bill Clinton's memoir, My Life:

Living History

"'Living History' is a mishmash..."

My Life

"In fact, 'My Life' reads like a messy pastiche..."

Living History

"The other has to do with Mrs. Clinton's penchant for blaming enemies, from political opponents to a 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' for her and her husband's failures and travails."

My Life

"... he spends far more space excoriating his nemesis, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and the press."

Living History

"Though Mrs. Clinton admits that she made missteps with her health care plan (its failure contributed to the Republicans' taking control of both the House and the Senate in 1994 for the first time in 40 years), she tends to attribute many of her and her husband's difficulties before and during his presidency to 'the politics of personal destruction.'"

My Life

"Mr. Clinton takes more responsibility in these pages for his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, his lies about that affair and the damage inflicted on his family and his presidency than he has in the past. But he still spends a lot of time -- as his wife did in her book -- assailing right-wing enemies for his woes over Whitewater, the Paula Jones case and impeachment."

[Wickerman]

3. Imagine that, the Clintons have some bitterness over the way

the media and the RW treated them. Imagine the nerve of those two.

[Bandit]

5. You captured their indignity completely

I watched some of the Sunday shows and that was the prevailing view points. How could any sane person possibly think he had been picked on. He brought it all upon himself and now wants to play the victim. I mean really how could anyone think clinton was picked on. What nerve of those Clintons.

[lancdem]

9. That's because the Washington media

was too lazy to investigate the VRWC since it would force them to aknowledge their own culpability in it.

[DulceDecorum]

4. I like boring

The Bush memoirs are too "interesting" by half.
A terrorist attack every year,
a financial collapse every month,
a scandal every week,
and plenty of deaths every day.

Ever since that boy stole the election,
the kindest thing to be said about the US
is that thanks to them,
We live in interesting times.

[mark0rama]

6. Isn't that a curse?

"May you live in interesting times", that is?

[DulceDecorum]

11. Yup

and look at the incumbent pretzledent.
http://www.artofresistance.org/bush_mosaic/

[VolcanoJen]

7. George W Bush's Presidency slammed as "Insane"

That's the review I plan to write, on November 2, 2004.

:D

[Sequoia]

8. Well, coming from the lying New York Times

who's got egg on their face from that Judith Miller and other made up news what can you expect. That paper is so useless anymore.

[gratuitous]

10. One of their major beefs appears to be . . .

It seems the major beef of most reviews, and I've read a couple, is that Clinton doesn't spend 850 of the 900 pages detailing what he and Monica were doing. You know, like Ken Starr did.

Instead, Clinton talks about his entire political career (Did you know he was governor of Arkansas? The Times doesn't appear to know that!), and the policies and the programs he worked on. Almost as if there was something else going on between 1992 and 2000 that didn't involve Whitewater, Paula Jones, "Justice" Jim Johnson, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Monica Lewinsky! Can you imagine?

[VolcanoJen]

12. "You know, like Ken Starr did."

Exactly right, gratuitous!!

Guess those pages upon pages of Ken Starr's taxpayer-funded soft pornography just didn't satisfy the, err, needs of the New York Times.

:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Maybe at 957 pages they might have a point

But what editor would tell the ex-president what to do?