I'm looking for the review from the Chi. Sun-Times on Sunday, but start with this one:
Snip:
By the midpoint of the book, unfortunately, the author seems to be obsessed with Clinton's sex life. Granted, Clinton's sins of the flesh were abundant, but the stories Hamilton tells are based to a great extent on accounts by men and women who for one reason or another had come to distrust or loathe Bill and Hillary Clinton, individually and as a couple, or who had scores to settle with them.
The stories have been told before, of course, but with less detail and usually without the names of the women who played a part in them. Sex sells, and that might be why Hamilton saturates his book with it, as such chapter subtitles as these reveal: "Having Sex Day and Night," "Sex at an Ever Higher Intensity" and "Carnal Revelations." But in so doing, Hamilton fails to do justice to the effective public service rendered by the Clintons through the years.
In reviewing a biography, it is tempting to focus on the subject rather than on the biographer's purposes, strategies and accomplishments in reconstructing the subject's life. That is particularly so when the subject is a contemporary figure, and even more so when the subject's life and career have been controversial.
But a reviewer must note when biographers treat their subjects unfairly. Some biographers strive to write in critical but unbiased ways. Robert Dallek's biographies of Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy reflect a high standard in this respect. Others tend to seek out sources that will give them information, insights and perspectives that fit their preconceptions. Robert Caro, notwithstanding all the praise and prizes he has won with his biographies of Johnson, seems generally to work in this manner, more so in the first volume of his series than in the latter two.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/reviews.nsf/0/59E205055239480986256DAE0008B12B?OpenDocument&Headline=Biased+biography+shreds+Clintons,+titillates+rather+than+shedding+light