No comments about On the Edge of Greatness: The Diaries of John Humphrey, First Director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights, volume 4, 1958-1966.

No comments about Life And Times Of The Right Hon. John Bright.

No comments about Puppermaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.

No comments about On My Honor.

No comments about The Conscience of a Lawyer: Clifford J. Durr and American Civil Liberties, 1899-1975.

No comments about Robert Laird Borden His Memoirs (Cls 47).

No comments about Edmund Burke of Beaconsfield.

5 comments about Hillary's Choice (Random House Large Print (Paper)).

1. This book really has nothing to do with Hillary or the Clintons -- it has everything to do with Gail Sheehy - her mean-spiritedness, her willingness to gossip, her jealousy, her arrogance, her pain. This book is not good journalism -- not recommended for anyone to read.



2. Believe it or not, I am one of the few in the country that is not intimately familiar with all of the scandals of the Clinton presidency. I had hoped that, in reading this book, I would understand a little bit more in depth what had happened to have the nation in an uproar and gain some valuable insights to Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, the bias is so evident in this book that I know that I do not have a complete picture as to what actually happened.

   In Ms. Sheehy's eyes, Clinton is a proverbial villian and she just assumes everyone else feels the same way too. While she could still present her case against him and not interfere with the integrity of the story, she takes every opportunity to make jibes and call him names. It is hardly objective to call him a philanderer incessantly - whether he is or not. However, the main problem with this attitude is that she lets this get in the way of reporting the evidence fairly. For instance, she makes reference to the stories of the State Trooper's quite frequently. She is overly eager to use their stories against Bill when it concerns his affairs. However, when the same sources indicate that there was an affair with Vince Foster by Hillary, she refutes their legitimacy. Then she goes on to refer to their allegations against Bill, seeming to forget that they also made allegations against Hillary. Which is it? Were they really discredited? Were parts discredited? If so, what parts and how? If they were discredited, why include a remark from an alarmed Bill Clinton to the effect that the AR governor should not be upset because he controls the state police? This only legitimizes their stories which gets us back to, so what's the deal with Vince Foster? As you can see, this book left me with many more questions than were answered.

   While I do have a clearer picture of Hillary Clinton, the picture painted of her while in the White House, gives me serious reservation about how she would act if she was actually the President. If this book's assertion that there was really nothing to hide is true, it means that Ms. Clinton can not be trusted to be forthcoming when she believes that the hand is being called - even if she knows she has a winning hand. It would have made more sense to lay out the evidence against her and then give her argument as to specifically why she was withholding evidence. Maybe I could have seen myself doing the same thing if faced with the same situation but this is presented as a woman's grudge against the media for no justifiable reason. Of course, she also nevers really hits the question as to whether records were withheld by Mrs. Clinton. She spends a few paragraphs on the possible reasons an administrative assistant might not come forward with a box if she had been asked to find it and, not finding it, found it under her desk months later. After spending almost a hundred pages on her early life and college years, couldn't we spare a few to address the questions that would undoubtedly be brought up by events during the presidency? It simply doesn' hold water in my opinion. People have to have a reason for doing what they do. Especially people with advisors.




3. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading and rereading quite a number of works addressing the life and times of Hillary Clinton.
   While I am not a great fan of Billie, I must admit to sort of an admiration for Hillary. Be-that-as-it-may, I enjoyed this book. It was well written and I thought pretty well ballanced. Many of the "facts" presented, will have to be tested by time, but for now, I feel they are probably as close to the truth we will get.
   Ms Clinton is certainly one of the more fascinating individuals of our times and I am quite sure history will continue to judge her as such. She is an interesting subject. In many ways, she is us. The author of this book is an interesting writer and between the author and the subject, we get a very interesting story. Thank you Ms Gail for writing it.



4. Read this book and you will understand why Bill and Hillary act as they do. ..... This book is much better than Hillary's fictional account of her life, "Living History". ..... "Hillary's choice is not to know what she knows." ..... A very enlightening account. ...... A "must read".



5. I must really confess that I can,t stand either women, either the author or the Clinton.
   When in college I was forced to read the Rhetoric by Aristotle.Thank goodness, he went on and on and on about how a speaker must first establish her/his reputation and give reasons why she/he should be listened to.
   Isn,t this the same Gail Sheehey who plagarized (read stole) important parts of her first novel Passages from a UCLA Psychiatry professor who was doing research on the subject.She settled out of court wisely, gave the good Dr. some dough, and must have laughed all the way to the bank.That was a long time ago and like Hilary she thought "wow, I can steal a lot of good stuff, not use some of it, pay the guy off and make a fortune." She has churned out book after book,none very good.She should have gone into politics in another country.Obviously, i was biased against the book but tried hard, really, to see if it had many redeeming qualities.
   There is a great deal of factual information about Hilary, her childhood, her relationship with BIll but the interpretations of why she is motivated to do such and such are pretty shabby. I am a psychiatrist and find her attempts at divining both CLinton,s adult personalities from their childhood truamas pathetic guesswork by an amateur. I dont, think the Clinton,s can really stand each other, has anyone seen ANY genuine affection between them for all the time they,ve been on the world stage?They stay together for political and financial reasons and both seem to have very small conscienses while now both getting filthy rich.
   Too be totally fair, some parts of the book are very interesting about many factual occurences Mrs.Clinton background but it didn,t change my mind about the author or the politician.

3 comments about Can a Chief Justice Love God? The Life of John Jay.

1. This is neither a biography of jay, nor a history of his times, but a polemic intended to show that, because John Jay was a Christian, the Founders could not have believed in separation of church and state. As you might expect of one who holds such a thesis, the author writes at about a sixth-grade level. Actually, it reads a lot like "1066 and All That," but this author is deadly serious, and deadly dull. I didn't get very far into the book before deciding to return it, and I would give it zero stars if that were possible.



2. A book for the serious student with indepth research amd scholarship, Phil Webster has succeeded in doing what many have not, unearthing the faith,brillance and strong moral character which helped John Jay to not only endure so many personal tragedies, but accomplish so much for our nation in it's very early years that we as a nation owe him a great amount of gratitude. As laided out masterfully, Phil Webster shows how John Jay was fearless and willing to do what was right. This a book belongs on the shelves of colleges and universities for those students doing serious indepth research papers on US judicial history



3. I hope this was not intended to be a serious historical analysis of the life of John Jay. The writing is high school level, at best. The book abounds in typographical or factual errors: "Louis IV revoked the Treaty of Nantes ...", for example. I have no doubt Mr. Webster, about whom there is no biographical information, is a sincere evangelical Christian. John Jay was also a sincere Christian, but he was an Anglican. Indeed, he was one of the founders of the Episcopal Church on the national level in this country, a fact ignored by Webster. I don't think the Jays would have been comfortable with Webster's description of their marriage: "Sally and John went through the storms of life as a great team because they had that deep faith in Jesus Christ. When things came up in their lives that was [sic] too difficult for them to bear, they had someone to turn to: Jesus Christ. Jesus was their peace, their rock, their fortress." Jay was a Trinitarian, one of the few of the leading "founding fathers" of our country that we know absolutely was a Trinitarian, but he used 18th Century terms like Almighty and Maker to describe God, not the familiar "Jesus" of Webster's 20th Century evangelicalism.
   Yes, Chief Justice John Jay clearly did love God, but it is no more wise to sugar coat his flaws, as Webster clearly does on the issue of his owning slaves into the 19th Century, for example, than it is to ignore his religious beliefs, as some biographers do.
   Don't buy this book. It is a total waste of money. Walter Stahr's book, John Jay, addresses the great man's religious beliefs much more accurately and it provides the appropriate context for them in the life of the man.

No comments about A Family Narrative: Being Reminiscences Of A Revolutionary Officer, Afterwards Judge Of The Court Of Appeals (1849).