What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation
Most Americans saw President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich as staunch foes--"the polar extremes of Pennsylvania Avenue." But as Steven Gillon reveals in The Pact, these powerful adversaries formed a secret alliance in 1997, a pact that would have rocked the political landscape, had it not foundered in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal.
A fascinating look at politics American-style, The Pact offers a riveting account of two of America's most charismatic and influential leaders, detailing both their differences and their striking similarities, and highlighting the profound and lasting impact the tumultuous 1960s had on both their personal and political lives. With the cooperation of both President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich, interviews with key players who have never before spoken about their experiences, along with unprecedented access to Gingrich's private papers, Gillon not only offers a behind-the-scenes look at the budget impasse and the government shutdown in 1995--the famous face-off between Clinton and Gingrich--but he also reveals how the two moved closer together after 1996--closer than anyone knew. In particular, the book illuminates their secret efforts to abandon the liberal and conservative wings of their own parties and strike a bi-partisan deal to reform the "third rail of American politics"--Social Security and Medicare. That potentially groundbreaking effort was swept away by the highly charged reaction to the Lewinsky affair, ending an initiative that might have transformed millions of American lives.
Packed with compelling new revelations about two of the most powerful and intriguing figures of our time, this book will be must reading for everyone interested in politics or current events.
A fascinating look at politics American-style, The Pact offers a riveting account of two of America's most charismatic and influential leaders, detailing both their differences and their striking similarities, and highlighting the profound and lasting impact the tumultuous 1960s had on both their personal and political lives. With the cooperation of both President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich, interviews with key players who have never before spoken about their experiences, along with unprecedented access to Gingrich's private papers, Gillon not only offers a behind-the-scenes look at the budget impasse and the government shutdown in 1995--the famous face-off between Clinton and Gingrich--but he also reveals how the two moved closer together after 1996--closer than anyone knew. In particular, the book illuminates their secret efforts to abandon the liberal and conservative wings of their own parties and strike a bi-partisan deal to reform the "third rail of American politics"--Social Security and Medicare. That potentially groundbreaking effort was swept away by the highly charged reaction to the Lewinsky affair, ending an initiative that might have transformed millions of American lives.
Packed with compelling new revelations about two of the most powerful and intriguing figures of our time, this book will be must reading for everyone interested in politics or current events.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published June 3, 2008
33 people are currently reading
367 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
April 29, 2023
#boring I also wish there were more personal accounts from Clinton and Gingrich (especially since both have autobiographies) and public opinions.
August 10, 2025
Crazy to think how close they were to fixing the biggest political problems still being hashed out today. All derailed by some late-night head.
January 31, 2012
Not the best book in the world, but the ebook was for sale for $1.99 so I can't complain too much. It was an interesting read and I think it gives some good insight into the characters of both Clinton and Gingrich. It does a better job of humanizing Clinton, although that might simply be because he's more human.
In any event, I think the title is a little misleading. This book is really mostly about the backgrounds of Clinton and Gingrich and how it affected their relationship during the Clinton presidency. There is only a relatively limited amount of the book (maybe two chapters) specifically addressing the proposal to overhaul Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I suspect this "secret plan" was added to the book late as a hook to draw in readers. If so, it worked on me.
One additional flaw that really stood out to me may seem like a minor quibble, but I found it particularly irritating. Gillon quotes David Brock several times and in the process refers to him as a conservative. David Brock may have been conservative at one time, but not for quite some time, and certainly not when this book was published. In more recent years, he founded Media Matters for America, a left wing organization, and can now best be considered a liberal partisan. Not sure how Gillon could have missed that one, especially since he quoted from "Blinded by the Right", Brock's book about his transition away from the Republican Party.
In any event, I think the title is a little misleading. This book is really mostly about the backgrounds of Clinton and Gingrich and how it affected their relationship during the Clinton presidency. There is only a relatively limited amount of the book (maybe two chapters) specifically addressing the proposal to overhaul Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I suspect this "secret plan" was added to the book late as a hook to draw in readers. If so, it worked on me.
One additional flaw that really stood out to me may seem like a minor quibble, but I found it particularly irritating. Gillon quotes David Brock several times and in the process refers to him as a conservative. David Brock may have been conservative at one time, but not for quite some time, and certainly not when this book was published. In more recent years, he founded Media Matters for America, a left wing organization, and can now best be considered a liberal partisan. Not sure how Gillon could have missed that one, especially since he quoted from "Blinded by the Right", Brock's book about his transition away from the Republican Party.
August 4, 2013
The author and I differ in a major idea. Steven M. Gillon sees it as a tragedy that the Monica Lewinsky scandal permanently damaged the progress of talks between Clinton and Gingrich to make Social Security and Medicare a quasi public/private entity. They were going to make history with their "pact". I see it as salvation that Monica Lewinsky came along and destroyed the ability for the two men to finalize their pact. Gingrich ended up being swallowed up and destroyed by the conservatives and Clinton had to seek protection with the liberal side of his party. I see it as salvation. I also learned how the anti-immigrant provisions and welfare to work bills came to be. Clinton was essentially forced to sign them or not get anything done. The lesson there is that the laws weren't changed later on but became more harmful to legal immigrants and things became worse. Food stamp eligibility was cut which didn't seem to matter in flush times as it does in bad. This is an interesting book and it was good to revisit the Clinton presidency and Republican Gingrich and House. The repercussions of what happened still ate with us today.
September 17, 2020
This was the second book I read to try to learn how American politics went from a rather sporting rivalry commonly found in 'normal' countries to the current ugly partisanship which seems like a country on the brink of war. As it is written by an academic, I expected it to be a bit better than the journalistic first book I read on the matter. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...) Instead I was disappointed. For all the flaws of Kornacki, he achieves more insight into 'what's gone wrong'. Having said that, though, Gillon probably didn't set out to write such a book.
Gillon's interest resembles that of the ancient historian Plutarch. He sets out in his introduction his case that Clinton and Gingrich had enough in common that they could, in fact, have led a bipartisan regime that would navigate the US political economy through an apparent crisis in its social welfare provisions, most importantly the worrying problem of funding the Social Security system. He then spends the rest of his book following a Plutarchian model of showing how the characters flaws in each man drove them into a situation where their shortcomings derailed their hesitant but genuine ambition to work together.
Despite admiring Gillon's own ambition here, I found his execution a bit lacklustre. He possibly hews too closely to Plutarch's placement of the characters in the foreground. The most imteresting parts of the story, to me, were the views of each man's staff. I got a much better sense of the pressure they were under from these quotes, but Clinton in particular, about whom there is much more staff commentary, remains opaque in his attitudes towards Gingrich and towards the compromises necessary to make government policy. Did 'Slick Willie' really believe in anything other than winning elections? Gingrich is the opposite. He very much believes in what he has to sell, and as the aggressor sets the terms of the engagement. Clinton's relativism and electoralism means he sees his job as yielding enough to maintain his party's hold on the White House, and perhaps recover ground in Congress.
What was the most important lesson from the book, though, is a very important one indeed. I wonder how many people at the time would have thought Clinton and Gingrich held amicable conversations away from the need to deliver the reddest of meat to the media? The theatre of the media, in my experience, is an obsession for normal people, and perhaps explains the savage world of Twitter or Facebook. The reality of politics is that politicians all know that they have to rip at one another in order to ascend or maintain their grasp on the greasy pole. Thus, they tolerate much of the abuse they throw at each other as simply part of the game. The ability to make trades in the once-smoke-filled rooms mustn't be compromised for an insult here or there. (Although each person has their boundaries that sometimes get disrespected, leading to enduring animosity.) So, when watching the clowns on cable news, remember that their job is to be part of these theatrics. You're probably better turning it off and turning on, suprisingly, to a judiciously curated set of Twitter follows.
Gillon's interest resembles that of the ancient historian Plutarch. He sets out in his introduction his case that Clinton and Gingrich had enough in common that they could, in fact, have led a bipartisan regime that would navigate the US political economy through an apparent crisis in its social welfare provisions, most importantly the worrying problem of funding the Social Security system. He then spends the rest of his book following a Plutarchian model of showing how the characters flaws in each man drove them into a situation where their shortcomings derailed their hesitant but genuine ambition to work together.
Despite admiring Gillon's own ambition here, I found his execution a bit lacklustre. He possibly hews too closely to Plutarch's placement of the characters in the foreground. The most imteresting parts of the story, to me, were the views of each man's staff. I got a much better sense of the pressure they were under from these quotes, but Clinton in particular, about whom there is much more staff commentary, remains opaque in his attitudes towards Gingrich and towards the compromises necessary to make government policy. Did 'Slick Willie' really believe in anything other than winning elections? Gingrich is the opposite. He very much believes in what he has to sell, and as the aggressor sets the terms of the engagement. Clinton's relativism and electoralism means he sees his job as yielding enough to maintain his party's hold on the White House, and perhaps recover ground in Congress.
What was the most important lesson from the book, though, is a very important one indeed. I wonder how many people at the time would have thought Clinton and Gingrich held amicable conversations away from the need to deliver the reddest of meat to the media? The theatre of the media, in my experience, is an obsession for normal people, and perhaps explains the savage world of Twitter or Facebook. The reality of politics is that politicians all know that they have to rip at one another in order to ascend or maintain their grasp on the greasy pole. Thus, they tolerate much of the abuse they throw at each other as simply part of the game. The ability to make trades in the once-smoke-filled rooms mustn't be compromised for an insult here or there. (Although each person has their boundaries that sometimes get disrespected, leading to enduring animosity.) So, when watching the clowns on cable news, remember that their job is to be part of these theatrics. You're probably better turning it off and turning on, suprisingly, to a judiciously curated set of Twitter follows.
August 23, 2024
Political junkies should enjoy this one.
In one corner, you have a centrist Democrat "searching for a way to restore public faith in progressive government." In the other corner, an antitax Republican willing to pursue scorched-earth good-vs-evil messaging to obtain power. Neither side trusted the other. Their feud shut down the government in 1995. Speaker Gingrich, despite his reputation as a man of ideas, was a moral and ethical hypocrite prone to pettiness. President Clinton, despite his reputation as a political visionary, couldn't resist self-destructive behavior, as the affair with Lewinsky started during the shutdown.
What was the result of this odd couple's partisan brawling? Arguably the last sustained period of sane fiscal policy we had in Washington DC.
While he did not pursue a grand left-wing agenda when the Republicans took Congress in the 1994 mid-terms, Clinton did achieve some progressive victories: a tuition tax credit, a minimum wage increase, funding for class-size reduction and more teachers, and various health care initiatives. But in the words of the late David Boaz, "the bad ideas were mostly small" as government spending rose by only 1.5% a year. Going against the progressive agenda, the Clinton-Gingrich era achieved welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut. If you include Newt's time as minority whip, Gillon makes it clear Gingrich was instrumental in helping Clinton secure the votes for NAFTA.
Gillon's book gives a good accounting of all this, along with the backgrounds of the two protagonists that led them to their positions of power. The politics and posturing behind the shutdown reads like a great soap opera. Gillon makes a credible argument that Clinton and Gingrich wound up closer to each other on fiscal priorities than either man was with the House leadership of their own parties. Because of this, I'm not that convinced their "pact" to reform Social Security was ever realistic. Even if the Lewinsky scandal hadn't occurred, it seems likely other political considerations would have torpedoed their efforts.
While the Lewinsky scandal had to be addressed, this section of the book was, by far, the least interesting to read.
Overall, though, The Pact is a fairly balanced book about a critical time period this reader looks back at wistfully. Definitely recommended.
In one corner, you have a centrist Democrat "searching for a way to restore public faith in progressive government." In the other corner, an antitax Republican willing to pursue scorched-earth good-vs-evil messaging to obtain power. Neither side trusted the other. Their feud shut down the government in 1995. Speaker Gingrich, despite his reputation as a man of ideas, was a moral and ethical hypocrite prone to pettiness. President Clinton, despite his reputation as a political visionary, couldn't resist self-destructive behavior, as the affair with Lewinsky started during the shutdown.
What was the result of this odd couple's partisan brawling? Arguably the last sustained period of sane fiscal policy we had in Washington DC.
While he did not pursue a grand left-wing agenda when the Republicans took Congress in the 1994 mid-terms, Clinton did achieve some progressive victories: a tuition tax credit, a minimum wage increase, funding for class-size reduction and more teachers, and various health care initiatives. But in the words of the late David Boaz, "the bad ideas were mostly small" as government spending rose by only 1.5% a year. Going against the progressive agenda, the Clinton-Gingrich era achieved welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut. If you include Newt's time as minority whip, Gillon makes it clear Gingrich was instrumental in helping Clinton secure the votes for NAFTA.
Gillon's book gives a good accounting of all this, along with the backgrounds of the two protagonists that led them to their positions of power. The politics and posturing behind the shutdown reads like a great soap opera. Gillon makes a credible argument that Clinton and Gingrich wound up closer to each other on fiscal priorities than either man was with the House leadership of their own parties. Because of this, I'm not that convinced their "pact" to reform Social Security was ever realistic. Even if the Lewinsky scandal hadn't occurred, it seems likely other political considerations would have torpedoed their efforts.
While the Lewinsky scandal had to be addressed, this section of the book was, by far, the least interesting to read.
Overall, though, The Pact is a fairly balanced book about a critical time period this reader looks back at wistfully. Definitely recommended.
October 23, 2017
The author presents a very detailed picture of the bipartisan coalition and how it came about that Social Security almost had privatization added; but the Lewinsky scandal interfered. The author phrases the issue this way: "Whether the president and the Speaker could have pulled off a major overhaul of Social Security had it not been for the Lewinsky scandal will remain one of the great unanswerable questions of modern politics." Some have the opinion that Clinton could not have overhauled Social Security even if the scandal had not happened; others that it is precisely because of the scandal that the overhaul did not happen. And that latter part is more borne out by the lack of bipartisan support during the impeachment process.
Other interesting tidbits: Interviews by the author had the most direct support for the idea that both Clinton and Gingrich were working together to "save Social Security" though a form of privatization.
Clinton was described as a "conservative Republican" or a "New Democrat".
It also outlined the history that both Gingrich and Clinton had grown up with, including Lyndon Johnson's Great Society (Medicare & Medicaid), the 1960's and their effect on the two; the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act which were supported by Democrats and led to white people fleeing to the Republicans.
It gave the impact that Gingrich's campaign tactics have on partisan politics, even today.
This was a dense book, so it may take a while to read it.
Other interesting tidbits: Interviews by the author had the most direct support for the idea that both Clinton and Gingrich were working together to "save Social Security" though a form of privatization.
Clinton was described as a "conservative Republican" or a "New Democrat".
It also outlined the history that both Gingrich and Clinton had grown up with, including Lyndon Johnson's Great Society (Medicare & Medicaid), the 1960's and their effect on the two; the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act which were supported by Democrats and led to white people fleeing to the Republicans.
It gave the impact that Gingrich's campaign tactics have on partisan politics, even today.
This was a dense book, so it may take a while to read it.
April 22, 2019
I really enjoyed this book. A lot of the information in the book, I already knew but maybe not at such a granular level. I left the book thinking this is a good example of what can happen when someone uses their intellectual talent for evil. No one disputes that Gingrich is by all accounts a well-read and intelligent man and surely knows how to read data and science. However, he chose to be a bombastic bomb-thrower of a politician and is largely and rightly credited with destroying the civility that used to exist in politics with his brand of no-holds bar fighting. Of course, history has and will continue to bare out that he and his party are largely hypocrites when it comes to the issue of the deficit. When there is a Democratic president, just whine and bemoan the danger to the future generation caused by America's deficit but when there is a Republican president, all of a sudden, deficits don't matter anymore.
Clinton, well he's Clinton and say what you may about him but last time I checked, the only 4 years from 1969 to present and maybe the foreseeable future, there have been deficits EVERY SINGLE YEAR EXCEPT for 4 years...and who presided over those 4 years? Clinton.
Clinton, well he's Clinton and say what you may about him but last time I checked, the only 4 years from 1969 to present and maybe the foreseeable future, there have been deficits EVERY SINGLE YEAR EXCEPT for 4 years...and who presided over those 4 years? Clinton.
February 17, 2022
thorough, nuanced, interesting
March 6, 2012
Each time I think political posturing cannot get worse, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination slouch a little lower. Each time I think they cannot get crazier, they add a wing to their asylum. Historian Steven M. Gillon provides an intriguing (and depressing) backstory in “The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry That Defined a Generation.”
In short: Blame the 1960s.
Republicans hated Clinton because he was, as Gillon quotes a conservative, “a womanizing, Elvis-loving, non-inhaling, truth-shading, war-protesting, draft-dodging, abortion-protecting, gay-promoting, gun-hating baby boomer.”
And yet the mortal enemies Clinton and Gingrich were ready to cut the far left and far right loose by agreeing on a plan to fix Social Security, according to Gillon, who bases his thesis on private papers and many interviews.
But along came Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress. Suddenly, nothing mattered to Democrats except Clinton’s survival. Nothing mattered to Republicans except Clinton’s destruction.
Fourteen years later, here we are, still playing the same sad ideological game. Social Security is still a stick of dynamite. Barack Obama must ask himself every night as he wanders the haunted halls of the White House, “Why do they hate me? I did not ‘not inhale.’ I did not ‘not have sex with that woman.’ ”
Strangely, Clinton wasn’t that liberal, and neither is Obama. But because the Republicans are still fighting their own private Gettysburg against the 1960s, they hate (and will always hate) so-called liberals.
If you don’t remember the 1990s because you were lost in a marijuana haze, “The Pact” will help you understand why we are still stuck, and why we will remain stuck until all the politicians who remember the disgustingly evil 1960s are dead.
Until then, it will remain amusing to watch the Santorumites and Godrichers and Romneyvores scream and writhe and froth as fewer young people care who marries whom, as more states approve gay marriage. The Founding Fathers called it pursuit of happiness. They probably would have grooved on the ’60s.
In short: Blame the 1960s.
Republicans hated Clinton because he was, as Gillon quotes a conservative, “a womanizing, Elvis-loving, non-inhaling, truth-shading, war-protesting, draft-dodging, abortion-protecting, gay-promoting, gun-hating baby boomer.”
And yet the mortal enemies Clinton and Gingrich were ready to cut the far left and far right loose by agreeing on a plan to fix Social Security, according to Gillon, who bases his thesis on private papers and many interviews.
But along came Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress. Suddenly, nothing mattered to Democrats except Clinton’s survival. Nothing mattered to Republicans except Clinton’s destruction.
Fourteen years later, here we are, still playing the same sad ideological game. Social Security is still a stick of dynamite. Barack Obama must ask himself every night as he wanders the haunted halls of the White House, “Why do they hate me? I did not ‘not inhale.’ I did not ‘not have sex with that woman.’ ”
Strangely, Clinton wasn’t that liberal, and neither is Obama. But because the Republicans are still fighting their own private Gettysburg against the 1960s, they hate (and will always hate) so-called liberals.
If you don’t remember the 1990s because you were lost in a marijuana haze, “The Pact” will help you understand why we are still stuck, and why we will remain stuck until all the politicians who remember the disgustingly evil 1960s are dead.
Until then, it will remain amusing to watch the Santorumites and Godrichers and Romneyvores scream and writhe and froth as fewer young people care who marries whom, as more states approve gay marriage. The Founding Fathers called it pursuit of happiness. They probably would have grooved on the ’60s.
September 18, 2023
enemies to lovers to enemies
Read
April 10, 2014Amazing but not surprising, Clinton was no progressive and Gingrich was no true wingnut. Both were on the quick and dirty with their sex life and the same with their political sense of what could get them ahead (pun intended). The fact that Lewinsky was suddenly in appearance at precisely the right time seems too much the hand of fate to believe it was simply a coincidence. I cannot shake the suspicion that someone knew and, as the CIA would do, simply put the two principals in position and let nature take its course. In view of the AARP's caving into the Republican party strategy for Part D Medicate (let Big Pharma have its way), I am sure they would have got away with selling out Social Security and presenting it to the elderly of America as a fait acompli for which they would be powerless to find adequate defense in the political system in order to regain the money which they had paid into FICA their entire working life.
February 4, 2012
This is a great book. Some people may read this book and think, Clinton messed up bad and his character made him lose an opportunity for some real big changes. Some may read it and say Gingrich messed up bad and his character also caused him to step in it and lose any chance for some big changes. I read this book and saw two serious amazing personalities,flawed and full of ego but pulled by their respective right/left wing of their parties not to compromise when they really wanted to. Both caught in this era of partisan politics but both wanting desperately to break out of that and become bigger then they became. To leave a mark on society. Partisan politics stopped that, ego's and behavior stopped that and it looks like in our present time we will never get that chance again to bridge the gap between political parties. An amazing book.
May 2, 2010
This is a very detailed, well researched book that changed my images of both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich: the two were more closely aligned than their public posturing and politicking made them out to be. Not that they were bosom buddies--it was a complicated relationship, and each tried to meet in the middle on many issues despite the urgings of their more radical constituents. In politics, it isn't always what it seems to be. So, from that point of view, this is a very interesting book, if you're interested in reading about politics.
That said, Gillon puts a WHOLE lot into the details, giving quotations from three or four different people saying the same thing and repeating the same points through several chapters. So you can skim your way through some of this.
That said, Gillon puts a WHOLE lot into the details, giving quotations from three or four different people saying the same thing and repeating the same points through several chapters. So you can skim your way through some of this.
February 4, 2013
An engaging account of the mid-1990s battle between President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The author, Steven Gillon, goes a fine job of making you feel like a fly on the wall during high-stakes budget negotiations, even if he also overdoes his thesis that the Clinton-Gingrich battle is a refraction of the fight over the meaning of the 1960s. A fascinating political tragedy of two men undone (at least partly) by their own excesses. Being a Democrat, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to Clinton and his actions as President (his "official" actions, that is)--but even so, Gingrich is a more complex figure that the standard media stereotypes would lead one to think. Overall, I'd recommend this for good, if a bit tunnel-visioned, insight into 1990s politics.
February 1, 2012
One of the most interesting things about this book was just how much Clinton & Gingrich were influenced by the 60ies. The author Gillon, states that while Clinton & Gingrich took opposing views on subjects that were first raised in the 60ies, Clinton did all he could to find some common ground in order for the two parties to come to some agreements, whereas Gingrich went out of his way to keep them apart. Gillon makes the case that the nasty, partisan, hypocritical, and self centered actions of Gingrich make him the leading cause for the ever growing animosity between the the parties. After reading this book, the fact that Gingrich is even being considered as President boggles my mind.
June 1, 2012
Everything old is new again. This was a great look at Clinton and Gingrich, and also eerily reminiscent of today's dynamics. My favorite point was when Newt's advisor on the eve of the 1994 Republican Revolution told him that there was good news and bad news. The good news: they would gain a lot of seats. The bad news: "wait until you meet them."
A fascinating time, and fascinating characters.
A fascinating time, and fascinating characters.
January 28, 2012
This book wasn't perfect--it tended to be a bit shallow and pop-psychology-dependent at times. But it gave great insight into events in the 90's and especially pertinent right now, great insight into Newt Gingrich and what kind of president he might make. Interesting read in light of recent developments in the Republican primaries; there are things in here everyone should know about Gingrich.
January 28, 2012
Not the world's most exciting book. However, I really enjoyed reading it. Both men, Clinton and Gingrich, grew up at the same time, and their political careers were aligned, most definitely. I learned a lot that I didn't know about both of them. After reading this I will not be voting for Gingrich. But now I will not be voting because of understanding and knowledge I gained from this book.
January 5, 2011
Detailed and insightful account of two influential figures. A very enjoyable read.
February 19, 2012
Outstanding. I enjoyed this book so much. Highly recommend to the politically minded.
September 16, 2013
I read this for one of my undergraduate classes and I found it pretty interesting considering I had, and still have at times, no interest in politics.
December 14, 2014
compelling,
Read
May 17, 2017Short but interesting. The author admits in the final pages that more detailed analysis has to wait for the historical resources to become available, but otherwise his thesis holds up well that Clinton and Gingrich each stumbled, and ultimately were pushed together by the fire of their respective party's ideologues until the Lewinsky scandal shut down their efforts to form a centrist coalition. If nothing else this is a good primer into 90's U.S. politics that has left me interested to learn more and better equipped to delve deeper.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews