Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate

by Bob Woodward

A New York Times Notable Book of the Year

Twenty-five years ago, after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Gerald Ford promised a return to normalcy. "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over," President Ford declared.

But it was not. The Watergate scandal, and the remedies against future abuses of power, would have an enduring impact on presidents and the country. In Shadow, Bob Woodward takes us deep into the administrations of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton to describe how each discovered that the presidency was forever altered. With special emphasis on the human toll, Woodward shows the consequences of the new ethics laws, and the emboldened Congress and media. Powerful investigations increasingly stripped away the privacy and protections once expected by the nation's chief executive.

Shadow is an authoritative, unsettling narrative of the modern, beleaguered presidency.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Presidents, American History, Biography, Us Presidents

632 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Robert "Bob" Upshur Woodward is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. While an investigative reporter for that newspaper, Woodward, working with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein, helped uncover the Watergate scandal that led to U.S. President Richard Nixon's resignation. Woodward has written 12 best-selling non-fiction books and has twice contributed reporting to efforts that collectively earned the Post and its National Reporting staff a Pulitzer Prize.

Reviews

[Chris Dey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was surprised at how little I enjoyed this book as I usually like Bob Woodward's writing. Reading Shadow made me realize that when I like Bob Woodward, it's when his work is contemporary. What I mean is that his style of writing and reporting is conducive only to stories and books that are about the here and now in the political world. He assumes the reader will know enough about the actors in his story that he does not need to provide any background details about who they are, how they came to be the assistant secretary of state, and why the President trusts him or her. It's just assumed you know who chief of staff is, and his personality. Woodward never develops the character because is his mind and with his writing, the characters are already set...they are static figures as he simply recaps the events from within the White House.

Here is what is good about the book: As someone who was born in mid 80's, I started to only understand who the President was and what he did right around when Bill Clinton became President. Therefore, I remember all of the scandal and people being upset at him, but I never really understood the background...why did he have to testify in a grand jury? What was Whitewater? Why did they need Monica Lewinsky's dress? The book does a really good job of following the Clinton Presidency as he deals with scandal after scandal, and Woodward does a good explaining the background of Whitewater, and the Lewinsky affair.

Additionally, the book, albeit inadvertently and tangentially, makes a compelling argument that the special prosecutor process that was created by Congress after Watergate has actually done more harm than good. An independent prosecutor with no limits on resources or time coupled with an extremely liberal mandate to find "criminal activity" in the executive branch can lead to multi-year investigations into items that in world of state or federal prosecutors, would be resolved in weeks and months, not years. (Drugs, failure to disclose items to the taxman, etc.) While Woodward does not directly examine the impact of the law, and at times, he does seem to support it, the evolution of the book traces the growing power of these prosecutor's and culminates with Ken Starr whose initial investigation into Whitewater lead to an impeachment of the president for lying to a grand jury about sex with a White House Intern.

What is bad about the book is that the book purports to examine Watergate and how it has impacted presidents from Ford to Clinton. Instead, you get an author who just repeats conversations that he became privy to either in person or through sources during various crises in each President's tenure. There is no consistent story, no consistent theme, and there are so many characters that show up for a paragraph or two, disappear, and are never seen from again. Many times, these people are brought in simply so that Woodward can tell the reader how the president was feeling on a certain issue at a certain time, or some quote he thinks is important to show the human side of these men. Instead, the reader is constantly trying to remember peoples names and titles. But what is probably the worst element of the book is that the author's perception of leaks, of disclosure, and the importance of watergate is clearly more self-indulgent than an actual academic or journalistic enterprise. Woodward made his name by breaking the Watergate story so he clearly has an incentive to find remnants of Watergate throughout each presidency, and that's exactly what he does. And no matter what, his conclusion is always the same: the president should have disclosed everything at once to the press, and he should have been nicer to the press. I wonder why Mr. Woodward feels that way...

If you are looking for a good recap of the Clinton scandal and how it played out, this is an ok book. Other than that, it's not worth your time.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bob Woodward, who with his partner, Carl Bernstein, brought down the Nixon Administration with their exposes of Watergate. Twenty-five years later, Bob Woodward would take a crack at the legacy that Nixon left behind on the presidency itself and how that institution would have to cope with restrictive laws and scrutiny that it did not have in the past. The book examines how the five presidents who followed Nixon have had to handle that terrible legacy. It is also however, a strong indictment on the very existence of the Office of the Independent Counsel that was created in response to Watergate.

Woodward begins with Gerald Ford the immediate successor who, after already making history by being the nation's first appointed vice president, becomes President on the moment of Nixon's resignation. The first major crisis he would have to deal with would be rather or not he, President Ford, should pardon Nixon, who did not want to admit to doing anything wrong. The new President would have a hard time with new national mood, which was very sensitive to any perceived abuse of executive powers. Woodward's analysis is that Ford suffered from only having run in campaigns no bigger than a Michigan congressional district. Every other president, even former 'accidental presidents,' had to at least campaign in one national campaign. Ford was unique in the fact that he did not have the experience coming into the presidency, which made it difficult for him to function.

"As the years have passed, I have become more and more convinced that Ford made the correct decision in pardoning Nixon. Nixon had already paid the political death penalty of resignation, and for Ford a pardon was the only way of ending the public and media obsession with his predecessor's future. The problem in the pardon was in Ford's execution. To be successful, the pardon required elaborate orchestration. The public, Congress and the media needed to be prepared. Ford should have mustered all his sense of decency to explain his actions to the public. He should have seen the danger and avoided the discussions of the pardon with Haig. He should have required Nixon to sign a statement admitting his guilt and release it with the pardon."p.37

In 1977, Jimmy Carter replaced Gerald Ford under the promise he would never lie to or deceive the American people. That was a promise he could not keep. Worse, Carter in signed into law the Ethics in Government Act that was intended to clean up government and prevent future President Nixons, and was a disaster. Failing to understand that the Founding Fathers always knew that man like Nixon would come along, and thus created a system of checks and balances and a free press within the Constitution, the U.S. Congress and President Carter decided to that another 'President Nixon' should be made impossible. The law would allow what would be later called an Independent Counsel, to become a fourth branch of government. The Carter Administration would pay dearly as investigation after investigation would go on for months at a time.

"The shadow the two-month Lance scandal cast was long, deepening the alienation Carter felt toward the Congress, the media and Washington. The implicit promise that he would never allow a repetition of the national Watergate embarrassment was in question. Carter realized he had somewhat ostentatiously sought high ethical and legal standards but was quick to seek exception for a friend." p.61

The book takes a small detour to discuss Theodore Olson's brave fight against the Act. Olson, who after this book was written would go on to argue for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore and is now trying to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, fought an independent counsel all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Morrison v. Olson was one of the most wrongly decided cases in history, but Justice Scalia* had a powerful dissent that hopefully may become the majority opinion if the Supreme Court ever had to review a case like it again.

"Olson found immense comfort in Justice Scalia's dissent, which said the dispute was about one thing: 'Power.' Since Article II of the Constitution vest all executive power in the president, including the power to investigate and prosecute crimes, Scalia wrote that the law modified the Constitution. 'How much removal of presidential power is too much? Many countries of the world get along with an executive that is much weaker than ours--in fact, entirely dependent on the continued support of the legislature. Once we depart from the text of the Constitution, just where short of that do we stop?' The prospect of an independent counsel turned loose was 'frightening...One must grieve for the Constitution,' Scalia argued." p.94

In his section on Ronald Reagan, Woodward skips right to the last quarter of Reagan's presidency when the Iran-Contra affair was heating up. Judge Lawrence Walsh, who would be the Independent Counsel assigned in this case would carry on his investigation for six years, long after Reagan left office, and did not stop until President Bush pardoned most everyone. Walsh even had Reagan under oath when he was clearly severely affected by his Alzheimer's disease creating a pathetic and sad show.

"Walsh respected what Reagan had done so far as president. He did not sense public anger with Reagan, as had been the case with Nixon. He decided to move carefully. He would try to make cases against North and Poindexter, and then see what developed. He had no plan to prosecute Reagan, although many in the White House, Congress and the media assumed he was moving to lay the grounds to impeach the president. Walsh suspected that President Reagan knew about the diversion of millions of dollars from the Iran arms sales profits to his beloved contras. But he couldn't project precisely where he was taking his investigation. 'I sort of move as I feel,' he said. His style was to be deferential to the president, but not to his men." p.131

George Bush would have to deal with many scandals during his own presidency. One was the Savings and Loans scandal involving his son, Neil Bush, and the author was Walsh investigation of Iran-Contra that he inherited from his predecessor. Reading this book over decade after it first came out, I am a little amused by Woodward's reasoning for George Bush's problems. According to Woodward, Bush lacked the killer instinct that most politicians have. I find this interesting because his son, President George W. Bush, clearly did not lack that instinct.

"Bush's political skills were interpersonal--the chummy heads of state club he managed so well and loved even more. Struggle, name-calling, digging into a motivation or person's life deeply offended him. He generally didn't make noise or protest. He had built his career as the patron of other Republican presidents, turning setbacks into opportunities. Nixon had rescued him from defeat in 1970, after he had lost the Texas Senate race, appointing him United Nations Ambassador. Ford had made him director of central intelligence, his first major executive post and one with mystique. Reagan had selected him to be vice president after he lost the nomination.

Bush had played by the accepted rules of the Republican Party and gentlemanly restraint had served him well. But the same qualities that had helped Bush reach the presidency hurt him once he became president. He had not acquired the political skills that many politicians develop through struggle and adversity." p.223

The book then turns to President Bill Clinton, who was president at the time of the book's publication and who over half this book is about. President Clinton would face the worst attack on the institution of the presidency since Andrew Johnson was impeached. In fact, Clinton would share that legacy with the first President Johnson. The attack on Clinton was in part his own fault, not just for his foolish behavior, but also because he did not let the Ethics in Government Act expire when he should.

"In any form, Nussbaum was opposed. 'Here is an institution I understand,' he told Clinton. 'It is evil. They have one case. They have unlimited resources. They have no time limit. Their entire reputation hinges on making that one case.'

Nussbaum recalled for the president that when he had worked as a prosecutor, he had many cases going, often simultaneously. If one didn't work out he could turn to another in the stack. The process naturally drew the prosecutor's attention to the most obvious and important crimes--the ones with the best evidence. In contrast, an independent prosecutor closed the office only when no crimes were found. It becomes a magnet for allegations, Nussbaum said. The office might as well be an advertisement for people to bring in dirt. The Justice Department is at least accountable to the president in a sense on a president's side, he argued. The Justice Department would at least receive and evaluate allegations with a presumption of innocence. An independent prosecutor can and often does operate with a presumption of guilt, he maintained." p.234-5

Clinton would endure an assault on him and his presidency that none of the Founders could have imagined. The President found himself being degraded and humiliated in a way no president should have gone though. His personal sins were exposed in ways that had nothing to with the government. Clinton would be impeached and acquitted. After the public uproar the Office of the Independent Counsel would be abolished, hopefully for good. Although, this book was published prior to that great event happening.

"During the pre-Lewinsky phase of the Whitewater investigation, from 1994 to early 1998, the Clintons and their attorney David Kendall reacted too many times as if the scandal were Watergate. They seemed to be hiding. Scrambling for cover, the Clintons and their lawyers played their parts too well. The forest is full of wolves, Kendall said. The forest is full of wolves, Kendall said. He believed that some of Starr's deputies were so hostile and aggressive that they had to be beaten into the ground. He had a strong case after 1996. But earlier, in 1994 and 1995, the president, Kendall and Starr should have worked out an arrangement to end the investigation at any reasonable cost. The prolonged investigation became an abuse in itself. Starr's decision to send a massive narrative of the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual relationship to Congress as part of his impeachment referral was pathetic and unwise. His determination to continue the marginal investigations and prosecutions after he had essentially completed his Clinton inquiries made no sense. Starr had lost his way." p.515-6

This is book is a fascinating look into American Government of the late twentieth century. It no longer has the same 'feel' when it first came out since it is becoming more history than news. Since this book was written we have had two presidents and I find it difficult to envision a Starr-like investigation into a president in the era of the 'War on Terror' and that is good thing. If a president is ever again impeached, let it be for a real reason.

*Who I disagree with on many things.

[Michael Huang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ever since watergate, the suspicion of executive branch overreach and cover-up has been a theme connecting the five presidents from Ford to Clinton.

For Ford, it was the suspicion of a deal made to grant Nixon pardon in exchange of his resignation.

Carter, guided by some high-minded but naive principles pledged full honesty and transparency and signed the law of special counsel. The position is, according to Scalia, "a mini executive…operating in an area where so little is law, so much is discretion", which really aptly described the case for Clinton later.

Regan was mired in Iran-Contra, which he can't remember much about and the special counsel can't fully investigate. But that did drag all the way to the re-election campaign of Bush (senior). Clinton deftly used that to imply Bush is not clean.

Half of the book is on Clinton and we all remember why.

After one clean president, now it's another show of the independent counsel. It's a nice read to put the office into some perspective. But Woodward always appears to have been paid by the number of words. The first-level historical events and lessons learned could be summed up in 30 pages tops. The rest reads like a dump of his brief case.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Through the various scandals and controversies as well as reactions to and consequences thereof during the five presidencies following Nixon's resignation, Woodward examines the shadow cast over the office as a consequence of the Watergate revelations. By far the largest part of the book focusses on the Clinton administration, near the end of which this account was published. As always, Woodward strives for as close to perfect objectivity in tone as is humanly possible, making this an interesting and educational read - especially as the events it chronicles were either before my time or during a period when I was at best peripherally aware of what was going on in US politics given that I was a child growing up on a different continent.

[Fostergrants · Rating 2 out of 5]

when i finished this book i was glad i did. glad i finished it not really glad i read it. yes i learned sooooo much about how everyone in politics and government lies and snitches and covers up. bob woodward is brilliant at sniffing out salacious DETAILS and reporting them - and i suspect that most members of the press would love to have a watergate of their very own on which to become famous. i learned that even the leader of the free world writes down in his diary what he wore that day or remembers what he ate - but for some reason can't remember whether or not he ordered money from an arms deal be transfered to another country or whether or not some climbing dingaling gave him a blowjob. i learned that 'independant counsel' lawyers don't mind spending millions of taxpayer dollars to chase a rumor for years as long as someone somewhere loses their job or reputation, and that officials can get pardons as a last resort when they get caught. BUT, whatever my opinion may be of politics, i'm supposed to review the book! so i will say that mr woodward had access to an amazing amount of Details and he chose NOT to leave a SINGLE DETAIL out of this book. in between the Details he adds more Details to flesh out the Details and make the Details more interesting. so many Details. the result was heavy and burdened and jumpy and relentless and sometimes confusing. he would mention something or someone and then never explain. does the whole country still see everything political through the lens of watergate? woodward does not manage to prove this to me. he did show me that our politicians are so busy avoiding scandal and putting out rumor fires, they don't have time to do their job...and yet it has not made them more MORAL.

[Edward Champion · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the first half of this book before the 2024 election and the second half after the 2024 election. And the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal now seems comparatively quaint now that we have elected a fascist, a rapist, and a convicted felon. Even so, Woodward is better about acknowledging how he put this story together (this actually has endnotes) and manages to depict Ken Starr as a prosecutor driven by power and lustful glee without tilting his hand. Monica Lewinsky comes across as a lot smarter and more human here than she did at the time this news broke out. So I'll give Woodward that too. But his attempt to compare Clinton's sins with that of other Presidents who fell short of contending with their own deceit and efforts to stack the deck while in office falls short in its lofty ambition. Still, the Clinton section serves as a frequently gripping and revealing sequel to THE AGENDA and THE CHOICE that demonstrates an outmatched President who truly didn't understand Washington politics and often refused to do so -- even when experienced types like Leon Panetta tried to convey it to him. It's also bizarre to see a young Brett Kavanaugh show up here with some element of moral scrutiny, given how he completely capitulated to the cryptofascism that is now the order of the day. In November 2024, this book comes across as a time capsule of an epoch in American history when everyone, left and right, had far more sophisticated ideas about political corruption, accountability, and holding leaders responsible.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

As analysis, Bob Woodward's Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate leaves a lot to be desired. He fails to articulate a clear narrative linking the various political scandals he covers together, and the intended point of the book gets somewhat lost in the exposition leading to the Clinton impeachment. However, as history, this may be one of Woodward's most interesting and important works. Woodward traces scandal after scandal in the year following Watergate, and he attempts to describe how Richard Nixon's legacy of corruption affected the Presidents who came after him and the press attention given to each administration. He focuses largely on the Clinton administration in the last 3rd of the book, and his rebuke of Ken Starr's almost pathological quest to stain Bill Clinton is apparent, and this is where the book really starts to shine. The absurdity and disgust of that era is clearly as much the fault of Ken Starr and the Republican leaders who motivated a multi-million dollar investigation into a private sex act. That, just a few years after the publication of this book, the 9/11 Commission Report would find that the Republican push for impeachment distracted the nation, Congress and the President from fighting terror is proof that Woodward's coverage of the period is accurate. One of Woodward's finest works.

NC

[Steve Van Slyke · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is not so much about the legacy of Watergate as it is about the Special Prosecutor function, and whether or not it has become a phantom 4th branch of government. At times Woodward delves in to way too much detail to suit my tastes. To summarize: Ford was unprepared and ill-suited to be president and made his biggest mistake a few days before he became president--he discussed the possiblity of a Nixon pardon. Carter's mistake was that he overdid it in running against Watergate--he promised that he would never lie. Even his mother said that was not likely. Reagan failed to accept that trading 500 missiles to Iranians in exhange for one hostage was "negotiating with terrorists" which he swore he would never do. He failed to see the possiblity that other terrorists might like the same deal. Ford through Bush Sr. take up half the book. "Slick Willy" Clinton takes up the other half. Ken Starr becomes the model for abuse of the power of the special prosecutor office, losing credibility even with his own staff.

[Philip · Rating 2 out of 5]

Woodward cut his teeth with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate investigation that eventually took down President Nixon. When I decided to read "Shadow," I expected more insight from Woodward into how the presidency has changed since Nixon and how the five following presidents adapted. Little to none of that is in this book.

It is 60 percent details on the Clinton scandals, 25 percent on Iran-Contra and Reagan and Bush's role in it, with the remaining details on Ford and Carter. And when I say details, I mean details. Lots of them. Too many of them in fact.

There is virtually no examination of the presidency post-Watergate, except for a few paragraphs to wrap up each section.

Unless you want a beyond detailed summary of the presidential scandals from 1974-1999, I suggest passing on this book.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I lived through this period of US history, so Woodward's take on the events was particularly interesting to me. His inside contacts filled in a lot of things that most of us would never otherwise know. I thought it interesting that Woodward needed more pages to cover all Clinton's scandals than for the other four presidents combined. During the time he was president, I thought Clinton was an embarrassment to our country. Then we got President Bush, the supposed conservative. President Bush made me nostalgic for President Clinton. Now we have President Obama who makes me nostalgic for any other president during my lifetime.

[Stefanie Robinson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book discusses the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon presidency, and the legacy left by it. The effects of the Watergate Scandal have rippled through each subsequent presidency, and have fostered a sense of mistrust in government officials....of which there was already plenty to begin with. In our current times, there are striking parallels between more recent presidencies and Nixon's, especially in correlation to criminal activity and media coverage.

To be perfectly honest, I only bought this book because it was .25 at the used bookstore that I spend a lot of time at. I am not super into United States history, and I am also not very interested in the presidents mentioned in this books. I went into this book with a low expectation, and expecting to hate it. I wasn't far off in my assumption. The book might be great to other people who are specifically interested in this particular topic and time period, but it wasn't for me, and that is okay. We do not all share the same interests and like the same things. I will say that the book wasn't terribly written and it was interesting to see how each subsequent presidency was affected by the nonsense and shenanagins of one.

[Eric Althoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bob Woodward, he who with Carl Bernstein and their pens brought down the Nixon White House, wrote "Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate" more or less as an epilogue to that damnable chapter of American history. Through careful research, extensive interviews and eloquently journalistic prose, Woodward traces the long, reaching pall that the aftermath of Watergate forever cast on the commanders in chief who followed RMN in the Oval Office. With the Independent Counsel law firmly established after Nixon fired special prosecutor John Dean (whose testimony eventually brought Nixon to his knees), Congress aimed to forever keep the nation's chief executive honest and answerable to an independent, unbiased inquiry into abuses of executive power.

"Shadow" unflinchingly shows how Watergate bore a climate of cynicism that even now haunts the presidency. Ford was never forgiven for pardoning Nixon, and Carter's promise "I will never lie to you" proved unfulfillable. Substantial chapters are devoted to the notorious Iran-contra scandal, which nearly toppled Reagan at the height of his popularity. Long after he left office, the independent counsel Walsh still tried to make Reagan talk, but by then, sadly—from a humanistic perspective, anyway—Reagan was already declining mentally.

Fully 50 percent of the book is devoted to the Clinton White House: Whitewater, Vince Foster, Lewinsky, the impeachment and eventual acquittal by the Senate. Because of the sheer amount of detail provided, this is where "Shadow" really comes alive. Clinton, arguably a "favorite" president of my lifetime, comes across in the reportage rather bleakly—as incredibly selfish, cunning, manipulative and in a perpetual state of denial. One of the book's most potent moments relates how one of Clinton's lawyers, upon learning Lewinksy had been granted immunity by the grand jury, basically all but shook Clinton by the shoulders to come clean. Bill Clinton's intelligence and ability to lead is never in doubt, not even when he is mere votes away from removal from office, but his turpitude and hubris that the scandal will simply not touch him proves his own downfall and led to a public embarrassment on a scale the likes of which the world has never known. It's a fascinating portrait of a charismatic, complex and ultimately humanly flawed man.

Coming across as equally reprehensible is Kenneth Starr, who seemed bound by his own personal sense of justice moreso than the law itself. One of "Shadow"'s finest asides shows Starr's underlings appalled at his decision to send his report to the House with all of the juiciest sexual material intact. His staff's arguments, echoed by the Democrats and many around the country, was that the salacious material was only that, and not specifically relevant to the charges of obstruction of justice and perjury against Clinton. It was a strong moral stance by some of Clinton’s “enemies” at a time when the Right was hounding for blood.

Woodward peppers the book with wonderful asides about three decades of political players, including Carter, just starting out on the job, asking Woodward and his boss at the Washington Post to the White House to entreat them to kill a story that was unfavorable to his agenda (the Post editors balked).

The book was published in 1999, right at the end of the Clinton years and before the madness that was to follow. I almost wish that Woodward would return and write a sequel to show how Watergate did (or rather, did NOT) affect Bush II. The Obama reign is now in its nascency, but will time yet show that even he, forty years later, is not immune to the shadow of Watergate?

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The American presidency has no doubt changed since the resignation of Richard Nixon in August 1974. Cynicism of and distrust toward government and politicians are high. Political opponents and reporters are constantly on their toes, ready to pounce if a President does, or appears to do, something wrong. Rightly or wrongly, Presidents no longer have as much power to enact a sweeping agenda like FDR or LBJ did. Shadow chronicles the five presidencies immediately following Watergate. Using presidential documents, diaries, and hundreds of interviews with firsthand witnesses, Woodard attempts to show how each president discovered the Presidency had been altered, but his attempts ultimately fall short.

The book is broken into five sections - one for each President. The first four sections focus more on the office of Independent Council that was created in the aftermath of Watergate. The largest section of the book is a point-by-point account of Ken Starr's investigation into Bill Clinton.

Clinton comes off the best of all the Presidents portrayed in the book, while the others are reduced to the common caricatures of them. Woodward paints Gerald Ford as a good guy, but ill-equipped to be President. Jimmy Carter is two-faced and preachy. Ronald Reagan is unengaged and moody, while Nancy rules the White House by astrology. George Bush is a wimp who wanted a war with Iraq to prove his tough-guy credentials. Bill Clinton is a good-old boy who was persecuted by nasty Ken Starr. The only person who comes off as more sympathetic is Hillary.

Woodward merely used Watergate and Nixon as a hook to get readers to buy this book. He offers very little evidence that the subsequent presidents learned anything from Watergate. The only president who appears to have thought of Watergate was Ronald Reagan, when he hired Howard Baker to conduct an internal investigation into Iran-Contra.

Shadow is ultimately a shallow book. Woodward hardly does any analysis of the men and the problems they faced. By hyper-focusing on the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals and dismissing Whitewater (not to mention spending three sentences on the White House Travel Office affair), the book reads as a defense of Bill Clinton and the first attempt at rehabilitating his reputation after impeachment.

[Blaine Welgraven · Rating 3 out of 5]

An engaging read that examines the historical fallout from Watergate, Shadow's driving thesis focuses on what Woodward terms "the diminished presidency" of the post-Watergate era. Specifically, Woodward centers his focus on the controversial 1978 passage of the Ethics in Government Act, a law which in the author's view, created "a fourth branch of government." It's an interesting case, and through page 170, covering Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41, the entire structure of Shadow seems to be holding up well. But the case Woodward is trying to make against a weakened executive branch is largely set aside (or perhaps simply forgotten) for Shadows remaining 350 pages--which are devoted entirely to the sordid details, legal scandals, and personal rivalries to be found within the Clinton Presidency. Woodward is famed for his ability to chronicle complex events--to ferret out the core details of a story, quoting multiple sources, all while keeping a clear linear narrative--and to draw beautifully-written, often understated conclusions about those same events. Even when Woodward's analysis proves incorrect, historians and top-tier writers have always had to wrestle with his work--it's the powerful way in which he states his concluding syntheses. But with Clinton's Presidency, even Woodward's analytical abilities suffer. Perhaps it was the sheer scale of detail and persons involved that caused the author's deviation, or perhaps Woodward's closeness and interest in the various stories held sway. Whatever the reason, it says a great deal about Shadow that the only real analysis of the Clinton Presidency, and more importantly, any hint of a continuation of Woodward's once promising thesis, is to be found in the epilogue of the book. Don't misunderstand--Shadow is fascinating, sordid, complicated, and undeniably effective. It's just not a consistent attempt at proving a much larger point--and in that a bit of a disappointment.

[WC Beaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

With a few more grains of salt than necessary, the reader must accept the intimate findings of personal behavior Watergate author Woodward comes up with concerning the five presidents honored to serve at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since that world changing crime committed by Nixon in 1972.

The pardon of Nixon by Ford was predictable but smelly, for the press wanted tricky Dick to suffer both emotionally and physically. The stocks in Lafayette Square were not sufficient. A cacophonic media cheer and the sale of peanuts went up when Carter was elected.

Jimmy remains a mystery to this day for no one knew what the hell he was doing, and continues to do today. He did enjoy an intimate relationship with PLO Yassir Arafat even to the murderous thug's death. He and Rosalyn continue to visit his grave site.

Woodward grudgingly accepts the premise that Reagan was good. He does, however, make an excessive deal of Iran Contra, but admits that forces under the leadership of Ollie North were to blame. Nary a word, however, about the saving of students in Grenada. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The elder Bush really did not care to be president but once enamored by the power and prestige found it viable. "No more taxes" and "I hate broccoli" didn't help the thousand lights on the hill.

Truly, the book is about the Clintons. Woodward reminds us of the daily sordidness of both participants but never explains why the press accepted her in the White House and her arrogant role in health care. He affirms that low life (we, the people) were not to be seen in highness's presence. Bill's legacy seems to be his revisionist defining of words. "I did not have sex with that woman."

The bottom line: How does Woodward know this stuff, and if he knows it is credible, why doesn't he come clean in all the subhuman behavior of the elect?

[Gabe · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book describes the hardships that the five presidents after watergate had to deal with. It tells about the beginning of the Ford administration. Where a controversial deal had been offered to keep Nixon out of jail. In other words, a presidential pardon. Ford had to deal with national scrunity because of his decision and had to do this while trying to be "reelected". He was trying to go back into office, but because no one trusted him, he was not reelected.

I also read about Jimmy Carter. who was in office when the people in the United States Embassy in Saudi Arabia were kidnapped. I read about his struggle to get them back and him being unsuccessful to do so. The next president that took office did so and the book described Carter's dissapointment and sorrow.

This book told me what happened after Watergate, which was my main purpose in reading it, and told me what the presidents after Nixon had to deal with. All because of a little paranoia.

[Tom Gase · Rating 1 out of 5]

Man it was a struggle to get through this book and I have a lot of respect for Bob Woodward as a reporter. Basically, he's an icon, but this book falls flat. It was about five books morphed into one, with Woodward talking about ex-Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr and Clinton. The majority of the book focuses on Bill Clinton and his impeachment, the Monica Lewinsky trial, Ken Starr, etc. Nothing really had anything to do with Richard Nixon. This book came out around 1999 and I felt while reading this that Woodward was trying to cling another book to All the Presidents Men and The Final Days, both epic important books. This book was not and was very dry. By the end I'm not sure what it was supposed to be about, since it goes all over the place. Probably should have just written one book on Clinton from 1995-1999 and it might have been tighter. Avoid this book, but please read All the President's Men, Final Days and his latest, Fear.

[Kevin Kirkhoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

We start the day after Watergate and follow each of the Presidents through their terms. The book shows how the media and public opinion of the Presidency has changed since Watergate. Also it shows the way each of the Presidents treat sensitive issues in the wake of Watergate. Scandals (or maybe just rough patches) affecting Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are examined in great detail. Fascinating information on all except Clinton. I've read and heard so much about him it was all just repeat. I now see Ford, Reagan, and Carter in a very different light. Not a bad light, just different. They're human.

[Camille · Rating 4 out of 5]

We've had this book for a long time, but I was never interested enough to pick it up. Once I did start reading it, though, it was hard to put down. It was mostly about how the effects of Watergate have substantially changed the conditions under which a president has to operate. It was very eye opening for me. I learned a lot about past political events/scandals that I had heard about but never actually took the time to learn about.

[George · Rating 2 out of 5]

i think bob woodward is a tool. his writing is practically drooling over presidential authority and he lacks any credibility. Only useful if you're tracking the development of the Independent counsel or the ethics and government act thoroughly. Even then you're just getting a lament for the loss of the imperial presidency. this dude's perspective was useful about as long as all the president's men lasted. ugh...

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

More instant history from Bob Woodward and his assistants, although this particular book does attempt to do some historical reflection. It's along the lines of the story which made him and Carl Bernstein famous, viz. presidential corruption, and this account ranges from Nixon to the time of composition. There are no great insights, just the growing dread sense as one reads that all presidents are corrupt.

[Amy]

Woodward is an old school journalist and everything he writes is exhaustively researched and as unbiased as he can possibly be (everybody is a little bit biased). This book is his take on how each president after Nixon was affected by the Watergate scandal. I was particularly interested in the Clinton section since I remember all of that clearly.

[Johnny Trash · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far this is a great birds-eye view of how national politics has been driven the last 30 years by the legacy of Nixon's Watergate scandal and specifically by the presence of the office of the Independent Council.

This is the first book I've ever read that made me get angry with Jimmy Carter and feel sorry for Ronald Reagan.

[Jason Hillenburg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and eternally relevant study of the Presidential response to scandal since the Watergate era and how Nixon's fall exerts such a profound hold on the imaginations (and fears) of successive Presidential administrations. Written in a conversational manner and readily accessible to even laymen observers of 20th century American history.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this one. A fascinating "behind the scenes" look at (the missteps of) the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton administrations. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone interested in American Presidential politics.

[Matt Olds · Rating 4 out of 5]

A splice of presidential history

Interesting angle to weave the lens of history through Watergate but way too much on Clinton scandals. Could have sliced out 100 pages and still would have gotten the gist.

[Quinn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written from the point of view of possibly one of the greatest reporters in history. I loved it, just like I've loved all the other Woodward books. It discusses the impact of Watergate on the office of the presidency.

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This shows, in more detail than I had found in any other single book, the rippling effect of Watergate on contemporary politics. It is quite eye opening, for those not in the know (like me).

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read about the legacy of Watergate and how political scandal impacted the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

[Nikki · Rating 5 out of 5]

good read.