Very good job by the author to present the life and presidency of Bill Clinton through the words of those close to him--both friends and rivals. This reader greatly appreciates the attempt to give an impartial, balanced view of Clinton and this approach succeeds in large part. As one may imagine, it is quite difficult to find a biography of Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump that is not over-the-top positive or negative.
While the approach of oral history largely succeeds, a few things would have made this excellent book even better. First, he author is very good at connecting interview excerpts together by his own introductions, summaries, etc. It reads quite well. However, I believe the author would have served his own stated purposes well if he took a more formal tone. One example is a description of Ken Starr on pg. 326. "Starr's moralistic tone, his doughy, unexpressive face, his flat, nasal voice, his self-righteous commends doled out mornings at his Virginia curbside as he took out the garbage...".
Another is the out-of-place, angry pot-shots at George W. Bush on pp 394-395. "Instead of a budget surplus...trillions squandered on upper-income tax cuts and an unnecessary war...Instead of judicious use of America's armed forces, an ill-begotten, counterproductive war, entered into deceitfully and conducted unforgivably."
To include the public's disapproval of Ken Starr's personal conduct is fair. To contrast Bush's administration with Clintons (or even what one imagines Al Gore may have done) is legitimate. But, if the author sought to include harsh words about Starr, Bush, and others, he would have better served the purpose of his book (a more-objective look at Clinton) by either tempering his words or by placing such sentiments in the mouths of others. I imagine the author could've gotten an interesting critique of he asked, say, Barney Frank or Terry McAuliffe about Starr or Bush.
Second, the author wonders, throughout the book, why people "hate" Bill Clinton so thoroughly. Yet, he neither interviews nor seems to ask this question of those who hold a thoroughly negative view of Clinton. Lucianne Goldberg and Dick Armey each articulate their personal dislike for Clinton and thereby shed light on the question. Yet, other Clinton critics are spoken of in the book (Colin Powell, Newt Gingrich, Jim McDougall, Dick Morris) but not interviewed. Others are interviewed (Bob Dole, Bob Barr, John Sununu, Henry Hyde), but seeminly not asked about the question.
Finally, while an biographer cannot include every event and detail of the subject's life, it is notable that the Branch Davidian incident in Waco receives barely a footnote and the 2000 Elian Gonzalez matter is absent.
In all, this is a very well-done, even-handed biography of a very contriversial man. The author's approach and use of oral history serves the subject well and(above criticisms aside) is very well-executed. Recommended.