I haven't read Bill Clinton's new book yet, so I have absolutely no idea whether it's any good or not. That said, Anne Applebaum's Op-Ed page review in this morning's WaPo seems more than a little strange. Here's a taste:

In fact, other than the personal issues of interest to him -- the putting to rest of his "demons," the healing of his "self-inflicted wounds" -- there are no real themes in this book, unless you count his battle with the "forces of reaction and division" that wanted to remove him from office. For all his vaunted interest in policy solutions, it's hard to glean anything like a "big idea" from the mass of detail. For all his faith that he is on "the right side of history," he doesn't engage much with his policy opponents at all, or even acknowledge that they have any arguments worth engaging. The comparison to another former president is impossible to avoid: Maybe Ronald Reagan thought air pollution came from trees, but in the end he stared down the Soviet Union, and that's what he was remembered for. Clinton, by contrast, has left us with mind-numbing lists of foreign trips, throwaway references to long-forgotten political battles, meetings with the pope, Rabin, Yeltsin, whoever. Because there is no central argument, no clear explanation of what his presidency was about, one is left, in the end, with nothing other than an emotional reaction to the man himself -- as always.

Two quick points:

1) I can't wait for Applebaum to start giving us her take on the classics: Other than the personal issues of interest to Mr. Wilde -- the putting to rest of his "demons," the healing of his "self-inflicted wounds" -- there are no real themes in De Profundis, unless you count his battle with the "forces of reaction and division" that sent him to prison....

2) Read that second bit again, the "comparison" to President Reagan. Talk about apples and oranges: Clinton doesn't make the big policy argument in his book. Reagan will be remembered for.... Not, Clinton doesn't make the argument, and Reagan did. Because, of course, Reagan didn't. Reagan took the big advance, and then turned the actual writing of his autobiography over to a ghost, who produced an instantly forgettable non-book book that's been gathering dust since the day it was published. In that light, Clinton's efforts look, well, not so bad. Maybe even a little better than not so bad. So we can't very well allow that comparison to be made, can we, Ms. A.? That just wouldn't do. No, that wouldn't do, at all.

As I said in the opening, I don't have a clue whether Clinton's book is any good or not. For all I know, it's as cluttered as Clancy and as turgid as Turgenev. But I do know a hatchet-job when I see one -- and Ms. Applebaum's review is a flawless exemplar of the species.

UPDATE: The indispensable Brad DeLong reviews the reviews here.

UPDATE 2 (6/24): Novelist Larry McMurtry writes, "William Jefferson Clinton's 'My Life' is, by a generous measure, the richest American presidential autobiography - no other book tells us as vividly or fully what it is like to be president of the United States for eight years."

UPDATE 3 (6/24): Jeff Jarvis adds, "The NY Times says the book set records for sales in its first days, beating Hillary, and perhaps racking up 500k in a day. But then there's the pissy local-angle story: It's not selling well in East Texas. So, what, that means four copies instead of five?"

--------