but this isnt the world of tell all, its the world of investigative journalism and you can see he's written books on the FBI and CIA, i think you are confused about what type of book this is
Am I? The book primarily concerns itself with sex lives, embarrassing stories, favorite beers, etc...
Why don't I paste in some reviews for this book:
From Publishers Weekly
In this
tabloid-sounding account, Kessler (The FBI)
has aimed very low, armed with "inside information" provided by presidential aides, servants, staff members and Secret Service agents that
has the ring of backstairs gossip. He shows Lyndon Johnson as a vulgar megalomaniac, Nixon as almost pathologically shut in, Carter as a petty nitpicker, Reagan as dominated by his icy wife, Bush as barely able to tolerate people en masse and Clinton as such a compulsive womanizer as to make Jack Kennedy seem celibate. From the chief executive on down, virtually everyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he concludes, falls victim to "presidentitis" and abuses power. The only question left unanswered is, what's new here?
Third party reviews from Amazon:
"More focus on the interactions between the President and staff, senior staff and junior staff, etc., would have provided insight in the the inner workings of the White House.
However, the focus was on sweeping old skeletons from the walk-in closets. I understand the intent was to show the human frailty of any person who inhabits the office - but mix in a few good stories and show some balance. I must say - it was entertaining reading.
There was shock value, and some old rumors were made to sound more credible."
"This book keeps your attention, but the section on Clinton is so
overtly biased that it calls in to question everything else in the book. Not only is it extremely slanted, but the author spends a disproportionate amount of time picking apart Clinton regardless of what he does, and commenting on his policy.
Also, interestingly, the author paints an overwhelmingly bad picture of the democratic presidents since Johnson, and a generally favorable picture of the republican presidents in such a consistent and emphatic way that it seems unlikely that it is really accurate, particularly once he gets going on Clinton."
"Johnson's part was hilarious. I was crying with laughter. But the rest of the book was boring,
just a bunch of gossip. No juicy details. No funny lines. And definitely anti-Democrats. "
"Kessler really wants to be a hard-hitting reporter; he takes on the government at every chance he gets, the CIA, the FBI and now the President.
Unfortunately with this book he tended to pick the low hanging fruit and gave us more of the same old stuff, the "shocking but true" and the "they don't want you to find out" info."
"This one isn't worth your time. It's pumped
full out of hot air and is totally dated besides. "
"I'll admit,
this is a gossipy, trashy book. I'll admit Kessler's writing style is uneven - he often jumps topics with little warning. But I'll also admit I couldn't put this book down - and it really made me think about the too-high standards we often set for presidential candidates."
"...
Sleazy? Yes. Entertaining? Yes, to a point. Many flawed men have served as president, but
many of Kessler's sources come off as bitter and possibly unreliable"
"
As someone who has read a few of Kessler's books and loved them, this one was a complete disaster. I only give it one star for the tiny
tidbits of sparsely scattered real information in this book, but that's certainly not worth the amount of money I had to pay for it."
"
The book was primarily gossipy and offered little that I have not heard or read before. I expected more insight and little known aspects of the presidents covered in the book than what I got. "
"I looked forward to reading this book. However,
it was very gossipy and anecdotal and most of all, Ronald Kessler seemed to devote every third page to the favourite menus of each president. Still, an entertaining read. "
"
Rumors, innuendo, and speculation. Terrible editing and direction. This book is a mess. Thank goodness I got this off the bargain rack."
"He dwells at length on the sexual escapades of the Presidents, crediting almost every rumor as true (somehow exempting Bush)... What really brands this book as
glorified gossip-mongering is the very lengthy digression into Clinton's supposed sexual wanderings with Flowers and others _as governor of Arkansas"
"IF you're interested in a
poorly edited, gossip-filled, unreferenced, non-sourced book, then this is for you. Kessler drops innuendos and rumors throughout the pages, with very few sources or substantiation given."
yeah the onus is on you, unless you are a conspiracy theorist, i dont want to go back and forth but keesler is a legit author in terms of washington, i dont have any reason to doubt the quote
You're making an argument from authority. But as the reviews above (and just reading the book) show, in this case, it is not a strong argument. Kessler clearly meant this book to be a work of sensationalism and gossip- just look at the subtitle. You can't simply extrapolate from his other works that this one is the same.
johnson is known to say ******, so that quote is consistent with the way johnson was known to talk
Yes, I know he used the word. That's not enough to verify the quote, though. Even the contexts of the two quotes are wildly different. At the end of the day, though, I was calling out the poster for relying on unsubstantiated evidence, not defending Johnson.
perhaps we dont see the same graph..after 1974 the total # of people in poverty actually RISES and keeps rising after LBJ left office apart from an occasional dip there are more poor people now than there were before he started
War on "favelas"
, maybe 2014 
does that have to do with anything. I personally know quite a few great devout doctors whom believe in the "word". Some even host bible study sessions at their homes weekly and work at non-profit hospitals for a fraction of the pay...
)
.... I said in order for him to be a token there would have to be a tangible policy that he is being used for to affect the black community.. We know since Obama has endorsed gay marriage support for it in the black community has shifted, although we are still diametrically opposed to it... What policy agenda is Dr. Ben Carson being used for again?