I was in high school when Richard Nixon died, but I was young and my interests at that time weren't exceptionally political. My concerns at that time had more to do with Kurt Cobain's death just a few weeks prior. That meant more to me than that Nixon guy. I do remember having breakfast at a friend's house around the time of Nixon's death, and her stepfather having trying to have a conversation with me about it. He was a strange guy, and looking back I'm not sure if he was particularly the safest guy for me to be around, though at the time he seemed perfectly fine and nice. He liked REO Speedwagon, so y'know, just how creepy could he be? Oh wait.At that particular breakfast he tried to tell me how Nixon hadn't been such a bad guy, that he had gotten a bad reputation but that personally his heart went out to him, because that "whole Watergate stuff" just wasn't his fault. Nixon wasn't involved in all that mess, my friend's stepfather said. He was an innocent man in the wrong place at the wrong time.I didn't get all the particulars. I knew what Watergate was, mostly. I knew there was a huge conspiracy and that Nixon was "not a crook". Even though I wasn't especially into politics at that time, I knew that my opinions were less Republican and less conservative than, say, my friend's stepdad. I had a feeling this guy across the table from me was full of shit. But he meant every word he said. I do believe tears came to his eyes at the memory of Nixon. Whoa there, Tiger.It's probably for the best that that particular friend and I sort of lost track as high school progressed.As I was reading this, that stepdad came back into my memory. I can't remember his name anymore (though I seem to be thinking it was Rick?), but that morning's discussion really stuck with me, probably because it sat so uncomfortably with me at the time. Anytime I hear "Watergate" or "Nixon" I think of him, and I sort of shudder. At the same time, however, it's always been one of those areas in my knowledge of American History that is embarrassingly uninformed. I don't think it even came up that much in our history classes. Good job, teachers!So I guess what I was expecting out of this would be one of those espionage/thriller types of things. Conspiracy and spies and secrets and stuff. What I wasn't expecting was a basically really long newspaper article.Okay, I get it - Woodward and Bernstein were journalists, that's what they do. But I expect my journalists to be writers as well. Don't just state the facts, give me something interesting. There's a list of "characters" in the beginning of the book which I found exceptionally helpful because the authors' descriptions of these people were totally lackluster and, well, boring. I'm sure a lot of those people really were/are boring people. But that doesn't mean they have to be written boringly.Parts of this book were pretty exciting. The way that Woodward and Deep Throat communicated was like the stuff you see in the movies, and it would have been great if the authors had maintained that sort of energy throughout their book. Instead it was just a smattering of facts (all of which are important, don't get me wrong) and names and figures and more names and more figures. Politics doesn't have to be boring! Especially if scandal is involved. Beef up that text, men! Show us what it means to be Pulitzer winners!I can't say I learned a heck of a lot, even with all the facts. This book was written, I understand, because Robert Redford confronted them about buying the film rights if they wrote the book. The book wasn't even in existence yet when that offer was made. So this feels sort of like it was obligatory. They just wanted to get it out there, the ending was short, it feels a bit rushed at times like they wanted to get it out of their hair so they can go on to write the second part (The Final Days).What I certainly did not find (not that I was expecting it) was any sense of sympathy for Nixon or any of his men that were involved in the scandal. I'm pretty sure that was intentional on Woodward and Bernstein's part - they wrote woodenly throughout, but they weren't in business to garner any sympathy for these devils.It makes me think of Rick (if that indeed is his name), and I wonder if he read this book or watched the movie; and if so, how did he feel about it? It's not anything I'd want to sit down over a couple bowls of cereal to talk about now by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help but wonder. He was likely the first person I had ever met who didn't call Nixon a [your obscenity of choice here]. At that age - mourning the loss of Cobain and otherwise being a sour, angsty young woman who just wanted to make it through her sophomore year - someone so pro-Nixon made an impression on me.
Woodward and Bernstein wrote a book in my youth that has spawned far more words in response each year of every decade since its publication than one can hope imagine. My paltry addition to this monument of verbiage will add little beyond adding my public recognition of this works history changing impact.It is not wrong to look at this book as the beginning of modern journalism in America. Investigative reporting that didn't shy away from hard truths that came near to destroying the nation and left wounds whose scars are still easily seen nearly 40 years later. Now that the identity of Deep Throat, the inside protected source who made this story possible, has been revealed little has changed beyond we still are not sure of all the motivations. The bad guys were not alone in their amoral pursuit in the power mad town of Washington, D.C. Added players still peak from the shadows of this era and their progeny still play the games that Bob and Carl investigated. Laws and policies have been altered and updated to hopefully put in check this level of abuse of the public trust. But for Deep Throat to have been revealed as being a part of the very mechanism, the FBI, that should have been on top of this mess is a recent disturbing revelation.Without becoming Nixon's advocate, it must be said that he was a very great if flawed president based on his record. A criminal too that should most likely have been jailed, but in the depths of his power wielding he did accomplish some earth shaking things. But power corrupted him and it was a petty fall. The story that is told in All the President's Men is much like the long form journalism that sponsored and spawned the book from the daily reportage by the authors. Yet it too has been tainted in a way when it is remembered that these were journalists who set out to change the game for their benefit ultimately. Yes the 'service' they rendered should never be minimized but they put themselves in a realm that even today puts their name above the title on the marquee.All the President's Men will always stand out from the rest of the now all too common journalistic investigative works, not just because it is first among equals, but because it is written as story of power and greed at the highest levels. A President of the US fell, his men were shown to be in cases nothing more than henchmen, and that some previously honorable people became entwined for life in one of the biggest stories in political history.
What do You think about All The President's Men (2005)?
This is my favorite book. The first time I read it I was a junior in high school who didn't pay a ton of attention in American History and thus really didn't know how the story was going to end.I am perfectly willing to admit now what I didn't know then, which is that even Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (who I love with a love that is true and pure) weren't telling the whole Watergate story. They told the part of the story they were in, which is A) necessarily biased and B) not anywhere near the entire picture. I was out of college before I ever read anything that talked about the trials and the impeachment business and Nixon's resignation. To all intents and purposes, this book ends when everyone realizes that Woodward and Bernstein were right. Which is fine with me. Every time I re-read this book, despite knowing how things turn out, I still find it suspenseful and exciting. The story takes off at lightning speed right away; the very first few pages introduce a colorful cast of characters, including my beloved Woodward and Bernstein and the AWESOME Deep Throat, whose magical trick with Woodward's newspaper (where he somehow managed to secretly get hold of it and draw a tiny clock on a designated page indicating what time he wanted to meet Woodward, without anyone ever noticing him at all) seemed amazing to me until I learned that Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) was CIA and trained in covert operations. No wonder he was so sneaky and cool.
—Claire
You know the drill: a break-in at the Democratic National Committee office in the Watergate complex led to the collapse of Richard Nixon's presidential administration, largely thanks to the efforts of intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. What I liked about All the President's Men was how Bernstein and Woodward peel back the tight factual skin of newspaper reporting to reveal their own screw-ups and the humanity of their opponents. They repeatedly record that queasy moment when a journalist has to choose between a scoop and compassion. The greater good doesn't always win, but compassion can't compete with good copy:"As the cry of JEEEEEESUS was repeated, Bernstein had perceived the excruciating depth of Mitchell's hurt. For a moment, he had been afraid that Mitchell might die on the telephone, and for the first time Mitchell was flesh and blood, not Nixon's campaign manager, the shadow of Kent State, Carswell's keeper, the high sheriff of Law and Order, the jowled heavy of Watergate. Bernstein's skin felt prickly." [110]
—Adobe
I expected this book to end with Nixon resigning. Instead it ends when the book was published, in early 1974, so everything is sliding downhill fast for Nixon but he's still holding on.The Watergate story is a blur of names and little pieces of information piling up slowly, which in some ways doesn't make for the best read ever. I kept losing track and asking "who is Magruder again?" But that's also what makes it great. I imagined myself in their shoes halfway through this story. I'm pretty sure I would have thought "to hell with all the president's men. We're never going to figure out what they're really up to, and even if we did, not in a way that we could publish. Let's write about something else." The persistence of these reporters (and lots of other reporters less famous) strikes me as the benign aspect of a kind of craziness.Weirdest detail I'd never heard about before: a called-off plot by Nixon's men to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution.
—Josh
