You just got to love it when history repeats itself. Much like the conspiracy (republican) that fell upon President Andrew Johnson, Clinton went through the same situation. It is funny how people try to recall what had happened back in 1998. Only a few years have pasted and people forget the history that we lived through with the trial and impeachment hearings. This documentary shows history alive. Whether you supported Clinton or not, you will accept the conspiracy to impeach / remove Bill Clinton from office. The power of the media and the power behind closed doors in Washington were equal. Politics was as dirty as ever. While the War Room opened people's eyes to how anyone can become President, The Hunt for the President has opened people's eyes to how no one is above the law. Well, maybe Kenneth Starr, wink wink.

With the political polarization of America nearly complete, the majority of viewers of this movie don't want or need a reasoned evaluation of its contents. Those fans of Clinton and Michael Moore, who see a right-wing conspiracy around every corner, will cheer rabidly. Avid Bush supporters will dump on the film, labeling it another 'crockumentary.' So, unless you are in that tiny minority of viewers who wants an objective opinion about the movie, you should read no further. Personally, I thought that Clinton was, to some extent, the victim of a witch-hunt that ultimately hurt the country by distracting the president and clouding his judgment. So I went into this film willing (if not exactly ready) to be convinced by exciting new evidence.But this film showed no balance at all. For example, the film tries to dismiss the notion that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser by presenting only the most blatantly biased information. Take the case of Paula Jones. The film actually spends several minutes trying to dismiss Jones by attacking the motivations of her attorney! We learn that Jones's attorney, an attractive blond, has right wing leanings, AND supported an anti-abortion action but had two abortions herself! Even the grave and stern intonations of Morgan Freeman can't sell this drastic irrelevancy to a critical-minded viewer. The irony is stunning. The Clinton's pushed hard for legislation that strips many of a male defendant's rights to information access in sexual harassment proceedings. Yet here are Clinton's supporters, assassinating Jones's character by (a) attacking the motivations of her attorney and (b) piecing together selected clips that make Jones look trashy and dimwitted. The message is clear: if Clinton is the alleged harasser, then the intelligence, appearance, and social status of the alleged victim are relevant.The only relevant 'fact' presented in defense of Clinton is an allegation by David Brock that one of the state troopers supporting Jones stated her willingness to be Clinton's 'boyfriend.' One can only imagine the reaction of the producers of this film had David Brock produced testimony in support of Jones. How do you spell 'hearsay evidence by a source of doubtful credibility'?Meanwhile, the serious claims of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick were mysteriously forgotten. Willey far more credible than Jones, presented very strong evidence. The testimony of any one of these women is enough to raise doubts about Clinton. But the conjunction of testimony by Jones, Broderick, and Willey suggests very strongly that Clinton has a problem controlling himself around powerless women in hotel rooms. But you would never have a glimmer of that watching this film, which tries to suggest that Clinton may have had a problem with personal morality, but nothing more. Contrast the treatment of Clinton with that of Clarence Thomas, convicted in the minds of Democrats on the basis of evidence from a single witness of questionable credibility. (Anita Hill, at the time a mediocre assistant professor at a second rate law school, is still collecting huge speaking fees lecturing about sexual harassment and women's rights.)The film is particularly insulting in its continual use of a standard technique. Clinton appears with appropriately stirring background music (you know, the kind they play in movies when the military hero visits the Arlington cemetery). Then some marginal character is introduced. If the character supports the author's thesis, his/her credentials are overstated. If the character is one of the villains of the piece, questionable sources are immediately invoked to portray the character as (a) a yokel, (b) a scam artist, (c) sexually repressed, (d) a Republican, often all of the above.That many of the sources are totally biased or highly questionable: (1) Carville, whose wacky antics on TV make Ann Coulter look like a reasoned moderate, (2) Brock, the former Republican attack dog who mysteriously "converted" just in time for this election campaign (and some huge book sales).The 'meat' of the movie to me (and to several other reasonable reviewers) was the story of Susan McDougal, who claims that prosecutors tried to get her to lie about Clinton. Along the way, McDougal maligns her ex-husband, referring constantly to his mental instability, and claiming a mysteriously complete lack of knowledge about any of his darker dealings. McDougal gives her account with a calmness that suggests a heavy infusion of prozac. Clinton supporters see this calm, smiling demeanor as virtual proof of honesty and saintly integrity. Apparently none of these people has ever spent time talking with incarcerated female felons. Many of them affect the identical demeanor. Here is a startling fact: psychopaths make excellent liars! They are difficult to detect! My own view is that, rather than being the smoking gun in this grand conspiracy theory, McDougal is simply a loose end.

The Hunting of the President is one of the best documentaries made. In what has turned out to be such a banner and distinguished year for documentaries, including Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me," Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", as well as "The Control Room" and "The Corporation", this one stands out above the pack. The film makes a step-by-step examination of the attempted character assassination on then Governor of Arkansas (and later current President Bill Clinton), from 1990, before his ascension to The White House in 1992, to the year 2000, when the investigations into Clinton's financial and personal affairs were basically over.With its clear focus and incisive interviews with some of the key spinsters who worked both for and against Clinton at the time, this documentary makes you aware of the kind of back room wrangling and political positioning that goes on when the two main political institutions are vying for power and public attention.The film does not use heavy handedness, at all, in its treatment of the subject matter. Instead, it is its real seriousness and mature focus on the topic at hand that provide the fuel and fire that lead you to its firm conclusions. This may turn-off some viewers, but no one will be able to deny the film's findings or minimize its well thought-out examination of past political goings-on.This documentary, like Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", is both instructive and historical and should not be missed by anyone. Overall grade: solid A.

Less a vindication of Clinton than an indictment of the press, this film provides a timely commentary on the excesses of journalistic zeal that almost brought down a presidency. I was especially moved by the women players, including Susan McDougal, aka Joan of the Ozarks, who was treated like a serial killer during her two years in prison, after she ran afoul of nasty-minded Ken Starr and his minions. I also like the brave and witty portrait of ex-Arkansas Governor Riley's wife Claudia. The facts presented here may seem all too familiar by now, but we can thank authors Joe Conason and Gene Lyons for unearthing a good number of them. Students of history will long debate the merits of the Clinton presidency, but the incompetence of the press is now an established fact.