Jonathan Yardley on 'In Search of Bill Clinton'

Schoolboy crush, puppy love . . . whatever you call it, Gartner's got it, and it infuses this book with a smarminess that just won't go away. Beyond that, one can't get away from a sense that Gartner is out to cut Clinton's cloth to fit the pattern of hypomania, that he comes to his task with too many preconceived notions. To be sure, hypomania as defined herein does seem to fit Clinton:

"The person of hypomanic temperament is filled with a high degree of energy and is very active in both work and other pursuits. . . . They talk fast, talk a lot, and tend to dominate conversations. They are driven, ambitious, and hard working. . . . They are charismatic, persuasive, and attractive. They are charming, witty, gregarious, and good at making people laugh. They like to be the center of attention, want to be the boss, and seek to be the alpha male or female in any group. . . . They are risk takers, who seem oblivious to obvious dangers. They have a large libido, are highly sexually active, and can show poor judgment in their sexual behavior. They seek stimulation and excitement. They have an addictive personality and are prone to both chemical and behavioral addictions. They appear to have poor insight into why some of their actions antagonize others or sometimes produce disastrous results."

While it's unclear whether Clinton fits the definition or the definition was written to fit Clinton, over and over again Gartner uses hypomania to explain, or explain away, Clinton's behavior. He also explores the lasting effects of Clinton's childhood influences: a mother who "had always been his elusive erotic ideal," an unverifiable assertion at best; a stepfather who was abusive, especially to his mother and younger half-brother; a grandmother, Edith Cassidy, who was "aggressive, suspicious, and controlling" but provided stability in a sublimely dysfunctional household. That Clinton had to overcome a lot is obvious, and that he was able to do so is evidence of his determination, ambition and intelligence. But whether the source of these considerable strengths lies in childhood and other formative influences, or in the temperament that is his "normal self," is beyond final explanation, especially by someone engaging in long-distance psychologizing.

At times Gartner's determination to put Clinton on the couch descends from the speculative to the ridiculous. My favorite involves l'affaire Monica Lewinsky: "The psychodrama inside Clinton's unconscious was about to be played out on the national stage: Roger Clinton, the abusive older man who dispensed the whippings, would be played by Ken Starr. Virginia, the exuberant lost love object whom Clinton had long been desperately seeking and now longed for more than ever, would be played by Monica. And Edith, his fierce protector, would be, as always, played by Hillary." Gartner may be on staff at Johns Hopkins, but that's about as close as anyone can get to psychoanalyzing without either a license or a patient.

Which, in the end, is the judgment that must be passed on In Search of Bill Clinton. Gartner has some smart and occasionally thoughtful things to say about this very talented, interesting and infuriating man, but he finds everything rooted in childhood trauma or intrinsic temperament, or both, and nothing in strengths and faults of character. Where does altruism (as in Clinton's anti-AIDS efforts in Africa) end and the thirst for applause and adulation begin? Where is the line between raw sexual appetite and utter shamelessness? Where does self-deception end and mendacity begin?

Gartner thinks he can explain it all with psychological boilerplate. Methinks it's a whole lot more complicated. ·

Jonathan Yardley's e-mail address is yardleyj@washpost.com.