Hillary Clinton's new memoir of her time at the State Department is officially for sale. She is scheduled to sign up a storm -- perhaps for eternity -- and there are already so many book reviews that an anthology of the collected criticisms of "Hard Choices" should be available at a book store near you by the end of the week.
The hoopla hasn't translated into glowing book reviews. However, if you step back and look at reviews of political memoirs past, it's hard to find a single example of a critic swooning when presented with the latest installment of syndicated campaign diner anecdotes. The difference between campaign books -- oops, sorry, "memoirs" -- is so imperceptible that it can be difficult to figure out which one reviewers are complaining about when you remove the proper nouns. As boring as the campaign books may be, the descriptions of them haven't changed much over the years either.
Are you such a scholar of political memoirs that you can distinguish one described as eye-crossingly dull from one that is merely duller than usual?