Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.71 AVERAGE
3.71 AVERAGE
This book was fascinating to me. There's something about Hillary Clinton that is endlessly fascinating. I have the utmost respect for her, but often wondered "what was she thinking?" I also wondered about the people in her inner circle-could they see the flaws, or was there just another side to Hillary that we as the public never got to see? Amy Chozick's writing and personal experience covering Clintonworld paints a real picture of both Clinton and those in her orbit. It's also an in depth look at what it's like to be a journalist covering a campaign, and Chozick's anecdotes about life on the trail are so interesting. Great read I would recommend to anyone interested in politics or journalism.
Well done by New York Times reporter with great insight into tough world of journalism and politics – but just not that fun to read about. Thought reporter tried to give a balanced view of her own failings and mistakes during the tens years she covered Hilary - as well as those of candidate Clinton and her campaign. The author – who details the very tough press relations of the campaign – also is clear in her admiration of the strengths and positives she observed first hand of Hilary Clinton.
Peter Principle of the MSM on full display
This book had hit the one-star level WELL before the finish line, but I slogged through so you don't have to.
First, no index. Any nonfiction book, other than something like a self-help manual, without an index, even one written as breezily as this, without an index? Automatic loss of a star.
Second, that breeziness. (And, that doesn't count the personal bias in political reporting, nor the way that personal bias is waved like a wet dishrag. Nor does it count that [although the title should have given this away, I guess in hindsight] that this is part of the book being about Chozick as much as Clinton.)
I have an even more in-depth take on my blog: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2018/05/amy-chozick-puts-peter-principle-of-msm.html
Now, let's get to the real mistakes, and the biggies, that torpedoed this baby.
First, her "Berniebros"? I'm not saying Chozick didn't get some of the Tweets she claims. BUT! ... She makes it look like about EVERY Sanders backer was one of these strawman stereotype Berniebros. That, in turn, gets back to the bias above.
Second, a clearly proven error. In chastising Robbie Mook for being a tightwad, she claims on page 152 that the Clinton campaign gave some of its leftover money to Jill Stein's recount effort.
This made me say "huh?" in part because I'm a Green voter and had never heard of such a thing.
I checked around with Green friends, and sure enough, untrue. Clinton's campaign had talked about sharing some data/data crunching, but I'm not sure it did that. NEVER gave money.
And, really, couldn't give much anyway.
Federal Elections Commission says that one political campaign CANNOT give another more than $2,000. Amy, took me a 30-second Google to find that.
Third, the Clinton Foundation has had actual ethics problems, and even more than other people at your paper have reported, Amy.
Fourth, yes, incomes for the middle class as well as the upper class did go up under Bill Clinton. But, income inequality still increased. Hell, middle class incomes went up under Shrub, too. And income inequality increased, and more than under the Slickster. This is also easily verifiable, and the way Chozick made her statement came off as PR first, journalism distant second. (At least, real journalism.)
Fifth, Chozick has several cover-ups by omission on foreign policy issues. She has no mention that Bill Clinton broke the promise of Poppy Bush, Helmut Kohl and other NATO members not to expand NATO eastward. She also doesn't mention Clinton's interference in Russian elections. (Sidebar: Perhaps, and far more subtly than with sacks of money, Shrub Bush and Obama did more of the same that we don't know about yet.)
Sixth, nothing but a brief mention of Clinton's emails, and nothing of her private server. Related? Chozick takes her paper's default stance on "Russiagate."
Seventh is the "reveal" by Chozick of how the Times was in the tank for Clinton, despite Bill claiming an anti-Clinton conspiracy by the Times. The "reveal" is keyed by the Times holding a story about the clusterfuck of our intervention in Libya until after the South Carolina primary. (Nothing new there, though; remember, it held a story about Shrub Bush's snooping on Americans until after he was re-elected.)
The reveal itself is nice. There's no real critical take on this bias by Chozick, though. Nor does she critically examine her own bias, starting with fawning over the idea of the "FWP," as she routinely abbreviates First Woman President.
With all of those major, and minor, errors, it was easy to one-star.
That said, she does give us an occasional look at the NYT background, like the snooty arrogance of people at the home office seeming to assume that there's only one time zone in the US.
As for my subhead? Per the likes of Charles Pierce at the Esquire, plenty of real journalists, reporters and editors at newspapers out in the heartland, could do a better job than Chozick, and probably than several others, at the Times. I am personally sure of this.
Anyway, it's clear that that the Beltway/Acela Corridor MSM has problems. This is a good illustration but still the tip of an iceberg.
And, The Slickster and Failed Would-be President (Chozick's FWP) still think the Times hated them? When they had a Hillary-token feminist reporting? (Chozick is smart enough to recognize that Hillary's feminism, like that of most her Hillbot supporters, is selective. She also notes the Slickster deliberately went Sister Souljah on Black Lives Matter. Must give credit for something. She gets half credit for noting sexism and even sexual harassment on the Clinton campaign trail by the "guys" who ran her campaign; misses full credit for not reporting it in live time. Not reporting it because she believed in Hillary as FWP, even while noting Hillary tolerated this, cuts it to one-quarter credit.)
This book had hit the one-star level WELL before the finish line, but I slogged through so you don't have to.
First, no index. Any nonfiction book, other than something like a self-help manual, without an index, even one written as breezily as this, without an index? Automatic loss of a star.
Second, that breeziness. (And, that doesn't count the personal bias in political reporting, nor the way that personal bias is waved like a wet dishrag. Nor does it count that [although the title should have given this away, I guess in hindsight] that this is part of the book being about Chozick as much as Clinton.)
I have an even more in-depth take on my blog: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2018/05/amy-chozick-puts-peter-principle-of-msm.html
Now, let's get to the real mistakes, and the biggies, that torpedoed this baby.
First, her "Berniebros"? I'm not saying Chozick didn't get some of the Tweets she claims. BUT! ... She makes it look like about EVERY Sanders backer was one of these strawman stereotype Berniebros. That, in turn, gets back to the bias above.
Second, a clearly proven error. In chastising Robbie Mook for being a tightwad, she claims on page 152 that the Clinton campaign gave some of its leftover money to Jill Stein's recount effort.
This made me say "huh?" in part because I'm a Green voter and had never heard of such a thing.
I checked around with Green friends, and sure enough, untrue. Clinton's campaign had talked about sharing some data/data crunching, but I'm not sure it did that. NEVER gave money.
And, really, couldn't give much anyway.
Federal Elections Commission says that one political campaign CANNOT give another more than $2,000. Amy, took me a 30-second Google to find that.
Third, the Clinton Foundation has had actual ethics problems, and even more than other people at your paper have reported, Amy.
Fourth, yes, incomes for the middle class as well as the upper class did go up under Bill Clinton. But, income inequality still increased. Hell, middle class incomes went up under Shrub, too. And income inequality increased, and more than under the Slickster. This is also easily verifiable, and the way Chozick made her statement came off as PR first, journalism distant second. (At least, real journalism.)
Fifth, Chozick has several cover-ups by omission on foreign policy issues. She has no mention that Bill Clinton broke the promise of Poppy Bush, Helmut Kohl and other NATO members not to expand NATO eastward. She also doesn't mention Clinton's interference in Russian elections. (Sidebar: Perhaps, and far more subtly than with sacks of money, Shrub Bush and Obama did more of the same that we don't know about yet.)
Sixth, nothing but a brief mention of Clinton's emails, and nothing of her private server. Related? Chozick takes her paper's default stance on "Russiagate."
Seventh is the "reveal" by Chozick of how the Times was in the tank for Clinton, despite Bill claiming an anti-Clinton conspiracy by the Times. The "reveal" is keyed by the Times holding a story about the clusterfuck of our intervention in Libya until after the South Carolina primary. (Nothing new there, though; remember, it held a story about Shrub Bush's snooping on Americans until after he was re-elected.)
The reveal itself is nice. There's no real critical take on this bias by Chozick, though. Nor does she critically examine her own bias, starting with fawning over the idea of the "FWP," as she routinely abbreviates First Woman President.
With all of those major, and minor, errors, it was easy to one-star.
That said, she does give us an occasional look at the NYT background, like the snooty arrogance of people at the home office seeming to assume that there's only one time zone in the US.
As for my subhead? Per the likes of Charles Pierce at the Esquire, plenty of real journalists, reporters and editors at newspapers out in the heartland, could do a better job than Chozick, and probably than several others, at the Times. I am personally sure of this.
Anyway, it's clear that that the Beltway/Acela Corridor MSM has problems. This is a good illustration but still the tip of an iceberg.
And, The Slickster and Failed Would-be President (Chozick's FWP) still think the Times hated them? When they had a Hillary-token feminist reporting? (Chozick is smart enough to recognize that Hillary's feminism, like that of most her Hillbot supporters, is selective. She also notes the Slickster deliberately went Sister Souljah on Black Lives Matter. Must give credit for something. She gets half credit for noting sexism and even sexual harassment on the Clinton campaign trail by the "guys" who ran her campaign; misses full credit for not reporting it in live time. Not reporting it because she believed in Hillary as FWP, even while noting Hillary tolerated this, cuts it to one-quarter credit.)
Honestly, I didn’t find this as compelling as I hoped upon starting it. However, in the last chapter, Chozick spends some time (briefly) on the emotional fallout of Hillary’s loss for herself and some of the people around her. I had to stop what I was doing momentarily because I had almost forgotten how it felt. In those last few pages, I was reminded of how defeated, afraid, and heartbroken I and a lot of other people felt in those days following the election. I think it was a good thing to remember, and I’m glad Chozick was able to give that feeling back to me for a moment, however painful it may be. One day I’ll be telling my kids about Hillary, and I don’t want to forget how it felt. Thanks, Amy, for reminding me.
Chozick gets a star for good writing and a star for making me want to listen (to the audiobook) but holy shit what an infuriating book. I’m glad she was trying to be transparent & honest but I don’t think she’s capable of being fully honest with herself so there is a serious lack of insight, self awareness, and contextualization. Read the other 1 & 2 star reviews to see what I mean. She admits her mistakes but then seems to think she doesn’t deserve any blame or have to take any responsibility. She criticized Clinton in totally unfair ways & skews her telling of stories/scenarios without considering all aspects. Which makes her not a good journalist, in my opinion. She perpetuates the sexist double standard because whatever Clinton does, Chozick takes issue with, no matter what. And her headlines during the campaign were appalling (they belong in the NY Post, not The NY Times). I’m all for people being driven in their careers but her need to see her own name in print & be liked by everyone verges on egomaniacal.
At some points, this felt like a gossip magazine published from a presidential campaign- but - that also meant that Amy Chozick had pretty remarkable access and shares her front row seat to Hillary’s 2016 campaign and life. Non political nerds might find parts boring but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Wow, what a book. This was the book I had been waiting for about the campaign. Hillary's book was just a bunch of whining about why it wasn't her fault. This book really showed the campaign for what it was worth, the pit falls, the problems, the weird relationship they have with the press.
I had no idea that the Clinton's hated the NYT so much and thought that the paper had it out for them. Which, is rather funny, considering of course that Trump thinks the NYT loves the Clinton's and has it out for him.
I was super disappointed in learning how much the NYT covered the bullshit email story.
Anyway, if you want to know how and why Hillary lost; If you were one of the people who was for sure she would win and Trump wouldn't (I was fairly sure he had a chance); and if you can't understand how this all happened read this book. I think it gives a great accurate picture of America and what was going on in the campaign.
I had no idea that the Clinton's hated the NYT so much and thought that the paper had it out for them. Which, is rather funny, considering of course that Trump thinks the NYT loves the Clinton's and has it out for him.
I was super disappointed in learning how much the NYT covered the bullshit email story.
Anyway, if you want to know how and why Hillary lost; If you were one of the people who was for sure she would win and Trump wouldn't (I was fairly sure he had a chance); and if you can't understand how this all happened read this book. I think it gives a great accurate picture of America and what was going on in the campaign.
There moments (at the end) when I just wanted it to finish, but for the most part it was an interesting read.
Amy gives a fair and critical take on Hillary’s two attempts at the Oval with lots of interesting tidbits from the campaign trail. I guess I keep reading these election dissection books because I’m a masochist.
Not remembering how I hear of this book, I started reading it telling myself I could put it down. Short chapter and insightful tidbits held my interest.