Scan barcode
A review by wwatts1734
Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann
4.0
It was 2008 and the political situation was exciting. The Democrats had not been in the White House since 2001, and the Republicans were at a low in popularity polls because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the public perception of George W. Bush. Into this void a huge number of candidates from both parties joined the race. How did the race turn out the way that it did? How did the candidates handle the heat in the most contested presidential race in a very long time?
Heilemann and Halprin do a great job of laying out the campaigns and the issues with the candidates themselves. The attitude of the Clintons toward the political upstart Obama campaign is poignantly described. Another political upstart, Sarah Palin, gets exceptional attention in this book. It was a battle between the establishment players in the form of the McCains and the Clintons, and the political newcomers in the form of the Obamas and the Palins. It was a search for the issues that Americans could rally behind in the midst of a recession and 7 years of war. More than anything else, it was the search for the perfect image. Would Americans throw their support behind experience in the Beltway, or were they looking for something new, exciting and different on the political scene. Both parties offered a little bit of both in their campaigns. In the end, the establishment lost and the longing for new blood brought victory to Barack Obama and his "Hope and Change" candidacy.
I have read reviews about this book that criticized the authors for being too easy on Obama and his campaign. While the authors excoriate the Clintons, the McCains, the Palins and the Edwards, the Obamas got off easy by comparison. But I disagree with this assessment for several reasons. Firstly, most of the media were in love with Barack Obama in 2008. There's very little in the way of political analysis aside from conservative authors that criticize Obama in any way. In fact, "Game Change" does criticize Obama indirectly, relating the Clintons' opinion that Obama was inexperienced and untested, a widely held view in Washington in 2007 and 2008. Secondly, the book looks more at the losers of the campaign and why the candidates lost. Since Obama won, what's the point of picking on his weaknesses. Besides this, it is unlikely that Obama gave these authors the kind of access that they enjoyed from the other candidates. Why should Obama give journalists the kind of access that could possible take the polish off of his halo while he was riding high in publi opinion?
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the process of presidential political campaigns.
Heilemann and Halprin do a great job of laying out the campaigns and the issues with the candidates themselves. The attitude of the Clintons toward the political upstart Obama campaign is poignantly described. Another political upstart, Sarah Palin, gets exceptional attention in this book. It was a battle between the establishment players in the form of the McCains and the Clintons, and the political newcomers in the form of the Obamas and the Palins. It was a search for the issues that Americans could rally behind in the midst of a recession and 7 years of war. More than anything else, it was the search for the perfect image. Would Americans throw their support behind experience in the Beltway, or were they looking for something new, exciting and different on the political scene. Both parties offered a little bit of both in their campaigns. In the end, the establishment lost and the longing for new blood brought victory to Barack Obama and his "Hope and Change" candidacy.
I have read reviews about this book that criticized the authors for being too easy on Obama and his campaign. While the authors excoriate the Clintons, the McCains, the Palins and the Edwards, the Obamas got off easy by comparison. But I disagree with this assessment for several reasons. Firstly, most of the media were in love with Barack Obama in 2008. There's very little in the way of political analysis aside from conservative authors that criticize Obama in any way. In fact, "Game Change" does criticize Obama indirectly, relating the Clintons' opinion that Obama was inexperienced and untested, a widely held view in Washington in 2007 and 2008. Secondly, the book looks more at the losers of the campaign and why the candidates lost. Since Obama won, what's the point of picking on his weaknesses. Besides this, it is unlikely that Obama gave these authors the kind of access that they enjoyed from the other candidates. Why should Obama give journalists the kind of access that could possible take the polish off of his halo while he was riding high in publi opinion?
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the process of presidential political campaigns.