What do you think?
Rate this book
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLERIt was never supposed to be this close. And of course she was supposed to win. How Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump is the riveting story of a sure thing gone off the rails. For every Comey revelation or hindsight acknowledgment about the electorate, no explanation of defeat can begin with anything other than the core problem of Hillary's campaign--the candidate herself. Through deep access to insiders from the top to the bottom of the campaign, political writers Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes have reconstructed the key decisions and unseized opportunities, the well-intentioned misfires and the hidden thorns that turned a winnable contest into a devastating loss. Drawing on the authors' deep knowledge of Hillary from their previous book, the acclaimed biography HRC, Shattered offers an object lesson in how Hillary herself made victory an uphill battle, how her difficulty articulating a vision irreparably hobbled her impact with voters, and how the campaign failed to internalize the lessons of populist fury from the hard-fought primary against Bernie Sanders. Moving blow-by-blow from the campaign's difficult birth through the bewildering terror of election night, Shattered tells an unforgettable story with urgent lessons both political and personal, filled with revelations that will change the way readers understand just what happened to America on November 8, 2016.
456 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 18, 2017
About the author
Jonathan Allen
3 books59 followersJonathan Allen has covered national politics for Politico, Bloomberg, and Vox. He is the head of community and content for Sidewire, and writes a weekly political column for Roll Call.
Photograph by Stuart Hovell.
Photograph by Stuart Hovell.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,041 reviews
September 18, 2019
As JFK liked to say, “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” And he was right, for nobody wishes to take responsibility when things go wrong. On the other hand, people in politics—particularly Democratic politics—delight in blaming each other, happy to take part in a circular firing squad. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, a book based primarily on sources speaking on “background” from 2014 on, inevitably takes on something of that “firing squad” feel. Not surprising in a narrowly lost race which nearly everyone—everyone on the Clinton campaign, at least—was convinced would end in victory.
It starts with attempts to answer a straightforward question: what was the factor that tipped the scales? Was it Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi? The private server? The classified emails, and the media's obsession with them? The primary which went on way too long and used up too many resources? The charismatic--and monstrous--Republican candidate? His lying? His viciousness? His misogyny? Or was it Wikileaks? Or Russians, with their fake Russian news? Or Comey? Or was it those brooding rust-belt voters, the ones who refused to take part in polls?
Soon, though, it gets personal. I mean, whose fault was it, anyway? Bernie, who attacked Hillary’s character too sharply, offered a half-hearted endorsement, and hadn’t known when to quit? Bernie’s followers, who refused to quit at all, even on the floor of the convention? Obama, who gave the DNC little attention and didn’t want a showdown with Wasserman Shultz? Wasserman Schultz, who enraged Bernie Bros with her bias and was always on the lookout for herself? Campaign Manager Mook, who relied heavily on Money Ball style analytics and too little on old-fashioned polling, who took the Midwest too much for granted and refused to put people in the field? Or Huma, the “body-woman” who jealously guarded access to Hillary, whose ubiquitous presence reminded people of sexual indiscretions, since Huma was the unfortunate wife of the loathed Anthony Weiner? Or—speaking of people associated with sexual indiscretions—was the fault Bill Clinton’s after all, who met on the tarmac with Attorney-General Lynch, precipitating Comey's decision to speak publicly about the emails?
Finally, though, the responsibility was Hillary’s. One problem was her failure to articulate a vision. In spite of being arguably the most qualified candidate ever to seek the presidency, she never could communicate why she wanted to run, who she was, what she had always believed. Another problem may have been the strategy she had chosen. She took sides with Mook and the younger generation, relying on the precise targeting of analytics and the turnout of traditionally reliable voters (African-American women, for example) while ignoring the old-fashioned Bill Clinton method of going after—group by group, person by person—the voters she didn’t yet have.
But perhaps the responsibility, goes back even further, to Hillary’s actions before the campaign.
Hillary’s actions…—setting up the private email server, putting her name on the Clinton Foundation, and giving speeches to Wall Street banks in a time of rising populism—hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover. She was unable to prove to many voters that she was running for the presidency because she had a vision for the country rather than visions of power. And she couldn’t cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country had lost faith in its institutions and yearned for a fresh approach to governance. All of it fed a narrative of dynastic privilege that was woefully out of touch with the sentiment of the American electorate.Speaking in late May of 2017, in California, Clinton said, "I never said I was a perfect candidate, and I certainly have never said I ran perfect campaigns-- but I don't know who is, or did. Were there things we could have done differently? You could say that about any campaign. I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost."
“We lost because of Clinton Inc.,” one close friend and adviser lamented. “The reality is Clinton Inc. was great for her for years and she had all the institutional benefits. But it was an albatross around the campaign."
And defeat—as JFK would say—is still an orphan.
October 21, 2017
I'm going to save you the agony of reading this disappointing book by summarizing the authors' assessment of Hillary's loss in a few bullet points. In short, Hillary Clinton:
-was a victim of the ineptitude of her campaign staff, particularly Robbie Mook.
-lost the election because of James Comey (The authors go way out of their way to place nearly complete culpability onto his shoulders)
-lost the election because of Bernie Sanders
-lost the election because of the Russians
-lost the election because Americans are sexist misogynists
The only person who escapes blame for Hillary Clinton's catastrophic loss is Hillary herself. The authors portray her as a victim of circumstances beyond her control. While they almost seem pained to admit she is a serial liar, they work very hard to focus on anything but her corruption.
I am finally done with this Hillary propaganda/apologist drivel, and it's fair to say this past week has been one of the more miserable I've experienced in quite some time as this was one painful venture into inanity. Quite simply, if you are looking for an honest, factual, unbiased, objective account of the repeated mistakes, missteps, and insanity on the part of Hillary, then look elsewhere. The authors of this book are HRC cheerleaders, and they clearly have been for many years. The prose is melodramatic, and portrays Hillary in the most positive light, in every situation. Even when the authors occasionally admit she lied to the American people repeatedly, they lesson the impact of their statements by providing a rational behind her lies, effectively absolving her of the responsibility for her actions.
If you are looking for a book that highlights the brilliance of what Donald Trump did, and allows you to gloat over Hillary's unexpected and colossal defeat, once again, this is not the book for you. The authors are typical Trump haters who give him absolutely no credit for his historic victory, and, like Hillary herself after the election, they spend far more time blaming others, than forcing a close examination of Hillary herself, and all she did throughout her career that led to her defeat. The authors portray her more as a victim of Bill, of the media, of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," than a victim of her own dishonesty, arrogance, and hubris. I have read many accounts of the true Hillary--the Hillary that is hateful, vindictive, angry, spiteful, vengeful...the Hillary who took out her anger toward Bill's affairs, not on Bill, but the women he cheated on her with...the Hillary who actually resorted to sending political operatives to the homes of these women to threaten them if they ever spoke out against her husband. But...I digress.
Perhaps the most enlightening aspect of his novel is the repeated assertions by the authors that Hillary just didn't have a clue what the electorate were thinking. In several chapters they discuss how she would ask her aids, her friends, her democratic colleagues, "what do Americans think of Sanders, of Trump, and what do they think of me?" She is portrayed often as a clueless politician so enmeshed in her circle of elites and Hollywood celebrities that she just couldn't figure out what Americans were going through, what they were thinking, what their fears were, and what they needed from a president and a government in general. This is something that Trump knew instinctively, long before he ran for president. Most Americans who work 50 to 60 hours a week, who have $20,000 debt on their credit cards, who lock their doors at night and worry about their kids, know, without hesitation, what their problems are and how politicians have let them down. Hillary utterly took for granted her blue wall, never stopping to consider the impact of her husband's disastrous NAFTA agreement, or the impact of the 70,000 factories that have closed in this country since it was enacted. Where does Hillary think these people work? She strolled into Virginia coal country and promised to put coal miners out of business. Did she really think that was going to win her votes? Perhaps she counted on votes from environmentalists outweighing the votes from the ranks of the dwindling coal miners struggling to feed their children? The picture that emerges from this analysis is a woman completely out of touch with America. Of course, is she entirely to blame for that? This is the follow up question the authors have for just about every knock on Hillary. Well, I suppose she was forced to hob-nob with coastal elites and Hollywood stars, and give speeches to Goldman Sachs executives, and to sell 20 percent of America's uranium to Russia? Of course...nothing is Hillary's fault. That's the lesson of this apologist clap-trap from two Hillary fans. I regret the $13 I spent on this. If I got this book for free, I would regret the time I spent reading it. Here, you will not find the truth behind the magnificent defeat of the last corrupt Clinton to run for office--hopefully. Now, I suppose I will be written off by Hillary fans as a Hillary hater. The fact is, I have never met Hillary, and would never hate anyone I've never met and gotten to know personally. What I do know, however, is that she hates me, and others like me, as I am quite sure I fit in her basket of irredeemable deplorables.
-was a victim of the ineptitude of her campaign staff, particularly Robbie Mook.
-lost the election because of James Comey (The authors go way out of their way to place nearly complete culpability onto his shoulders)
-lost the election because of Bernie Sanders
-lost the election because of the Russians
-lost the election because Americans are sexist misogynists
The only person who escapes blame for Hillary Clinton's catastrophic loss is Hillary herself. The authors portray her as a victim of circumstances beyond her control. While they almost seem pained to admit she is a serial liar, they work very hard to focus on anything but her corruption.
I am finally done with this Hillary propaganda/apologist drivel, and it's fair to say this past week has been one of the more miserable I've experienced in quite some time as this was one painful venture into inanity. Quite simply, if you are looking for an honest, factual, unbiased, objective account of the repeated mistakes, missteps, and insanity on the part of Hillary, then look elsewhere. The authors of this book are HRC cheerleaders, and they clearly have been for many years. The prose is melodramatic, and portrays Hillary in the most positive light, in every situation. Even when the authors occasionally admit she lied to the American people repeatedly, they lesson the impact of their statements by providing a rational behind her lies, effectively absolving her of the responsibility for her actions.
If you are looking for a book that highlights the brilliance of what Donald Trump did, and allows you to gloat over Hillary's unexpected and colossal defeat, once again, this is not the book for you. The authors are typical Trump haters who give him absolutely no credit for his historic victory, and, like Hillary herself after the election, they spend far more time blaming others, than forcing a close examination of Hillary herself, and all she did throughout her career that led to her defeat. The authors portray her more as a victim of Bill, of the media, of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," than a victim of her own dishonesty, arrogance, and hubris. I have read many accounts of the true Hillary--the Hillary that is hateful, vindictive, angry, spiteful, vengeful...the Hillary who took out her anger toward Bill's affairs, not on Bill, but the women he cheated on her with...the Hillary who actually resorted to sending political operatives to the homes of these women to threaten them if they ever spoke out against her husband. But...I digress.
Perhaps the most enlightening aspect of his novel is the repeated assertions by the authors that Hillary just didn't have a clue what the electorate were thinking. In several chapters they discuss how she would ask her aids, her friends, her democratic colleagues, "what do Americans think of Sanders, of Trump, and what do they think of me?" She is portrayed often as a clueless politician so enmeshed in her circle of elites and Hollywood celebrities that she just couldn't figure out what Americans were going through, what they were thinking, what their fears were, and what they needed from a president and a government in general. This is something that Trump knew instinctively, long before he ran for president. Most Americans who work 50 to 60 hours a week, who have $20,000 debt on their credit cards, who lock their doors at night and worry about their kids, know, without hesitation, what their problems are and how politicians have let them down. Hillary utterly took for granted her blue wall, never stopping to consider the impact of her husband's disastrous NAFTA agreement, or the impact of the 70,000 factories that have closed in this country since it was enacted. Where does Hillary think these people work? She strolled into Virginia coal country and promised to put coal miners out of business. Did she really think that was going to win her votes? Perhaps she counted on votes from environmentalists outweighing the votes from the ranks of the dwindling coal miners struggling to feed their children? The picture that emerges from this analysis is a woman completely out of touch with America. Of course, is she entirely to blame for that? This is the follow up question the authors have for just about every knock on Hillary. Well, I suppose she was forced to hob-nob with coastal elites and Hollywood stars, and give speeches to Goldman Sachs executives, and to sell 20 percent of America's uranium to Russia? Of course...nothing is Hillary's fault. That's the lesson of this apologist clap-trap from two Hillary fans. I regret the $13 I spent on this. If I got this book for free, I would regret the time I spent reading it. Here, you will not find the truth behind the magnificent defeat of the last corrupt Clinton to run for office--hopefully. Now, I suppose I will be written off by Hillary fans as a Hillary hater. The fact is, I have never met Hillary, and would never hate anyone I've never met and gotten to know personally. What I do know, however, is that she hates me, and others like me, as I am quite sure I fit in her basket of irredeemable deplorables.
June 4, 2017
This is a good book for anyone who follows American politics.
Shattered tells the story of Hillary Clinton's campaign for U.S. president in 2016. As someone who voted for Hillary and was devastated by her loss, reading this book was akin to dumping a big bottle of lemon juice on a gaping wound. But, angst be damned, the insider stories were so interesting that I raced through it in two days. Like a lot of Hillary supporters, I'm still trying to understand what went wrong on Nov. 8. There is no one answer to that question, because it was a whole mess of problems.
The authors interviewed more than a hundred campaign aides and advisers for this book, and they granted anonymity to those who requested it. The result is a fascinating account of the 2016 election, month by month and state by state. I can recall all of the news events mentioned, and it was interesting to hear what was going on behind the scenes. I was especially intrigued by the strategy discussions, when the campaign staff was deciding where to send the candidate and where to spend money on additional resources. (This is where it's easy to start laying blame, in that Hillary didn't spend enough time talking with white working class folks.) The stories of the debate prep sessions were also great, and I enjoyed hearing how one adviser studied Trump's behavior and speech patterns (and even dressed like him) to help her prepare for the live debates.
Of course, the most heartbreaking scene was Election Night itself, and watching the Clinton team realize they didn't have enough electoral votes to win.
Another moving section of the book is hearing how Hillary decided to write her concession speech, and she made a choice not to attack Trump, but instead to focus on the future.
Her speechwriters worked all through the night on a draft, and when they met again with Hillary on the morning of Nov. 9, she had more ideas about what she wanted to say.
Reading this book reminded me of the excellent Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, which focused on the bonkers 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain. However Game Change spread its storyline among multiple campaigns — besides Obama and McCain, there were also insider details from the camps of John Edwards, Sarah Palin and Hillary. In contrast, Shattered focuses almost all of its attention on Hillary and her staff, with sidenotes on relevant actions from Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This perspective allows the reader to really drill down and look at all of the challenges Hillary's campaign faced, which were legion.
Since November, I've read scores of articles on why Hillary lost, but I appreciated having this book that went step-by-step through the campaign, providing context to an election that was even more bonkers than 2008. Highly recommended for political readers.
My Big Takeaways From Shattered
* Hillary Clinton is an extremely smart and dedicated public servant — she can get deep into the nuances of policy and tries to understand an issue from every point of view — but she struggled to clearly articulate her message and vision for the country. This was one of the fundamental problems in her campaign.
* Hillary's campaign was run by an inexperienced manager, Robby Mook, who over-relied on faulty data analytics. He made some critical decisions that deeply hurt the campaign, such as not sending Hillary to key states and not spending enough money or hiring enough staffers on the ground.
* The Democratic Party failed to take seriously the anger toward the political establishment, as evidenced by the popularity of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Hillary and her team assumed they would have the same reliable voter demographics that Obama had in 2008 and 2012, and also had counted on the same white workers who had supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Both were faulty assumptions.
* While reading this book, I wondered if Hillary could have won if she had chosen Sanders as her running mate. I think that might have made a difference. There still would have been Russians hacking her email, of course, and the FBI's James Comey would probably still have written that controversial letter, but it's possible Sanders's supporters would have helped with voter turnout.
* All that said, the averages of history were against the Democrats. America typically runs like a pendulum, with the country swinging from the left to the right every 4 to 8 years. It is extremely rare for a political party to win three presidential campaigns in a row.
* In the end, I came away from this book admiring Hillary for her smarts and her hard work, and I believe she would have been a good president. But making stump speeches isn't her strong suit — she's more comfortable in small groups and running meetings. She has the intelligence and the compassion to be a leader, but Trump had all the sound bites and was better at shouting his message to his crowds. Hillary is a policy wonk and struggled to craft good sound bites. As one aide said, "There's a textbook quality to her articulation of things."
Favorite Passages
"When she conceded to Obama in 2008, she'd thanked voters for putting '18 million cracks' in the glass ceiling of the presidency. By the time she finished the 2016 campaign, she believed, that glass ceiling would lay shattered beneath her feet. And yet what Hillary couldn't quite see is that no matter how she recast the supporting roles in this production, or emphasized different parts of the script, the main character hadn't changed."
"Hillary broke one glass ceiling — becoming the first female nominee of a major political party — and forever put to rest the question of whether a woman could be seen as commander in chief. She collected nearly 65.9 million votes — more than any Republican nominee in American history, just 64,822 fewer than Barack Obama in 2012, and almost 3 million more than Donald Trump. And she did that while facing a set of trials and tribulations unlike any other in American campaign history: a partisan congressional investigation; a primary opponent who attacked her character; a rogue FBI director; the rank misogyny of her Republican rival; a media that scrutinized her every move while failing to get that Republican rival to turn over his tax returns; and even a Kremlin-based campaign to defeat her. In the end, though, this was a winnable race for Hillary. Her own missteps — from setting up a controversial private e-mail server and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs to failing to convince voters that she was with them and turning her eyes away from working-class whites — gave Donald Trump the opportunity he needed to win."
"Her message wasn't getting through — even in the moments that weren't dominated by the e-mail scandal. The one thing Hillary could put her finger on was that her 2016 team wasn't doing any better of a job of figuring out how to connect her to the national sentiment. She was in a bubble, and so were the people around her. Together they had a feel for national politics from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, when the public was less dissatisfied with the Democratic establishment's inability to solve their problems."
"Bill Clinton does not really get where the country is. He has this perception of politics which is very much like the 1990s," one of Hillary's advisers said in the midst of the primaries. "The fact that the government hasn't worked in a couple of years is really altering both parties."
"The more she became a candidate of minority voters, the less affinity whites had for her — particularly those whites who had little or no allegiance to the Democratic Party. Amazingly, after having been the candidate of the white working class in a 2008 race against a black opponent, she was becoming anathema to them. Even more astounding, the wife of the president who had won on an 'It's the economy, stupid' mantra was ignoring the core of the Clinton brand — robust growth that touched every American."
"The debates served to reinforce the public perceptions of Hillary and Trump. She was more presidential, totally establishment, and super-rehearsed. He embodied change — for good and for ill. He could be genuine while lying; she came off as inauthentic even when she was telling the truth."
[on Election Night]
"Hillary was still surprisingly calm, unable or unwilling to delve into the details of how her dream was turning into a nightmare. Bill was less reticent. He'd had a sinking feeling that the British vote to leave the European Union had been a harbinger for a kind of screw-it vote in the United States. He'd seen the transatlantic phenomenon of populist rage at rallies across the country, and warned friends privately of his misgivings about its effect on Hillary's chances. Now his focus turned back to the international movement he'd seen gathering. 'It's like Brexit,' he lamented. 'I guess it's real.'"
Shattered tells the story of Hillary Clinton's campaign for U.S. president in 2016. As someone who voted for Hillary and was devastated by her loss, reading this book was akin to dumping a big bottle of lemon juice on a gaping wound. But, angst be damned, the insider stories were so interesting that I raced through it in two days. Like a lot of Hillary supporters, I'm still trying to understand what went wrong on Nov. 8. There is no one answer to that question, because it was a whole mess of problems.
In the postmortem, Hillary and her aides identified dozens of reasons she had lost: low African American turnout in some key areas; a boost in the white vote for Trump in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas; misogyny; the Comey letters; and the Russians ... From Hillary's perspective, external forces created a perfect storm that wiped her out.
The authors interviewed more than a hundred campaign aides and advisers for this book, and they granted anonymity to those who requested it. The result is a fascinating account of the 2016 election, month by month and state by state. I can recall all of the news events mentioned, and it was interesting to hear what was going on behind the scenes. I was especially intrigued by the strategy discussions, when the campaign staff was deciding where to send the candidate and where to spend money on additional resources. (This is where it's easy to start laying blame, in that Hillary didn't spend enough time talking with white working class folks.) The stories of the debate prep sessions were also great, and I enjoyed hearing how one adviser studied Trump's behavior and speech patterns (and even dressed like him) to help her prepare for the live debates.
Of course, the most heartbreaking scene was Election Night itself, and watching the Clinton team realize they didn't have enough electoral votes to win.
A nation of Democrats sat in stunned silence. They hadn't been warned. Hillary hadn't been warned. Even her pollsters had been in the dark, sidelined in favor of an analytics team that insisted she was poised to win.
High above Times Square, disbelief stifled the once-boisterous room. It fell quiet. A new reality took hold: Short of a divine reprieve, Hillary was going to lose. Donald Trump would be president. "No one saw this coming."
Another moving section of the book is hearing how Hillary decided to write her concession speech, and she made a choice not to attack Trump, but instead to focus on the future.
"It's not my job anymore to do this," she said, her voice growing more forceful as Chelsea nodded in agreement. "Other people will criticize him. That's their job. I have done it. I just lost, and that is that," she continued. "That was my last race."
Her speechwriters worked all through the night on a draft, and when they met again with Hillary on the morning of Nov. 9, she had more ideas about what she wanted to say.
Hillary told them she wanted to strike a new balance. She had come to the conclusion that her supporters needed to hear a message of inclusiveness in the face of Trump's victory ... The speech wouldn't be an enumeration of every subset of the country that Trump had offended or threatened during the course of the campaign. It would be more subtle than that. But, as one of her aides described it, the tone would be "graciously critical."
Hillary wanted another significant change. In one of the margins, she had drawn a circle with a cross beneath it — the symbol for women. She said she wanted to say something about the glass ceiling — that it would someday be shattered.
Reading this book reminded me of the excellent Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, which focused on the bonkers 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain. However Game Change spread its storyline among multiple campaigns — besides Obama and McCain, there were also insider details from the camps of John Edwards, Sarah Palin and Hillary. In contrast, Shattered focuses almost all of its attention on Hillary and her staff, with sidenotes on relevant actions from Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This perspective allows the reader to really drill down and look at all of the challenges Hillary's campaign faced, which were legion.
Since November, I've read scores of articles on why Hillary lost, but I appreciated having this book that went step-by-step through the campaign, providing context to an election that was even more bonkers than 2008. Highly recommended for political readers.
My Big Takeaways From Shattered
* Hillary Clinton is an extremely smart and dedicated public servant — she can get deep into the nuances of policy and tries to understand an issue from every point of view — but she struggled to clearly articulate her message and vision for the country. This was one of the fundamental problems in her campaign.
* Hillary's campaign was run by an inexperienced manager, Robby Mook, who over-relied on faulty data analytics. He made some critical decisions that deeply hurt the campaign, such as not sending Hillary to key states and not spending enough money or hiring enough staffers on the ground.
* The Democratic Party failed to take seriously the anger toward the political establishment, as evidenced by the popularity of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Hillary and her team assumed they would have the same reliable voter demographics that Obama had in 2008 and 2012, and also had counted on the same white workers who had supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Both were faulty assumptions.
* While reading this book, I wondered if Hillary could have won if she had chosen Sanders as her running mate. I think that might have made a difference. There still would have been Russians hacking her email, of course, and the FBI's James Comey would probably still have written that controversial letter, but it's possible Sanders's supporters would have helped with voter turnout.
* All that said, the averages of history were against the Democrats. America typically runs like a pendulum, with the country swinging from the left to the right every 4 to 8 years. It is extremely rare for a political party to win three presidential campaigns in a row.
* In the end, I came away from this book admiring Hillary for her smarts and her hard work, and I believe she would have been a good president. But making stump speeches isn't her strong suit — she's more comfortable in small groups and running meetings. She has the intelligence and the compassion to be a leader, but Trump had all the sound bites and was better at shouting his message to his crowds. Hillary is a policy wonk and struggled to craft good sound bites. As one aide said, "There's a textbook quality to her articulation of things."
Favorite Passages
"When she conceded to Obama in 2008, she'd thanked voters for putting '18 million cracks' in the glass ceiling of the presidency. By the time she finished the 2016 campaign, she believed, that glass ceiling would lay shattered beneath her feet. And yet what Hillary couldn't quite see is that no matter how she recast the supporting roles in this production, or emphasized different parts of the script, the main character hadn't changed."
"Hillary broke one glass ceiling — becoming the first female nominee of a major political party — and forever put to rest the question of whether a woman could be seen as commander in chief. She collected nearly 65.9 million votes — more than any Republican nominee in American history, just 64,822 fewer than Barack Obama in 2012, and almost 3 million more than Donald Trump. And she did that while facing a set of trials and tribulations unlike any other in American campaign history: a partisan congressional investigation; a primary opponent who attacked her character; a rogue FBI director; the rank misogyny of her Republican rival; a media that scrutinized her every move while failing to get that Republican rival to turn over his tax returns; and even a Kremlin-based campaign to defeat her. In the end, though, this was a winnable race for Hillary. Her own missteps — from setting up a controversial private e-mail server and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs to failing to convince voters that she was with them and turning her eyes away from working-class whites — gave Donald Trump the opportunity he needed to win."
"Her message wasn't getting through — even in the moments that weren't dominated by the e-mail scandal. The one thing Hillary could put her finger on was that her 2016 team wasn't doing any better of a job of figuring out how to connect her to the national sentiment. She was in a bubble, and so were the people around her. Together they had a feel for national politics from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, when the public was less dissatisfied with the Democratic establishment's inability to solve their problems."
"Bill Clinton does not really get where the country is. He has this perception of politics which is very much like the 1990s," one of Hillary's advisers said in the midst of the primaries. "The fact that the government hasn't worked in a couple of years is really altering both parties."
"The more she became a candidate of minority voters, the less affinity whites had for her — particularly those whites who had little or no allegiance to the Democratic Party. Amazingly, after having been the candidate of the white working class in a 2008 race against a black opponent, she was becoming anathema to them. Even more astounding, the wife of the president who had won on an 'It's the economy, stupid' mantra was ignoring the core of the Clinton brand — robust growth that touched every American."
"The debates served to reinforce the public perceptions of Hillary and Trump. She was more presidential, totally establishment, and super-rehearsed. He embodied change — for good and for ill. He could be genuine while lying; she came off as inauthentic even when she was telling the truth."
[on Election Night]
"Hillary was still surprisingly calm, unable or unwilling to delve into the details of how her dream was turning into a nightmare. Bill was less reticent. He'd had a sinking feeling that the British vote to leave the European Union had been a harbinger for a kind of screw-it vote in the United States. He'd seen the transatlantic phenomenon of populist rage at rallies across the country, and warned friends privately of his misgivings about its effect on Hillary's chances. Now his focus turned back to the international movement he'd seen gathering. 'It's like Brexit,' he lamented. 'I guess it's real.'"
June 19, 2017
Hindsight is 20/20 so it’s easy now to see the signs that portended Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid, but, in the months leading up to Election Night 2016, I don’t remember anyone seriously thinking Trump would win. She’s got this – OF COURSE Hillary’s gonna win. The infamous “grab the pussy” tape, those embarrassing debates Trump clearly lost where he looked like the barely-literate buffoon he is? Come on. It’s a formality. And Trump implying that he would contest the election results, that they’d probably be rigged, days before voting? What a scumbag – he and his racist, misogynistic supporters MUST accept the results to preserve the integrity of the democratic process!
And then the rout was on. The Democrats lost states they always carried, the “blue wall”, everyone – Trump included, going by the shell-shocked expression on his face after the results came in – was stunned at the outcome, and suddenly it was the left who were rioting in the streets, hypocritically refusing to accept the results, tediously and ineffectively chanting “NOT MY PRESIDENT!”.
How did the unthinkable happen? Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes produce a fairly decent, though unsurprising if you followed the election, answer with Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.
The biggest impression you get from reading this book is just how many reasons there are for why everything went tits up for Hills. The list goes on and on, the highlights being: the personal email server where she allegedly and illegally sent classified information, Benghazi, the complete lack of enthusiasm at her rallies compared to Trump’s massive crowds, FBI Director James Comey’s investigations, the Russian hack, her increasingly poor health (culminating in her passing out at the 9/11 memorial and being dragged, Weekend at Bernie’s style, by her aides into her SUV), and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) corruption in the primaries.
But there’s more! 2016 was the year of populism where people showed just how fed up they were with the establishment, first with Brexit and then with Trump – and nobody was more establishment that former First Lady/Senator for New York/Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Hillary’s habit of kneecapping herself leading up to the campaign: the paid speeches to bankers that played into her establishment image, the private email server in her house that made her look reckless, the shady Clinton Foundation that made her and Bill even more wealthy, and the collusion within her party to make her the preordained candidate despite considerably more enthusiasm from supporters for Bernie Sanders.
And still there’s more! Unlike Bill, she’s a horrible public speaker and a seemingly cold and distant person who failed to appear genuine or connect with ordinary people. She also had extremely poor messaging – why did she want to be president? It was never clear. What were her main policies? Erm, to reinforce Obama’s legacy? The main things that stood out about Hillary, like the emails and the establishment image, were negative. Compared to Trump’s overly simplistic, yet direct and effective, soundbites, her messaging sorely lacked focus and appeal. Yes, she’s intelligent with a strong grasp of policy detail, but nuance doesn’t work with a large section of the electorate, which she learned to her detriment.
Allen and Parnes also highlight the flaws in Clinton’s campaign team. Her campaign manager, Robby Mook, rightfully gets the most flak, relying too much as he did on analytics, refusing to spend any money on traditional polling and leaving the campaign without a strong sense of the electorate’s mood – more evidence of the dangers of living in a bubble. Hillary also fatally chose not to do much face-to-face campaigning (maybe because of her health?), despite Bill and Obama urging her to, so she never set foot in key states like Wisconsin, which she lost to Bernie in the primaries and later to Trump in the general. There’s still something to be said about grassroots politics.
The authors make the clever and astute observation that her slogan – “I’m With Her” – made her candidacy about her rather than the electorate and improving their lives (as well as highlighting her gender as a ludicrous reason in itself to vote for her!). Hillary was definitely far too driven by numbers and stats so she couldn’t see that she was utterly failing to inspire the poor, rural, working-class whites who voted for her husband years ago and who now turned to Trump.
But Allen/Parnes’ speculation of Putin’s supposed motivation for allegedly attempting to sabotage Hillary’s campaign is unconvincing – apparently he held a grudge against her for a slight going back to her Secretary of State days? At any rate, let’s be clear about this “Russian hacking” issue because too many uninformed people who don’t read beyond the headlines actually believe Russian hackers changed the election results and tampered with the votes themselves. Nope!
Actually, Russian hackers hacked campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account, as well as DNC emails, and gave the thousands of emails to Wikileaks to publish. The emails showed the widespread corruption within the DNC to rig the primaries in Hillary’s favour, with cooperation from inside Hillary’s campaign. Yes, it made Hillary look bad but that’s what happens when you unmask the monster - all the Russian hackers did was reveal how crooked the Democrats are! And we’re meant to be mad at them for that!? It’s a damn shame the news services aren’t as tenacious to uncover the truth. I saw a great meme about this that went something like “The 2016 Election: Where Hackers Became Journalists and Journalists Became Hacks” – too right!
Ironically though, it was FBI Director James Comey, an American (and a Republican), who, by reopening his investigation into her emails right before Election Day, arguably did more damage to Hillary’s bid than any Russian hacker ever did. That fatal whiff of corruption never left Hillary during the entire campaign.
I felt that, in places, Allen/Parnes weren’t critical enough of Hillary. They acknowledge that people see Hillary as corrupt but fail to talk about the reasons why, like the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play practices or the reasons behind Hillary’s acceptance to make lucrative speeches to bankers behind closed doors. That said, I could see why they omitted that as being peripheral to their focus on the campaign itself. But they really dropped the ball in the section on the DNC rigging the primaries for Hillary. They mention that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign as chairperson of the DNC as a result of the leaked emails but fail to mention that she was immediately hired by Hillary as honorary chair of her 50 State Program. Gee, maybe it’s details like this that make people see Hillary as corrupt?!
I would’ve liked more on Hillary’s health as well. Her fainting spell on 9/11 was due to pneumonia but she’d been coughing for months and months and has a habit of falling down – all very alarming details for anyone, let alone a presidential candidate! She fell in 2012 and got a concussion that took her SIX MONTHS to get over! Why is she always falling? Is her brain ok? Is pneumonia all that’s wrong with her? It’s never questioned and her sickness is quickly glossed over.
While outside forces like a rogue FBI Director, Russian hackers, an incompetent campaign manager and far too many lieutenants with no strong central command overseeing it all (Mook was, well, aptly named compared to Obama’s brilliant strategists, David Plouffe and David Axelrod) could all be pointed to as reasons for Hillary’s failed presidential bid, at the end of the day the blame, as it should, rests with the candidate herself. Ultimately, she’s the real reason why she didn’t win even if she apparently chose instead to blame everyone else instead - a sign of a lack of character and a weak leader.
I’d hoped for an insight into Hillary’s mind-set during the campaign but after finishing the book I still hadn’t much of a sense of who she was – she remains cold, distant, unknowable, even sub-human! Maybe that’s the fault of the authors but similar complaints were echoed by voters and was plausibly one of the reasons why some people didn’t vote for her, so perhaps Allen/Parnes simply couldn’t penetrate the Clinton armour to reveal the humanity beneath. Or maybe that’s who she really is.
The book also drags in places like the primaries (where I think more time was spent than on the general itself!) with too much uninteresting detail on petty internal squabbling. The relatively unexciting primaries could be summed up as Hillary was good at winning delegates but Bernie was gaining momentum – repeat for scores and scores of pages!
Shattered is informative and a fairly well-written overview of Hillary’s campaign but I feel like it didn’t contain enough new information to satisfy or recommend. It’s intermittently interesting and flat in parts - the definitive book on Hillary’s (hopefully) final campaign hasn’t been written yet but it’ll do for now until that book is published.
And then the rout was on. The Democrats lost states they always carried, the “blue wall”, everyone – Trump included, going by the shell-shocked expression on his face after the results came in – was stunned at the outcome, and suddenly it was the left who were rioting in the streets, hypocritically refusing to accept the results, tediously and ineffectively chanting “NOT MY PRESIDENT!”.
How did the unthinkable happen? Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes produce a fairly decent, though unsurprising if you followed the election, answer with Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.
The biggest impression you get from reading this book is just how many reasons there are for why everything went tits up for Hills. The list goes on and on, the highlights being: the personal email server where she allegedly and illegally sent classified information, Benghazi, the complete lack of enthusiasm at her rallies compared to Trump’s massive crowds, FBI Director James Comey’s investigations, the Russian hack, her increasingly poor health (culminating in her passing out at the 9/11 memorial and being dragged, Weekend at Bernie’s style, by her aides into her SUV), and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) corruption in the primaries.
But there’s more! 2016 was the year of populism where people showed just how fed up they were with the establishment, first with Brexit and then with Trump – and nobody was more establishment that former First Lady/Senator for New York/Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Hillary’s habit of kneecapping herself leading up to the campaign: the paid speeches to bankers that played into her establishment image, the private email server in her house that made her look reckless, the shady Clinton Foundation that made her and Bill even more wealthy, and the collusion within her party to make her the preordained candidate despite considerably more enthusiasm from supporters for Bernie Sanders.
And still there’s more! Unlike Bill, she’s a horrible public speaker and a seemingly cold and distant person who failed to appear genuine or connect with ordinary people. She also had extremely poor messaging – why did she want to be president? It was never clear. What were her main policies? Erm, to reinforce Obama’s legacy? The main things that stood out about Hillary, like the emails and the establishment image, were negative. Compared to Trump’s overly simplistic, yet direct and effective, soundbites, her messaging sorely lacked focus and appeal. Yes, she’s intelligent with a strong grasp of policy detail, but nuance doesn’t work with a large section of the electorate, which she learned to her detriment.
Allen and Parnes also highlight the flaws in Clinton’s campaign team. Her campaign manager, Robby Mook, rightfully gets the most flak, relying too much as he did on analytics, refusing to spend any money on traditional polling and leaving the campaign without a strong sense of the electorate’s mood – more evidence of the dangers of living in a bubble. Hillary also fatally chose not to do much face-to-face campaigning (maybe because of her health?), despite Bill and Obama urging her to, so she never set foot in key states like Wisconsin, which she lost to Bernie in the primaries and later to Trump in the general. There’s still something to be said about grassroots politics.
The authors make the clever and astute observation that her slogan – “I’m With Her” – made her candidacy about her rather than the electorate and improving their lives (as well as highlighting her gender as a ludicrous reason in itself to vote for her!). Hillary was definitely far too driven by numbers and stats so she couldn’t see that she was utterly failing to inspire the poor, rural, working-class whites who voted for her husband years ago and who now turned to Trump.
But Allen/Parnes’ speculation of Putin’s supposed motivation for allegedly attempting to sabotage Hillary’s campaign is unconvincing – apparently he held a grudge against her for a slight going back to her Secretary of State days? At any rate, let’s be clear about this “Russian hacking” issue because too many uninformed people who don’t read beyond the headlines actually believe Russian hackers changed the election results and tampered with the votes themselves. Nope!
Actually, Russian hackers hacked campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account, as well as DNC emails, and gave the thousands of emails to Wikileaks to publish. The emails showed the widespread corruption within the DNC to rig the primaries in Hillary’s favour, with cooperation from inside Hillary’s campaign. Yes, it made Hillary look bad but that’s what happens when you unmask the monster - all the Russian hackers did was reveal how crooked the Democrats are! And we’re meant to be mad at them for that!? It’s a damn shame the news services aren’t as tenacious to uncover the truth. I saw a great meme about this that went something like “The 2016 Election: Where Hackers Became Journalists and Journalists Became Hacks” – too right!
Ironically though, it was FBI Director James Comey, an American (and a Republican), who, by reopening his investigation into her emails right before Election Day, arguably did more damage to Hillary’s bid than any Russian hacker ever did. That fatal whiff of corruption never left Hillary during the entire campaign.
I felt that, in places, Allen/Parnes weren’t critical enough of Hillary. They acknowledge that people see Hillary as corrupt but fail to talk about the reasons why, like the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play practices or the reasons behind Hillary’s acceptance to make lucrative speeches to bankers behind closed doors. That said, I could see why they omitted that as being peripheral to their focus on the campaign itself. But they really dropped the ball in the section on the DNC rigging the primaries for Hillary. They mention that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign as chairperson of the DNC as a result of the leaked emails but fail to mention that she was immediately hired by Hillary as honorary chair of her 50 State Program. Gee, maybe it’s details like this that make people see Hillary as corrupt?!
I would’ve liked more on Hillary’s health as well. Her fainting spell on 9/11 was due to pneumonia but she’d been coughing for months and months and has a habit of falling down – all very alarming details for anyone, let alone a presidential candidate! She fell in 2012 and got a concussion that took her SIX MONTHS to get over! Why is she always falling? Is her brain ok? Is pneumonia all that’s wrong with her? It’s never questioned and her sickness is quickly glossed over.
While outside forces like a rogue FBI Director, Russian hackers, an incompetent campaign manager and far too many lieutenants with no strong central command overseeing it all (Mook was, well, aptly named compared to Obama’s brilliant strategists, David Plouffe and David Axelrod) could all be pointed to as reasons for Hillary’s failed presidential bid, at the end of the day the blame, as it should, rests with the candidate herself. Ultimately, she’s the real reason why she didn’t win even if she apparently chose instead to blame everyone else instead - a sign of a lack of character and a weak leader.
I’d hoped for an insight into Hillary’s mind-set during the campaign but after finishing the book I still hadn’t much of a sense of who she was – she remains cold, distant, unknowable, even sub-human! Maybe that’s the fault of the authors but similar complaints were echoed by voters and was plausibly one of the reasons why some people didn’t vote for her, so perhaps Allen/Parnes simply couldn’t penetrate the Clinton armour to reveal the humanity beneath. Or maybe that’s who she really is.
The book also drags in places like the primaries (where I think more time was spent than on the general itself!) with too much uninteresting detail on petty internal squabbling. The relatively unexciting primaries could be summed up as Hillary was good at winning delegates but Bernie was gaining momentum – repeat for scores and scores of pages!
Shattered is informative and a fairly well-written overview of Hillary’s campaign but I feel like it didn’t contain enough new information to satisfy or recommend. It’s intermittently interesting and flat in parts - the definitive book on Hillary’s (hopefully) final campaign hasn’t been written yet but it’ll do for now until that book is published.
May 13, 2017
I love politics
I love politics even when I hate it.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, is an insiders look at Hillary Clinton's 2016 run for President. As everyone knows Secretary Clinton lost to President Grab em by the Pussy. The book paints a picture of a campaign that was doomed from the beginning. They just couldn't catch a break, the press fawned over President Pussy, The Russians hacked and smeared her, and James Comey put his thumb on the scale.
Now I must confess I'm not a big Clinton fan. Neither Bill or Hillary are my favorite people but at least they're competent. I like most people was shocked and sickened when a man with the endorsement of The Klan became President, but after reading this book it appears The Clinton campaign shouldn't have been. The signs were flashing in big red lights U COULD LOSE THIS! the entire time. White people were angry and tired of having a Black President and they couldn't stand the fact that America is becoming browner and browner every year. They feel like these evil Mexican rapists are stealing their jobs and their American Dream. The Clinton campaign ignored all the warning signs of impending doom. They like the rest of us were blindsided on Election night when pretty early it became clear that they were fucked. It was heartbreaking to read about what was going on behind the scenes on election night when it became obvious that Hillary's dreams of becoming the first female President were over. I felt just as sick reading it as I felt living it that night.
I guess we should feel lucky, a lot of voters voted for President Pussy because they feared a Clinton Presidency would be buried in FBI investigations and Congressional hearings. So thank GOD we don't have to deal with that. I'm thankful that we have President who is level headed and morally strong.
I highly recommend it.
I love politics even when I hate it.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, is an insiders look at Hillary Clinton's 2016 run for President. As everyone knows Secretary Clinton lost to President Grab em by the Pussy. The book paints a picture of a campaign that was doomed from the beginning. They just couldn't catch a break, the press fawned over President Pussy, The Russians hacked and smeared her, and James Comey put his thumb on the scale.
Now I must confess I'm not a big Clinton fan. Neither Bill or Hillary are my favorite people but at least they're competent. I like most people was shocked and sickened when a man with the endorsement of The Klan became President, but after reading this book it appears The Clinton campaign shouldn't have been. The signs were flashing in big red lights U COULD LOSE THIS! the entire time. White people were angry and tired of having a Black President and they couldn't stand the fact that America is becoming browner and browner every year. They feel like these evil Mexican rapists are stealing their jobs and their American Dream. The Clinton campaign ignored all the warning signs of impending doom. They like the rest of us were blindsided on Election night when pretty early it became clear that they were fucked. It was heartbreaking to read about what was going on behind the scenes on election night when it became obvious that Hillary's dreams of becoming the first female President were over. I felt just as sick reading it as I felt living it that night.
I guess we should feel lucky, a lot of voters voted for President Pussy because they feared a Clinton Presidency would be buried in FBI investigations and Congressional hearings. So thank GOD we don't have to deal with that. I'm thankful that we have President who is level headed and morally strong.
I highly recommend it.
November 16, 2017
The blurb says it all. I won't try to improve on it. This is just my experience of the book.
The book is not an 'anti-leftist' book, as all my latest reads (with more to come, so bite me). Reading them all does not make me the most popular person in the neighborhood. From experience I know I will lose a few friends. Not because I did something wrong, or perhaps I did, but because they are scared. I understand that. Oh yes, of course, I'm not a person to be associated with anymore. ***sigh****!
The point is, I'm not scared. Life, and work experience, taught me the golden rule of courage. Determination got me up the hill and down the other side with my integrity safely intact.
During the upheavals in our country, late Eighties, early Nineties, my daily schedule of interviewing people and compiling socio-economic reports for community development, brought me in contact with the entire spectrum of people and personalities on the face of this earth. Some were Communists, others were Capitalist; some were rich, others poor; prostitutes or church ministers, freedom fighters or police, and everyone had a reason for choosing their path in life. And all were exhausted.
One single mother with three children was in tears. She was told that same day that she was released from her job contract to make way for an 'affirmative action' appointment. She had no choice. In news bulletins all over the place, the new government supporters promised to take everything back that was stolen from the people, with 'energetic' reactions from all political parties.
Rumors did the rounds that people were getting murdered, and many indeed died on both sides of the equation. She did not know what will happen to her and her children without a job.
Later on the same day, I met a 'Communist' supporter. A single mother who took care of her old and very sick mother, as well as her cute little daughter. She had limited schooling, but just heard that she was appointed as the Director of the regional department of Agriculture. She was totally unfit for the position, but her involvement in the freedom struggle was rewarded. That was the good news. The bad news was that she was also just diagnosed with AIDS. At the time there was no cure or any treatment for the disease yet.
Both women shared their fears and anxieties with me. Both beautiful people. I listened. It was my job. I gave both a sense of hope. I supported them both. The first one opened her own book store, suffered financially, and just did not make it. Her children were taken away by family, while she went for treatment. It took her a few years to adjust, in both mind set and physically to her new environment. She emigrated and found a new job in Australia.
The second one passed away three months later. Her old mother passed away a few weeks before her. Her little daughter was left an orphan.
I cried for the children involved. I cried for both of them when I lay in bed, sleep passing me by, with another day of meeting people and hearing their stories lying ahead the next day. The world was, and still is, a very cruel place, when we remove the veneer and venture into the deeper realms of life, behind the smiles. My job was to tell all their stories with no fear or favor. And that's where I lose 'friends'. I simply refuse to take sides. Most of all, many people hated my guts. So be it.
And that's where I'm coming from with my latest reads. I went through the whole spectrum of philosophies and ideologies through a lifetime of reading and studying. I read a few hundred more books on Communism and Left-wing philosophies than any other. I had to study all the social trends. I worked with it for many years. I researched the consequences of every single one of them. Then 'translated' the findings into cold statistics. Numbers. My latest reads is to catch up on the current interpretations of those ideologies and philosophies. Trends. Motivations. Agendas. New eras. New people. New Dreams and Ideas. In between there are the media and their own ideas to promote. Reading, reading, reading.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Jonathan Allen, was my next read in the non-fictional journey of words. A fascinating read of an election campaign, as told by the people behind the scenes. The profile of a remarkable women surfaced even more in this book.
My previous reads pictured Hilary Clinton as crooked, criminal and over ambitious. The books desrcibed her relationship with Obama as stand-offish and cold. The Obamas treated her very badly. Her relationship with her husband was business with no shared bed. The previous books detailed a blood feud between the Obamas and Clintons. Hilary was bad news. They did not trust each other, and certainly did not like each other either. The competition was hectic. Trump upset the whole cartel, he came to rescue the country from the crooks and communists. Hilary threw a major tantrum when the results were in. She was her old behind-the-scenes bad-tempered self. Trump won all the debates.
This book hailed the deep friendship and deep trust between Obama and Hilary. Obama is indeed the messiah, noble and brilliant. Hilary had her flaws, but it was the Russians, James Comey and a plethora of other people and circumstances which buried her in the end. Trump was the devil. Calling women pigs, strutting them in high heels and fancy dresses like young breeding stock. He hated women. While reading this mesmerizing book, I was smiling. So Trump hated fat women, even called them names, right? What the puck! Women do that themselves. More than anyone else on this planet. We hate each other! We call men fat. We have our own dictionaries of bullets to shoot each other with, and another one to slaughter men with. Nevertheless, Trump is the bad one. He will destroy the country. Hilary won all the debates. Hilary did not throw a tantrum when the results came in. She was calm and collected.
The book is a detailed account of the 2016 campaign and everything which can influence the outcome of an election. In this case all the bad news, particularly the email-issues were laid bare for all to read. Both the Wikileaks missiles, as well as the private email server debacles. It created havoc and took precious hours and people away from the campaign itself. Hilary spent a lot of time finding finances for the enormous expenses encountered by the campaign.
The role of Bernie Sanders. I was thinking about the role he played. He brought the very voters into the corral that would later vote for Trump. He participated in the election, attached himself to a political party which he was not a member of. Trump did the same, right? Hilary did score more support from the voters, even if the allegations that she stole the election was true. A few more million people voted for her anyway. The book implied that he damaged the campaign. Done in a very nice way. Read between the lines. And I actually have to agree with that.
The voter profile. Hilary was upset that all the minority groups did not tow the line. Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews, and women (the majority gender, so by the way). Oh yes, and the upper-, educated middle class. She stands for independent women. It's her passion, her mantra. Now let an old hand tell her something. The more educated people become, the more independent they are. More individualistic. It is a sure sign of intelligence. Expecting of all these groups to gather behind her as group, is a major insult to their education, intelligence, individualism. The more diversity, the higher the education and intelligence. In effect she expected all women to not be independent thinkers, to vote for her just because they are women, and the same with all the other groups she targeted for her campaign. All African-Americans, Hispanics and others were insulted, dear. Deeply so. How did you miss out on that one? Mind-boggling. But that's just me.
I really enjoyed reading this book. So informative and entertaining. And detailed. The book ends with election day and the morning after. What an event! It is not difficult to figure out the different approaches from different authors to the same events. For instance, the authors interviewed the same group of people but reported different stories. Some alleges that Hilary threw a tantrum which scared her staff. The other group related her calm and graceful reaction to the election results. Yes, somewhere among the tales the truth might linger, but it's not evident from the different books, for sure.
What I DID appreciate about these books, is the more complete picture of Hilary Clinton surfacing. She is a loyal, warm-hearted person to her beloveds, tough and resilient in her ambitions, diplomatic when she needs to be; she is a master of deception, challenges the rules, and follows the smell of money. She had a tough childhood, learnt early not to trust people; endures a conniving, cheating, brilliant, highly popular husband. (They share a deep long-lasting friendship). She enjoyes her own natural self. She lacks confidence, was forced to have some work done, and looked stunning and gob-smacking beautiful afterwards (my opinion). She is a role model for millions of women. A very hard worker. She has a temper which can flatten mountains, she cusses like a sailor, she is shy, introvert, private. She is loved and admired. She is hated and despised. She is unique. She is deeply flawed and human. She is all of us.
I would not have come to this conclusion by reading only one side of the story. Since all the authors claim to have interviewed hundreds of people and insist on honorable and truthful information, I have to believe them all :-))
This is a good read on its own. Worth the time.
The book is not an 'anti-leftist' book, as all my latest reads (with more to come, so bite me). Reading them all does not make me the most popular person in the neighborhood. From experience I know I will lose a few friends. Not because I did something wrong, or perhaps I did, but because they are scared. I understand that. Oh yes, of course, I'm not a person to be associated with anymore. ***sigh****!
The point is, I'm not scared. Life, and work experience, taught me the golden rule of courage. Determination got me up the hill and down the other side with my integrity safely intact.
During the upheavals in our country, late Eighties, early Nineties, my daily schedule of interviewing people and compiling socio-economic reports for community development, brought me in contact with the entire spectrum of people and personalities on the face of this earth. Some were Communists, others were Capitalist; some were rich, others poor; prostitutes or church ministers, freedom fighters or police, and everyone had a reason for choosing their path in life. And all were exhausted.
One single mother with three children was in tears. She was told that same day that she was released from her job contract to make way for an 'affirmative action' appointment. She had no choice. In news bulletins all over the place, the new government supporters promised to take everything back that was stolen from the people, with 'energetic' reactions from all political parties.
Rumors did the rounds that people were getting murdered, and many indeed died on both sides of the equation. She did not know what will happen to her and her children without a job.
Later on the same day, I met a 'Communist' supporter. A single mother who took care of her old and very sick mother, as well as her cute little daughter. She had limited schooling, but just heard that she was appointed as the Director of the regional department of Agriculture. She was totally unfit for the position, but her involvement in the freedom struggle was rewarded. That was the good news. The bad news was that she was also just diagnosed with AIDS. At the time there was no cure or any treatment for the disease yet.
Both women shared their fears and anxieties with me. Both beautiful people. I listened. It was my job. I gave both a sense of hope. I supported them both. The first one opened her own book store, suffered financially, and just did not make it. Her children were taken away by family, while she went for treatment. It took her a few years to adjust, in both mind set and physically to her new environment. She emigrated and found a new job in Australia.
The second one passed away three months later. Her old mother passed away a few weeks before her. Her little daughter was left an orphan.
I cried for the children involved. I cried for both of them when I lay in bed, sleep passing me by, with another day of meeting people and hearing their stories lying ahead the next day. The world was, and still is, a very cruel place, when we remove the veneer and venture into the deeper realms of life, behind the smiles. My job was to tell all their stories with no fear or favor. And that's where I lose 'friends'. I simply refuse to take sides. Most of all, many people hated my guts. So be it.
And that's where I'm coming from with my latest reads. I went through the whole spectrum of philosophies and ideologies through a lifetime of reading and studying. I read a few hundred more books on Communism and Left-wing philosophies than any other. I had to study all the social trends. I worked with it for many years. I researched the consequences of every single one of them. Then 'translated' the findings into cold statistics. Numbers. My latest reads is to catch up on the current interpretations of those ideologies and philosophies. Trends. Motivations. Agendas. New eras. New people. New Dreams and Ideas. In between there are the media and their own ideas to promote. Reading, reading, reading.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Jonathan Allen, was my next read in the non-fictional journey of words. A fascinating read of an election campaign, as told by the people behind the scenes. The profile of a remarkable women surfaced even more in this book.
My previous reads pictured Hilary Clinton as crooked, criminal and over ambitious. The books desrcibed her relationship with Obama as stand-offish and cold. The Obamas treated her very badly. Her relationship with her husband was business with no shared bed. The previous books detailed a blood feud between the Obamas and Clintons. Hilary was bad news. They did not trust each other, and certainly did not like each other either. The competition was hectic. Trump upset the whole cartel, he came to rescue the country from the crooks and communists. Hilary threw a major tantrum when the results were in. She was her old behind-the-scenes bad-tempered self. Trump won all the debates.
This book hailed the deep friendship and deep trust between Obama and Hilary. Obama is indeed the messiah, noble and brilliant. Hilary had her flaws, but it was the Russians, James Comey and a plethora of other people and circumstances which buried her in the end. Trump was the devil. Calling women pigs, strutting them in high heels and fancy dresses like young breeding stock. He hated women. While reading this mesmerizing book, I was smiling. So Trump hated fat women, even called them names, right? What the puck! Women do that themselves. More than anyone else on this planet. We hate each other! We call men fat. We have our own dictionaries of bullets to shoot each other with, and another one to slaughter men with. Nevertheless, Trump is the bad one. He will destroy the country. Hilary won all the debates. Hilary did not throw a tantrum when the results came in. She was calm and collected.
The book is a detailed account of the 2016 campaign and everything which can influence the outcome of an election. In this case all the bad news, particularly the email-issues were laid bare for all to read. Both the Wikileaks missiles, as well as the private email server debacles. It created havoc and took precious hours and people away from the campaign itself. Hilary spent a lot of time finding finances for the enormous expenses encountered by the campaign.
The role of Bernie Sanders. I was thinking about the role he played. He brought the very voters into the corral that would later vote for Trump. He participated in the election, attached himself to a political party which he was not a member of. Trump did the same, right? Hilary did score more support from the voters, even if the allegations that she stole the election was true. A few more million people voted for her anyway. The book implied that he damaged the campaign. Done in a very nice way. Read between the lines. And I actually have to agree with that.
The voter profile. Hilary was upset that all the minority groups did not tow the line. Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews, and women (the majority gender, so by the way). Oh yes, and the upper-, educated middle class. She stands for independent women. It's her passion, her mantra. Now let an old hand tell her something. The more educated people become, the more independent they are. More individualistic. It is a sure sign of intelligence. Expecting of all these groups to gather behind her as group, is a major insult to their education, intelligence, individualism. The more diversity, the higher the education and intelligence. In effect she expected all women to not be independent thinkers, to vote for her just because they are women, and the same with all the other groups she targeted for her campaign. All African-Americans, Hispanics and others were insulted, dear. Deeply so. How did you miss out on that one? Mind-boggling. But that's just me.
I really enjoyed reading this book. So informative and entertaining. And detailed. The book ends with election day and the morning after. What an event! It is not difficult to figure out the different approaches from different authors to the same events. For instance, the authors interviewed the same group of people but reported different stories. Some alleges that Hilary threw a tantrum which scared her staff. The other group related her calm and graceful reaction to the election results. Yes, somewhere among the tales the truth might linger, but it's not evident from the different books, for sure.
What I DID appreciate about these books, is the more complete picture of Hilary Clinton surfacing. She is a loyal, warm-hearted person to her beloveds, tough and resilient in her ambitions, diplomatic when she needs to be; she is a master of deception, challenges the rules, and follows the smell of money. She had a tough childhood, learnt early not to trust people; endures a conniving, cheating, brilliant, highly popular husband. (They share a deep long-lasting friendship). She enjoyes her own natural self. She lacks confidence, was forced to have some work done, and looked stunning and gob-smacking beautiful afterwards (my opinion). She is a role model for millions of women. A very hard worker. She has a temper which can flatten mountains, she cusses like a sailor, she is shy, introvert, private. She is loved and admired. She is hated and despised. She is unique. She is deeply flawed and human. She is all of us.
I would not have come to this conclusion by reading only one side of the story. Since all the authors claim to have interviewed hundreds of people and insist on honorable and truthful information, I have to believe them all :-))
This is a good read on its own. Worth the time.
Read
May 4, 2017There's scene near the beginning where Bill and Hillary verbally abuse the latter's campaign staff for failing to make the email scandal go away. She apparently could not accept that setting up a private server had actually been her own decision.
Similarly, she saw it as her staff's job to come up with some reason for why she was running...
The first draft of her concession speech contained a statement of solidarity with Muslim Americans and other minorities, but she insisted on removing it. After her loss, she blamed everyone but herself. Her main contribution to the 'resistance' has been to fuel hysterical rumors about Putin.
The authors themselves do not always seem to grasp the significance of what they're reporting. For instance, they take DC conventional wisdom on 'populism' for granted. The problem with Hilary accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single speech to Goldman Sachs is not that it's inherently corrupt, but that it could be perceived as corrupt (presumably by rubes outside the Beltway).
I honestly don't know if Bernie would have won. Regardless, this book makes it excruciatingly obvious Hillary never should have been the nominee. Shattered offers a sordid portrait of a political elite in decline.
Similarly, she saw it as her staff's job to come up with some reason for why she was running...
The first draft of her concession speech contained a statement of solidarity with Muslim Americans and other minorities, but she insisted on removing it. After her loss, she blamed everyone but herself. Her main contribution to the 'resistance' has been to fuel hysterical rumors about Putin.
The authors themselves do not always seem to grasp the significance of what they're reporting. For instance, they take DC conventional wisdom on 'populism' for granted. The problem with Hilary accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single speech to Goldman Sachs is not that it's inherently corrupt, but that it could be perceived as corrupt (presumably by rubes outside the Beltway).
I honestly don't know if Bernie would have won. Regardless, this book makes it excruciatingly obvious Hillary never should have been the nominee. Shattered offers a sordid portrait of a political elite in decline.
May 2, 2017
How did Hillary Clinton lose an election she was so widely expected to win? How did Donald Trump win that election despite abundant evidence that he was unprepared and ill-suited to hold the office? Two journalists, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, attempt to answer those questions in Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. In writing the book, they brought unique advantages to the task: they began reporting on the Clinton campaign late in 2014, nearly two years before the election and many months before Clinton’s announcement she was running; and they were afforded an insider’s perspective by permitting the more than 100 people they interviewed to speak “on background,” to ensure (since their comments could not be publicly attributed to them).
Trouble surfaced early
Trouble surfaced early. “Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Clinton never managed to solve this problem. Allen and Parnes make clear that the candidate’s failure to explain why she wanted to be president is one of the root causes for her defeat. The authors assert that “this was a winnable race for Hillary. Her own missteps—from setting up a controversial private e-mail server and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs to failing to convince voters that she was with them and turning her eyes away from working-class whites—gave Donald Trump the opportunity he needed to win.”
Hillary Clinton herself feels differently. She attributes the loss to “the FBI (Comey), [Russian intelligence], and the KKK (the support Trump got from white nationalists).” However, a small “number of her close friends and high-level advisers holds that Hillary bears the blame for her defeat. This case rests on the theory that Hillary’s actions before the campaign . . . hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover.” And then there was her failing to prove that “she had a vision for the country rather than visions of power.”
Many reasons why Clinton lost
To my mind, there’s truth in all these analyses. Clinton did ask for trouble with that e-mail server and those speeches on Wall Street. She did most certainly fail to understand, much less address, the concerns of world-class white people, and the staff and friends she surrounded herself with were unable to help her do so. (“‘I don’t understand what’s happening with the country. I can’t get my arms around it,’ Hillary confided.”) Yet it’s also clear that Russian attempts to steer the election to Trump and the clearly partisan intervention of FBI Director James Comey were among the proximate causes of her defeat.
Of all these factors, it’s my distinct impression that Comey’s public comments may have played an outsize role in turning sentiment against Clinton. He twice went public with inappropriate announcements about the investigation into her e-mail server—without ever revealing that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign about possible collusion with the Russians. And the second of those announcements came on Oct. 28, less than two weeks before the election, when early voting was already underway in many states. And I’m not alone in believing this: on FiveThirtyEight, his popular blog, Nate Silver wrote two days before the election that on Oct. 28 “Clinton had an 81 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only forecast. Today, her chances are 65 percent according to the same forecast.” Silver still predicted that Clinton would win, but the drop in support he reported was striking.
An historical perspective
However, I’m not at all sure that historians writing about this election decades from now will view any of these factors as instrumental in Hillary Clinton’s defeat. The seeds were sown beginning in the early 1970s, when the major corporations in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the wealthy conservative activists who were funding Right-Wing think tanks in a concerted effort to undermine the liberal consensus that had dominated American politics since the days of FDR. In the nearly five decades that followed, those forces gained control of the Supreme Court, upended the progressive tax structure that had been in place for half a century, virtually destroyed the labor movement, captured the attention of tens of millions of Americans with heavily biased news coverage and commentary through Fox News and Right-Wing talk radio, enabled corporate money to swamp Congress with platoons of lobbyists and flood into the political process, captured most of the nation’s governorships and state legislatures, and facilitated the rise of the Tea Party while turning a blind eye to the rise of the racist white nationalist “alt-right.” It was this constellation of forces that began their assault on Hillary Clinton as soon as she took up residence in the White House as First Lady in 1993.
All the while these developments were unfolding, the Democratic Party made its own important contribution to what eventually became Hillary Clinton’s problem. No sooner had George McGovern lost the 1972 election to Richard Nixon than the Party began drawing the wagons into an ever-tightening circle that excluded the hundreds of thousands of liberal activists who had supported McGovern. Within a decade, the Party had turned to corporate America for the increasingly massive amounts of money needed to win elections. The Democrats’ turn to the Right culminated in the presidency of Bill Clinton. No Republican could have succeeded in enacting so many neoliberal policies as Bill Clinton did—on trade, criminal justice, welfare, deregulation, and loosening the constraints on Wall Street. In effect, a “New Democrat” enacted much of the Republican agenda. The result was to accelerate the country’s loss of manufacturing jobs, incarcerate millions of people (predominantly people of color), aggravate the homeless problem, cause suffering among millions thrown off welfare, and set the stage for the Great Recession a decade later by enabling the Big Banks to gamble with their customers’ money.
In the final analysis, I believe, this combination of historical forces explains why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. It’s why she entered the race with two out of every five Americans viewing her negatively, and why the Democratic Party and its neoliberal agenda had ceased to be relevant to millions of working-class Americans. Had the Party catered to its base rather than to Wall Street (beginning in the 1970s) and had Clinton’s disapproval ratings been more in line with those of most other Democratic politicians, she would have walked away with the race—Donald Trump, the Russians, and James Comey notwithstanding.
However, in Shattered, Allen and Parnes focus on the trees, not the forest. The book is a look inside the Clinton campaign that anyone interested in electoral politics will find fascinating. Historians, perhaps not so much.
Trouble surfaced early
Trouble surfaced early. “Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Clinton never managed to solve this problem. Allen and Parnes make clear that the candidate’s failure to explain why she wanted to be president is one of the root causes for her defeat. The authors assert that “this was a winnable race for Hillary. Her own missteps—from setting up a controversial private e-mail server and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs to failing to convince voters that she was with them and turning her eyes away from working-class whites—gave Donald Trump the opportunity he needed to win.”
Hillary Clinton herself feels differently. She attributes the loss to “the FBI (Comey), [Russian intelligence], and the KKK (the support Trump got from white nationalists).” However, a small “number of her close friends and high-level advisers holds that Hillary bears the blame for her defeat. This case rests on the theory that Hillary’s actions before the campaign . . . hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover.” And then there was her failing to prove that “she had a vision for the country rather than visions of power.”
Many reasons why Clinton lost
To my mind, there’s truth in all these analyses. Clinton did ask for trouble with that e-mail server and those speeches on Wall Street. She did most certainly fail to understand, much less address, the concerns of world-class white people, and the staff and friends she surrounded herself with were unable to help her do so. (“‘I don’t understand what’s happening with the country. I can’t get my arms around it,’ Hillary confided.”) Yet it’s also clear that Russian attempts to steer the election to Trump and the clearly partisan intervention of FBI Director James Comey were among the proximate causes of her defeat.
Of all these factors, it’s my distinct impression that Comey’s public comments may have played an outsize role in turning sentiment against Clinton. He twice went public with inappropriate announcements about the investigation into her e-mail server—without ever revealing that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign about possible collusion with the Russians. And the second of those announcements came on Oct. 28, less than two weeks before the election, when early voting was already underway in many states. And I’m not alone in believing this: on FiveThirtyEight, his popular blog, Nate Silver wrote two days before the election that on Oct. 28 “Clinton had an 81 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only forecast. Today, her chances are 65 percent according to the same forecast.” Silver still predicted that Clinton would win, but the drop in support he reported was striking.
An historical perspective
However, I’m not at all sure that historians writing about this election decades from now will view any of these factors as instrumental in Hillary Clinton’s defeat. The seeds were sown beginning in the early 1970s, when the major corporations in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the wealthy conservative activists who were funding Right-Wing think tanks in a concerted effort to undermine the liberal consensus that had dominated American politics since the days of FDR. In the nearly five decades that followed, those forces gained control of the Supreme Court, upended the progressive tax structure that had been in place for half a century, virtually destroyed the labor movement, captured the attention of tens of millions of Americans with heavily biased news coverage and commentary through Fox News and Right-Wing talk radio, enabled corporate money to swamp Congress with platoons of lobbyists and flood into the political process, captured most of the nation’s governorships and state legislatures, and facilitated the rise of the Tea Party while turning a blind eye to the rise of the racist white nationalist “alt-right.” It was this constellation of forces that began their assault on Hillary Clinton as soon as she took up residence in the White House as First Lady in 1993.
All the while these developments were unfolding, the Democratic Party made its own important contribution to what eventually became Hillary Clinton’s problem. No sooner had George McGovern lost the 1972 election to Richard Nixon than the Party began drawing the wagons into an ever-tightening circle that excluded the hundreds of thousands of liberal activists who had supported McGovern. Within a decade, the Party had turned to corporate America for the increasingly massive amounts of money needed to win elections. The Democrats’ turn to the Right culminated in the presidency of Bill Clinton. No Republican could have succeeded in enacting so many neoliberal policies as Bill Clinton did—on trade, criminal justice, welfare, deregulation, and loosening the constraints on Wall Street. In effect, a “New Democrat” enacted much of the Republican agenda. The result was to accelerate the country’s loss of manufacturing jobs, incarcerate millions of people (predominantly people of color), aggravate the homeless problem, cause suffering among millions thrown off welfare, and set the stage for the Great Recession a decade later by enabling the Big Banks to gamble with their customers’ money.
In the final analysis, I believe, this combination of historical forces explains why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. It’s why she entered the race with two out of every five Americans viewing her negatively, and why the Democratic Party and its neoliberal agenda had ceased to be relevant to millions of working-class Americans. Had the Party catered to its base rather than to Wall Street (beginning in the 1970s) and had Clinton’s disapproval ratings been more in line with those of most other Democratic politicians, she would have walked away with the race—Donald Trump, the Russians, and James Comey notwithstanding.
However, in Shattered, Allen and Parnes focus on the trees, not the forest. The book is a look inside the Clinton campaign that anyone interested in electoral politics will find fascinating. Historians, perhaps not so much.
May 11, 2017
I'll start with a disclaimer: I never liked the Clintons from their arrival on the national scene in 1992 until Hillary's 2008 concession speech. I still don't think a lot of Bill, but made my peace with her from 2008 - 2015. I did not want her to run again, but supported her last fall (with limited enthusiasm). Now you know.
The book begins slowly with backstory about the days leading up to her official entry into the race (one of history's Worst Kept Secrets). At that time, I knew loyal Democrats who were dreading the idea of her candidacy - not because they were necessarily left-wing activists, but from severe Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. Big clue for me at the time. At any rate, behind the scenes back then, all was far-from-well in the assembling campaign.
By the time the book focuses on Iowa, Sanders' popularity there has made Team Clinton quite nervous. They pull it out in what's essentially a tie . . . ignoring the state pretty much thereafter. They new NH would be bad, but not that bad. They went on to solidify minority support after that, ensuring a slew of delegates in states with few white primary voters. As with Iowa, though Sanders romped there, it was treated as a no-go zone through November: not one visit. Eventually, Sanders has no path left, but stays in through June. Hillary resents this, irony not being her strong suit. Meanwhile, Trump is attracting white working class voters.
The summer section focused on the convention. I wasn't as focused on that part myself, so have less recollection. However, again there was emphasis on all-but-white (males) voter turnout as key. Trump was really tanking from his own problems at the time, though they don't go into that in detail.
The fall section focuses a bit on the debates, which Hillary "won" though it came to have little benefit for her in the end. WikiLeaks making Podesta's emails public caused a significant distraction of resources. I'm less inclined to comment on the Comey matters, as I don't fully understand those. I get that they were very badly handled (to say the least), but don't see them as having much of a direct effect. The last part covers election day and aftermath. This part is best read directly without my comments; however, I'll throw out that campaign manager Mook admitted to Hillary, "Our data was wrong."
That serves to explain why the title refers to her campaign as "doomed". Mook made a decision to scrap actual voter polling to go with cheaper "analytics" (which I take to mean some sort of projection or modeling). As mentioned, there was a problem early on regarding "turf" - professionals vs. Clinton loyalists. Additionally, there's an Empress' New Clothes atmosphere, with no one willing to challenge Hillary. Throw in that she handled the private server matter, and Goldman Sachs connection by doing nothing (leaving it to her surrogates to fake it as best they could), the "doomed" label makes more sense. Bill knew they should've done more for white working-class voters, rather than a focus on cities and suburbs.
This is not to say that the authors were biased in Trump's favor, not at all. They make it clear that they felt she was definitely more qualified than he was for the job. The emphasis in the book is more on Hillary the candidate (politician), which I believe was established as her Achilles Heel.
Bottom Line: more devoted Clinton fans won't likely appreciate the book, while those with a more open mind will do so. Highly recommended!
The book begins slowly with backstory about the days leading up to her official entry into the race (one of history's Worst Kept Secrets). At that time, I knew loyal Democrats who were dreading the idea of her candidacy - not because they were necessarily left-wing activists, but from severe Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. Big clue for me at the time. At any rate, behind the scenes back then, all was far-from-well in the assembling campaign.
By the time the book focuses on Iowa, Sanders' popularity there has made Team Clinton quite nervous. They pull it out in what's essentially a tie . . . ignoring the state pretty much thereafter. They new NH would be bad, but not that bad. They went on to solidify minority support after that, ensuring a slew of delegates in states with few white primary voters. As with Iowa, though Sanders romped there, it was treated as a no-go zone through November: not one visit. Eventually, Sanders has no path left, but stays in through June. Hillary resents this, irony not being her strong suit. Meanwhile, Trump is attracting white working class voters.
The summer section focused on the convention. I wasn't as focused on that part myself, so have less recollection. However, again there was emphasis on all-but-white (males) voter turnout as key. Trump was really tanking from his own problems at the time, though they don't go into that in detail.
The fall section focuses a bit on the debates, which Hillary "won" though it came to have little benefit for her in the end. WikiLeaks making Podesta's emails public caused a significant distraction of resources. I'm less inclined to comment on the Comey matters, as I don't fully understand those. I get that they were very badly handled (to say the least), but don't see them as having much of a direct effect. The last part covers election day and aftermath. This part is best read directly without my comments; however, I'll throw out that campaign manager Mook admitted to Hillary, "Our data was wrong."
That serves to explain why the title refers to her campaign as "doomed". Mook made a decision to scrap actual voter polling to go with cheaper "analytics" (which I take to mean some sort of projection or modeling). As mentioned, there was a problem early on regarding "turf" - professionals vs. Clinton loyalists. Additionally, there's an Empress' New Clothes atmosphere, with no one willing to challenge Hillary. Throw in that she handled the private server matter, and Goldman Sachs connection by doing nothing (leaving it to her surrogates to fake it as best they could), the "doomed" label makes more sense. Bill knew they should've done more for white working-class voters, rather than a focus on cities and suburbs.
This is not to say that the authors were biased in Trump's favor, not at all. They make it clear that they felt she was definitely more qualified than he was for the job. The emphasis in the book is more on Hillary the candidate (politician), which I believe was established as her Achilles Heel.
Bottom Line: more devoted Clinton fans won't likely appreciate the book, while those with a more open mind will do so. Highly recommended!
September 7, 2018
In the UK, many of us felt we were missing something during the last American elections. Firstly, it seemed inconceivable that anyone would consider voting for Trump. Hillary Clinton seemed what the UK press would term, “a safe pair of hands.” She had years of experience, she seemed the most obvious winner. Yet, it also seemed that the American public disliked her so much that they were unable to consider voting for her and, certainly from our viewpoint, we did not understand why. As such, I thought it would be interesting to read this – subtitled, “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.”
Of course, the UK had their own rejection of the norm, with Brexit, and, reading this, it seems that many – including, notably, Bill Clinton, has a suspicion that this election would not follow the usual pattern. That aside, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was faced with endless problems and, having read this, I do feel I understand what happened a little better. So, how did this happen? How did Trump actually become the better option for some voters?
Seemingly, the problems seemed to start right from the very beginning, with Clinton’s initial speech, which was supposed to underline her reasons for standing. Only, she didn’t seem to have any – or, although she had a huge number of causes she wanted to address, she seemed unable to articulate these in a simple, vote winning way. “Build a Wall!” can be chanted. Her team, who always seemed divided, could not give her those catchy sound-bites and, to be fair, she would have found them near impossible to say. For Hillary always comes across a little serious, a little stern, a little uncomfortable.
With her team divided by self-interest, a constant stream of damaging news stories, the Democrat vote divided by Bernie Sanders, not taking the threat of Trump seriously enough and Hillary mis-reading the mood of the voters, there was a disaster coming that – like Brexit – those in charge failed to see coming. Her team seemed to cling to figures and trends with desperation, totally losing the idea that they needed to try to persuade voters to their point of view and, instead, clinging to those they were sure would come out in favour of her.
Certainly, the campaign was not all bad. In the debates with Trump, the authors felt that Hillary did well. However, she was judged harshly, while Trump was deemed a success, “if he didn’t drool on his shoes.” As such, perhaps she could never have won. Indeed, if Trump was a viable option, then it is pretty certain that anyone could have beaten her and, as such, you cannot help but wonder whether someone should have suggested a different candidate. For, it seemed that Hillary Clinton was the safe pair of hands in a world that suddenly wants populism, wants something different, no matter what the costs. It is said that we learn from our mistakes, but let’s hope that voters, wherever they may be, do not learn the hard way.
Of course, the UK had their own rejection of the norm, with Brexit, and, reading this, it seems that many – including, notably, Bill Clinton, has a suspicion that this election would not follow the usual pattern. That aside, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was faced with endless problems and, having read this, I do feel I understand what happened a little better. So, how did this happen? How did Trump actually become the better option for some voters?
Seemingly, the problems seemed to start right from the very beginning, with Clinton’s initial speech, which was supposed to underline her reasons for standing. Only, she didn’t seem to have any – or, although she had a huge number of causes she wanted to address, she seemed unable to articulate these in a simple, vote winning way. “Build a Wall!” can be chanted. Her team, who always seemed divided, could not give her those catchy sound-bites and, to be fair, she would have found them near impossible to say. For Hillary always comes across a little serious, a little stern, a little uncomfortable.
With her team divided by self-interest, a constant stream of damaging news stories, the Democrat vote divided by Bernie Sanders, not taking the threat of Trump seriously enough and Hillary mis-reading the mood of the voters, there was a disaster coming that – like Brexit – those in charge failed to see coming. Her team seemed to cling to figures and trends with desperation, totally losing the idea that they needed to try to persuade voters to their point of view and, instead, clinging to those they were sure would come out in favour of her.
Certainly, the campaign was not all bad. In the debates with Trump, the authors felt that Hillary did well. However, she was judged harshly, while Trump was deemed a success, “if he didn’t drool on his shoes.” As such, perhaps she could never have won. Indeed, if Trump was a viable option, then it is pretty certain that anyone could have beaten her and, as such, you cannot help but wonder whether someone should have suggested a different candidate. For, it seemed that Hillary Clinton was the safe pair of hands in a world that suddenly wants populism, wants something different, no matter what the costs. It is said that we learn from our mistakes, but let’s hope that voters, wherever they may be, do not learn the hard way.
April 26, 2017
I thought this book was a bit overhyped - most of the really juicy stuff has been posted online - but still an interesting look at the Clinton campaign. The authors spread the blame around, but there's three central points to be made:
(1) Too many cooks. Hillary has developed a large posse of loyal insiders (in DC they're known as Hillaryland, which is also the title of an upcoming book about them) who create a bubble. They come with problems and scandals and political baggage of their own, but if they're loyal to her, she's loyal to them, and doesn't fire them even when their presence is damaging the campaign. They squabble a lot, and her strategy is always to just add more experts. For example, for one important speech early on she had two separate teams unknowingly writing the same speech in separate rooms, and when she didn't like either one, she called in a famous Obama speechwriter to graft the speeches together, making everyone feel undercut and jealous. This would happen over and over again, which might be one of the reasons she's not known for her speeches.
(2) Her campaign manager, Mook, was a young guy who relied heavily on analytics, and his models were from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns involving a charismatic younger black man who was not up against a populist revolt inside his own party, not an older, stiff woman with a history of scandal facing off against Sanders' incredibly popular message. At Hillary's request, he was very stingy with money and ran a tight campaign, so if his models showed that states (like Michigan) were in the bag, they didn't spend big money there and Hillary didn't go there. This ended up costing her the election.
(3) Sanders himself refused to wrap his campaign even when it became mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, which dragged out Hillary's primary campaign until the convention, at the expense of the general campaign. She asked him to step aside, Bill Clinton asked him to step aside, the DNC asked him to step aside, and Obama asked him to step aside, but by the time he did it, it was too late. (I actually don't blame him for this, but it was an important factor)
The primary problem, the book posits, was Hillary herself, who entered the race as someone who was known and unliked by most of the American populace. She had a history of scandals (Whitewater, the Lewinsky scandal, Benghazi, even if that one wasn't real) and she was under FBI investigation about her email servers which seems to have been, at least originally, a genuine invesitigation. She's not a great speaker, she's not charismatic, and she could never find a central message to her campaign like Obama's "Hope." Even she didn't like "Stronger Together" or "I'm with Her" but it was the best they could come with. She sent thinktank after thinktank to come up with a message, but they really couldn't, because she didn't seem to have a reason for running other than for the sake of it.
The book doesn't dispute her credentials, or posit whether she would have been a better President than Trump. It focuses exclusively on problems within the campaign, and with Hillary herself. It portrays her as indecisive and cold, though it's incredibly sympathetic when it gets to election day, because who wouldn't be?
Warning: If your stomach churned during Election Night, you will relive some of the experience while reading the end of the book.
(1) Too many cooks. Hillary has developed a large posse of loyal insiders (in DC they're known as Hillaryland, which is also the title of an upcoming book about them) who create a bubble. They come with problems and scandals and political baggage of their own, but if they're loyal to her, she's loyal to them, and doesn't fire them even when their presence is damaging the campaign. They squabble a lot, and her strategy is always to just add more experts. For example, for one important speech early on she had two separate teams unknowingly writing the same speech in separate rooms, and when she didn't like either one, she called in a famous Obama speechwriter to graft the speeches together, making everyone feel undercut and jealous. This would happen over and over again, which might be one of the reasons she's not known for her speeches.
(2) Her campaign manager, Mook, was a young guy who relied heavily on analytics, and his models were from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns involving a charismatic younger black man who was not up against a populist revolt inside his own party, not an older, stiff woman with a history of scandal facing off against Sanders' incredibly popular message. At Hillary's request, he was very stingy with money and ran a tight campaign, so if his models showed that states (like Michigan) were in the bag, they didn't spend big money there and Hillary didn't go there. This ended up costing her the election.
(3) Sanders himself refused to wrap his campaign even when it became mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, which dragged out Hillary's primary campaign until the convention, at the expense of the general campaign. She asked him to step aside, Bill Clinton asked him to step aside, the DNC asked him to step aside, and Obama asked him to step aside, but by the time he did it, it was too late. (I actually don't blame him for this, but it was an important factor)
The primary problem, the book posits, was Hillary herself, who entered the race as someone who was known and unliked by most of the American populace. She had a history of scandals (Whitewater, the Lewinsky scandal, Benghazi, even if that one wasn't real) and she was under FBI investigation about her email servers which seems to have been, at least originally, a genuine invesitigation. She's not a great speaker, she's not charismatic, and she could never find a central message to her campaign like Obama's "Hope." Even she didn't like "Stronger Together" or "I'm with Her" but it was the best they could come with. She sent thinktank after thinktank to come up with a message, but they really couldn't, because she didn't seem to have a reason for running other than for the sake of it.
The book doesn't dispute her credentials, or posit whether she would have been a better President than Trump. It focuses exclusively on problems within the campaign, and with Hillary herself. It portrays her as indecisive and cold, though it's incredibly sympathetic when it gets to election day, because who wouldn't be?
Warning: If your stomach churned during Election Night, you will relive some of the experience while reading the end of the book.
June 9, 2017
This is not just a rehash of major events during Hillary's 2016 campaign. We get a thoroughly-researched inside perspective, sense of strategy and even insight into the thinking behind what was--for better and worse--a monumental moment in history.
The book is superbly written in a way that is both historically precise and engaging. Surprisingly it's a page turner even though we all know how it's going to end. I was afraid of experiencing PTSD during some of the most infuriating moments but because so much new information is included it wasn't as traumatic as I thought. Whether you love Hillary or hate her, it's fascinating to read about the politics of a billion dollar presidential campaign.
The book is superbly written in a way that is both historically precise and engaging. Surprisingly it's a page turner even though we all know how it's going to end. I was afraid of experiencing PTSD during some of the most infuriating moments but because so much new information is included it wasn't as traumatic as I thought. Whether you love Hillary or hate her, it's fascinating to read about the politics of a billion dollar presidential campaign.
July 22, 2017
I couldn't give this book less than three stars, given how much information the authors gathered from hundreds of campaign operatives, consultants, and others involved with Hillary Clinton's disastrous 2016 campaign. But I have to say that this account was a huge disappointment all the same. Just like in the campaign, there was absolutely no sense of who Hillary Clinton was, what her emotions were all about, how she really related to people, or what made the American people reject her so decisively when all the indications were pointing the other way almost to the very end.
Far too much of this book is just gossip from low level wonks like "Zach was sure the numbers meant things were fine in Ohio. But old-time operatives like Mac were positive that the numbers didn't tell the whole story. It was part of the fundamental divide that prevented Hillary's team from deciding on a decisive strategy as the campaign entered a new and critical phase."
The book goes on like that for about 500 pages, and it leaves you with questions like, "Who the f**k is Zach? Who the f**k is Mac? Who give a big whooping f**k what they think? Where are the stories? Where are the human emotions? Where's Bill groping young girls? Where's Hillary throwing stuff? Where's Chelsea cutting herself in the bathroom?"
And it's the same with the electorate. There are hundreds of pages describing staff meetings, all pointless and monotonous. "Hillary listened with a stone face while Zach read the numbers. Hillary listened with controlled fury while Andy read the numbers. Hillary listened in bug-eyed horror as Courtney read the numbers." Never once is there a description of Hillary interacting with actual voters in an actual diner or at a town hall meeting. It must have happened at least once! Where are all the coal miners she promised to throw out of work? Where are all the young amputees trying to rebuild their lives after Hillary's cynical decision to rubber stamp the Bush war in Iraq? Where are all the working-class white women who never bought the whole "forget about Wall Street and Wellesley, I'm your sister" line of bullsh**t? There's not one single moment of real interaction between Hillary and the voters in this book. What does that say about the authors, and what does that say about her campaign? Both questions are fascinating, yet strangely ominous and disturbing.
One final thought: practically the only passage that grabbed me was when the authors describe the fabulous speech First Lady Michelle Obama made endorsing Hillary at the convention. The authors explain how Michelle's team of speech writers worked together efficiently and "elegantly" and had her speech done a full week ahead of time. (Seriously, is that a great achievement? I heard about a dead white male who wrote his own speeches, once. On the backs of envelopes. On trains. They called him the Great Emancipator or something. I think he lived during the Civil War!) But let's grant that Michelle Obama's speech was better than Hillary's. And let's give Michelle full credit for hiring the smartest kids in the class to do her homework for her.
But here's the kicker. Describing the fabulous Michelle Obama speech, the two bonehead authors mention (just in passing, mind you) that Michelle's fervent, adoring endorsement of Hillary is fully triumphant, even though the two women "were never close." Really? Isn't that kind of . . . interesting? Who told you they weren't close? Could we have a quote? An anecdote? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Three stars all the way, people. And you're lucky I'm feeling generous!
Far too much of this book is just gossip from low level wonks like "Zach was sure the numbers meant things were fine in Ohio. But old-time operatives like Mac were positive that the numbers didn't tell the whole story. It was part of the fundamental divide that prevented Hillary's team from deciding on a decisive strategy as the campaign entered a new and critical phase."
The book goes on like that for about 500 pages, and it leaves you with questions like, "Who the f**k is Zach? Who the f**k is Mac? Who give a big whooping f**k what they think? Where are the stories? Where are the human emotions? Where's Bill groping young girls? Where's Hillary throwing stuff? Where's Chelsea cutting herself in the bathroom?"
And it's the same with the electorate. There are hundreds of pages describing staff meetings, all pointless and monotonous. "Hillary listened with a stone face while Zach read the numbers. Hillary listened with controlled fury while Andy read the numbers. Hillary listened in bug-eyed horror as Courtney read the numbers." Never once is there a description of Hillary interacting with actual voters in an actual diner or at a town hall meeting. It must have happened at least once! Where are all the coal miners she promised to throw out of work? Where are all the young amputees trying to rebuild their lives after Hillary's cynical decision to rubber stamp the Bush war in Iraq? Where are all the working-class white women who never bought the whole "forget about Wall Street and Wellesley, I'm your sister" line of bullsh**t? There's not one single moment of real interaction between Hillary and the voters in this book. What does that say about the authors, and what does that say about her campaign? Both questions are fascinating, yet strangely ominous and disturbing.
One final thought: practically the only passage that grabbed me was when the authors describe the fabulous speech First Lady Michelle Obama made endorsing Hillary at the convention. The authors explain how Michelle's team of speech writers worked together efficiently and "elegantly" and had her speech done a full week ahead of time. (Seriously, is that a great achievement? I heard about a dead white male who wrote his own speeches, once. On the backs of envelopes. On trains. They called him the Great Emancipator or something. I think he lived during the Civil War!) But let's grant that Michelle Obama's speech was better than Hillary's. And let's give Michelle full credit for hiring the smartest kids in the class to do her homework for her.
But here's the kicker. Describing the fabulous Michelle Obama speech, the two bonehead authors mention (just in passing, mind you) that Michelle's fervent, adoring endorsement of Hillary is fully triumphant, even though the two women "were never close." Really? Isn't that kind of . . . interesting? Who told you they weren't close? Could we have a quote? An anecdote? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Three stars all the way, people. And you're lucky I'm feeling generous!
July 15, 2017
THis was truly an interesting book (I listened to it as an audio book) and gives tremendous insight into Hillary's doomed campaign. I didn't care for it always seemed to portray her as "the victim" in all of it though. It didn't seem to point out often enough how Hillary brought her loss on herself to include her own e-mail scandal and her poo poo-ing it. She seemed to believe that she was entitled to win for no other reason than she was Hillary and the authors seem to have this constantly in the background.
April 25, 2017
Parts of this book were definitely interesting, but there were also quite a few sections that got bogged down with too many names of minor players or other narrative clutter that takes up space that might have been better spent on "big picture" stuff. As a whole the book didn't pack the emotional punch I expected it to...which I guess you could also say about the campaign itself. Sigh.
July 25, 2017
Arrogant. That's the word that best sums up Hillary Clinton's doomed 2016 campaign for the Presidency. The Clintons have long been the poster couple for tit-for-tat, mafia style politics. Hillary's yearned for the top job since well before her historic 2008 run against Barack Obama, and her foot soldiers obediently did their part to push anyone they viewed as an obstacle to her out of the 2016 race. Then, lo and behold, out of (very) left field came Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont. Everyone in Clinton Inc. expected the white haired, gesticulating Sanders to fall victim to the same Clinton machine that had devoured so many politicians before it. Turns out he wouldn't go that easily.
I'm a massive political junkie, and being that we're living in perhaps the most unpredictable, unusual time in the history of American politics, I've been living in a state of fascination these past couple of years. Despite the unbelievably quick turn-around time, I was eager to take a crack at "Shattered" the moment I'd first heard about it. The narrative currently on the left goes that Donald Trump only won because of Russian interference and then-FBI Director James Comey's announcement that additional emails had been found (on Anthony Weiner's computer, no less) pertaining to the FBI's investigation of Hillary's use of a private server while Secretary of State. "Shattered" recounts the Hillary campaign's reactions to those events.
Which brings us back to the primaries, which is where, appropriately enough, "Shattered" spends most of its time. Bernie Sanders exited the race too early to benefit from the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails and the two Comey announcements into Hillary's handling of classified information, and yet his unexpected success first shined a light on Hillary's flaws and the public's immense distrust of her. That Sanders put up such a strong fight despite the DNC and the entire D.C. political establishment working against him was proof enough that Hillary was in trouble. That she and her advisors failed to learn the lesson of the primaries was a mistake that would ultimately cost them the election.
I'm confident that if Sanders had been the nominee, he would have cleaned Trump's clock. Hillary was doomed from the moment she entered the race. Think about it. Hillary, the very epitome of an establishment candidate, running in a year when establishment politics could not have been more unpopular. That she had the incredibly poor judgement to accept exorbitant sums of money from Wall Street BEFORE a Presidential run illustrates her greed, stupidity, and lack of decent political counsel.
There still exists a lot of denial about the mistakes that were made during the election. If Democrats have any hope of winning back the White House in 2020 and Congress two years before that, they better make sure they learn those lessons. As a result, "Shattered" is essential reading for Democrats everywhere.
I'm a massive political junkie, and being that we're living in perhaps the most unpredictable, unusual time in the history of American politics, I've been living in a state of fascination these past couple of years. Despite the unbelievably quick turn-around time, I was eager to take a crack at "Shattered" the moment I'd first heard about it. The narrative currently on the left goes that Donald Trump only won because of Russian interference and then-FBI Director James Comey's announcement that additional emails had been found (on Anthony Weiner's computer, no less) pertaining to the FBI's investigation of Hillary's use of a private server while Secretary of State. "Shattered" recounts the Hillary campaign's reactions to those events.
Which brings us back to the primaries, which is where, appropriately enough, "Shattered" spends most of its time. Bernie Sanders exited the race too early to benefit from the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails and the two Comey announcements into Hillary's handling of classified information, and yet his unexpected success first shined a light on Hillary's flaws and the public's immense distrust of her. That Sanders put up such a strong fight despite the DNC and the entire D.C. political establishment working against him was proof enough that Hillary was in trouble. That she and her advisors failed to learn the lesson of the primaries was a mistake that would ultimately cost them the election.
I'm confident that if Sanders had been the nominee, he would have cleaned Trump's clock. Hillary was doomed from the moment she entered the race. Think about it. Hillary, the very epitome of an establishment candidate, running in a year when establishment politics could not have been more unpopular. That she had the incredibly poor judgement to accept exorbitant sums of money from Wall Street BEFORE a Presidential run illustrates her greed, stupidity, and lack of decent political counsel.
There still exists a lot of denial about the mistakes that were made during the election. If Democrats have any hope of winning back the White House in 2020 and Congress two years before that, they better make sure they learn those lessons. As a result, "Shattered" is essential reading for Democrats everywhere.
Read
April 19, 2017“Loser” is perhaps President Trump’s favorite insult and, all things considered, the best alternative title for Shattered a new book that takes readers “inside Hillary Clinton’s doomed campaign.” The work reveals the dysfunction of Hillary’s leadership team and how they adopted a fatal strategy of identity politics, but it fails to draw practically any comparison to her Republican rival on qualitative or quantitative measures.
The authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, are two journalists who covered the campaign. Surely they sold this book before the outcome was known, though the publisher may be hoping to get in on the market of still-confused Democrats. The bewildered would be better served taking a field trip to my home state of Tennessee, where Trump enthusiasm is in no short supply. But I assume this is the start of a series of failure biographies on the Atlanta Falcons, the inventor of the Segway, and the producers of John Carter.
Surely we can learn from losers, perhaps more so than from winners, but I do not recall any similar book that focuses so myopically on a losing presidential campaign to the near total exclusion of the winner. There are bitter memoirs, comical takes, entire biographies, and the rare historical retrospectives on say, Goldwater’s 1964 campaign or Reagan’s 1976 campaign. But Shattered occupies a genre by itself, as a somewhat neutral, serious, excessively isolated take on a forgettable candidacy: does anyone imagine that, decades from now, the Democrat Party will be built on the shining example of Hillary Clinton?
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
The authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, are two journalists who covered the campaign. Surely they sold this book before the outcome was known, though the publisher may be hoping to get in on the market of still-confused Democrats. The bewildered would be better served taking a field trip to my home state of Tennessee, where Trump enthusiasm is in no short supply. But I assume this is the start of a series of failure biographies on the Atlanta Falcons, the inventor of the Segway, and the producers of John Carter.
Surely we can learn from losers, perhaps more so than from winners, but I do not recall any similar book that focuses so myopically on a losing presidential campaign to the near total exclusion of the winner. There are bitter memoirs, comical takes, entire biographies, and the rare historical retrospectives on say, Goldwater’s 1964 campaign or Reagan’s 1976 campaign. But Shattered occupies a genre by itself, as a somewhat neutral, serious, excessively isolated take on a forgettable candidacy: does anyone imagine that, decades from now, the Democrat Party will be built on the shining example of Hillary Clinton?
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
February 12, 2020
“Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her. In fact, the more people she assigned to the task of setting the tone for her campaign, the more muddled her message became”
― Jonathan Allen, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
This was a decent read. It is long though and after awhile I just did not want to go on reading, (I did read till the end but required several breaks.)
I think I am getting burned out on political reads. The book does not tell us much we did not know in regards to Clinton and several times the book had me shaking my head at pretty much everyone involved in BOTH of the 2016 Presidential campaigns. A good book, a decent read but sometimes got to much even for a political junkie like myself.
― Jonathan Allen, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
This was a decent read. It is long though and after awhile I just did not want to go on reading, (I did read till the end but required several breaks.)
I think I am getting burned out on political reads. The book does not tell us much we did not know in regards to Clinton and several times the book had me shaking my head at pretty much everyone involved in BOTH of the 2016 Presidential campaigns. A good book, a decent read but sometimes got to much even for a political junkie like myself.
August 19, 2019
There are many books trying to explain why Trump won, but perhaps the real question is why Hillary Clinton lost. This book details many reasons.
From the beginning, HRC had no "why" for her candidacy. Even her inner circle could not express her vision. Her messaging and political outreach were “terrible”. Also from the start were mismanagement and infighting within the campaign. She also seems to have a pattern of denial and blaming everyone else for her mistakes. The private email server, for example, was a deliberate personal nonsense of her own making and she just lied about the emails to everyone.
Her main tactic for the campaign was to woo black voters by positioning herself as a friend of Obama. In the meantime, while primary voters were being inspired by Bernie's vision of government for the people instead of for Wall Street, HRC couldn't understand why people didn't love her more than Bernie, exclaiming at one point “What was Hillarycare?!” Except that Hillarycare was a shambles. In addition to this sort of nonsense, the authors point out “Blindness to conflicts of interest, paranoia," etc. This is not a great leader or even a great politician.
If the only thing that mattered was beating Trump, then Hillary perhaps should have asked Bernie to be her VP running mate because, as this book points out over and over again, Bernie was doing well with the voters that she did terribly with. But she never even considered Bernie. She did consider Elizabeth Warren, another progressive, but ultimately chose someone by process of elimination of what she disliked, not by selection for positive qualities. This is just basic bad hiring practice. According to the book, even her allies like Obama thought her behavior and campaigning constituted political malpractice "full of unforced errors." In the end, when she loses the election her whole team just repeats “No one saw it coming.” Well that just further demonstrates their incompetence and arrogance.
Perhaps journalists can let go of the "electability" frame of all political reporting since that concept keeps getting disproven.
The book was too much inside baseball to hold my interest throughout, but I suppose this was accurate and part of the problem being described, i.e. the petty insider balderdash that politicians pay attention to. Also, the problem with the content of the hacked DNC/Podesta emails was not dealt with well, except as a problem for Hillary. Overall though, given the authors' bias in favor of HRC I think they did a good job of exposing many of her flaws.
From the beginning, HRC had no "why" for her candidacy. Even her inner circle could not express her vision. Her messaging and political outreach were “terrible”. Also from the start were mismanagement and infighting within the campaign. She also seems to have a pattern of denial and blaming everyone else for her mistakes. The private email server, for example, was a deliberate personal nonsense of her own making and she just lied about the emails to everyone.
Her main tactic for the campaign was to woo black voters by positioning herself as a friend of Obama. In the meantime, while primary voters were being inspired by Bernie's vision of government for the people instead of for Wall Street, HRC couldn't understand why people didn't love her more than Bernie, exclaiming at one point “What was Hillarycare?!” Except that Hillarycare was a shambles. In addition to this sort of nonsense, the authors point out “Blindness to conflicts of interest, paranoia," etc. This is not a great leader or even a great politician.
If the only thing that mattered was beating Trump, then Hillary perhaps should have asked Bernie to be her VP running mate because, as this book points out over and over again, Bernie was doing well with the voters that she did terribly with. But she never even considered Bernie. She did consider Elizabeth Warren, another progressive, but ultimately chose someone by process of elimination of what she disliked, not by selection for positive qualities. This is just basic bad hiring practice. According to the book, even her allies like Obama thought her behavior and campaigning constituted political malpractice "full of unforced errors." In the end, when she loses the election her whole team just repeats “No one saw it coming.” Well that just further demonstrates their incompetence and arrogance.
Perhaps journalists can let go of the "electability" frame of all political reporting since that concept keeps getting disproven.
The book was too much inside baseball to hold my interest throughout, but I suppose this was accurate and part of the problem being described, i.e. the petty insider balderdash that politicians pay attention to. Also, the problem with the content of the hacked DNC/Podesta emails was not dealt with well, except as a problem for Hillary. Overall though, given the authors' bias in favor of HRC I think they did a good job of exposing many of her flaws.
May 8, 2017
This book is going to generate a lot of controversy, and many people will be angered by it. I found it fascinating as reportage of the Clinton campaign from the inside. And that's how I approached it. I would urge people who pick it up to keep a couple of things in mind. First, it's not meant to be taken as a thoughtful analysis of the 2016 election. It's really too early for that. What analysis there is reads more as inside baseball than history, but I found it fascinating. (No, I'm not in the business or a political junkie.) Second, because it's about Clinton's campaign, it's going to present what was coming from the Sanders and Trump campaigns, etc., from the Clinton campaign perspective: Sanders says X, how do "we" react? Trump says Y, how come he gets away with it. Comey did what? WTF! Can't we catch a break? In short, the book reports only about what was going on and what was perceived from the inside.
Third, although several readers have said otherwise -- in quite strong terms, I must say -- the book is not a defense of or tribute to Hillary Clinton. She and her campaign are shown with all their faults and warts and flailing. The people we meet are arrogant and egotistical, often seeming concerned more with turf than with winning. Hillary herself is a deeply flawed but intelligent, accomplished person who cuts herself off from criticism and who can't for the life of her explain why she is running to be president. In short (again), an awful candidate.
I believe peoples' reactions are going to come down to how they feel about Clinton going in. If they hate her, they'll almost certainly find fuel for their animus... or they'll perceive that the book is one-sided in her favor. (I disagree.) If they supported Bernie Sanders, they'll probably find more to feed their anger and feelings of betrayal (and maybe lost opportunity). If they strongly support Hillary, they'll be saddened and angry.
Read it for what it is, reporting one campaign as "seen" from the inside. It's not History or thoughtful analysis of Politics and the Extraordinary Trends and Events of our time. Those other books haven't been written yet.
That's my take, anyway. Feel free to disagree.
Third, although several readers have said otherwise -- in quite strong terms, I must say -- the book is not a defense of or tribute to Hillary Clinton. She and her campaign are shown with all their faults and warts and flailing. The people we meet are arrogant and egotistical, often seeming concerned more with turf than with winning. Hillary herself is a deeply flawed but intelligent, accomplished person who cuts herself off from criticism and who can't for the life of her explain why she is running to be president. In short (again), an awful candidate.
I believe peoples' reactions are going to come down to how they feel about Clinton going in. If they hate her, they'll almost certainly find fuel for their animus... or they'll perceive that the book is one-sided in her favor. (I disagree.) If they supported Bernie Sanders, they'll probably find more to feed their anger and feelings of betrayal (and maybe lost opportunity). If they strongly support Hillary, they'll be saddened and angry.
Read it for what it is, reporting one campaign as "seen" from the inside. It's not History or thoughtful analysis of Politics and the Extraordinary Trends and Events of our time. Those other books haven't been written yet.
That's my take, anyway. Feel free to disagree.
May 29, 2018
So far, this is the book to read on Clinton's 2016 campaign. It shows her flaws and the campaign's reliance on analytics that helped lead to her defeat. It's interesting that Hillary knew that she was not reaching the blue-collar voters that Bernie and Trump could reach, and could not adjust. I think she had trouble believing why anyone would vote for Sanders (who had pie-in-the-sky promises in her opinion) and Trump. Very good read.
November 7, 2019
Even though I witnessed most of these events- I was an election junkie and watched all the debates and read all the articles- I was still captivated by this fairly straightforward account. The authors got all of the information for the book "on background" during the election in exchange for not going public until after the election. The writers do a great job of giving everyone and everything that happened a lot of life and movement. I think this book will be especially helpful as a historical account one day. Because honestly, no one will be able to understand how this horror happened unless we get it down clearly now.
It's a pretty good campaign playbook complete with dos and don'ts, though the authors put a lot of blame on Robert E. Mook, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, who relied a lot on "analytics." It also places blame on Hillary, Bill, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former FBI Director James Comey.
This book mentions but does not really examine the Russian involvement which seems like a huge oversight when the numbers were tight in numerous states and the Russian advertisement was targeted at precisely. Nor does it talk about the two third-party candidates who also drained votes. But that's just not what this book about. This is fairly solidly about what Democrats did wrong, not what others contributed to this mess.
It's a pretty good campaign playbook complete with dos and don'ts, though the authors put a lot of blame on Robert E. Mook, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, who relied a lot on "analytics." It also places blame on Hillary, Bill, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former FBI Director James Comey.
This book mentions but does not really examine the Russian involvement which seems like a huge oversight when the numbers were tight in numerous states and the Russian advertisement was targeted at precisely. Nor does it talk about the two third-party candidates who also drained votes. But that's just not what this book about. This is fairly solidly about what Democrats did wrong, not what others contributed to this mess.
March 22, 2022
An inside look at the Clinton campaign's loss to Donald Trump. Really no surprises here for anyone that closely followed the election. The only insights that are different are sources inside her actual campaign that refer to possible tactical failures on the part of some key staffers, as well as possibly some policy blunders. Clinton managed to alienate working class voters as a whole, while focusing on minority voting blocks. I think a major component that benefited Trump was his promising to repeal and replace 'Obamacare'. Yes, many people gained health insurance through the program, but many middle class workers that already had health care were victimized by spikes in premiums to cover these additionally insured people. I also think a key component in Trump's re-election failure was his inability to accomplish this.
A book with an inside look examining Trump's doomed re-election campaign would be an interesting read!
A book with an inside look examining Trump's doomed re-election campaign would be an interesting read!
July 24, 2017
This was really interesting but bleak. I'd recommend it to anyone who is interesting in finding out what went wrong from the inside of this campaign, and who can stomach it this soon after the doom it chronicles.
I watched this election with intense interest, first as someone excited about the possibility that a economic iconoclast like Bernie Sanders posed, and then horrified by the possibility that Donald Trump could become president. I never really felt strongly about Hillary Clinton either way--I frowned on a lot of her politics and her seemingly cautious approach to things in the primary, but thought she would be a very capable and even-handed president; I thought she herself was inspiring even if her leadership would likely be worryingly neoliberal. When Trump became the nominee, I clung to her by default, but I never grew to love her as a candidate. Sure, I phone banked for her every chance I got from her Brooklyn office, and yes I am a bit taken by identity optics narratives (though: queery whether things have gotten better for people of color in the United States since the first non-white president was elected...), but I only really got excited about a Hillary Clinton presidency insofar as she was the last bulwark against Republican lunacy.
Having read this book, I think that we can only really blame Hillary for this catastrophic and seemingly avoidable cataclysm of an election result insofar as she is responsible for picking the team that ran the election and the people who defined it. The role of sexism in this election is beyond question--a disgusting revelation about where we are as a nation despite our lofty rhetoric, and a vivid reminder of how much farther we have to go. And the media's complicity in furthering Trump's antics and approbating his childishness--harming our civic debate and eroding our norms for short term ratings boosts--is almost as appalling. But even given these X factors, this result was far from inevitable.
Aside from Hillary's own "scandals" (honestly--fuck anyone who thought that Hillary's emails were a legitimate reason to not vote for her and/or to vote for Trump) and the campaign's inability to handle them, data fetishists like (the aptly named) Robby Mook seem most to blame for this disaster. A mix of hubris and a preternatural focus on the numbers really seem to have doomed this campaign from the start.
Additionally, the book focuses heavily on the primary and the damage it may have inflicted on the general campaign. What I took away from it is just how arrogant and dismissive the campaign was toward the nearly equal number of Democratic primary voters who preferred another candidate, and one with a very different agenda. The fact that Elizabeth Warren was one of the final four VP candidates--the result of campaign aides insisting that this would be a way to mend relationships with the Bernie wing--and that they went with "duller than a year-old razor" Tim Kaine, really shows how arrogant, spiteful, or out of touch the whole group was. The worst is that Hillary took the blame for all of this, despite her openness to Warren as VP, her skepticism of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her strong interest in economic justice for all, especially minorities and women, as expressed through her wonky and detailed policy positions.
In the end, I divided the major players into heroes, villains, and neutrals:
Heroes:
* Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
* Michelle and Barack Obama
Neutrals:
* Podesta
* Huma
* Bernie
* Kaine
* Biden
Villains:
* Mook
* Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
* Bill Clinton
* Comey
* Intransigent Bernie supporters (but only after he conceded the primary)
The inside story, really, is wild. It really me relive the rollercoaster, for better or for worse. I guess the worst part was reliving the awful night of when the terror of unreality set in; but happily, a mixture of incompetency, internal strife, and corruption have conspired to keep the impact at bay. At least for now. Let's hope the next campaign learns all the lessons it can from this book.
I watched this election with intense interest, first as someone excited about the possibility that a economic iconoclast like Bernie Sanders posed, and then horrified by the possibility that Donald Trump could become president. I never really felt strongly about Hillary Clinton either way--I frowned on a lot of her politics and her seemingly cautious approach to things in the primary, but thought she would be a very capable and even-handed president; I thought she herself was inspiring even if her leadership would likely be worryingly neoliberal. When Trump became the nominee, I clung to her by default, but I never grew to love her as a candidate. Sure, I phone banked for her every chance I got from her Brooklyn office, and yes I am a bit taken by identity optics narratives (though: queery whether things have gotten better for people of color in the United States since the first non-white president was elected...), but I only really got excited about a Hillary Clinton presidency insofar as she was the last bulwark against Republican lunacy.
Having read this book, I think that we can only really blame Hillary for this catastrophic and seemingly avoidable cataclysm of an election result insofar as she is responsible for picking the team that ran the election and the people who defined it. The role of sexism in this election is beyond question--a disgusting revelation about where we are as a nation despite our lofty rhetoric, and a vivid reminder of how much farther we have to go. And the media's complicity in furthering Trump's antics and approbating his childishness--harming our civic debate and eroding our norms for short term ratings boosts--is almost as appalling. But even given these X factors, this result was far from inevitable.
Aside from Hillary's own "scandals" (honestly--fuck anyone who thought that Hillary's emails were a legitimate reason to not vote for her and/or to vote for Trump) and the campaign's inability to handle them, data fetishists like (the aptly named) Robby Mook seem most to blame for this disaster. A mix of hubris and a preternatural focus on the numbers really seem to have doomed this campaign from the start.
Additionally, the book focuses heavily on the primary and the damage it may have inflicted on the general campaign. What I took away from it is just how arrogant and dismissive the campaign was toward the nearly equal number of Democratic primary voters who preferred another candidate, and one with a very different agenda. The fact that Elizabeth Warren was one of the final four VP candidates--the result of campaign aides insisting that this would be a way to mend relationships with the Bernie wing--and that they went with "duller than a year-old razor" Tim Kaine, really shows how arrogant, spiteful, or out of touch the whole group was. The worst is that Hillary took the blame for all of this, despite her openness to Warren as VP, her skepticism of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her strong interest in economic justice for all, especially minorities and women, as expressed through her wonky and detailed policy positions.
In the end, I divided the major players into heroes, villains, and neutrals:
Heroes:
* Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
* Michelle and Barack Obama
Neutrals:
* Podesta
* Huma
* Bernie
* Kaine
* Biden
Villains:
* Mook
* Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
* Bill Clinton
* Comey
* Intransigent Bernie supporters (but only after he conceded the primary)
The inside story, really, is wild. It really me relive the rollercoaster, for better or for worse. I guess the worst part was reliving the awful night of when the terror of unreality set in; but happily, a mixture of incompetency, internal strife, and corruption have conspired to keep the impact at bay. At least for now. Let's hope the next campaign learns all the lessons it can from this book.
December 4, 2017
In the fog of a shocking defeat, there was one moment that crystallized everything for Hillary. Not long after the concession call, Huma Abedin approached her once again, phone in hand.
“It’s the president,” Huma said.
Hillary winced. She wasn’t ready for this conversation. When she’d spoken with Obama just a little bit earlier, the outcome of the election wasn’t final yet. Now, though, with the president placing a consolation call, the reality and dimensions of her defeat hit her all at once. She had let him down. She had let herself down. She had let her party down. And she had let her country down. Obama’s legacy and her dreams of the presidency lay shattered at Donald Trump’s feet. This was on her. Reluctantly, she rose from her seat and took the phone from Huma’s hand.
“Mr. President,” she said softly. “I’m sorry.”
An inside look at the omnishambles of a campaign that not only lost to the worst American presidential candidate of all time, but managed to let conspiracy theorists besmirch the good name of pizza. All the best parts are on twitter.
Takeaways:
1. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
2. The failure to have any meaningful message doomed her campaign. The 'It's her turn/I'm with her' nonsense was worse than useless, it sank them when the shit storm broke. Campaign staff had no idea to coalesce around, and ended up dividing into tribes of sycophants on the one hand, and self-serving cynics on the other. There were a lot of cards stacked against her, but this is why she ended up losing to an actual, literal clown. If she'd had that foundation, she could've weathered anything.
3. Mook's moneyball/data analytics approach failed because he tried to campaign on the cheap, which left them blind at vitally important moments. Meanwhile HRC's fear of being heckled kept the campaign from taking a Bill Clinton style on-the-ground approach, which likewise left them blind to the mood of Americans. This was one of the campaign's series of unforced errors, along with writing speeches by committee/competition. Another thing that screwed her was her own knocking-out of the competition in the primaries. If there had been a challenge from someone who played dirty, she was likely to have come out stronger and more prepared for Trump. And the lack of other mainstream Dems made Bernie Sanders a serious contender, whereas in any other Democratic primary he'd have been relegated to a Kucinich-like position.
4. Joe Biden is a more interesting figure than I'd given him credit for. Bill Clinton, perhaps the opposite. Seeing Bernie through the lens of diehard Clintonites only made me respect him more. Mook is a dummy, and Podesta's treatment of others caught up with him.
5. The Debbie Wasserman Schultz fiasco was insane. Bernie and O'Malley camps hated her for being so obviously pro-Clinton, and the HRC and Obama people hated her for much the same reason. She finally gets cut lose when she throws a literal tantrum threatening to ruin the Veep rollout.
6. The book really draws out just how insane the last part of the race was. HRC's 'she has a name' comment leads to Trump tweeting at 3am, followed by the Russia connection/pussy-grabber/Podesta e-mails all coming out on the same day.
7. I'm not without some sympathy for Hillary. She gets the rap for a lot of stuff that isn't her fault, her husband's adultery being exhibit A. Sorry for taking the land-of-contrasts route, but I think if you can delete the lock-her-up crowd on one side and the diehard dems on the other, what's left is a lifelong public servant and elder stateswoman with a vast record sprinkled with genuine accomplishments and self-serving shortcuts. She's dedicated to details and wonkery, but her Third Wayism is ultimately empty.
“It’s the president,” Huma said.
Hillary winced. She wasn’t ready for this conversation. When she’d spoken with Obama just a little bit earlier, the outcome of the election wasn’t final yet. Now, though, with the president placing a consolation call, the reality and dimensions of her defeat hit her all at once. She had let him down. She had let herself down. She had let her party down. And she had let her country down. Obama’s legacy and her dreams of the presidency lay shattered at Donald Trump’s feet. This was on her. Reluctantly, she rose from her seat and took the phone from Huma’s hand.
“Mr. President,” she said softly. “I’m sorry.”
An inside look at the omnishambles of a campaign that not only lost to the worst American presidential candidate of all time, but managed to let conspiracy theorists besmirch the good name of pizza. All the best parts are on twitter.
Takeaways:
1. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
2. The failure to have any meaningful message doomed her campaign. The 'It's her turn/I'm with her' nonsense was worse than useless, it sank them when the shit storm broke. Campaign staff had no idea to coalesce around, and ended up dividing into tribes of sycophants on the one hand, and self-serving cynics on the other. There were a lot of cards stacked against her, but this is why she ended up losing to an actual, literal clown. If she'd had that foundation, she could've weathered anything.
3. Mook's moneyball/data analytics approach failed because he tried to campaign on the cheap, which left them blind at vitally important moments. Meanwhile HRC's fear of being heckled kept the campaign from taking a Bill Clinton style on-the-ground approach, which likewise left them blind to the mood of Americans. This was one of the campaign's series of unforced errors, along with writing speeches by committee/competition. Another thing that screwed her was her own knocking-out of the competition in the primaries. If there had been a challenge from someone who played dirty, she was likely to have come out stronger and more prepared for Trump. And the lack of other mainstream Dems made Bernie Sanders a serious contender, whereas in any other Democratic primary he'd have been relegated to a Kucinich-like position.
4. Joe Biden is a more interesting figure than I'd given him credit for. Bill Clinton, perhaps the opposite. Seeing Bernie through the lens of diehard Clintonites only made me respect him more. Mook is a dummy, and Podesta's treatment of others caught up with him.
5. The Debbie Wasserman Schultz fiasco was insane. Bernie and O'Malley camps hated her for being so obviously pro-Clinton, and the HRC and Obama people hated her for much the same reason. She finally gets cut lose when she throws a literal tantrum threatening to ruin the Veep rollout.
6. The book really draws out just how insane the last part of the race was. HRC's 'she has a name' comment leads to Trump tweeting at 3am, followed by the Russia connection/pussy-grabber/Podesta e-mails all coming out on the same day.
7. I'm not without some sympathy for Hillary. She gets the rap for a lot of stuff that isn't her fault, her husband's adultery being exhibit A. Sorry for taking the land-of-contrasts route, but I think if you can delete the lock-her-up crowd on one side and the diehard dems on the other, what's left is a lifelong public servant and elder stateswoman with a vast record sprinkled with genuine accomplishments and self-serving shortcuts. She's dedicated to details and wonkery, but her Third Wayism is ultimately empty.
May 16, 2017
This was an excellent book with lots of sourcing and behind the scenes information on not only the Clinton campaign, but also the entirety of the Democrat leadership in the throes of a presidential primary and general election.
The main character being, Hillary Clinton, comes off in this book as a tragic figure of Shakespearean lore. She is let down by so many in her inner circle and outer circle and also letting down herself. Hillary, however, does comes off in this book as far more likable than her persona in public.
If you are or were a Hillary supporter and are hesitant to read this book thinking it will be a smear campaign against her you will be gladly surprised. I even think you will come to like her even more. And if you are not a supporter of Hillary you will also enjoy this as well because you will gain inside knowledge of the reactions inside her campaign to the day to day news of the campaign, while also I predict finding Hillary to be quite a sympathetic figure.
I recommend this for anyone wanting to look back at the day to day insights of the 2016 campaign. From Bernie to Podesta to Wikileaks to Access Hollywood...and yes to Donald Trump everything is here with inside access and never before read material from possibly one of the most talked about presidential campaigns in United States history. I hope you enjoy.
The main character being, Hillary Clinton, comes off in this book as a tragic figure of Shakespearean lore. She is let down by so many in her inner circle and outer circle and also letting down herself. Hillary, however, does comes off in this book as far more likable than her persona in public.
If you are or were a Hillary supporter and are hesitant to read this book thinking it will be a smear campaign against her you will be gladly surprised. I even think you will come to like her even more. And if you are not a supporter of Hillary you will also enjoy this as well because you will gain inside knowledge of the reactions inside her campaign to the day to day news of the campaign, while also I predict finding Hillary to be quite a sympathetic figure.
I recommend this for anyone wanting to look back at the day to day insights of the 2016 campaign. From Bernie to Podesta to Wikileaks to Access Hollywood...and yes to Donald Trump everything is here with inside access and never before read material from possibly one of the most talked about presidential campaigns in United States history. I hope you enjoy.
May 4, 2017
As an Independent who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, I was anxious to read 'Shattered' to gain an insight to her campaign and management style and explain what possibly could have gone wrong that resulted in such an unexpected outcome.
What I learned from this book is that regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people were screwed. Based on her campaign's extreme dysfunction and in-fighting between power hungry operatives, and Hillary's indecisiveness in establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability, it is hard to imagine how these same flaws would not be carried over to her leadership in the White House.
Based on the current pulse of the American electorate, it appears that the future success of politicians running for office will be based more on their ability to message and connect with the voters, rather than relying on their elitist and presumptive aspirations.
What I learned from this book is that regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people were screwed. Based on her campaign's extreme dysfunction and in-fighting between power hungry operatives, and Hillary's indecisiveness in establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability, it is hard to imagine how these same flaws would not be carried over to her leadership in the White House.
Based on the current pulse of the American electorate, it appears that the future success of politicians running for office will be based more on their ability to message and connect with the voters, rather than relying on their elitist and presumptive aspirations.
April 19, 2017
Most of it was not new to me. And what could have been compelling chapter about election night at the end dragged out far too long.
But Chapter 4: the Summer of the Server is where the insider view is truly eye-opening.
The two authors were huge Hillary fans and wrote a very positive book about her in 2014, HRC, but their honest account in this chapter of how the Clintons treated those around them says volumes about who they really are and why they lost. It would be worth checking the book out of the library to read this one chapter.
This short excerpt from Chapter 4 is just the tip of the iceberg. "Bickering" is the wrong word, it was a massive slam down.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/...
But Chapter 4: the Summer of the Server is where the insider view is truly eye-opening.
The two authors were huge Hillary fans and wrote a very positive book about her in 2014, HRC, but their honest account in this chapter of how the Clintons treated those around them says volumes about who they really are and why they lost. It would be worth checking the book out of the library to read this one chapter.
This short excerpt from Chapter 4 is just the tip of the iceberg. "Bickering" is the wrong word, it was a massive slam down.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/...
May 13, 2017
Bottom line....everything and everybody is to blame for Hillary's loss except Hillary.
October 24, 2017
It was all Robby Mook's fault.This book had a lot of information,but it was put together in a haphazard fashion.I guess the authors wanted to be first out of the gate.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,041 reviews