"Shattered"

[H2O Man]

 "That was the single most illustrative moment of what this campaign was,” one aide says. “Here’s something Donald Trump did and said and was arguably disqualifying to a lot of voters — something that could put the race away — but within moments, a factor related to emails comes around and puts a thumb on the other side of the scale."
http://time.com/4747256/hillary-clinton-shattered-book/


My library includes a large section of books by and about U.S. Presidents. Among them are numerous books that focus exclusively on the campaigns in primary and general elections. I will not, however, place any books about Donald Trump – at least not until any come out regarding his impeachment.

While I recognize that he is “the” president, he is in no way “my” president. Everything associated with his approaching “100 days” mark confirms that he is grossly unqualified for the duties of that office. His campaign was definitely aided by Russia, creating divisions in the US that allowed his campaign to exploit weaknesses within the Democratic Party.

The fact that these weaknesses allowed the least qualified candidate in American history to “win” in the electoral college is reason enough for people to make an honest assessment of what went wrong. To do so, we must move beyond the bitter emotions that serve to entrench those divides within what in 2008 and 2012 was known as the Obama coalition.

The new book, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, looks like a valuable resource for understanding – and accepting – what went wrong in 2016. It appears to be similar to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's 2010 “Game Change.” The authors of the new book used conversations with approximately one hundred people, most of whom were insiders in the Democratic Party's campaign. I ordered a copy of their book yesterday.

I'm curious if other forum members are reading, or have read, the book?

[jehop61]

1. Been seeing them on tv everywhere

Won't read it because it castigated Hillary and doesn't really address the Comey involvement. Trying to make money on false premises and disses her further than she's already been.

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you.

I can appreciate that some people won't want to spend a cent on it, or have any interest in reading it. I have no problem with that.

[PoliticAverse]

53. "doesn't really address the Comey involvement" - Chapter 19 is titled "Comey". n/t

[Horse with no Name]

2. I'm conflicted

I feel from what I have heard is that there is a lot of campaign stuff revealed that shouldn't have been.
I feel like it is taking one more kick at Hillary.
I can't support that.

[H2O Man]

13. Right.

I don't know much about one of the authors, but she seemed okay on the interviews on tv. The guy reminds me of a garden slug.

[Me.]

3. I Have My Own Suspicions That The Book Is NOt Well Sourced

In that they did a lot of relying on single sources or so it seemed in the interviews I've seen.

[H2O Man]

14. Interesting.

Having several sources is, of course, superior. And having people tell their interpretations of situations is always subjective. In a sense, that involves human nature -- people believing "if we only did what I recommended" -- yet that, too, is an important factor in elections.

[Me.]

25. Thank You For That

[H2O Man]

29. I suspect

that the most important lesson in the book will not be about the candidate, but that "human nature" that has the potential to be either good or bad.

[Me.]

33. That Is

A certainty.

Here's another note I found false, when they quoted HRC (singular source) as saying F this and F that. Can't picture it myself...I can see her saying screw so and so, but not F this and that

[Sensitive soul]

56. I know

A person who was a relative of mine by marriage, whose opinion I respected, was in the secret service assigned to protect Hilary. He said she had quite the vocabulary and "F" words were quite common when not in the public view and that at times, was not kind to the very people protecting her. I was shocked to hear this as I, at the time, not now, was a supporter.

[The99thTimeLord]

4. Why give these two publicity?

Don't buy it.

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you!

I'm not paying for the copy I have on order. Not even the shipping. It's a gift. Otherwise, I'd have gone through the local library.

[uponit7771]

5. what Comey did was shattering .. whomever leaked Comey's memo should be in jail

[Wellstone ruled]

6. Being on the Front Line of

Voter turn out efforts daily for the last ten days of the Campaign. Once the Comey turd hit the floor,things went South from there.

Trump is and will always be known as the illegal President.

[uponit7771]

35. +1, when I first heard I thought oh crap what's up as if it had any legitimacy then I heard Lynch...

... didn't give Comrade Comey the go ahead and knew the fix was in.

If Comey isn't addressed then it gives many many many investigative heads the go ahead to do the same as he did and pronounce letters of investigation for someone to leak days before an election.

I'm not even comfortable doing what Chaffetz did if a dem was in charge least the charge be PROVABLE treason with empirical evidence ... and then the investigation has to be approved by 3 high courts

[H2O Man]

17. Right.

When the current president complains about "leaks," he ignores the ones that helped him.

[uponit7771]

36. +1

[PoliticAverse]

43. Jason Chaffetz is the one that did that...

See: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666097/Chaffetz-at-center-of-controversy-over-FBI-directors-letter-about-Clinton-emails.html

But Chaffetz stood by his tweet — "FBI Dir just informed me, 'The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.' Case reopened" — that was picked up by media outlets moments after it appeared.

[H2O Man]

54. Right.

[PoliticAverse]

55. And it's important to note that the 'case reopened' was not part of Comey's letter...

but something that Chaffetz added.

[H2O Man]

57. Great point.

Comey is, in my opinion, the finest director of the FBI that there has ever been. Being as old as I am, I'm able to consider every director that there has ever been. Those who have very little to compare, have very little to understand .....and thus we witnessed what might have been a skit on a Monty Python flick, with two opposing herds changing sides -- first late last summer, when Comey did the press conference and congressional hearing, reporting no indictment, and then when Chaffetz leaked the letter.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. Many of us can't subscribe

to the idea that "she lost". And I wonder who is trying to make us forget that she got 3 million more votes, as though that fact is irrelevant.

For me, any candidate with 3 million more votes ran a successful campaign. The "loss" is due to the seriously flawed anachronism that the electoral college has become.


.

[mopinko]

8. i know i cant swallow that language.

the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
the problem w the ec is how easy it is to game. 80k votes in the right place is not a big lift.

[H2O Man]

18. Thank you.

The electoral college should have been done away with long ago. No election has highlighted the stupidity of it more so than 2016.

Getting rid of it may be difficult, but seems essential. The presidential election should simply be one national vote, rather than fifty states. It would appear a good thing for the Democratic Party to work on accomplishing.

[ms liberty]

9. I have not read it. I will be interested to know if you find it informative

Right now I'm going thru a rock biography phase, and I'm currently reading Testimony by Robbie Robertson. I love his music and he tells a great story. I'm enjoying it a lot.
How did your son's boxing tournament go?

[H2O Man]

19. Thanks!

I'm currently re-reading the transcripts for the telephone conversations that LBJ had during his presidency.

My son is the light heavyweight champion!

I'll let you know what I think of the book.

[coeur_de_lion]

38. Congratulations to your son!

[H2O Man]

40. Thank you.

My oldest brother, who suffered "head injuries" in the Great Sport, was so proud of my son when he learned the news. The three of us had an interesting talk about genetics vs environment.

[ms liberty]

39. Congratulations to him and to his proud dad! n/t

[H2O Man]

41. Thanks!

He's mighty happy with his trainer/ cornerman.

[bigtree]

10. the 'factor related to the emails' proved to be an equally fraudulent act by the FBI

...positing about reopening an investigation Comey had just declared a complete bust; the 'new' evidence turning out to be nothing but a duplication of material he already had.

Even more, recent reports suggest the effort to draw FBI attention to Hillary's aide's laptop was orchestrated by a Russian plant.

The entire email scandal was a republican invention, aided by a compliant media, and even furthered by her Democratic opposition and supporters. Any 'weakness' it generated in her candidacy was the product of outright lies and distortions, aided by a Russian disinformation campaign using several hundred full-time social media sockpuppets.

Interesting to me how on spot Hillary was about that Russian disinformation campaign, and, apparently, the Trump campaign's compliance and exploitation of that interference in our election.

Sad how many people are looking to push off politically from that corrupted election, this op suggesting Hillary and the Democrat's record votes - some 3 million more - represents some kind of 'divide' in the party because of a loss in the electoral college.

What people are really talking about when they point to the EC is the ability of rural districts in a handful of states to turn out votes which were overwhelmingly republican, overtaking large leads in urban centers to squeak out a tight margin of victory.

That's not a Democratic divide, it's the product of an institutional prejudice republicans in those districts have for the people Hillary and our party represent. What detractors (in both the left and right) are arguing for is to appease those rural voters by dumbing down on issues the vast majority of Democrats represented in that election with their votes.

Marginalizing issues as diverse as reproductive concerns, to social justice reform, these authors want us to believe there's more wrong with our party than with those who are working overtime to disrupt our efforts. That's the 'weakness' in our party: So many too self-absorbed with the idea there's something inherently bad about Democrats that they can't muster themselves to unite with us against the real opposition.



...and Halperin is a fucking tool.

[H2O Man]

20. If I have a book,

and another person calls it a bike, it's still a book. The bike exists only in the other fellow's mind.

I definitely favor doing away with the electoral college. Always have. No election illustrates the unfairness of it more than 2016.

I try to read a lot of books, including by people I might not like. Or agree with. The article linked in the OP suggests there may be some value in it, just as there was in "Game Change."

[PoliticAverse]

47. The authors of Game Change are writing a book about the 2016 election... It's scheduled for release

in 2018 and there will be an HBO mini-series based on the book.

[H2O Man]

50. Interesting.

I was not aware of that. Thank you.

I thought the HBO flick "Game Change" did a heck of a good job per the 2008 general election. And I thought the book itself should have been revisited in 2016.

[Justice]

11. I watched the authors once on Lawrence O'Donnell - turned off Joy when they were on

Read one review and lots of tweets about the book.

Clinton insiders maintain book depicts something other than what really happened.

Authors praised Clinton's kick off speech on Roosevelt Island at the time but now say wasn't inspiring, had too many authors, she had no campaign message. Very weird stuff I thought.

Like Attorney Elias tweeted, Robby Mock was criticized for doing the same things David Axlerod did and was praised for.

I won't be reading it and don't need to hear more about it.

[H2O Man]

21. Thank you.

[m-lekktor]

16. I am on chapter 3, "Feel the Bern". It's interesting so far. nt

[H2O Man]

23. Thanks.

I can appreciate Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s idea of politics going in cycles. But 2016 seemed beyond any norm. More, the consequences are damaging to this country.

[malaise]

22. Haven't read it

[H2O Man]

24. It looked

like it might be worth reading, based upon the interviews with the authors, and the review linked to in the OP. I can also understand why some people don't want to read it.

[malaise]

26. The only book I want to read

about now is how they stole the elections.

[H2O Man]

27. Malcolm Nance's book

is outstanding. I find it amazing that he detailed when he published it an accurate road map of the evidence that various investigators are uncovering now. It's essential that the legislative branch impeach and convict him. And any of his group that can be prosecuted in criminal court definitely should be.

[malaise]

28. I was thinking about ordering that one

Thanks - will do.

I want them locked up.

[H2O Man]

30. I respect Mr. Nance.

I don't agree with him on everything -- he is wrong about the environmental community -- but he is extremely impressive in the areas of his expertise.

[saidsimplesimon]

31. Thank you, H2O

I agree with you.

but he is extremely impressive in the areas of his expertise.

[saidsimplesimon]

32. My library

does not include books compiled from post election, campaign aides trying desperately to blame anything and anyone but themselves after working on a major campaign. If Hillary had written an honest, no spin, book on the subject, I would read it.

I would never hire anyone at the top of the clinton campaign advisor list, paid or unpaid. just my two cents

[H2O Man]

34. Interesting.

I saw one segment on the book that noted Bill Clinton had good input on the 2016 election. While he is not someone I have a high opinion of in some areas, he is insightful about politics. I think there are others that are good. Winning the popular vote by 3 million is impressive. But it isn't what counted -- no matter if people think that's fair or not -- because of the 50 states bit.

Another person noted that gerrymandering played a huge role in determining the outcome. I agree 100%. Chapter 2 of John Paul Stevens's 2014 book "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution" provides the best information on the gerrymandering I've read.

Changes per the electoral college and gerrymandering need to be a central focus within the Democratic Party.

[saidsimplesimon]

37. I agree.

Working for progress at the state level is my current priority.

Changes per the electoral college and gerrymandering need to be a central focus within the Democratic Party

[H2O Man]

42. Very good!

I'm assisting some people in area campaigns for office on the town level. I had been invited to help on campaigns in a town in a local county recently, and then asked to help on another in a different county on Friday.

[PoliticAverse]

44. Also discussion of the book in the DU thread....

here...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028961320

[H2O Man]

45. Oh, thanks!

I had looked around here, but had not seen this. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about it, H20 Man.

[H2O Man]

48. Thanks!

I was just reading through the OP/discussion linked to in the post above your's. Not surprisingly, opinions are divided over if the book has value.

I do not expect any one book to contain "The Answer." I'd speculate that there is potential benefit from reading a variety of view points, including some that one might not agree with.

Sometimes, when I read comments on the internet about social and political issues, I'm reminded of two things Rubin told me over the years. The first was a joke he found hilarious, and that I was sure to hear every time I told him that I was going door-to-door on some campaign. He said that a young man was taking a survey in his community, asking residents which they felt was a bigger problem: ignorance or apathy? The most common answer was, "I don't know, and I don't care."

And in discussing the value of an open mind, he noted that closed minds are like closed rooms: they always become stuffy.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Agreed. Very well said.

[Autumn]

49. I've ordered it from Amazon. The snippets I have seen look interesting.

[H2O Man]

51. Very good!

I'll be interested in knowing what you think of it.