Customer Reviews

Divided We Stand: How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I thought I would wouldn't want to read ANYTHING else about the never-ending election of 2000 -- but this book had me scratching my head and smiling from start to finish. Roger Simon gives us a first-person account from McCain's Straight Talk Express all the way through the "riots" in Broward County. I especially enjoyed Gore campaign manager Bill Daley's thoughts on the whole convoluted mess. Simon's perspective is irreverent, well-written and just plain interesting. A must-read for political junkies -- and anyone who wants the inside scoop on "Election 2000." The perfect Father's Day gift for my father the C-SPAN fan.

"Roger Simon, author of Divided We Stand: How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency (Crown, $25), is something of a rarity among this crowd. Unpretentious and unintrusive, Simon, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, is a reliable guide on the campaign trail and during the post-election controversy. Unlike most of the other authors, he talks more about the candidates than himself, seeking to capture their essence rather than demonstrate his rhetorical prowess. He neatly tacks back and forth between the Bush and Gore campaign headquarters, quietly depicting their distinctive moods and sensibilities." -Corey Robin.( Corey Robin teaches political science at Brooklyn COllege,CUNY. He is currently writing a book called "Fear: Biography of an Idea.")

Roger Simon presents a witty view of the campaign. He shows why politics and politicians are so entertaining. At some places, I actually laughed out loud. I can't wait until the next election so I can read more from Roger Simon.

BYLINE: YVONNE CRITTENDEN. DIVIDED WE STAND By Roger Simon. This short but compelling book by distinguished reporter Roger Simon, chief political correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, looks at the recent American election campaign and its historically close finish. Simon, an insightful analyst and a very readable writer, provides new information about the rivalry between Bill Clinton and his chosen successor, Al Gore, some new and shocking details of the smear campaign in South Carolina, where the George W. Bush forces beat back John McCain's challenge, and other fascinating tidbits. But it's Simon's overall analysis that is so interesting. Calling Al Gore a "flounder" to Bill Clinton's "shark," he notes that Clinton changed the political dynamic in America with his hands-on, empathetic style. Making an emotional connection with strangers was, in essence, what campaigning in America has become. Clinton made it look easy, Simon notes. He had the actor's ability, like Ronald Reagan, to believe utterly in the role he was playing, and the words he was saying. "Al Gore was a serious and committed man who had to learn to be more charming and casual in public. George W. Bush was a casual, charming man who had to learn to be more serious and committed in public. In other words, the presidential campaign was about seeing who could be Bill Clinton." Read this for an understanding of what happened in the 2000 election and why. (Random House)

Finally, there is a book about the 2000 election with some perspective. The first slate of books to come out after the Florida mess all had a rushed, half-baked feel to them. This is the first where you get the sense it wasn't written in one all-night session. Simon is a great writer, and one of the few people who can make sense of the election fiasco. He's a pro without an ideological ax to grind. Forget the other Bush v Gore books, and just read this one.

Author parts curtain on presidential election JACK COLWELL 07/08/2001 South Bend Tribune (Copyright 2001)

Rain falls on the folks still waiting for Al Gore at what was to be a victory celebration in Nashville on election night.

Gore strides down a passageway, heading for the lectern at which he plans to concede an election he hasn't lost. Well, he hasn't lost yet, even though the bumbling TV networks have proclaimed prematurely that he lost Florida and George W. Bush thus is president-elect.

Gore won't stop his march to concession, despite the pleas of David Morehouse, his trip director, who has received a cell phone call saying Gore must not go out on the plaza to give his concession speech. He must talk first with campaign chairman Bill Daly.

Morehouse, winded and hobbling on a bad knee, finally blocks Gore, giving the vice president a choice of stopping or wrestling his own aide to the ground. Gore, furious, stops and agrees to hear first what Daly has to say.

Daly says the networks have it wrong again. First they declared Florida for Gore. Then they declared Bush the winner of Florida and the election, resulting in Gore's early morning decision to concede.

Now, Daly says Florida is too close to call, which it is and will continue to be for weeks to come, with a recount certain.

That minutes-away concession speech is not delivered.

This is just the first of behind-the-scenes accounts of the 2000 election campaign in a book by journalist Roger Simon , who was granted access to Bush, Gore, their strategists and John McCain as well during the presidential primaries and general election, with agreement not to use the inside info until after the election.

The book title is "Divided We Stand: How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency."

I rarely have written a column about a book. But this one merits attention and will be fascinating for anyone interested in the inside strategy of the presidential campaign and the personalities of the candidates.

Don't get the impression the book is pro-Gore. Sure, it tells about how Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and maybe could have won a Florida recount if Katherine Harris and the U.S. Supreme Court had acted differently.

But throughout is a theme of how Gore just can't come across as likable. There are accounts of Gore blowing a lead and probably the election by performing poorly in debates -- especially the first "sighs and lies" debate.

Simon writes about that first debate disaster: "Gore foolishly believed his aides when they told him to be himself. What they really meant was: 'Be yourself, but much more likable.' "

Nor is it pro-Bush. He comes across as likable but not prepared for the rigors of a presidential campaign and more at home talking about inside baseball than details of national issues.

Bush, however, exceeds expectations in the debates, and Daly, Gore's own campaign chairman, tells Simon, "I think most people would say we lost all three debates."

While Bush is likable, Simon describes how Bush also got down and dirty to defeat McCain in the South Carolina primary.

He relates that McCain never forgave Bush for the smear tactics there and the Bush side never forgave McCain for his primary challenge.

Bill Clinton overshadows all.

Both Gore and Bush want to be like Clinton, Simon observes, speaking of course of style in reaching the voters as their friend, not of personal conduct and ability to lie convincingly.

Contrary to the conventional portrayals of Gore and Clinton as working together smoothly and liking each other, at least up until the Monica admission, Simon relates that they weren't ever really that close, with Gore annoyed at times by Clinton's treatment of him.

The final break was when Gore found that Clinton had lied to him and indeed the nation about the Monica affair. Although Gore, out of vice presidential loyalty, defended Clinton at impeachment time, the rift was there and was to grow much wider.

Simon relates that Gore was adamant that he would not have Clinton campaign for him, even though Clinton wanted to be out making appearances.

He says Gore believes Clinton's sleaze cost him the 2000 election.

Simon relates that Daly found in polling throughout the campaign that use of Clinton, though the president still had good job approval ratings, would have hurt, not helped Gore in the states that counted.

"Show Me the Money" is the title of a chapter on the horrible way money is raised for elections -- by both parties and by the politicians who find they must use the tactics they deplore and want abolished.

The selection of Joe Lieberman and an amazing suggestion by Clinton of another choice for vice presidential nominee are described. Also discussed is the selection of Dick Cheney by Bush, who characteristically didn't do a lot of detail work on the choice.

Roger Simon provides a nice narrative of the campaign in the 2000 election; however, the real story of the Election was the Florida recounts. On this subject Mr. Simon does not provide much detail at all.

Also, the stories about the campaign are very heavy on Al Gore's campaign. This makes it apparent that Mr. Simon had much more access to the Gore - Lieberman campaign than the Bush - Cheney campaign. To me this questions Mr. Simon's objectivity.

All in all I would say the book is certainly a good insight, but pretty heavily skewed to the left. To be fair I would not say that Mr. Simon hides this fact too much considering the title of the book is "How Al Gore Beat George Bush..."

Roger Simon was assigned by U.S. News and World Report to cover the 2000 presidential election, which was ultimately shrouded in so much drama and controversy. Simon's tome on that fascinating campaign is reminiscent of Theodore White's groundbreaking work on the equally dramatic 1960 presidential race between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, "The Making of the President," which netted White a Pulitzer Prize and launched a series.

What makes book such as White's and Simon's so intriguing is that the art of politics is revealed through a series of portraits in books which read like rapidly paced mystery novels as events and the characters who shaped them are analyzed with fascinating precision. The centerpiece of Simon's work is the nail-biting election night, which culminated in Bush being declared a winner by the major networks, followed by a concession by Gore, then a retraction in the face of additional information based on updated returns. The dramatic second Bush-Gore conversation was tense, edgy, and caustic.

Political professional Simon does a superb job of analyzing major players Bush and Gore, along with revealing how their organizations were comprised and operated. The operations and their styles demonstrate the contrasting natures of the two presidential candidates.

William Hare

When I first saw Mr. Simon, the author, on C-SPAN one morning debating another writer, whose book contends that Al Gore tried to steal the presidential election and Mr. Simon's book presented just the opposite perspective, I immediately went to buy Divided We Stand. Believing that his book outlined the primary reasons why Al Gore won the presidency but lost the election to George W. Bush, I anticipated ample evidence and behind-the-scenes analysis from a top-rated political reporter to support this position. However, at the conclusion of the book I remained a little disappointed, for the book did indeed offer some interesting behind-the-scenes insights, but failed to reach its ultimate goal. For instance: As the impeachment trial incessantly continued, Al Gore, as Vice President, began to foreshadow the possibility that he would become president if the Senate found Clinton guilty and removed him from office. And Gore would need to select a Vice President. He needed to choose a candidate who would distance himself from Clinton. Thus, if Clinton were ever to be removed, Gore would have chosen Joseph Lieberman. Simon also highlights the Gore/Clinton relationship like no one has ever before. In addition, he discusses Bush's laziness attitude on the campaign trail, which can be found quite humorous at times. However, much of the book discusses, to my displeasure, either Bush or McCain, in particular their primary battles in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Why Simon chooses to place these chapters into a book that should primarily discuss how Gore won but technically lost, I don't know. But, the author has chosen to do so, and at times I wanted to just flip the pages until I found something more interesting. Another point of interest, although it arrives at the end, is the commentary concerning the future of both political parties. Simon explains that Republicans view the 2000 Presidential contest as a sign of tough times to come, for indeed more people, four million more in fact, voted for a centrist-liberal government than a conservative government. As well, more people identified themselves as liberals while people identifying themselves as conservatives dropped. The Democrats fairly sealed the African-American vote and the Republicans still haven't touched the Hispanic vote which the Democrats currently hold.

I think I was hoodwinked by this and At Any Cost. While I found Sammon's book a bit more entertaining (and not that much more convincing either), Divided We Stand was weak. This book was written simply to make a cheap buck. Sorry, Mr. Simon just didn't convince me that Al Gore won Florida or that Bill Clinton had a major impact on the election as he claims. Gore may have actually done so, but this book sure didn't prove it. I'm still confused how a pure Democratic state Supreme Court is not partisan and a divided Federal Supreme court is.

This book rambled and wandered aimlessly, (Why so much time was spent on John McCain escapes me). Simon tries to convince the reader that Gore should be Presidentsimply because he campaigned harder and was more organized. I kept getting the impression that the author wanted me to read with a box of Kleenex so I could sniffle away for poor Al Gore. I closed this book, finally, and just feel ripped off.