Customer Reviews

Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is based on the reporting that initially appeared in the special post-election issue of Newsweek in November, 2004. There are some minor additions to what appeared in the magazine here, notably the last chapter, which includes Kerry's reflections about the election, as well as speculation on the likely character of the second Bush administration, but otherwise there are few new revelations.

Newsweek's reporters were allowed access to both the Democratic and Republican campaigns for the year prior to Election Day, in exchange for not reporting what they saw until after the process was over. The story they tell is of one campaign headed by a candidate who had a hard time making up his mind, with subordinates who frequently clashed and suspected each other's motivations, while the other was dominated by a candidate who, while petulant, prickly, and stubborn, was supported by an unfailingly upbeat and single-minded staff.

Interesting highlights here that did not make it out into the mainstream news coverage include anecdotes about how confident Karl Rove was that Howard Dean would be the Democratic nominee, to the point of making bets on it, and just how frustrated the campaign staff on Kerry's side was over its inability to improve the candidate's long-winded speaking style. More of the book's embarrassing disclosures come from the Democratic campaign than the Republican one, however, and Kerry himself complained about the way he and his wife were portrayed in the Newsweek special issue. As a result this volume includes a few of his ammendations to the record.

In all fairness to Newsweek, probably more of Kerry's embarrassing moments were reported only because reporters were able to get closer to him and his campaign staff; the Bush White House, notorious for message control, most likely never let Newsweek near enough to the President to see his own foibles. Nevertheless, it would have been nice to have had a better idea of how the Republicans handled their bad times, such as when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal became public -- only during Bush's failure to perform in the debates does one get a sense that the Bush team was genuinely concerned about the way things were going.

"Election 2004" provided a great overview of the last presidential campaign as a special issue of Newsweek, but as a book it's only okay. There isn't the sort of penetrating coverage Bob Woodward provides in his reporting, and with a cover price of fourteen dollars, the book should have offered more, such as color plate versions of its many impressive black-and-white photos. For those who don't mind the price and haven't already read the Newsweek special issue, however, "Election 2004" provides a decent summary of one of the most important, expensive, and participated elections in recent U.S. history.

After reading this book I came to the realization that maybe good non fiction book is like a bottle of wine, a bit of age helps it out. I do not know if the book was a high level shallow review of the topic because it was rushed out the door or if it was due to the authors usual writing styles are best suited for 5 page magazine articles. Either way, the puddle created by a melting snowball would have more depth then this book. With that said, I do give this book credit for what it did deliver, a somewhat gossipy and interesting overview of the 2004 presidential election. It was just that the authors made claims on the dust jacket about it being the definitive account of the 2004 election, which could not be farther from the truth of the matter.

I am a political junky and must say again that I did enjoy the book. The authors give he reader an easy to read and fast paced account of many of the highlights of the last election. They have a tabloid reports eye for interesting bits of information that they string together using the overall race as a method to give you more gossip. They did seem to have more access to the Kerry campaign, which should not be a surprise given he was the challenger. They also seemed to me to be fair in their treatment of both candidates. As a matter of fact I thought if anything they went too easy on both parties when talking about some of the mistakes. With this being said, if you are die hard fan of either of the two candidates you may find some of the book a bit annoying, but I think the authors were bland enough to keep the true fans on the positive side of full blown rage.

Overall I was disappointed in the book from a expectation point of view. The authors sold the book as a definitive inside account of the campaigns yet there did not seem to be a massive treasure trove of new information. I did enjoy what the book had to offer and as a light and quick review of the campaign it does a good job. I think the book is best suited for someone with a passing interest in the subject that would get bored with a good amount of detail. Then again it is early, if you have to read a book now this is probably as good as any alternatives out there now.

I read the original Newsweek special edition of this book and loved it. It was a fascinating look at what the campaign strategies and mistakes were. First let me say I'm a big Bush fan. I did not detect a lot of liberal bias in this book. Sure, they dismiss the Swift Vets with no analysis and fawn over Kerry's performance in the debates. However the overall impression you get from the book is that the Kerry campaign was completely disorganized and dysfunctional, Kerry had no core beliefs and therefore his positions were in a constant state of flux, the Bush team were total pros, and Bush never wavered from his positions. If I did not already know Eleanor Clift was a huge apologist for the Democrats, I would have thought the book was written by Republicans. Actually what I see is some liberal bias and a ton of frustration from the writers. Inside they can't believe how bad the Kerry campaign was.

For a political junkie, this one is a nice start, as it really does provide some of the 'behind the scenes' commentary and detail others lack. However, having said that, I was really disappointed with how little detail the book did provide on the campaigns. Yes, it's perfectly obvious the Newsweek staff got a lot closer to the Kerry campaign than they did to the Bush campaign. And yes, that means they treat the Kerry side of the story with a lot more sympathy than they do the Bush side. It surprised me how much of the inside Kerry story never got out during the campaign (I watched the election campaign obsessively, I admit it). It also surprised me that one of the key Kerry gaffes (I would have authorized Bush to go to war even knowing about the lack of WMDs) nearly was killed by the press on the Kerry campaign and the book spends two pages on the discussion of whether or not to report it. It would certainly seem to, at a bare minimum, indicate that the press was a lot more willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt than Bush, and subsequent revelations only reinforce that thought.
Having said that, I have to say that the Bush campaign may have did themselves more harm than good in keeping the press at arms length, as it may have led to less favorable coverage simply because they couldn't get access for an inside scoop. The fear that that scoop would be invariably negative seems the reason for that decision, but it may not have been the best one, as there were Bush-favoring press and columnists out there, though few and far between.
What surprised me the most was not what was in the book, but what was left out of it. Not a word on Republican reactions during the Democratic Convention. Very little on the foreign policy disasters that Bush was having (Abu Gharib, the Spanish pulling out of Iraq after March 11th, etc). Nothing on the Democratic 527s and if they coordinated their message with the Democrats, as it is implied quite strongly throughout the book. Very little on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, only covering them in August, when junkies like me were at least somewhat aware of them back in April. No discussion of the book the SBVT wrote, or of any of their charges, just a quick dismissal of them as unfounded and baseless, which strikes me as very foolish, as I think they were one of the key elements in Kerry's loss. Almost nothing on the Bush National Guard memos, I was very interested to know what both campaigns thought of them and they could hardly have been brought up and forgotten so quickly. Very little analysis of the debates and on the mysterious thing under Bush's jacket in the first debate. I think it was later found to be a bullet-proof vest. Michael Moore and his watch for dirty tricks on election day movement, and movie, and support of the Democrats, similarly ignored. The entire Bruce Springsteen campaign to bring out younger voters, never touched. And aside from a very few brief mentions, nothing at all on the economy, and how that might have affected the campaigns. In short, some nice behind-the-scenes tidbits, but sorely lacking in a lot of issues and failing utterly in terms of analysis.

The true inside story. It was amazing to read what was going on behind the scenes of all the stories that were reported during the campaign. The true character of the candidates was exposed, as well as the influence of those around them. Well written, fascinating...a great read. I couldn't put it down.

Certainly the privileged access that Thomas and his team makes for an insightful account of the 2004 election, drawing back to the nomination process. Pity for Kerry's plight, a hint of disdain for Bush and his coterie, are peppered throughout the narrative. Throughout, a lot of very interesting inside information is revealed in the book as well. Ultimately, I walked away feeling that the election was more lost by Kerry than won by Bush. Kerry's situation is blamed on his indecisiveness, his lack of trust in his his team, his poor people management skills, and his wife's attitude. There is not as much of the inside-scoop on the BC04 side perhaps, from an emotional perspective, as Kerry. And while Howard Dean takes a beating by the authors, we learn very little about John Edwards, who may in fact be the nominee in 2008.
What was most disappointing is the fractured prose. There is nothing really holding the book together, except for the theme of the book itself. The structure is there but the information and opinions often feel disjointed. Events and reports are presented in chronological order, but there is no flow, and the authors tend to jump from one nugget to the next without any bridge. Once in a while, interesting sub-themes are left hanging and incomplete. Perhaps the publisher rushed the book to print or simply didn't recognize the value added of adding this important finishing touch. Other career reporters have assembled excellent books on presidental elections 2000, 1996, 1992 (see Roger Simon) and I feel that Thomas and his team could have done a lot better than just throwing together their reports and conclusions on E04.
In the end, I appreciated the book for its detail and information, but found it poorly pieced together, which detracted from my enjoying the experience as much as I would have liked.

I read this book in one night and found it to be very interesting. I did enjoy reading some of the behind the scenes stuff like John Kerry's tantrum in the back of the campaign limo when his personal assistant could not find his hair brush. However that had been in Newsweek before and as well as on Drudge's website. New inside information about the campaign is not really a quality aspect of this publication. Since I paid attention to the campaign this publication served more as a summary or a reminder of events.

Also Newsweek's publication seems to form a lot of bias opinions about why people voted the way they did, often citing minor campaign footnotes. There is virtually no information regarding the inner thoughts of the president, which I guess is not unusual considering lack of trust of the mainstream media and being a wartime president. The publication also brushes over important political divides and the importance of the war on terror.

If you are not deeply knowledgable of presidential campaigns this may be a good read for you. If you consider yourself more of an expert you might want to find a more complete or indepth account. The book is slightly liberal but overall fair. I think the authors made false claims about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth however. I feel the main reason Kerry is a loser is not because President Bush is so great, but he does have a determination and discipline to admire...The big reason is he never connected with the voters. For all of Kerry's strengths he is really an out of touch insider liberal elitist.

This book was very good and it was amazing to see how both guys ran their campaigns. Seems like Sen. Kerry's campaign was a mess and Bush's was well-organized. This is a good handbook on the do's and dont's on how to run a campaign.

I love the backstage info and the reports about the personalities and interactions on the campaign staff. The Newsweek folks certainly saw a lot that was not reported at the time.

My biggest disappointment is that it did not live up to the billing in the title. The subtitle says "How BC04 won and what you can expect in the future." Well, whoever wrote the title forgot to tell the authors about the second half of that subtitle.

The only mention the future in the final chapter (a mere 12 pages) and even then it isn't really about Election 2008 (the title of the chapter), its more about how Bush and Kerry reacted after the election and how second term presidents generally screw up.

Is it slanted? Yes. As another reviewer (Marc Dalesandro 031505) said, they had good access to Kerry but Bush and Co. kept them at arms length. That same reviewer had some great examples of biased terms used in describing different people and events.

Besides his examples, the most obvious to me were in that same last chapter where, for example, in discussing what Bush _could_ do as a second term president the authors suggest he take on liberal answers to Social Security (raise retirement to 70 and raise taxes on "the rich").

Bottom line: good inside detail about some of the campaign machinations, liberal bias is there but not overwhelming, nonexistent information about what the future would be like.

I could tell this was a pro-Kerry book, but I didn't think it was a bad read. It was certainly a quick read. I thought the portion about Kerry naking his stupid statement in WV was great, especially when the 25 yeard old intern at BC'04 jumps up in a still room when Kerry stepped in it. There were some insights that as a campaign operative myself, I thought were interesting. I think it would be interesting to know what Kerry's christian and Catholic supporters think about Kerry's frequent use of the "GD" phrase.