Customer Reviews


32 Reviews
5 star:
 (11)
4 star:
 (9)
3 star:
 (7)
2 star:
 (3)
1 star:
 (2)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


24 of 29 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Offering Guideposts to Presidential Victory from a Decidedly Media-Oriented Vantage Point
With the 2008 Presidential election strategies well underway in covert measures, this incisive and eminently readable book provides an intriguing primer into what it may take for candidates to win in two years. ABC News political director Mark Halperin and the Washington Post's John F. Harris have collaborated to divulge the so-called trade secrets that have been behind...
Published on October 4, 2006 by Ed Uyeshima

versus
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars important but flawed
I was very curious about this book, because John Harris runs the best political journalistic operation the business at the Washington Post and Mark Halperin runs the smartly written but nauseatingly cynical "The Note." Would it be full of the blunt but smart analyses I see in the Post or the snarky, generally pro-Republican stuff you see in The Note?

The...
Published on October 25, 2006 by T. Tucker


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

24 of 29 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Offering Guideposts to Presidential Victory from a Decidedly Media-Oriented Vantage Point, October 4, 2006
With the 2008 Presidential election strategies well underway in covert measures, this incisive and eminently readable book provides an intriguing primer into what it may take for candidates to win in two years. ABC News political director Mark Halperin and the Washington Post's John F. Harris have collaborated to divulge the so-called trade secrets that have been behind the almost dynastic predominance of the Bush and Clinton administrations through past, current and perhaps future terms. It is interesting to note that neither author has been involved with a political campaign from the inside, successful or not, but they do lend a journalistic perspective that provides a great deal of credibility with their combined purview of the political media landscape. Consequently, they express their guarded respect of the political savvy of Karl Rove without sharing a detailed insider's profile of what makes him such a supreme strategist during the heat of a campaign.

On the other hand, Halperin and Harris spend a somewhat inordinate amount of time crediting Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report for much of the vote swaying in past elections. From their vantage point, they view Drudge as most pivotal in the Gore and Kerry defeats. They hold Gore and Kerry accountable to the point that they were not maintaining their public images relative to Drudge's online disclosures about the candidates' personal gaffes and political missteps. The big revelation here is that attempting to rise above the pervasive influence of the Web has apparently become tantamount to political suicide. Drudge's sharpened ability to scoop stories and frame candidates into personas unbeknownst to them has been the commentator's ongoing trump card. To the point that someone else is shaping the candidates' images, the co-authors make a compelling case about the importance of keeping attuned to the online scuttlebutt no matter how preposterous at times.

They also see Senator Hillary Clinton intently learning from her husband's example in setting the stage for her own likely candidacy in 2008. She is obviously delaying any such announcement until after this November's midterm elections because she can continue to reshape her persona and augment her coffers without undue scrutiny. Despite their extensive reporting backgrounds, Halperin and Harris manage to avoid the cynicism that could have easily seeped into their often insightful political handbook. For a more complete perspective on what it may take to win, I think it makes sense to read this in conjunction with George Lakoff's books on the conceptual metaphors that need to be employed to incite voters to support candidates, as well as Bill Clinton's own comprehensive account of his successful campaigns. There needs to be an understanding of perspectives from the inside as well as the outside to figure out the true way to win.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


19 of 23 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Sharp political analysis for the political junkie, October 9, 2006
By 
Mark Greenbaum (South Orange, New Jersey United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
The Way to Win is a very good book. I bought it when I needed something to read on the train from D.C. to New York. I was pleasantly surprised by its readability and insights. The Way to Win is a well-thought out, timely, at times fascinating exposition of not just what it will take to win the presidency in 2008, but more broadly how the drastic changes to the way news is reported in this country will affect national politics in the future. The authors' analysis of this new media age, which they dub the "Freak Show," is probably the book's most useful contribution, even more so than their assortment of "trade secrets" to prospective presidential contenders.

The book begins by analyzing the Freak Show. They argue that we live in a new media age, one that has drastic implications for American politics. Focusing mostly on the success of 24-hour news channels (particularly Fox) and web "news outlets" like blogs and the Drudge Report, the authors believe that the way politics is reported and disseminated to the public is far different than it once was. Their pace now is much more frantic, and outlets -- both those new outlets just mentioned, as well as the "Old Media" like newspapers and NBC, CBS, and ABC -- are more likely to report the more salacious, and less substantive aspects of candidates. Candidates unable to appreciate this change, and subsequently adapt, have zero chance of making it through the 2008 campaign and into the White House. To prove their point, the authors take great pains to examine John Kerry's and Al Gore's painful presidential runs. They argue that Kerry and Gore both lost because they did not know how to operate in the Freak Show environment, and the authors use their campaigns to demonstrate exactly what not to do in a 2008 presidential campaign.

To contrast with the hapless Kerry and Gore campaigns, the authors look at the hugely successful Clinton (1992 and 1996) and Bush (2000 and 2004) campaigns. In impressive detail, they show the two very different ways that Clinton and Bush won the White House by navigating through the Freak Show.

The analysis of Clinton is not terribly ground-breaking. Halperin and Harris believe that Clinton's electoral success, and later his survival in the face of impeachment, were a result of his ability to carve out a centrist approach that plucked Republican ideas and used them to appeal to moderates. Clinton's use of Dick Morris's triangulation, while well known, is still quite compelling in the book because of the many anecdotes the authors provide. The authors argue convincingly that Clinton survived and ultimately thrived because he won the middle.

Unlike Clinton, Halperin and Harris argue, Bush and Karl Rove have conquered the Freak Show environment by the exact opposite approach: governing not as a moderate but as an arch-conservative. In the authors' view, Bush has been able to win twice because Rove has such an acute understanding of the modern media age, and as a result has been able to manipulate it to Bush's advantage. Further, Bush and Rove have survived by putting together a fervent conservative base that has stuck with the president at nearly every key turn. The authors readily acknowledge that many of the new media players such as Fox News and Drudge are generally slanted to the right, (not to mention that Bush has had a GOP Congress behind him), but note that this should not detract from President Bush's impressive successes.

The Way to Win concludes by suggesting that any prospective White House candidates can win by co-opting either Clinton's or Bush's very different but very successful models. They also stress that candidates who do not appreciate the new media age Freak Show are doomed to lose like John Kerry and Al Gore. The book notes that the Freak Show and its players -- like Matt Drudge -- may or may not have a positive influence on American politics; that is not their concern. They merely accept that that is the way it is, and The Way to Win is a guide on how to understand and tame the Freak Show.

The Way to Win is not flawless. While the authors' analysis is generally interesting and sharp, their constant harping on "trade secrets" gets a little annoying and detract from the book's sharp analysis. Some of these secrets -- such as the advice that prospective candidates should actually learn policy before they run -- are a bit useless. And perhaps it is just me, but I think the flow of the book does slow down a bit near the end as several sections just seem like laundry lists of trade secrets that don't seem as insightful as the authors make them out to be.

Both of the authors are big players in the Washington beltway -- Halperin puts together the Note, a well known daily political briefing read by people in the DC beltway, and Harris is the political editor at the Washington Post -- and it shows. The book definitely has a beltway elitist tinge (if they used the phrase "Gang of 500" one more time I think I was going to puke), which may be a put-off to some, but I doubt it. The Way to Win is written for political junkies by political junkies, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. It is a great book for any political junkie. The authors are definitely striving to be relevant in the upcoming election, and I think they achieve that and then some. I suspect the book will be well read in political circles, and perhaps by several prospective candidates as well.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


11 of 14 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Starts Out Good, then slides downhill -, October 10, 2006
"The Way to Win" professes to provide campaign secrets from both the Clintons and Bushes (read Rove). In reality, it offers little in the way of secrets, though it starts off well by describing the reality of the New Media "Freak Show."

The New Media (talk shows, cable TV, Internet websites) does not have the editorial filters of the Old Media. At the same time, its major occupant - "Freak Show" politics' - goal (and some politicians as well) is not simply to win a point but to persuade voters (and donors, viewers, and readers) than an opponent lakcs the character and credibility to even deserve a place in the contest. Freak Show politics, per Halperin, defeated Gore and Kerry.

How does this happen? Candidates running for office principally on their biography (eg. Kerry) are acutely vulnerable to accusations that it was embellished - the Freak Show targets via a fixation on personality and alleged hypocrisy, and often without even providing clear authorship (rumors work quite well). Regardless, the attacks on Kerry were predictable, and he did not prepare. That is Lesson 1 of Freak Show politics. Lesson 2 covers being ready to comment on a number of other basic topics (eg. religion, current events, current movies). The New Media overwhelmingly favors conservatives - via Fox News, Matt Drudge.

Clinton Politics is the politics of the center, holding that most Americans are less interested in ideology than practical solutions to basic problems. People prefer that politics be polite and compromise-minded. Clinton's style is not to clarify differences but to blur them; its' great weapon is high approval ratings. The most important Clinton trade secret is "know your stuff" - aided by campaign staff with plausible prescriptions for the most serious questions of the day. Confidence is key - no flip-flopping (Dick Morris' advice to Clinton during the '96 campaign). Another Clinton strength is to run toward your weakness (talk to opponents) - to not do so allows them to define you, incorrectly. Being polite was another Clinton trade secret. (One of Gore's weaknesses was his reputation as an exaggerator.)

Bush Politics is the politics of the base. People are angry because the issues dividing them are real and consequential. The leader sharpens differences and rallies the most intense supporters. Winning by one vote is enough. Bush ran on his education record in Texas, his support for a "patient's bill of rights," and a new prescription drug benefit for Medicare, per Halperin. The problem is that his Texas education success was fraudulent, he actually opposed the Texas patient's bill of rights, and the Medicare drug benefit was more a drug company benefit than anything else.

Halperin dismisses Rove's reputation as a dirty trickster (some would argue that that is how Bush wins), ignores/fails to go into detail how Rove built a turnout machine or his enlisting the evangelicals, and instead speculates on trivial components of Rove's success - eg. cheap food for fat cat get-togethers, being part of a "nice" team, etc. We do learn, however, that Rove's campaign letters often focused on something an opponent had said and then repeat it over and over, that nearly all play off the basic us-versus-them mentality that motivates partisans, that he can handle all levels of politics (eg. both creating the grand strategy and writing/typing up suggested ad lines, worker handbooks --> fast and consistent results.

Halperin also reports that Bush has become vulnerable to poor results - Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Katrina, quality jobs, etc. True, but hardly an insight - what President isn't.

Bottom Line: About the first third of "The Way to Win" is interesting and useful; the remainder meanders around trying to draw major conclusions about what seem more likely to be incidentals - eg. emphasizing Rove's pursuit of new technology, while providing almost no useful insight into how he uses it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars important but flawed, October 25, 2006
By 
T. Tucker (Rochester, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I was very curious about this book, because John Harris runs the best political journalistic operation the business at the Washington Post and Mark Halperin runs the smartly written but nauseatingly cynical "The Note." Would it be full of the blunt but smart analyses I see in the Post or the snarky, generally pro-Republican stuff you see in The Note?

The answer is a mix. On the one hand, you have pages upon pages of sucking up to Drudge, Limbaugh, and the rest of the right-wing noise machine. On the other, you have real bombshells, like the admission that press crew who travelled with Gore (specifically, Kit Seelye and Ceci Connelly) may have cost Gore the 2000 presidency. In the end, I find this tremendously disappointing: two writers with amazing access and great political acumen for the most part waste their time pulling their punches about the press corps and how it operates.

That said, I would have given this a higher rating were it not for two factors: (1) the fact that neither will admit that their own news operations are to a certain extent responsible for the power of what they call the "Freak Show" and (2) the excessive worship of Clinton and Rove, neither of whom is the political genius they are made out to be here (in my opinion).

And there's one other thing: I find Mark Halperin to be a deeply troubling figure, both here (in the passages that are clearly his) and in The Note. Clearly intelligent, he seems motivated primarily by the desire to curry favor with the powerful. He, and people like him, are a large part of the reason why we now have political dynasties, such as the Bushes and Clintons, which we never had before in the history of this country

I think that if Harris -- whose other writing I admire greatly -- had written this with a different partner this might have been a great book. Instead, what it is at some level is a brilliant mistake.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Does not even mention Obama, July 22, 2008
By 
J. Groom (Washington, United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is okay, but these guys are not too brilliant in predicting the future, as they do not mention, a single time, some guy by the name of Barack Obama.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 12 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Winning Elections for Dummies, November 14, 2006
By 
Izaak VanGaalen (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This is one of those books that we see all to frequently today: it is really a piece of journalism that is stretched over 480 pages. Not surprisingly, it was written by a pair of clever journalists: Mark Halperin, the political editor of ABC News, and John F Harris, the political editor of the Washington Post. Their book focuses on the two main stretegies used in the most recent election cycles, not only for the presidency but for the midterms as well. They also pay special attention to the role of the media regarding these two strategies.

The two leading strategies used today are of course Clinton Politics and Bush Politics. After eight years of Clinton Politcs and what will soon be eight years of Bush Politics, many are already predicting 2008 will be another era of Clinton Politics. After seeing the results of the midterms - this book was written before - I will predict that Bush will be practicing Clinton Politics his last two years in office.

Clinton Politics, according to Halperin and Harris, is "the politics of the center." The famous triangulation, inspite of all its negative connotations, was the politics of the middle ground, finding compromises to solve basic problems. This was the preferred way of politics of the Old Media (newspapers and magazines) being that it was more civilized and polite given the time lag to get words into print. Looking at the midterm results one can see the success of the politics of the center: the Democrats got many votes from independents and Republican weary of extreme partisanship.

Bush Politics, on the other hand, is "the politics of the base." This strategy, mastered by Karl Rove, is about energizing the true believers. They mine the electorate with hot button issues such as gay marriage and abortion, which are indeed important issues but they are brought to the forefront and made decisive when it comes to getting the vote for their candidate. The New Media (internet, 24-hour cable tv and talk radio) are the preferred vehicles of this brand of politics.

Halperin and Harris call the New Media culture the Freak Show and are obviously more comfortable with the more polite world of the Old Media. Nevertheless any political aspirant to the White House will have to be able to navigate the Freak Show to get elected.

And what are the consequences of these two strategies? What one must do to win an election is much different than what one must do to govern, the gap between the two has become more unbridgable in recent years. The negative consequences of governing a country by ideology can be seen from the latest tribulations of the Bush administration. Activating the base does not translate into sound policy-making. Politcs, being the art of compromise, has been a lost art.

Governing from the center as well as winning from the center shows more promise. When one governs from the center there is always the criticism of being unprincipled, wishy-washy, or worse yet a nuanced flipflopper. We have just lived through an age were the adjective nuanced was a pejorative term, compliments of the right-wing media. Perhaps we are again entering a new age when a skilled politician can practice nuance.

The midterm elections have shown that the electorate wants to get back to the proverbial "vital center." When was the last time there was a bipartisan commission to do anything. The new Iraq Study Group is the closest thing to bipartisanship in many years.

Halperin and Harris have done an interesting analysis of recent electioneering. However, the schema - like all such schemas - is a little simplistic, because in reality both Bush and the Clintons have crossed over to practice the politics of the other side. In any event, I hope along with the authors that the politcs of the center comes back into vogue.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great Analysis of the Past Elections, but 2008's Another Story, March 20, 2007
A most interesting book in that two astute observers of the American political scene make comments on the upcoming 2008 election. It does promise to be an interesting election. As usual, to win the Democratic primary you have to appeal to the hard core left wing - something both Hillary and Obama do. On the other hand, traditionally you have to go pretty far right to win the Republican primary, but neither MaCain nor Giuliani have done so.

Then after going far out on the wing, you have to come back to the center in order to win the election, because the country is positioned at neither wing. Hillary and Obama have a long way to go to get to the center.

The logic presented in this book is fascinating. But it's early in the political silly season. There's room for lots of surprises. This is a jolly good read (or listen in the case of the CD's), just don't take it too seriosly at this early stage. It's a lot about what happened in the past. But it's a new election.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Well Worth Reading, October 29, 2006
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
No need to cover the authors' arguements since other reviewers have done that so well already. The book presents a thoughtful analysis of the political strenghts and weaknesses of the recent presidential campaigns. It does not cover new ground in its "old media, new media" contrast, but the contrast is well drawn and the conclusions are fair. I thought that the influence of the Drudge Report was overstated... but maybe that is just my liberal soul saying, "How could that be?". I thought that the section on Hillary Clinton was the strongest contribution. It was a wonderful POLITICAL analysis of why she is a good enough candidate and politician to win. The book was at least 50 pages too long (as many of these kinds of books are) but I enjoyed it and learned a few things in the process. It is well worth the read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Not even worth the dollar I paid for this book., November 1, 2013
If anyone ever wanted to go back in time and read what some authors think about what "will happen" in a U.S. Presidential election, and then compare that to "what" actually did happen in such an election, this is surely the book to read. It barely mentions Senator Barack Obama at the time and focuses its entire thesis on Senator Hillary Clinton running against Senator John McCain, a scenario that didn't at all come to pass. It does make you wonder about the factual basis of other historical events these authors write about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Good for political junkies; some of their 2008 predictions already rendered irrelevant, July 10, 2007
As well-stated by others here, "Way to Win" is 'geeky' and 'for political junkies.' If you're looking for the type of delectable, fascinating 'inside the bus' reporting that is found, for example, in Newsweek's traditionally superb post-election special, well, here is not the place. While authors Mark Halperin and John F. Harris are definitely capable of that oeuvre, here they've produced a more analytical body of work analyzing what has made Clinton (both of them), Bush (43) and Karl Rove successful. Moreover, we're also shown what made Kerry and Gore unsuccessful.

What strikes me is the non-partisan stance of the book - the authors have lots of very positive statements about each of the four main protagonists (the Clintons being one successful pair, and Bush/Rove the other). It says a lot about the authors' ability to dispense dispassionate judgment that they're able to offer readers extensive, constructive looks at Hillary Clinton and Karl Rove without tipping their hands to feeling the least bit of antipathy towards one or the other. That's quite an achievement.

Despite all that, what strikes you at the very end of the book is how much of the book's conclusions have already been rendered irrelevant:

- John McCain is held up as the candidate who should fare best, given his mastery of the book's "trade secrets." [Right now, this looks like a major 'oops' - as I write this McCain has just made dramatic cuts to his staff and has only a small amount of funds in the bank.]

- Mark Warner and George Allen are touted as looking good for 2008. 'Oops' and 'Yikes!'

- Candidates and fundraising heavyweights Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama are nowhere to be seen.

- Rudy Guiliani merits brief attention, but only as an erstwhile senatorial candidate against Hillary in 2000.

Of course, much of that stuff is extraordinarily difficult to predict. It's more an indication of the "strangely fluid political times" (as Fortune aptly pegged it in a recent cover story) than of Halperin & Harris' prognosticating capabilities.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008
Used & New from: $2,526.76
Add to wishlist See buying options
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.