Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$11.77+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on December 5, 2001
It is customary, in works of this sort, to provide a statement of acknowledgements. More so, where the acknowledgements can lead to some questioning of the author's motive, to place those "qualifiers" up front. Toobin does not. While his own tilt is clear from early on, the fact that he is personal friends with a number of Gore "insiders" is saved for AFTER the text.
Toobin's statement of facts, including anecdotes and running commentary from most participants is excellent. His conclusions, however, are poorly reasoned and hypocritical.
E.g., the reason GW Bush "won" in the extra five weeks of the 2000 election was because
(a) Gore's inability to devise a consistent strategy;
(b) the greater loyalty of Bush's campaign staff;
(c) because the Supreme Court stole it;
(d) all of the above
Strantely enough, Toobin says (d), but his reasons and rationale fall short of intelligent writing or analysis.
He is critical of Gore, but not of Gore staffers' lack of loyalty to their boss. (He criticizes the Bush staffers' "anything to win" mentality after he heralds the same democrat attitude which led to Clinton's 1992 victory or 1998 acquital.) Thus, it is a republican failing that the party is loyal to its candidate, but a Gore failing that he cannot obtain similar loyalty from his staff.
He lambasts Bush staffers for "campaigning" after the election. (Later, he criticizes Gore for rejecting Clinton suggestions that the democrats do the same thing.) Thus, the republicans are "too political," but Gore lost the media war because he didn't take Clinton's advice to be "more political."
Finally, the Florida Supreme Court are considered heroic and the U.S. Supreme Court overly political -- even though he documents that both violated their customary rules for review and handling of cases.
In short, Toobin provides an excellent history, and a documentation of the underlying facts that is surely a benefit to any historian or political observer interested in the Election 2000 controversy. But his analysis and conclusions contain so strained and hypocritical that the entire effort becomes wasted.
Toobin's statement of facts, including anecdotes and running commentary from most participants is excellent. His conclusions, however, are poorly reasoned and hypocritical.
E.g., the reason GW Bush "won" in the extra five weeks of the 2000 election was because
(a) Gore's inability to devise a consistent strategy;
(b) the greater loyalty of Bush's campaign staff;
(c) because the Supreme Court stole it;
(d) all of the above
Strantely enough, Toobin says (d), but his reasons and rationale fall short of intelligent writing or analysis.
He is critical of Gore, but not of Gore staffers' lack of loyalty to their boss. (He criticizes the Bush staffers' "anything to win" mentality after he heralds the same democrat attitude which led to Clinton's 1992 victory or 1998 acquital.) Thus, it is a republican failing that the party is loyal to its candidate, but a Gore failing that he cannot obtain similar loyalty from his staff.
He lambasts Bush staffers for "campaigning" after the election. (Later, he criticizes Gore for rejecting Clinton suggestions that the democrats do the same thing.) Thus, the republicans are "too political," but Gore lost the media war because he didn't take Clinton's advice to be "more political."
Finally, the Florida Supreme Court are considered heroic and the U.S. Supreme Court overly political -- even though he documents that both violated their customary rules for review and handling of cases.
In short, Toobin provides an excellent history, and a documentation of the underlying facts that is surely a benefit to any historian or political observer interested in the Election 2000 controversy. But his analysis and conclusions contain so strained and hypocritical that the entire effort becomes wasted.
on January 4, 2002
Toobin's work has some great detail and insight into the recount and from that perspective it's an interesting read. In the final analysis, Toobin's work is a disappointment because of its final analysis - that ". . . in any real, moral and democratic sense, Al Gore should have been declared the victor over George W. Bush - in the popular vote, in Florida, and in the Electoral College."
It's disappointing because Toobin surely knows that the national popular vote is irrelevant in presidential elections. Were the popular vote the deciding factor then both candidates would have conducted their campaigns far differently. Yes, it appears that a good number of likely Gore supporters voted wrong; so what? There is no perfect election. There were undoubtedly errors in other Florida counties, in other states. In the final analysis, if Al Gore had just managed to carry his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn't have even needed to win Florida.
It's disappointing because Toobin surely knows that the national popular vote is irrelevant in presidential elections. Were the popular vote the deciding factor then both candidates would have conducted their campaigns far differently. Yes, it appears that a good number of likely Gore supporters voted wrong; so what? There is no perfect election. There were undoubtedly errors in other Florida counties, in other states. In the final analysis, if Al Gore had just managed to carry his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn't have even needed to win Florida.
on November 28, 2001
The premise that Toobin is an unbiased reviewer of the facts of the Florida controversy is plainly wrong. He often draws sweeping conclusions, with specious or non-existent factual justification, of right and wrong that are clearly partisan in Gore's favor.
As an example, he makes it clear that the Gore team chose to ask for recounts in only 3 counties because they determined those were the counties in which they were most likely to gain the greatest number of votes -- clearly a strategy that was intended to advantage Gore rather than "count all the votes." He then hypocritically lambasts the Bush team for similarly taking actions that were intended to advantage Bush rather than count all the votes. Both Bush and Gore took actions that were admittedly intended to gain victory rather than fairness, yet Toobin describes Gore as "taking the high road" and Bush as ruthless and calculating.
Another example of Toobin's unfliching bias is his review of the actions of the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Although both courts clearly varied from their usual standards of review, Toobin applauds the Florida Supreme Court as bold and visionary while attacking the U.S. Supreme Court as politically motivated. Not suprisingly, the Florida Supreme Court helped Gore (and Toobin's) cause while the U.S. Supreme Court did not.
Finally, the most disturbing thing about this book is the fact that Toobin makes several sweeping conclusions which have absolutely no basis in fact. One of these is his assertion that "thousands" of black voters were disenfranchised in Duval County because they had failed to properly complete their ballot. Toobin then makes the wild assertion that counting these overvoted ballots would have "easily" given Gore the victory without even bothering to address the problem of how the intent of a voter that votes for more than one candidate is to be determined. Toobin's analogy to voting patterns of black voters conveniently ignores the practical (and unavoidable) requirement that individual ballots must be properly completed to record votes. Again revealing his bias, Toobin actually uses this argument to support and endorse Gore's position regarding the absentee ballots elsewhere in the book.
Toobin's darkest hour is his ludicrous assertion that, had "all the votes" been counted, Gore would have certainly won Florida and, hence, the Presidency. Despite the fact that this assertion has recently been conclusively disproved, Toobin had no basis whatsoever for this claim at the time he wrote the book because no substantive effort was made (until recently) to determine the intention of all improperly voted ballots statewide. This is precisely the argument ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court: that a highly-selective recount of certain improperly voted ballots effectively disenfranchised those voters that did not receive the benefit of the recount. Despite Toobin's (and Gore's) bizarre assertion to the contrary, you can't "count (or recount) all the votes" unless you recount ALL the votes.
In a final note, it is unfortunate and revealing that Toobin directs a vitriolic personal attack at the head of the Palm Beach County canvassing board. Given the fact that the members of these local canvassing boards were unexpectedly thrown into an intense political cauldron which it would have been virtually impossible to predict or prepare for, it is not surprising that the reactions of these individuals to the situation was less than perfect. Naturally, Toobin's ire is most directed at those that were not as supportive of Gore's efforts as they might have been.
Toobin's factual account of the unfolding controversy is excellent. It's unfortunate that Too Close to Call is fatally flawed by his indulgence of his personal bias.
As an example, he makes it clear that the Gore team chose to ask for recounts in only 3 counties because they determined those were the counties in which they were most likely to gain the greatest number of votes -- clearly a strategy that was intended to advantage Gore rather than "count all the votes." He then hypocritically lambasts the Bush team for similarly taking actions that were intended to advantage Bush rather than count all the votes. Both Bush and Gore took actions that were admittedly intended to gain victory rather than fairness, yet Toobin describes Gore as "taking the high road" and Bush as ruthless and calculating.
Another example of Toobin's unfliching bias is his review of the actions of the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Although both courts clearly varied from their usual standards of review, Toobin applauds the Florida Supreme Court as bold and visionary while attacking the U.S. Supreme Court as politically motivated. Not suprisingly, the Florida Supreme Court helped Gore (and Toobin's) cause while the U.S. Supreme Court did not.
Finally, the most disturbing thing about this book is the fact that Toobin makes several sweeping conclusions which have absolutely no basis in fact. One of these is his assertion that "thousands" of black voters were disenfranchised in Duval County because they had failed to properly complete their ballot. Toobin then makes the wild assertion that counting these overvoted ballots would have "easily" given Gore the victory without even bothering to address the problem of how the intent of a voter that votes for more than one candidate is to be determined. Toobin's analogy to voting patterns of black voters conveniently ignores the practical (and unavoidable) requirement that individual ballots must be properly completed to record votes. Again revealing his bias, Toobin actually uses this argument to support and endorse Gore's position regarding the absentee ballots elsewhere in the book.
Toobin's darkest hour is his ludicrous assertion that, had "all the votes" been counted, Gore would have certainly won Florida and, hence, the Presidency. Despite the fact that this assertion has recently been conclusively disproved, Toobin had no basis whatsoever for this claim at the time he wrote the book because no substantive effort was made (until recently) to determine the intention of all improperly voted ballots statewide. This is precisely the argument ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court: that a highly-selective recount of certain improperly voted ballots effectively disenfranchised those voters that did not receive the benefit of the recount. Despite Toobin's (and Gore's) bizarre assertion to the contrary, you can't "count (or recount) all the votes" unless you recount ALL the votes.
In a final note, it is unfortunate and revealing that Toobin directs a vitriolic personal attack at the head of the Palm Beach County canvassing board. Given the fact that the members of these local canvassing boards were unexpectedly thrown into an intense political cauldron which it would have been virtually impossible to predict or prepare for, it is not surprising that the reactions of these individuals to the situation was less than perfect. Naturally, Toobin's ire is most directed at those that were not as supportive of Gore's efforts as they might have been.
Toobin's factual account of the unfolding controversy is excellent. It's unfortunate that Too Close to Call is fatally flawed by his indulgence of his personal bias.
on January 2, 2002
While I have read several books about the 2000 election, I must admit that I looked forward to reading Toobin's. In the end, however, I was disappointed by his inability to present an unbiased account of what happened. Toobin does an exceptionally poor job of hiding his bias and makes his conclusion, that Bush somehow "stole" the election from the more deserving Gore, crystal clear. In so doing, he glosses over some of the very questionable tactics employed by Gore and his operatives in their attempt to generate more votes.
on October 17, 2001
I had high hopes for this author and was sorely disappointed. Though the writing is fresh and compelling, Toobin makes no news and, more important, reveals his bias from the first page to the last. Even a reader sympathethic to Gore's position will likely find little here of any substance; the book is so one-sided that it sounds more like never-ending talking points than the serious, thoughtful accounts offered by many of Toobin's predecessors.
on October 31, 2001
Again, Jeffrey Toobin shows himself as a writer who CANNOT be objective. In a previous book he wrote that I thoroughly enjoyed, "The Run Of His Life", Toobin only sees racist black people cheering "GO OJ GO" during the freeway chase and not the many whites cheering along with them. In this book, Al Gore and the Democrats are good hearted, bi-partisan, non-combative, innocent victims being cheated by the legal system against the evil and corrupt George Bush and the Republicans. If Al Gore wrote a book on the 2000 election he would be more objective than this guy.
on March 25, 2006
too bad that such an important subject was handled in such a biased way. even worse is that the facts were either only particaly used or twisted to fit the point mr. toobin was trying to make at the time. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. this book should classified as fiction and not non-fiction.
