Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$11.77+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on August 19, 2016
It's interesting to read the background after the outcome is already known. I've liked some of his more recent books better.
on June 15, 2002
I just about had a heart attack when I heard that the machine recount had never been completed in Florida. Holt cow!, I thought, there's the smoking gun! So I called my local [book store] and was amazed that they didn't have it in stock. I mean, we're talking one of those great big super-duper [book stores]. Somebody is soft-pedaling this book, although I suspect that the motives are more commercial than political. I'm reminded of the Michael Moore book that almost didn't get released because it didn't match the "mood of the nation", and after it was grudgingly released, it shot to the top of the charts. To the Major League Republicans who charge bias (I wish you could see me; I'm doing the jerk off sign.) I wish you could be a little more specific in your arguments. Certainly bias exists in the media, but if you really think it's pervaisive and systemic, I suspect that your problem is with reality. The point of investigating something is to come to conclusions, after all. Would you have felt the same way about Toobin's O.J. book, where he makes no bones about Simpson's guilt because THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS? The problem with the bias charge is that I've never heard it leveled by anyone without an agenda, and it's often used to justify the most terrible excesses. "I AM EQUAL TIME" says Rush Limbaugh, and then he proceeds to lie like hell. How many of the American who are complaining about the media's supposed... slant have ever seen a refugee camp? Yet, by invoking the magic word "bias", they can dismiss the conclusions of those who have. Please Note: I have ordered this book, but it hasn't arrived yet. I have not yet read it, but I had some things I wanted to say. I filled in three stars because that would not change the overall rating.
on June 18, 2003
Unlike, apparently, most of the reviewers here, I knew very little about Jeffrey Toobin before I picked up this book. For some reason I expected a somewhat unbiased analysis of the whole Florida situation. I was disappointed.
I realized that there was a "slant" to this book when Toobin, early on, described Katherine Harris. He stated, in essence, that Ms. Harris had the condition common to many of those who grew up privileged-- a lack of self knowledge. In the context it was written in, this was a major slam. It was also without factual backing, in my experience. I've known people who grew up very well-to-do, and people who have grown up very poor. There may be a lot of differences between them, but "self-knowledge" is not one of them.
In fact, the AAUW did a highly publicized study a few years ago on the attitudes of male and female students. Most media attention was focused on findings that girls had lower self-esteem and confidence in themselves as students. This led to the cry for teachers to pay more attention to girls, to help them "catch up" to boys in school. What was lost in the study, though, was another interesting statistic. The group that believed it was doing the best academically, and showed the most confidence in itself, was the group that was actually the lowest performing group. That group was African-american boys. Hence, there was a stunning lack of "self-knowledge" in that group. That group is not generally considered to have grown up in the same heady economic stratosphere as Ms. Harris. Mr. Toobin's generalization, then, is highly questionable.
Unfortunately, his attack on Ms. Harris was consistent with the rest of the book. Al Gore and most of his people were noble but foolish. George Bush's people were nasty pragmatists. I've dealt with a great number of political people of both stripes over the years, including some very high officials. I've found a pretty fair mix of "types" in both parties. Toobin must have been in dreamland when he came up with these simplistic generalizations about these groups.
That being said, the book is interesting. The nice thing about Toobin's bias is that it is blatant. One needn't guess at where he's coming from. The downside to this is that I ended up treating it more like a work of fiction. I think I need to find some other, less biased, books to try to find out (as much as possible) what REALLY happened in Florida in 2000.
I realized that there was a "slant" to this book when Toobin, early on, described Katherine Harris. He stated, in essence, that Ms. Harris had the condition common to many of those who grew up privileged-- a lack of self knowledge. In the context it was written in, this was a major slam. It was also without factual backing, in my experience. I've known people who grew up very well-to-do, and people who have grown up very poor. There may be a lot of differences between them, but "self-knowledge" is not one of them.
In fact, the AAUW did a highly publicized study a few years ago on the attitudes of male and female students. Most media attention was focused on findings that girls had lower self-esteem and confidence in themselves as students. This led to the cry for teachers to pay more attention to girls, to help them "catch up" to boys in school. What was lost in the study, though, was another interesting statistic. The group that believed it was doing the best academically, and showed the most confidence in itself, was the group that was actually the lowest performing group. That group was African-american boys. Hence, there was a stunning lack of "self-knowledge" in that group. That group is not generally considered to have grown up in the same heady economic stratosphere as Ms. Harris. Mr. Toobin's generalization, then, is highly questionable.
Unfortunately, his attack on Ms. Harris was consistent with the rest of the book. Al Gore and most of his people were noble but foolish. George Bush's people were nasty pragmatists. I've dealt with a great number of political people of both stripes over the years, including some very high officials. I've found a pretty fair mix of "types" in both parties. Toobin must have been in dreamland when he came up with these simplistic generalizations about these groups.
That being said, the book is interesting. The nice thing about Toobin's bias is that it is blatant. One needn't guess at where he's coming from. The downside to this is that I ended up treating it more like a work of fiction. I think I need to find some other, less biased, books to try to find out (as much as possible) what REALLY happened in Florida in 2000.
on September 15, 2002
Not exactly that well researched. It's interesting that I've read four books on this subject and all tend to rely on the same references and interpret it according to their own biases. Yeah, it's interesting reading, but nothing I'd keep on my bookshelf for very long.
on January 11, 2003
This book is a quick read full of interesting details. You just have to tolerate the author's obvious dismay that Gore lost the election. While both sides did what they felt was appropriate to protect their positions, Toobin only finds fault with Republican tactics. When he simply tells the story from behind the scenes he is very effective. But when he frequently interjects his opinions it is only to criticize the Bush side and shows his obvious bias.
Quite disturbing is Toobin's agreement that racism was involved in Duval County. Only the most bitter partisans for Gore still believe race played any part. Toobin complains that 9,000 black voters had their votes not counted and he bellows about it. Not mentioned is the nearly 13,000 additional votes from white areas in Duval also not counted. But Toobin is not bothered at all by this.
Typical to liberals, someone is "partisan" when they disagree with a liberal position. He finds huge "partisanship" with the U.S. Supreme Court decision but none whatsoever with the Florida Supreme Court's often ridiculed rulings. Likewise, his trashing of Harris as a servant of Bush is... one-sided.
There is little doubt that if every vote had been cast and counted legally, Gore would have won. But, to get to this potential outcome, many laws would have been ignored or broken.
We are a nation of laws and they must take priority over all else. The U.S. Supreme Court finally upheld these laws, plain and simple. As a nation we cannot ignore laws simply because we do not like their result. And we cannot have courts legislating to get the desired results. Laws are blind, impartial, and the supreme rules of the land. The rule of law is the legacy of the Florida election. Keep that in mind as you read Toobin's interesting account of these prolific events.
Quite disturbing is Toobin's agreement that racism was involved in Duval County. Only the most bitter partisans for Gore still believe race played any part. Toobin complains that 9,000 black voters had their votes not counted and he bellows about it. Not mentioned is the nearly 13,000 additional votes from white areas in Duval also not counted. But Toobin is not bothered at all by this.
Typical to liberals, someone is "partisan" when they disagree with a liberal position. He finds huge "partisanship" with the U.S. Supreme Court decision but none whatsoever with the Florida Supreme Court's often ridiculed rulings. Likewise, his trashing of Harris as a servant of Bush is... one-sided.
There is little doubt that if every vote had been cast and counted legally, Gore would have won. But, to get to this potential outcome, many laws would have been ignored or broken.
We are a nation of laws and they must take priority over all else. The U.S. Supreme Court finally upheld these laws, plain and simple. As a nation we cannot ignore laws simply because we do not like their result. And we cannot have courts legislating to get the desired results. Laws are blind, impartial, and the supreme rules of the land. The rule of law is the legacy of the Florida election. Keep that in mind as you read Toobin's interesting account of these prolific events.
on October 31, 2001
This book does not pretend to be an objective piece of journalism -- it is intended for those Gore supporters who wish to justify their feelings of outrage over the outcome of the election. If you supported Gore and are a glutton for punishment, read this book -- you'll certainly enjoy Toobin's thesis and you'll find ample support for your views and feelings.
Bush supporters, however, should stay away. You will only be annoyed by Toobin's left-wing diatribe. There's nothing new or terribly interesting for you in this book.
While the book is very thorough and well written, all readers should know that Toobin is sometimes wrong. For example, Toobin incorrectly reports that a 5-4 Supreme Court vote found the Florida recount unconstitutional when, in fact, it was a 7-2 Supreme Court vote of unconstitutionality; the 5-4 split was only on the issue of whether the case should be sent back to Florida for more legal wrangling to set a constitutional standard for recounting and THEN for Florida to conduct yet more recounts. Whether the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court to stop the madness in Florida was in the country's best interests(I think it was), will be judged by historians.
All in all, whether this book is for you depends upon how you felt about the issue in the first place.
Bush supporters, however, should stay away. You will only be annoyed by Toobin's left-wing diatribe. There's nothing new or terribly interesting for you in this book.
While the book is very thorough and well written, all readers should know that Toobin is sometimes wrong. For example, Toobin incorrectly reports that a 5-4 Supreme Court vote found the Florida recount unconstitutional when, in fact, it was a 7-2 Supreme Court vote of unconstitutionality; the 5-4 split was only on the issue of whether the case should be sent back to Florida for more legal wrangling to set a constitutional standard for recounting and THEN for Florida to conduct yet more recounts. Whether the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court to stop the madness in Florida was in the country's best interests(I think it was), will be judged by historians.
All in all, whether this book is for you depends upon how you felt about the issue in the first place.
on March 18, 2005
Jeff Toobin is a good writer - I enjoyed reading this book, just as I enjoyed his other book on the O.J. Simpson trial.
"Too Close To Call" is very Gore-centric, however, perhaps because Toobin himself is a Democrat and has made no secret of the fact that he thinks Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But his bias doesn't distract too much from the interesting tidbits he provides about the campaigns, both before and after election day.
I do recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the historic 2000 election fight, but be aware that Toobin is far from an impartial commentator.
The liberal bias is made somewhat less annoying by the fact that Bush ran away with Florida in 2004, winning the state easily.
"Too Close To Call" is very Gore-centric, however, perhaps because Toobin himself is a Democrat and has made no secret of the fact that he thinks Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But his bias doesn't distract too much from the interesting tidbits he provides about the campaigns, both before and after election day.
I do recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the historic 2000 election fight, but be aware that Toobin is far from an impartial commentator.
The liberal bias is made somewhat less annoying by the fact that Bush ran away with Florida in 2004, winning the state easily.
on March 11, 2015
Great insight to the process and the key players .
