To be sure, Wolffe did get a few good tidbits. For instance, he breaks the news that Obama held a secret meeting during the campaign with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago (though he offers precious few details on what transpired). In a later chapter on the transition, he reports that Rahm Emanuel was “unsettled by [Valerie Jarrett’s] personal relationship with the Obamas and wanted her outside the White House” (again, an intriguing factoid that calls out for deeper reporting). And, no doubt unintentionally, he occasionally captures Obama’s enormous self-regard in a way that only an oblivious fan could possibly manage.
As for Obama’s negative attributes—well, Wolffe doesn’t have much time for those. Discussing the candidate’s cynical decision to opt out of the public financing system, the most he can muster is that Obama’s “argument was not based on fairness; it was based on effectiveness.” In other words, he buys wholesale into the campaign’s excuse that they needed to prepare for the inevitable onslaught of Republican dirty tricks. Wolffe spends an entire paragraph defending the ostentatious Greek-temple display of columns that the Democrats constructed for Obama’s anointment in Denver. And Obama’s utter lack of foreign policy experience? “In some ways the candidate possessed a thin Washington resume in foreign affairs,” he concedes. In some ways?
Still don’t believe that Wolffe is in the tank for Obama? Just take a look at the Acknowledgements. There, he thanks the “O-Team,” which consists of Michelle Obama, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and a variety of other aides. First among his “surrogate family at MSNBC,” whom he applauds for “your talent and courage, your good humor and support,” is Keith Olbermann. (During the campaign, Wolffe made regular appearances on “Countdown,” playing Stepin Fechit to the bullying host.) He refers to Maureen Dowd as “our very own Dorothy Parker in red cowboy boots.” Wolffe has every right to thank whomever he wants. But let’s just say that political writers trying to avoid the accusation of partisanship are usually not this indiscreet.
Recounting an early discussion with Obama about whether he should write Renegade, Wolffe recalls his reservations about the project: “It’s very hard to write something after the election. Besides, I said, publishers want partisan screeds nowadays. They don’t want reporting.” Richard Wolffe gave his publishers what they wanted. If only he had followed his initial instinct and never written this embarrassing book.
- 1
- 2





Good takedown of the latest in 'access in return for favorable coverage' Faustian bargain that journalists must weigh. The rise of Obama represents a big leap toward the drivel that you find in Esquire or Rolling Stone cover stories - celebrity journalism which has the same relationship to events that fast food has to nutrition.
I realize that this didn't start yesterday, and that Kennedy was probably the first American politician to be, uh, 'covered' like a movie star (and started to draw the same kind of readership as the celebrity magazines). But I still think there is room for a Theodore White type of book. His '1960' volume was strongly personality-driven and star-struck, but the subsequent editions, 1964-1972, placed those elections in the context of wider trends in American society - race politics in 1964, 'youth' movements in 1968, the rise of feminism in 1972 - with statistical support for his interpretation. The 'campaign' book since 1972 and the coming of a generation of journalists who found national presidential campaigns glamorous (like following a rock band on tour) has been taken over by Beltway figures who spend a lot of time on inside baseball, unfortunately.
Posted by Mark Richard on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:38 PM
This review would have been more effective had the writer checked his venom at the door. Or, assign the piece to someone else -- Joe Klein comes to mind.
Posted by Elizabeth on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 03:16 PM
Obama didn't meet Vladimir Putin or shake hands with Hugo Chavez? I think you need a fact checker. You clearly don't have a clue.
Posted by Ted V on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 08:51 PM
First bravo on both Kirchick's piece as well as CJR giving him the space to print it. With Navasky at the helm here, its difficult to get an opinion from the CJR that isnt reflexively left leaning and given how embarrassing Wolffe behaved it good to see it.
And Ted, FYI Kirchick didnt mention Putin and Obama most certainly did share a loving moment with Chavez. http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama_chavez_handshake.jpg
Posted by Mike H on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:33 PM
Lets talk about some Bush intimate moments, shall we? http://www.beersteak.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush-hand-holding-saudi-queen.jpg
Posted by Jay on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:41 PM
Elizabeth suggested Joe Klein as an alternative reviewer? Well, I guess it takes one liberal hack to give another liberal hack a fair shake.
Posted by SamTyler on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 02:28 PM
Personally I think that this book is one of the points of view on the Obama and his elections. Nothing more but one point of view among many others. Is it right or not? Everyone should make out his/her own opinion.
Denny, editor of Custom Metatrader indicators blog
Posted by Denny on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 04:23 PM