Clinton is raw, angry but also informative
This spirited account of Hillary Clinton’s failed run makes the case for the defence, but Daniel Finkelstein is unconvinced.
Hillary Clinton’s previous book Hard Choices was one of the most boring, pointless volumes I have read in my life. It was spectacularly unrevealing, almost unfathomably dull.
All of which explains why I did not embark on reading Clinton’s new book, her campaign memoir What Happened, with great enthusiasm or high expectations.
This turned out to be unnecessarily pessimistic. What Happened is highly entertaining. It is spirited, well written and informative. It isn’t flawless.
On the whole, though, What Happened is personal, direct and pretty honest. She talks well of her feelings of devastation at her defeat last November and the days of depression that followed.
What, though, about her overall case, her explanation of ‘‘what happened’’? That I think is passionate, necessary, but ultimately not completely persuasive.
What Happened is not a cool take on Clinton’s loss. It is raw and angry. There are a couple of ‘‘sorrys’’ in there, some general but vague, some specific but minor. But this is the case for the defence. In places this makes it important to read. Her description of the ludicrous nonsense about her emails shows how empty this so-called scandal was. Her argument that Russia interfered in the election, that such interference in American politics continues and that this is a serious national security concern cannot be responsibly ignored.
The book is less good on the puzzling question of her campaign schedule and why she didn’t spend enough time in rust-belt states. However, she defends her campaign strategy adequately.
Yet I could not accept her broad thesis, at least not totally. Clinton flatly argues that she would not have lost without the email stuff and Russian interference. And she has a good bash at making this point stick. She mentions James Comey, the FBI director, 118 times in the book and blames his interventions, particularly his reopening of the investigation, for her defeat.
This argument is not absurd. Yet it still misses the point.
The 2016 election was a change election. It would have been difficult for any Democrat to have won. The party had inhabited the White House for eight years and voters did not feel as though they were prospering. Racial attitudes had also worsened during this period and many white voters without university education, casting about for an explanation for the economic pressures they felt, chose to blame other ethnic groups and immigrants.
What Happened doesn’t ignore this. However, she doesn’t – perhaps she couldn’t – draw the obvious conclusion from it. And the obvious conclusion is that she wasn’t the right candidate to fight this election.
- The Times