My thoughts on finishing Maggie Haberman's book "Confidence Man"

[ificandream]

Last edited Mon Nov 21, 2022, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I finished the audio version of this book last night and I must say it had me enthralled from page one. She gets probably as deep into Trump as anyone outside the family circle can beginning with his early history through his announcement in the 2016 race and right through to the beginning of this year. The most compelling parts of the book for me were his conduct during the insurrection and, surprisingly, the epilogue, where Haberman, who reads the audio book, by the way, talks about some of her interviews with him and also touches on his hoarding of sensitive documents after the presidency. (Which she asks him about directly and he demurs in his answer, not surprisingly.) It's not a wham/bam/slam portrait of him but a somewhat calm book written by a very good journalist.

Yes, I've seen some of the criticisms hurled at her both here and elsewhere (Keith Olbermann, for one, has been very critical), but they are, in my opinion, unfounded. Journalism is not a one-shot deal. In other words, stories evolve over time. The most persistent criticism is that she left information out of stories for her book. But, as a former newspaper person (writer, copy editor, editor) for over three decades, I can tell you most certainly that had she done that she'd have been fired.

So I very much recommend this.

[Scrivener7]

1. This, I fear, is like the tapes for me. I would LOVE to know what is said in it,

but I just can't fill up more of my brain with that walking human mange. And with the tapes, I think I would get sick if I had to listen to his voice that long.

So I have to depend on things like this to give me the highlights. So thank you.

[ificandream]

4. I've briefly considered whether to get Bob Woodward's Trump tapes.

... and I said no. I really don't want to hear him. Maybe, just maybe, if it ever goes on sale, but I'm not going to waste a credit (or full price) to get it.

[Ocelot II]

6. I can't stand hearing that monster's voice. Just reading transcripts

makes me queasy because I can imagine it.

[PatSeg]

27. Yes, when I read things he has said,

I can hear his voice in my head. It will probably never go away.

[Bobstandard]

2. I'm with Keith

She’s quite obviously held back information for her books on multiple occasions now and treated Hillary abominably in the run up to 2016, reporting rumors and invective as if they were facts. She may have great sources but a paragon of journalistic integrity she ain’t.

[ificandream]

7. Obviously? How do you figure?

As I said, journalism stories evolve. That's the nature of the beast. That's why there are followup stories often. And there's no telling when she got the new information, is there? As far as "treated Hillary abominably" ... we can look back now and judge stories based on current information, but back then a reporter writes what they have. Would love to see her do a book on Hillary now. And it's funny that just last year, the FEC rejected a complaint that Haberman and others contributed favorable stories on her.

From the story in the link:

In a unanimous vote, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission dismissed a complaint alleging the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign broke the law by soliciting favorable media coverage.

The 6-0 FEC vote dismissed the complaint that relied primarily on WikiLeaks emails from Guccifer 2.0.

Several prominent reporters and media personalities were mentioned in the complaint, including Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, John Harwood of CNN (formerly of CNBC, where he was during the 2016 campaign), as well as outlets such as The Boston Globe, Politico, NBC, and Univision.

Just the fact some of the information in the complaint came from suspect material from Wikileaks (which never should have been a news source back in the day) says enough.

[agingdem]

13. I agree..

Haberman, Maureen Dowd, and the cable talking heads hated Hillary, a smart, capable, articulate former US Senator/Secretary of State, but, obviously, not their "kind"...and because of their dislike for all things Clinton, they repackaged their party buddy, a depraved no-knowing thug, a malignant buffoon, and sold him as a viable candidate, confident their guy would "grow in office"... as for Haberman, it was all about access and she used that unique access to throw out tidbits of gossip, innuendo wrapped in bunting

Maggie, in her tome, is asking the reader to "understand" Trump, a pathological liar, a vengeful hate-filled narcissistic psychopath and perhaps sympathize with his mommy/daddy issues..sorry, Maggie, everyone has shit in their young lives, but not every one grows up toxic..not everyone grows up a deranged sexual predator, a racist/antisemite, a conman, a thief...see, Maggie, I "understand" your guy perfectly without spending a cent on your missive to an amoral toxic loser..

[ificandream]

16. Understand him?

This is a book that goes deep into his life. There's no underlying motive here. As for understanding him, you might come out of it knowing a little more about him. I did. If that's "understanding," so be it. But unlike other books, she's not trying to play analyst. It's just the facts.

[agingdem]

22. I don't think so..she's known him a very long time

I think she is giving Trump an excuse for his pathological self-absorptions, his inability for self reflection..he is the center of his own universe, always the victim, always the hero never the cause, he possess a two year old sense of "mine"..if I want it then it's mine, if you have it then it's mine, if it's mine it must never appear to be yours...Trump spent years bashing the New York Times yet Haberman had unfettered access because he knew everything she wrote was in one way or other a veiled paean to Trump...

[ificandream]

26. I think we can all agree Trump is crazy. He has an ego bigger than Trump Tower.

But how does she give him an excuse for being the loser he is? Writing his history does not give him an excuse. It's a document of who he is. I agree with your comments about his self-absorption, but I think the reasons he still talks to her is that he has known for her a long time and she's high profile. So does talking to her feed his ego? Maybe. But in no way does she go light on him. She also doesn't use the famous Fox "people say" reasoning, either. She deals in facts, as she should.

[underpants]

3. Thanks. Say what you want about her

but she is a good reporter and has definite inside info from someone in the Trump operation.

[Ocelot II]

5. I agree. I read the Kindle version, and found it fascinating,

in a disturbing way. She does an excellent job of describing TFG's truly sociopathic behavior, and frankly I kind of admire her ability to conduct an interview with him without smacking him with something and running from the room screaming. She and many others have been criticized for not reporting some of his actions as they happened, but I place more blame on the WH insiders and employees who were there every day and knew what was going on, but waited until they were no longer working there to write books about it. John Bolton, in particular, could have assisted the impeachment committee but refused because his book was about to be published, so fuck him. Miles Taylor actually did disclose current information about TFG (he was the "Anonymous" they were trying to track down) but nothing changed. At this point I think it's more important to consider what we are learning from these reports rather than to drag on the people who wrote them. TFG wants to be president again, and the excellent reporting of people like Haberman and Bob Woodward and Carol Loennig, etc., makes it absolutely clear that he must not succeed.

[ificandream]

8. I wonder if Cassidy Hutchinson has a book in the works ...

Now that'd be something to read.

[Hekate]

20. This

[Hortensis]

31. Agree, This, Underpants, others.

I've posted a lot of criticism for biased coverage, above all that of the NYT due to its national preeminence. None, though, for not telling me what I want to hear. And my own reactions always tell me when that happens.

No excuses for journalistic corruption where it exists. But a lot of criticism of journalists around here arises not from dishonest journalism (alone or partially) but from their failure to tell people what they want to hear. Requiring those who insist on it to go elsewhere to get that happy confirmation bias fix.

[UTUSN]

9. Thnnks, although most of us are as deep to what he's about, or corollary:

It don't take much forensic depth to grok him.

[delisen]

10. Haberman-Cog in the Crudites Machine of NYT

Last edited Mon Nov 21, 2022, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

[tenderfoot]

11. Maggie Haberman is a stenographer, not a journalist

eom

[ificandream]

17. How do you figure?

[Celerity]

33. Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony transcript

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217490091

[madinmaryland]

19. Very true! Reading any of her "reporting" or tweets it was obvious she was writing

what trump wanted written.

[ificandream]

23. So writing that Trump has sensitive documents at Mar-A-Lago is what he wanted written?

She has that in the book. And I doubt he was happy about that.

[tenderfoot]

28. They still seem to talk to one another.

And she's still reporting on him.

He can't be that upset with her.

[ificandream]

29. It makes him look really bad if he doesn't.

[tenderfoot]

32. He doesn't care how he comes across

She's a stenographer.

[Bev54]

12. I am not a Haberman fan, she fails to have any insight to her own part of helping in

Trump's election, often focuses on the sensational aspects of Trump instead of focusing on the real crimes, burying them deep in her articles or fails to actually see them as crimes and rather as "quirks". Sorry but will not buy or read her book.

[ificandream]

18. There are insights throughout the book.

And as I mentioned, she questions him about the papers he took from the White House. So I'm not sure I see your point. I suppose if you're looking for a Fox Noise type of book, well, this isn't it. (Damn Fox Noise for screwing up journalism and people's perception of it.)

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. I will not be buying Haberman's book

Nor will I be purchasing Pence's book

[ificandream]

25. Pence writes?

Probably like O'Reilly does.

[bedazzled]

15. I keep getting these books from the library and sending them back unread

I guess I am sick of the mango mussolini.

I blissfully imagine a day when I won't see that hideous face or hear his name.

[Hekate]

21. Count me among those who thank you for your review & yr insight as an all-round newspaper person

[ificandream]

24. Thank you. :)

[Vinca]

30. This afternoon I finished reading the print version and I'm pretty much all Trumped out.

It was a well written book, but I found very little in it I didn't already know. While I was reading it I was thinking it was too bad every Republican isn't required to read it. Ex-Dear Leader is scum, pure and simple. The book starts out with him as a 4 year old kid pelting a neighbor's baby with rocks as the baby sat in its playpen outside. He's pretty much the same now, only his words are his rocks.