Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling

by Amy Chozick

For a decade, award-winning New York Times journalist Amy Chozick chronicled Hillary Clinton’s pursuit of the presidency. Chozick’s front-row seat, initially covering Clinton’s imploding 2008 campaign, and then her assignment to “The Hillary Beat” ahead of the 2016 election, took her to 48 states and set off a nearly ten-years-long journey in which the formative years of her twenties and thirties became – both personally and professionally – intrinsically intertwined to Clinton’s presidential ambitions.Chozick’s candor and clear-eyed perspective—from her seat on the Hillary bus and reporting from inside the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters, to her run-ins with Donald J. Trump and her globetrotting with Bill Clinton— provide fresh intrigue and insights into the story we thought we all knew. This is the real story of what happened, with the kind of dishy, inside details that repeatedly surprise and enlighten.But Chasing Hillary is also a rollicking, irreverent, refreshingly honest personal story of how the would-be first woman president looms over Chozick’s life. And, as she gets married, attempts to infiltrate the upper echelons of political journalism and inquires about freezing her eggs so she can have children after the 2016 campaign, Chozick dives deeper into decisions Clinton made at similar points in her life. In the process, Chozick came to see Clinton not as an unknowable enigma and political animal but as a complex person, full of contradictions and forged in the political battles and media storms that had long predated Chozick’s years of coverage. Trailing Clinton through all of the highs and lows of the most noxious and wildly dramatic presidential election in American history, Chozick comes to understand what drove Clinton, how she accomplished what no woman had before, and why she ultimately failed. Poignant, illuminating, laugh-out-loud funny, Chasing Hillary is a campaign book like never before that reads like a fast-moving political novel.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Memoir, History, Biography, Journalism, Audiobook

400 pages, ebook

First published April 22, 2018

About the author

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amychozick

Amy Chozick is a New York-based writer-at-large for The New York Times and a frequent contributor to the Times Magazine, writing about the personalities and power struggles in business, politics and media. Prior to that, she led the paper's coverage of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
​
Before joining the Times in 2011, Ms. Chozick spent eight years at The Wall Street Journal where she was a foreign correspondent based in Tokyo and covered Hillary and Obama's 2008 presidential campaigns.
​
In 2017, Ms. Chozick received the William Randolph Hearst Fellows Award. She is also the recipient of a Front Page Award for beat reporting and has been recognized by the Society for Feature Journalism Excellence-in-Features Writing Competition.
​
Ms. Chozick served as a consultant on the Netflix political drama, “House of Cards,” advising the writers on the development of the female journalist characters. She was recently profiled in Vogue and Cosmopolitan and interviewed on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.
​
Born in San Antonio, Ms. Chozick moved to New York in 2001 with no job, no apartment and a stack of clips from The Daily Texan. She lives on the Lower East Side with her husband and son.

Reviews

[Sharon Orlopp · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling on audiobook and it's narrated by the author, Amy Chozick, a New York Times reporter.

Chozick covers Hillary's 2008 and 2016 Presidential campaigns. Chozick has a front row seat to Hillary and her family as well as the antics of many other reporters and politicians. It is pithy, humorous, fast paced and at times, sad.

The book pivots back and forth between Chozick's personal and professional life and the two Clinton campaigns. During an ob/gyn annual exam, Chozick asks her doctor if she can freeze her eggs until the end of the presidential campaign.

[Mehrsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I promised myself I wouldn't read any more books about the election, but I think it's a full blown addiction at this point to just consume all of these narratives. Maybe another book, another perspective, another vantage point will help me understand. Nope. Chozick is an excellent writer and totally likable. It was such a fun book to read that I finished it in one sitting. What I really liked about this book was Chozick's honesty about Clinton's tone-deaf campaign and about her own shortcomings as a reporter (man did she and the Times screw up big time on a number of occasions!). What I didn't love about the book was how she both said she always knew Hillary wouldn't win and yet was so shocked she didn't. Seems like hindsight being 20/20. Also, if she sensed that the campaign was out of touch with rust belt voters, why would she not report that? That was her job! I also didn't like how she disparaged the "nasty women" and bernie bros. I have am appalled by the treatment she received from the Bernie trolls, but I don't think that misogyny was all that rampant in the Bernie bro camp. Also, she at times trivializes the devotion of some of the nasty women to Clinton. Maybe some of them believed in her policies and promises unlike Amy who seems at times to only see Hillary as a career path.

[Kimber · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Hillary was the pragmatic, obvious choice.." So what happened?

This memoir by a journalist is not exactly a work of journalism, but more of an on-the-road account of her experiences while covering the 2016 campaign to elect HRC to become the FWP (first woman president)--and the surprising conclusion of that election.

This was a book that I only reluctantly put down. I would have rather read this on a weekend with nothing else to do but read this book start to finish. Amy's writing flows so smoothly--she is engaging and funny (unexpectedly so). I loved every page. I loved her anecdotes and the personal touch she gives to it, a glimpse into the life of a newspaper reporter in the day and age where it is being eclipsed by internet communications. And the glimpses into the Clinton campaign--and the way that they seemed to expect that the press should only write puff pieces on them, annoyed that Ms. Chozick wrote what she thought and she reported what was out there. This caused some tension between them. But I also enjoyed the glimpses of Obama and his rather playful way of dealing with the press, in contrast to the Clintons and their rigidity.

Most of all I feel that Amy was able to convey the ambiguous feeling for Hillary, she is somewhat hard to feel 100% about as the Bernie supporters and the Trump supporters were able to get that kind of devotion in their campaign. Hillary is hard to stand next to--even if she is the smartest person in the room, one can feel stand-offish towards her, what Amy described as her "icy aloofness".

I absolutely loved this book and will probably read it again. I love how she puts herself into the story, and we can see the reality she lived, the adventure of reporting and the sacrifice it can be for your personal life. Bravo.

[Natalie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I liked Amy’s NYT April 20, 2018 op-ed, “They Were Never Going to Let Me Be President”which was almost pulled from this book verbatim), however this was full of gossipy tones and a lot of whining. Too many instances that where written as if first person accounts, but impossible unless she had bugged private phone/face to face conversations. A big weird sob fest, mostly about why her colleagues didn’t take her seriously or proving that she didn’t hate Hillary Clinton, and not making much substantive reflection. Definitely would not recommend this book.

[Daniel Chaikin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hesitant to pick up Hillary Clinton's book, What Happened, I got this from the library instead. I was worried that there were aspects of Clinton that she herself wasn't aware of that played a key role in the election and I wanted something more at a remove and critical, but reasonable. This fit that to a degree. And, I love these kinds of books, by journalists about what they are seeing as they cover the stories. But this had two hard lessons.



Chozick was the New York Times reporter assigned to follow the Clinton campaign. This means that she was on the press plane and attended about every event she could, at the cost of, in a way, of being too close and not getting a chance to really analyze the campaign, and do research and talk to other people and whatever it entails to get a broader picture. Her book is wordy and mixes in a lot extra information about her personal life, but Chozick is entertaining and writes intelligently and perceptively and is a terrific narrator. Unfortunately, she writes about a very naive, under-experienced journalist making a lot of mistakes, losing sight of the big picture, and accomplishing roughly the opposite of what she intended. Kudos for honesty, but... Chozick saw Clinton up close and all the problems and awkwardness Clinton managed to convey to the press, and that's basically what she reported. From her came a series of negative articles - to the point that Clinton campaign hated her. Of course, she was actually a big fan of Clinton. What she did was exactly in line with what the New York Times accomplished in a nutshell. Find the flaws in every candidate, and equate them on the headlines. Clinton e-mails become just as bad on Trump's lacks of ethics. It's a really disturbing kind of insight and one that left me disheartened and discouraged with our big presses. (I know, I'm not alone there).

But this book is a two punch, and that's just one of them. The other is against Clinton.

Anecdotal side note: So, I know I made too much of this, but I have this memory of Clinton as Secretary of State, after having recently lost to Obama. She was in Malaysia and doing an event with a bunch of kids and I was interested because, despite all her time as a public figure, I never felt I got a sense of who she was. It was such an awkward event. Clinton clearly wasn't comfortable with these kids, but she forced her way through it, smile pasted on. The kids were fine and, later the same day news stories praised her. I've been worried about her since. (this isn't in the book, of course)

Clinton, it turns out, is really awkward with the press and with groups of people she doesn't know in general. In her fund raising sessions, she can cut the chase and say the critical stuff and comes across really smart. She is really smart. She is also knowledgeable, experienced and hard hitting. But, in the midst of supporters and watched by the press, she struggles and hates every minute of it, pastes on the fake smile that no one thinks is real. She looks like she is putting on an act.

Chozick thinks it was Clinton's handling of the emails that gave Trump the confidence he could beat her. I think this noteworthy. Most people at a sane-allowing political remove know that e-mail thing was a lot of about nothing. It's unfortunate she wasn't careful, she should have known better, but mainly it was just bad consequence of a kind of innocent mistake. But, it became a story because Clinton couldn't handle the press and kill it. It was left to linger.



She was apparently way worse in 2016 than in 2008. Chozick implies she seemed worn out and she kept the press, the group Chozick was a part of, at an unbridgeable distance, never letting any of them get to know her or interview her. No private conversations, no insightful comments and news releases. She even had two campaign planes - one for herself, and a second plane for the press dedicated to following her campaign.

In a nutshell, she was terrible with the press and did everything in her power to make it worse. I close this book convinced that had Clinton become president she would have pushed a lot of good policies, done a generally good job with all the executive agencies, appointed generally good people to critical posts, and the country would have hated her. Every mistake would be blown out of proportion, like Benghazi, and she wouldn't handle it well. In the midst of whatever success, the spotlight would be focused on the problems. And the New York Times would be part of that.

I really appreciate this book. I have to say that. Whatever Chozick did or didn't do wrong in her job, she provides a great deal of insight here into a lot things. I wonder how much of this kind of analysis is in What Happened. How does one say, "I was awkward at my own rallies and hated them"? How does one say, "I failed to build any relationship with the press because I didn't want to"? You can't get that kind of ground truth from the person who is actually in the spot light and must be guarded about everything they say.

As we now live under a world where the US is run by a sociopathic nutjob undermining critical aspects of all government agencies and the courts, strengthening the ugliest world leaders, while running out a series a news-absorbing lies and nursing his relationship to white supremacists, it's kind of hard to understand how this happened. Russian bots, Breitbart, Fox and The Drudge Report all played their parts in their misinformation campaigns, but also, the mainstream press allowed themselves to be played, and the Clinton campaign was unable to manage it.

-----------------------------------------------

46. Chasing Hillary : Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling (audio) by Amy Chozick
published: 2018
format: 12:42 Libby audiobook (~352 pages, 382 pages in hardcover)
acquired: Library
listened: Jun 27-Jul 3, Aug 31 - Sep 11
rating: 4+

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Peter Principle of the MSM on full display

This book had hit the one-star level WELL before the finish line, but I slogged through so you don't have to.

First, no index. Any nonfiction book, other than something like a self-help manual, without an index, even one written as breezily as this, without an index? Automatic loss of a star.

Second, that breeziness. (And, that doesn't count the personal bias in political reporting, nor the way that personal bias is waved like a wet dishrag. Nor does it count that [although the title should have given this away, I guess in hindsight] that this is part of the book being about Chozick as much as Clinton.)

I have an even more in-depth take on my blog: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2...

Now, let's get to the real mistakes, and the biggies, that torpedoed this baby.

First, her "Berniebros"? I'm not saying Chozick didn't get some of the Tweets she claims. BUT! ... She makes it look like about EVERY Sanders backer was one of these strawman stereotype Berniebros. That, in turn, gets back to the bias above.

Second, a clearly proven error. In chastising Robbie Mook for being a tightwad, she claims on page 152 that the Clinton campaign gave some of its leftover money to Jill Stein's recount effort.

This made me say "huh?" in part because I'm a Green voter and had never heard of such a thing.

I checked around with Green friends, and sure enough, untrue. Clinton's campaign had talked about sharing some data/data crunching, but I'm not sure it did that. NEVER gave money.

And, really, couldn't give much anyway.

Federal Elections Commission says that one political campaign CANNOT give another more than $2,000. Amy, took me a 30-second Google to find that.

Third, the Clinton Foundation has had actual ethics problems, and even more than other people at your paper have reported, Amy.

Fourth, yes, incomes for the middle class as well as the upper class did go up under Bill Clinton. But, income inequality still increased. Hell, middle class incomes went up under Shrub, too. And income inequality increased, and more than under the Slickster. This is also easily verifiable, and the way Chozick made her statement came off as PR first, journalism distant second. (At least, real journalism.)

Fifth, Chozick has several cover-ups by omission on foreign policy issues. She has no mention that Bill Clinton broke the promise of Poppy Bush, Helmut Kohl and other NATO members not to expand NATO eastward. She also doesn't mention Clinton's interference in Russian elections. (Sidebar: Perhaps, and far more subtly than with sacks of money, Shrub Bush and Obama did more of the same that we don't know about yet.)

Sixth, nothing but a brief mention of Clinton's emails, and nothing of her private server. Related? Chozick takes her paper's default stance on "Russiagate."

Seventh is the "reveal" by Chozick of how the Times was in the tank for Clinton, despite Bill claiming an anti-Clinton conspiracy by the Times. The "reveal" is keyed by the Times holding a story about the clusterfuck of our intervention in Libya until after the South Carolina primary. (Nothing new there, though; remember, it held a story about Shrub Bush's snooping on Americans until after he was re-elected.)

The reveal itself is nice. There's no real critical take on this bias by Chozick, though. Nor does she critically examine her own bias, starting with fawning over the idea of the "FWP," as she routinely abbreviates First Woman President.

With all of those major, and minor, errors, it was easy to one-star.

That said, she does give us an occasional look at the NYT background, like the snooty arrogance of people at the home office seeming to assume that there's only one time zone in the US.

As for my subhead? Per the likes of Charles Pierce at the Esquire, plenty of real journalists, reporters and editors at newspapers out in the heartland, could do a better job than Chozick, and probably than several others, at the Times. I am personally sure of this.

Anyway, it's clear that that the Beltway/Acela Corridor MSM has problems. This is a good illustration but still the tip of an iceberg.

And, The Slickster and Failed Would-be President (Chozick's FWP) still think the Times hated them? When they had a Hillary-token feminist reporting? (Chozick is smart enough to recognize that Hillary's feminism, like that of most her Hillbot supporters, is selective. She also notes the Slickster deliberately went Sister Souljah on Black Lives Matter. Must give credit for something. She gets half credit for noting sexism and even sexual harassment on the Clinton campaign trail by the "guys" who ran her campaign; misses full credit for not reporting it in live time. Not reporting it because she believed in Hillary as FWP, even while noting Hillary tolerated this, cuts it to one-quarter credit.)

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

The blurb on the front cover is some definite hyperbole as this book is not a page-turner, much less a masterpiece. Chozick wants readers to pity her as she subsumes her life to the relentless schedule that is a presidential campaign. However, this is supposedly her dream job - so why so much whining? Quit already, or take a different beat. Chozick also tries desperately to prove her coverage of Hillary was fair, while recounting headline after headline that blew every little thing Hillary did out of proportion, such as the story that made it sound like the Clinton Foundation bought a first class plane ticket just for Natalie Portman's dog (spoiler alert: the first class ticket was for Portman; the dog sat on her lap). At 375 pages, this book was a long slog, and a chore to get through. I've read a lot of post-election coverage, trying, like so many others, to understand everything that happened. If you're also looking for understanding, or even just enjoyable reading, this is one title you can skip.

[Miri Gifford · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very mixed feelings. Giving it two stars for the interest factor, but writing this review made me angry enough at the book that I almost want to go down to one.

Interesting though this inherently was, it became more and more frustrating as the book went on, and by the end I was pretty sick of Amy Chozick's whiny bullshit. Essentially, this book is about her apparent belief that Hillary Clinton's relationship with the press is the same thing as her personal opinion of Amy Chozick.

I started out feeling that Chozick had a lot of good points, striking a good balance between her understanding—as a woman who'd been a Hillary fan since childhood—of the position Hillary is in, and her view as a journalist—which makes her, in the structure of the political system, sort of Hillary's natural enemy. Maybe she was making a particular effort to be critical of Hillary because she's a fan, or because The New York Times is a liberal newspaper, to avoid the inevitable claims of partisanship—but as the book went on the balance seemed to shift.

Unfortunately, I have no quotes for this post, because I listened to the book while driving 1200 miles from Texas to Utah, and it's nearly impossible to get hold of right now (I waited six weeks for my Overdrive request to come in, and that was at the library with the shortest hold queue). What I do have are the text messages I dictated to myself when something particularly irritated me, which I've edited for punctuation, insane autocorrect spellings, and my unimaginative-in-the-moment overuse of the word "bullshit."

She has a lot of really good points, and there's a good balance between her understanding of the situation Hillary's in and her view as a reporter which makes her sort of inherently opposed to Hillary. Except for the part where she tried to make it sound like Hillary just refused to give interviews about the substantive issues. I am going to call bullshit on that because Hillary talked a lot about all the substantive issues. Also find it really disingenuous of her to say that she [Chozick] thinks that would have bumped the emails off the front page, "even if only briefly." Come on. She says she doesn't want to blame the victim but what else is that.

Oh, sure—the media had no choice but to keep talking about Hillary's email because Hillary just refused to give them anything substantial to talk about instead! That's exactly how I remember it, too.

Does she understand that Hillary's experience with and distrust of The New York Times is not actually the same as her personal opinion of Amy Chozick, or in fact any individual reporters? She whines like a child about Hillary not liking her, but that is very inaccurate because Hillary has not engaged with her as a person—she has engaged with her as a representative of the newspaper with which she, Hillary, has had an incredibly strained relationship for over twenty years. Chozick uses some pretty sarcastic-sounding language even though the surrounding text appears to be complimentary of Hillary (calling her "Saint Hillary" in reference to Hillary's ingrained Methodism). And for the record, saying that Gloria Steinem "declared war on young women" by making that comment is sexist bullshit. That is the mean girl bitchiness, not the fact that Steinem said it in the first place.

Let's take a moment for a side rant: Gloria Fucking Steinem has an eight-decade-long history of supporting the shit out of young women, and portraying her this way over one comment that wasn't even very insulting is petty, catty garbage. Two minutes before that comment, Steinem had been talking about the strength and radicality (which is of course a positive word in the feminist vocabulary) of younger women, and how they're much more feminist than the women of her generation had been. Then she said the thing about supporting Bernie, Bill Maher interrupted her to say "if I'd said that you would slap me," and in trying to explain why he was getting it wrong she said virtually what I just did: "Hello? How well do you know me?"

Okay. Back to Hillary.

This "joyless campaign" thing is not only victim-blaming, I'm pretty sure it's racist, too. Because it sounded like there was plenty of joy among the minorities who supported Hillary—e.g. her interaction with the Latina hotel workers—but the only measurement the media cares about is the enthusiasm of "I'm with her I guess" bougie white people.

And yes, it's victim-blaming, too. Even Hillary Clinton's supporters don't support her as hard as they should, and that's her fault? No, it's the exact same sexist mountain she's been climbing since the beginning of her political career.

Her insistence that Hillary didn't have a reason for wanting to be president seems disingenuous or blind or just stupid to me. Her 25 years of political experience show why she wants to be president. But if she said "hey, I want to be president because things are fucked up for everyone but white men and we need someone besides a white man to finally do something about it," she would be crucified. Amy Chozick knows perfectly well what Hillary's reason is for wanting to be president, and she also knows why Hillary cannot just come out and say it the way she [Chozick] wants her to. So why is she pretending like this is just some big flaw in Hillary as a candidate?

This goes right along with that thing wherein everyone—including Chozick, if I remember correctly—feels they're entitled to "really know" Hillary Clinton down to her deepest most personal self, as though that's something we have ever even one single time required from a male politician.

I'm so tired of the way she depicts all the reporters in their Charlie Brown dejection, scuffing their lil' shoes on the ground because Hillary won't get drunk and just chat with them on the record.

I just . . . I mean . . . It can't be possible to be this stupid.

Her example of how little "love and kindness" there was throughout the campaign is that Hillary had spent the last year calling out Trump for being so gross???

Classic.

It turns out I do have one quote from the book, because I remembered being so annoyed by the final words that I needed to include them here, and make sure I got them exactly right. Rather than run to Barnes and Noble in the 45 minutes I have before they close, I realized I have some Audible credits waiting, so I just bought the book; thankfully Audible is really good about returns. (Disclaimer: I transcribed it from the recording, so I can't be sure this is punctuated the same way it is in print.)

I keep going back to what Hillary said when she found out she was pregnant with Chelsea. They'd tried for four years and were on their way to California to see a specialist when she heard. Hillary, then the First Lady of Arkansas, was adjusting to infidelity and the boom-and-bust cycles of life with Bill Clinton. She went to a girlfriend's house to share the good news.

The two women sat on a patio in Little Rock's leafy Hillcrest district. They sipped iced tea. "Oh, I'm just so happy," Hillary said. "For the first time in my life I don't have to do anything. My body will do everything for me." 

That is the Hillary I want [my] child to understand. Not the historical figure who lost to Donald Trump in a very strange and ugly election in the year 2016, but the Hillary who spent her life doing, the Hillary who tried to hold it all together—her marriage, her daughter, her career, her gender, her country. The Hillary who taught me about grit, who showed me how to revolt against the dunces all in confederacy against me, to believe I could infiltrate the elite media . . . Hillary taught me all of that.

So what if she hated me.

And that's the note Amy Chozick decided to end on. Thirteen hours, or nearly 400 pages, of a book covering ten years and two presidential campaigns; the final pages all about how much Amy Chozick has learned from and been inspired by Hillary Clinton; but that's what she wants us to remember. She wants her baby to remember the Hillary who spent her life doing, but for her readers, it's about Hillary's likability. Because that's what this is, the image of poor little journalists who just want Mean Hillary to like them—and the more I talk about it, the less I like Amy Chozick for creating that image.

Chozick talks a lot about "the guys," some part of Hillary's staff whose exact role I can't remember, and how they "hated her" for writing a lot of the articles that plagued Hillary throughout her campaign. Chozick defends herself in the book, saying that she meant those articles to be positive and it was just the backlash she couldn't control. I took Chozick's word for it, but in writing about this book I've realized that she did the same thing here—writing about Hillary in ostensibly positive ways that actually deeply undermine her. It's starting to look intentional, or at least unacceptably obtuse. She told The Guardian in an interview about Chelsea Clinton's reaction to the book, "To be immediately greeted with antagonism when you’re writing something that was pretty sympathetic and self-reflective reminded me of the constant state of play in the campaign where you just can’t win. You write a positive story, there’s something they [the campaign] hate about it"—as though she genuinely doesn't understand the way our political landscape works, and why the campaign might have stopped trusting her when she kept writing "pretty sympathetic" pieces that nevertheless became massive weapons in Trump's hands.

An aside to make sure we're all still on the same page: I don't say this because I think Amy Chozick had a responsibility to support the Clinton campaign. She absolutely didn't. I say it because Chozick, in writing this book, framed it as a question of "Why doesn't Hillary like me?" That's actually the theme of the book, and it shouldn't have been. Whether or not the campaign "liked" her shouldn't even be an issue, and it's infuriating that that's all Chozick seems to care about.

I gave this book three stars initially, but as I finish up my review I'm deciding to downgrade it. It feels disingenuous, and I very much dislike feeling that an author is lying to me. I didn't know who Amy Chozick was when I started this book; I didn't know what paper she wrote for, whether she was liberal or conservative, or which candidates she'd supported. If she'd hated Hillary up front, I may have stopped reading after a while, but I almost certainly wouldn't have developed a personal dislike for her. That comes from betrayal—from discovering that someone is telling me one thing but doing another. Amy Chozick needs to get her head out of her ass, realize that presidential politics aren't about her personal popularity, and stop feigning wide-eyed innocence of the fact that her words have consequences. And if this is the kind of work we can expect from a reporter for the most prestigious periodical in the United States, we're even more fucked than I thought.

[KOMET · Rating 3 out of 5]

"CHASING HILLARY: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling" is the fourth book on U.S. presidential campaigns that I have read. The other three being "The Making of the President, 1960", "The Road to Camelot: Inside JFK's Five-Year Campaign", and "The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days That Inspired America."

On the whole, "CHASING HILLARY" is a multi-sided book which tells the story of Hillary Clinton's two presidential campaigns (the first in 2008 in which she failed to secure the Democratic nomination and the 2016 campaign, in which she made history as the first woman to be nominated for President by a major political party), and sheds some light on the author's life and journalistic career, as well as her up and down relationship with Hillary Clinton herself. I liked reading this book, its story (most of which was centered on the 2016 campaign) was easy to follow, and I learned some things about Hillary Clinton (even after following her career over the past 26 years) that I didn't know before.

The truly painful part of reading "CHASING HILLARY" for me was the author's recounting of Election Night and the day after. It brought to my mind the mostly sleepless night I had November 8/9, 2016, listening to the returns by radio, and then turning off the radio when the outcome proved to be the worst imaginable.

For anyone who wants to get a better feel for who Hillary Clinton is and what she came to represent for so many people across the nation - and a personal insight from someone who covered the 2016 Clinton campaign up close for The New York Times from start to finish - read "CHASING HILLARY."

[Marcia Killingsworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading (and listening to) Chasing Hillary. Ms. Chozick does a terrific job balancing personal anecdotes with solid information on how campaigns are covered these days, especially by the New York Times. As a former reporter, I found it fascinating. As a voter, it explained so much that confounded me about the entire campaign and its candidate.
One of the most interesting chunks of the book is Ms. Chozick's analysis/feeling about the way the final days of the campaign were (mis)handled. One anecdote alone - a stop at a Wisconsin Anthropologie store, followed by Ms. Clinton's abandonment of the state - should be taught to all politicos as how *not* to win votes and influence people.
Given the choices in the General Election, I'd vote for Hillary again, but this was a rigged game. I hope the Democrat Party leadership reads books like Ms. Chozick's, and realizes that the American people don't want the Party leadership's and Super Delegates' anointed choice; we progressives want to choose our own. (Yes, I know it can be like herding cats, but sometimes democracy can be messy.)
Democrats like Uncle Joe? Step up. Democrats like "Prince Harry" Reid? Step back.
Well-done, Ms. Chozick. Very well-done.

[Laura Hoeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Entertaining read

I enjoyed the book. Not boring. The author is too obsessed with Hillary and too impressed by her own journalism career, but so what? It’s a fun book to read.

[Pat · Rating 1 out of 5]

he author repeatedly bemoans that her superiors at the New York Times don't take her seriously. After reading this, I don't wonder they told her this. Alternatively, she's bemoaning that Hillary doesn't like her. This would be a pathetic chronicle of the state of modern journalism, except the author admits to precious little journalism endeavor. She talks about lobbing softball questions to the candidate "What's your favorite ice cream?" "What about those emails?" and behaving more like a fan girl groupie than doing her job. For example, Clinton's reckless intentional breach of classified material and violation of Federal law (even the State Department admitted Clinton's housemaid went into the secure SCIF to print out classified documents) is labeled, not as the crime it is, but as "snooze". Instead the reporter "softballs" the content with examples like "She can't work a fax machine" "She loves upstate apples". The reporter did no followup of any of the serious issues exposed in those emails or the consequences of putting classified documents on a insecure server, giving her housekeeper access, or letting her campaign aide put them on her husbands' computer. All are worthy of a stint in jail, and yet to this reporter, it is a "snooze".

Where's the understanding of what a campaign reporter is supposed to do? A free press (the fourth estate) is supposed to be a check on government. There's not one mention of Clinton destroying evidence under subpoena. The Clinton Foundation various financial transgressions are completely unexplored - in fact, the author makes no serious investigations into the Clinton Cash expose. She regards it as "partisan" and "baked up", so nothing is investigated, questioned or followed up on. Did she even read it? Rather than exploring the irregularities, Chozick instead repeatedly refers to the candidate as "Saint Hillary". Where's any necessary journalistic objectivity? Or even competence in understanding the implications of what Clinton did?

With the practice throughout of referring to persons with silly nonsense names "Hired Gun Guy" "Brown Loafers Guy", and its various gushings and moanings, this book reads like a pre-teen diary. The reader is informed of seemingly every time Huma snubs the author. Every night the author goes to bed agonizing over the fact that she isn't in the candidate's good graces. The author wants so badly to be liked by the campaign that she forgets her responsibilities as a journalist and does not do her job, admittedly resorting to throwing softballs trying to better her relationship with the candidate. Anyone could have told her that, in addition to her editors not respecting her, Clinton and the political machine would not respect her for trading in her integrity and professionalism to become a hack. . No wonder Clinton despised her.

The book reads as if the author is still frantically trying to convince Clinton -- this one last time in her book as she never could do during the campaign - that she really isn't that bad - she is a misunderstood fangirl, forced to make a pretense at doing her job. This obliviousness of the author to her desperate need to be part of the campaign's in crowd would be sad in a child, but seems way out of place in a supposedly professional adult. Being a sycophant isn't part of a reporter's job description. At least it didn't used to be. No wonder her editors don't respect her. Not long into the book, I was in agreement with them.

The author seems equally clueless that Clinton's unwillingness to engage the press on any kind of substantial or truthful basis - the repeated avoidance of the press acknowledged by the press corp -- makes the candidate unprofessional and unworthy to be Commander in Chief. That if she is secretive, immoral and unwilling to answer questions on the campaign trail, she'd be even worse if she ascended to the power of the presidency. Equally, the unprofessional fangirls that chase her and shy at asking hard questions lest they be stigmatized by the campaign are not worthy of being called reporters. Just showing up isn't enough. Having the job title isn't enough. Not for the candidate, nor for the softball lobbing fangirls on the press bus. Both sides were complicit in failure and unworthy of their jobs, Both failed, as candidate and press.

This book is important only in that it lays out the sad state of journalism, the silly childishness of at least some of the press corp, and the enabling by the Clinton Campaign to create a toothless press stigmatizing and favoring reporters into a sycophantic fangirl state.

[Maeve Filbin · Rating 5 out of 5]

375 pages of a parasocial enemies to lovers arc with the woman who came closest to becoming the president of the United States.

Fed my journalism and politics diet, as well as my trauma. Reminded me of going to bed early with the flu on Nov. 8, 2016, comforted knowing I’d wake up in a world with a female POTUS. The fever that followed did not relent for years.

Thanks for the mems, Mariah Rush!

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would give the quality of writing for this book a 5 and content a 2. Chozick is a very gifted writer that pulls her reader in with strong writing and is honest in her attempts to portray the gray reality of the election vs the polarized political factions. What is so disappointing about this book is that Chozick admits, but seems blinded to, the role that reporters' political opinions (especially her own) played in their coverage. They were certain that Hillary was going to win. Stories were written days, if not months, in advance anticipating her historic win. The level of collaboration with the campaign, her continuing attempts to befriend and gain the respect of "the guys" on Hillary's campaign team, and the "bubble" she (and others) were living in in regards to how contemptible Americans found the nominee. Chozick seemed more interested in Hillary (and her sexist campaign stooges) liking her than covering the reality of Hillary's disconnect, her failing health, and her hollow campaign that couldn't come up with a unifying theme outside of "it's her turn". While this books seeks to "humanize' the media and the difficult job they had in the election all it does is re-enforce the readers' opinion that the media is interesting in covering the news, they are interested in being the news. I think the idea of a single journalist covering one candidate for an entire election cycle is a recipe for bias and faulty assumptions. In the future I hope that papers will consider rotating journalists between campaigns to let them experience both sides of the election. Lastly, I internally winced every time Chozick choose Hillary over her family and friends. Her quest to cover the FWP (first woman president) placed stress on her marriage and potential family growth. Her blind devotion to HRC and acceptance/tolerance of the "guys" sexual harassment is depressing.

[Debbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book, but it was too self-indulgent for my taste. The author is overly impressed with herself, and her constant whining and complaining persisted throughout. She writes several times about "begging" to go back out on the road, even though she paints those experiences as more difficult and grim than she deserves, and her interactions with Hillary Clinton and her staff as unpleasant and insufficient. She mentions that others complained about her whining, and she laughs it off, but I think we get a good dose in this book of what it must have been like to travel and work with her.

I was also bothered by the many inaccuracies that she passes off as facts, as well as her recollections of conversations and events that she could not possibly have been privy to in the detail she provides. Equally irritating is her habit of going back and forth in time without being clear about the chronology. She certainly has some writing talent, but I thought much of the book was clumsily written.

It's a shame really, because a book written from someone with her access and perspective could have been both fun and interesting. I'm sure that's what she was going for, but I found her to be unlikable and annoying in a way that overshadowed pretty much everything else. I hope that if she ever writes another book, she does a better job of getting out of her own way.

[Carol Storm · Rating 2 out of 5]

I heard so many great things about this book, and it was such a disappointment! Nothing here about Hillary you won't find in SHATTERED or even in Hillary's own book, WHAT HAPPENED.

Instead you get nothing but trivia, and endless whiny posturing from a narrator who just can't hit the right note of innocence and commitment. Amy Chozick strains herself into a hernia trying to capture that wounded, little-girl-lost, Alice In Wonderland tone. But all that comes across is bitchy privilege, snobbery, and spite. And Hillary's not very nice, either!

[Oriana]

I mostly cannot bear the thought of the 2016 election whatsoever, but Amy Chozick was recently on the With Friends Like These podcast, and the conversation and description of this book as a really very different campaign memoir really piqued my interest. Plus I do already have Insane Clown President on my shelf, and it seems like this could provide some needed parity, so.

[Suzanne Fortier · Rating 1 out of 5]

Silly

A silly book about a serious subject. Don't waste your time or money. Brutal, unkind, trivial. How do you spell disappointing? Besides her husband, I am not sure who the author likes.

[Deborah Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. So much for objective journalism.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

This amusing, insightful, often juvenile campaign trail memoir, “Chasing Hillary,” helped me clarify my thoughts about Hillary’s failed attempt at First Woman President (FWP), redux. Chozick bares her mixed feelings about Hillary so we can better understand our disappointment. Hillary is a juiced-up policy wonk. She is great at appointed tasks. She is not a natural politician. She’s been in the spotlight forever. Ample time for half the country to dislike her. But it was Her Turn. I choose mostly to believe Chozick, maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism. She wanted to like Hillary. I wanted to like Hillary. Chozick was ultimately unable to get to know Hillary despite the considerable effort and time she put in. As an outsider, I see Hillary as a First Wave Feminist for whom the end justifies the means. Against Trump, she got my vote. Against Bernie, she got my vote. Against Biden? Nope. Against Obama? Nope.

Hillary, like many politicians, sees the media as the enemy, rather than the Fourth Estate. Instead of winning them over, she alienates them. Paranoid Hillary (her own demons at work. Mostly) imagines her enemies from without, especially the MSM, while ignoring those on whom she relies who reinforce her worst instincts, drag her down and/or inflate her bubble (Huma, Bill, Robby Mook, The Guys…). The MSM WANTED to like her and I believe most were personally supportive. The Travelers (her press corps) often found themselves in an “uncomfortable scrum” the campaign should have mitigated. Hell, even MoDo had to have Stood With Her in the voting booth. Hillary unwisely dehumanized the media. She distanced herself and showed no respect. FAKE outreach would have been an improvement. Her ‘conditional feminism’ was identifiable with the treatment of her ardent campaign pool, nearly all women for the first time in history. It pains me to mention her comments on Bill’s “conquests” and her enabling him. She couldn’t criticize Trump’s behavior toward women cuz Bill, Carlos Danger….

“The thing about a mostly female press corps was that Hillary likes men, preferably the damaged, witty, brilliant kind. She told aids she knew women reporters would be harder on her. We’d be jealous and catty and more spiteful than men. We’d be impervious to her flirting.” “how-long-do-I-have-to-talk-to-you-assholes demeanor” In 2016, ”…Hillary had an almost entirely female press corps, and she wouldn’t even know our names had it not been for the Face Book [put together by her staff].” “crafty men always seemed to upstage more talented, low-key women” “The Guys” turned Chozick “from ally to cockroach” “no one takes you seriously” in Hillary’s campaign. Hillary to Chozick: “’Well, Amy, that’s not what you should be asking…’” and then proceed to respond to the question she wanted to answer.” “The truth was Hillary didn’t want to fly on the sanme plane as us [her press corps].”
“[O]n most days not a single person authorized to speak for the campaign ever travelled with the press”

Mistakes
Hillary did not understand that “getting ahead doesn’t mean anything to people who have nowhere to go”
Chozick surmising Hillary “sufferer of double standards, endurer of an impossibly high bar, number one most put-upon politician in modern history….”
Making the NYT the enemy is batshit crazy. Unless you’re Donald Trump.
As Trump is stuck in the 1980s, Chozick points out the Hillary is stuck in the 1990s. “Brooklyn [Her permanent staff on ground] often suggested Hillary try to break out of the 90s mind-set.”
In reaction to Hillary overspending in 08, the “penny-pinching” in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and with The Travelers was epically stupid.
“American voters preferred to elect charismatic men who wildly overpromise. But Hillary didn’t want to be like them. She was a realist, or as I called it, a radical incrementalist.”
“She could be so pedantic in expressing her sincere optimism for the American worker that she either bored audiences or went over their heads entirely.”
“How could we communicate Hillary’s ‘funny, wicked and wacky’ side to voters if we never saw it for ourselves?”
“Hillary’s speeches had become a blur of bromides”
“For all the talk early on of bringing in fresh talent, Hillary would end it with the same broken box of toys who’d enabled all her worst instincts since the 90s.”
Half the country disliked her.
She spent a lot of time “hobnobbing with the ultrawealthy.” “The Clinton’s style of fundraising was anachronistic, especially in a ‘Two Americas’ election year.”

What She Got Right
“”People who were struggling connected with her when she looked like she was struggling.” “Scrappy, downtrodden” Hillary was more popular. She “had hardly shown herself on the campaign so far.”
She could be dazzling when she turned on the charm.
She had a personal note delivered, in ink, to Chozick when she learned of Chozick’s grandmother’s death.

Trump
Robby: “How do we maximize Trump?” Team Clinton was worried about Rubio, Kasich and Bush, so they pushed Trump on us when it was inconceivable to them that he would end up with the nomination.
“Bill saw genius on Trump’s economic populism and understood he was the perfect candidate for what Clinton called the ‘Instagram election’---an era when voters wanted only bite-sized solutions. ‘Build a wall!’ “Ban Muslims!’ “Make China pay!’ Hillary didn’t do bite-size.”
Bill tried “to warn Brooklyn that Trump had shrewd understanding of the angst that so many voters—his voters, the white, working-class whom Clinton brought back to the Democratic Party in 1992—were feeling.”

Author Choices
I do not understand Chozick's rationale for "hiding" the obvious identities of The Guys. But, I'm neither a lawyer nor cunning.
The omission of end notes does not add to her credibility. I’m mostly buying what she’s selling but she doesn’t make it easy.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

The curious case of Hillary Clinton. Before I lived in the United States my perception of her was that she seemed like a smart lady who had a dodgy husband in terms of private affairs. I did not muster much energy either way and found it hard to imagine anyone else did. I was kind of shocked then, when in a chat with a really pleasant mother of a girlfriend when the word Hillary Clinton triggered an incredibly passionate denunciation, even odder accompanied with the view that Bill Clinton wasn’t all that bad.

I was hoping that Amy Chozick, having followed two presidential campaigns would explain what drives this polarisation and if it is warranted. It’s an entertaining book but she really does neither. A lot of the book is about her desire for a deeper connection being thwarted by what seems like a deep and thoroughly justified paranoia about the press. The fact that the author has no revealing insight into what makes Hillary tick is presented as the insight in itself. I do feel for her on the curly hair issue.

My take is that a smart technocrat with a massive work ethic could never live up to all the good and bad vibes swirling around her. My own fantasy is she would have provided the calm assurance of competency and I could have gotten my dose of crazy antics from my cat.

[Linda Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book and was thoroughly entertained by it! It gave me a ton of insight into the process that political campaign reporters go through for even the smallest tidbits of a story. I also loved the insider information about the reporters, but also Hillary Clinton back in the days of her early campaigning. It was a fun and interesting read!

[Aleks · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty interesting read. I wasn't a Hillary supporter but I wanted to see her side of the campaign + the reviews of this book really sold me on it.

I think the strength of this book is that despite it following one person (author) throughout the story it doesn't really get bogged down in one place for too long or become tedious. At the same time I don't feel the author sacrifices context and background.

Still, it's recommended to have a good understanding of the 2016 election, 2008 election, and American politics in general before reading this.

A few things that stuck out to me:

Basically as a journalist you can't win. Everybody thinks you are shilling for the other side. the author describes the hate she received from the Bernie Bros who thought she was a Hillary shill; the Trump supporters who hate any journalist critical of Trump; and even Hillary and her own people, the campaign the author was supposedly shilling for, didn't like or trust the author.

Another thing that stood out the most to me was what Hillary said on election night when she learned that she lost: "I knew they would never let me have it." Who did she mean by they? It was very interesting to see Hillary, basically the pinnacle of the elite political establishment, speak like a victim and underdog. Especially since she was a massive favorite to win.

Would I recommend this book? I would recommend it to people who followed the campaign and are interested by American politics. I did find it to be unbiased, even though the author is clearly in awe of Hillary Clinton. The book doesn't go heavily into policies and the political system. It is full of small anecdotes and they are a treat.

What were the weaknesses of this book? I did not feel like I knew Hillary Clinton much more than before I read this book. Even the author is frustrated by how little Hillary reveals of her true self and so much of her public persona is calculated. I'm just surprised that someone who dedicated most of their professional career to Hillary wasn't able to get past this facade.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amy Chozick has a great story of Hillary Clinton's campaign during the presidential run of 2016. She was also reporting on the 2008 campaign but doesn't include much about the time in this book. Amy, a political reporter of The New York Times, discusses in a charming manner, the campaign run by Hillary Clinton and directed by Robby Mook. Mook who was involved in the Obama campaigns convinced her to ignore the white working class voters who turned out for her in 2008 and for Bill Clinton in two elections in the 1990's. Choczick speaks about Bill's misgivings and his charm and engaging manner when speaking to the press. Hillary on the other hand was wary of the press and never felt quite comfortable with them and with large groups. Hillary was great with personal matters and when Amy's grandmother died, she sent her a lovely note mourning her death. At this moment I am wishing that I could write as well as Amy but it is not to be, at least on this day. The book on Hillary's campaign is distant enough to look at it with a detached view, neither too pro or negative, but with a realism that strikes me as honest. But Amy is also accessible to me as another woman who regrets that the first woman president wasn't to be Hillary or at this time in our country. The Russian scandal is only touched upon as it wasn't seen as a deciding factor in 2016 and much of the information wasn't out yet. 2016 will be seen as a tragedy when a woman's failings seemed much smaller than a man's yet were "trumped" up with such noise that she was unable to gain the electoral votes to win and a totally unqualified man succeeded.

[Paul Wilner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was prepared to dislike this book. I was and am a staunch Hillary supporter who is beyond appalled at the results of the election. And I'd read angry tweets from Chelsea Clinton about inaccuracies. I don't doubt her word, but they appear to be minor. This is a personal narrative, written far better than the usual campaign boilerplate from Mark Halperin and his ilk, in which Chozick reports on the challenges of reporting on a woman who is (understandably) paranoid about the press, but whose cause she basically supports. She is candid about her mistakes - notably the publication of the Wikileaks emails - but they were buttressed by forces high above her in the Times hierarchy, and the toothpaste, unfortunately, was out of the tube. Uncomfortable reading, not least for what it says about data-obsessed campaign aides like Robby Mook, and about an election that went terribly wrong. I still have grave concerns about the coverage narrative - not to mention Comey, Trump and his pal in the Kremlin - and think Chozick may be letting herself off easy in some regards. But this is a candid memoir, with strong literary merit. Read it and weep. (And the reaction the author got from the Bernie Bros - a phenomenon that's still going on - is...really something. With "friends'' like this, who needs enemies.)

[Mollie Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amy gives a fair and critical take on Hillary’s two attempts at the Oval with lots of interesting tidbits from the campaign trail. I guess I keep reading these election dissection books because I’m a masochist.

[Chelsea · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you paid attention to the 2016 election, there is nothing new to be learned here except a glimpse into the life of the author.

[Julianna Wagar · Rating 1 out of 5]

I bought this in my 2016 election era and never got around to reading it. I think if I read it back then (in 2018, when I was 17) it would have been a bit more educational book.

This book should have been called All About Amy (the author) because the majority of this book about Hillary Clinton was about the NYT journalist writing it. And I personally couldn’t care less. Sorry Amy, no one knows who you are, no one cares who you are, and everyone who purchased this book wants to read about Hillary Clinton and the 2016 election. This author whined for 375 pages about Clinton not liking her. Newsflash, you’re a reporter. Politicians do not like reporters!! Change careers if you want to be liked. But also, your attitude and general tone is extremely irritating and annoying, so there’s that too.

I’ve read multiple books about this election that have fascinated me, inspired me, and taught me about politics in a way that school never could. This book reaffirmed that reporters can’t actually write a book about politics, because they are so incapable of being honest. It was hard to read through it because Chozick couldn’t stick to a narrative of if she was in support of Hillary or against her. But she also didn’t think she would lose? It was confusing and basically she was trying to prove herself as a journalist. It read as very egotistical, stuck up and frankly made me feel bad for Clinton for having Chozick on her campaign trail the entire time.

[Ankur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having to relive the 2016 election again was a painful effort. Which was why I had held off on reading this book as long as I did.

I did finally start this upon hearing that it had been adapted for tv, though I haven't watched the show yet and based on some of what I've heard I'm likely to just skip the TV show all together.

At first this book was slow. And it was jumping around in time a lot. However, most of the book is told linearly (the time jumps seemed more frequent at the beginning for sure) and as it got going, I got more and more engaged. As the election was ending I found myself on the edge of my seat even though I know how it all turns out!

The behind the scenes information about the journalists covering the Hillary campaign was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. And indeed, I was in tears by the end and heartbroken all over again.

Recommend this for fans of journalism, politics, or Hillary.

[Sheila · Rating 3 out of 5]

The stars are almost entirely for her writing, which is good. She whines through the whole book about how hard a job being a campaign reporter is, tries to explain away why her stories were not ideal, and basically demonstrates the problem with NYT and journalism overall right now. As a journalist, I took exception to a lot of it.