Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

Lecture Hop: Game Change

Photo via wikimedia

This Wednesday, SIPA and the J-school invited authors of Game Change John Heilemann and Mark Halperin to discuss their book about the 2008 presidential campaign in light of the upcoming election season. Bwog’s Political Lit Bureau Chief Rebecca Newman reports.

To Heilemann and Halperin, Game Change is and always has been about the characters. The two authors wanted to write a book about the presidential campaign’s drama and significance, but books that cover strategy and a timeline of events are rarely a commercially viable enterprise – especially in an election so thoroughly covered by the media. So instead, they decided to create a narrative work that reads like a novel, but whose drama, twists and turns, and relationships are all real, and revolve around the main contenders for the position of 44th President of the United States.

There was one rule Heilemann and Halperin stuck to when writing Game Change: “If it’s not interesting, it’s not going into the book.” This wasn’t very hard to do. Heilemann describes the effect that a presidential election has on the relationships between the people involved as similar to a “meat grinder/flash incinerator.” The two journalists took testimonials from over 200 people who shared stories from the campaign trail, covering the hidden drama, the character flaws and the real egos seen after the cameras stopped rolling.

The authors pride their book on its non-partisanship, and feel that they successfully portrayed every character and candidate with a balance of positive and negative traits, regardless of their party affiliation. Heilemann stressed that reporting today has evolved into hyperbolizing the political debate, and he wanted to avoid making Game Change yet another shouting match.

When one reader argued that Obama was portrayed much more favorably, Heilemann pointed out some of the negative things that the book revealed. He also said that the most shocking revelations are really the result of a large gap between candidates’ public images and their private lives. Since Obama’s private reality is very close to his public image, there is less “negative attention” towards him. On the other hand, there was a huge gap between John Edwards’s public and private lives, and so he appeared in a more negative light. Heilemann also added, “Obama comes off looking good in the book compared to Edwards, but Obama is probably a better guy than Edwards, I think we can all agree.”

The moderator, Alan Brinkley, noted that since the 1960’s when the first campaign books came out about Kennedy and Nixon, Game Change is the first to have undertaken the task as a serious journalistic effort.

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

2 Comments

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous This article mentions none of the dirt actually in the book. Boring, Bwog.

    1. What, says:

      @What, you needed a book report?

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    More inaccurate sensationalism. Columbia will be using and taking bids from Union and non union construction workers. https://neighbors.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/MWL%20Reports/Pavarini%20McGovern%20Bid%20Opportunity%20Residential%20Building.pdf (read more)
    Columbia To Use Non-Union Labor For Manhattanville Dorm Construction, Carpenters Union (NYCDCC) Protests
    September 25, 2020
    Columbia should choose the best and the brightest students with the most potential without regard to race, creed, color, religion. (read more)
    What Should CU’s Admissions Criteria Really Be
    September 25, 2020
    The love of Columbia. (read more)
    What Keeps Low Fountains Erect?
    September 24, 2020
    “Lowe” (read more)
    What Keeps Low Fountains Erect?
    September 24, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation