RIP Richard Ben Cramer

[JackReacher]

Just bought the DiMaggio book. Looking forward to it.

 

[silent_h]

George W. was one of Cramer's big/best sources for "What It Takes" and supposedly agreed to let him be embedded in the Whithouse when he got elected through the end of 2001. Project was killed at the last minute when others talked Bush out of it.

Can you imagine?

That wouldn't have just been a great book, it would have potentially been great for the country. Just for understanding and clarity and, maybe, closure.

 

[Dick Whitman]

George W. was one of Cramer's big/best sources for "What It Takes" and supposedly agreed to let him be embedded in the Whithouse when he got elected through the end of 2001. Project was killed at the last minute when others talked Bush out of it.

Can you imagine?

That wouldn't have just been a great book, it would have potentially been great for the country. Just for understanding and clarity and, maybe, closure.

I can't help but think of the similarity - on a smaller scale, obviously - with Posnanski's Joe Paterno book.

There's a danger in being embedded when all heck breaks loose. Had Cramer written anything remotely sympathetic toward W., true or not, he would have been risking his reputation, fair or not.

 

[YankeeFan]

Did I miss the accusations of rape against Bush?

Clinton literally did sexually assault a number of women, and no one would suggest that it would put an author's reputation at risk to say something sympathetic about him.

Bush wasn't perfect, and -- in hindsight -- may not have always made the right decisions, but any fair depiction of the man would find him to be a compassionate man, who did what he thought was right, and necessary.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Did I miss the accusations of rape against Bush?

Clinton literally did sexually assault a number of women, and no one would suggest that it would put an author's reputation at risk to say something sympathetic about him.

Bush wasn't perfect, and -- in hindsight -- may not have always made the right decisions, but any fair depiction of the man would find him to be a compassionate man, who did what he thought was right, and necessary.

I'm surprised by your reaction.

Essentially, being embedded behind the scenes with a high-profile figure is a double-edged sword, particularly if controversy occurs.

We've taken Michael Lewis to task here for being overly sympathetic to everyone from Billy Beane to Barack Obama.

Yes, had Cramer been embedde with W., he would have had to guard against coming off as W.'s 9/11 mouthpiece, same as Posnanski with Paterno. I stand by that 100 percent.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Clinton literally did sexually assault a number of women.

And he killed Vince Foster!

 

[YankeeFan]

I'm surprised by your reaction.

Essentially, being embedded behind the scenes with a high-profile figure is a double-edged sword, particularly if controversy occurs.

We've taken Michael Lewis to task here for being overly sympathetic to everyone from Billy Beane to Barack Obama.

Yes, had Cramer been embedde with W., he would have had to guard against coming off as W.'s 9/11 mouthpiece, same as Posnanski with Paterno. I stand by that 100 percent.

Being accused of being a mouthpiece is one thing. Being sympathetic to the guy that enabled a child rapist, and not being critical of him is another.

Woodward had a ton of access to Bush. He was sympathetic in many ways towards Bush. But, I don't thing it changed his reputation.

And, Posnanski set out from the start to lionize Paterno. What complicated that was that it turned out JoePa was a bad guy.

 

[YankeeFan]

Clinton literally did sexually assault a number of women.

And he killed Vince Foster!

Do you think he didn't sexually assault any women? There are a number of credible accusations against him.

There's all kinds of anger on another thread against Notre Dame, its football program, and its administration. But, there's only love for Clinton.

People want to love Clinton, so they don't want to seriously consider the accusations against him, or think about what kind of person he really is.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I'm surprised by your reaction.

Essentially, being embedded behind the scenes with a high-profile figure is a double-edged sword, particularly if controversy occurs.

We've taken Michael Lewis to task here for being overly sympathetic to everyone from Billy Beane to Barack Obama.

Yes, had Cramer been embedde with W., he would have had to guard against coming off as W.'s 9/11 mouthpiece, same as Posnanski with Paterno. I stand by that 100 percent.

Being accused of being a mouthpiece is one thing. Being sympathetic to the guy that enabled a child rapist, and not being critical of him is another.

Woodward had a ton of access to Bush. He was sympathetic in many ways towards Bush. But, I don't thing it changed his reputation.

Having a lot of after-the-fact access is a completely different animal from being, literally, in the Situation Room while 9/11 speeches and responses are being put together. That said, you're kidding yourself if you don't think Woodward catches shirt for being overly sympathetic to his sources. It's said all the time you can tell who Woodward's Deep Throats are in his books: The guys who end up being the heroes.

Basically, being behind the scenes ups the ante a great deal when it comes to the final product on something like a book project. Sometimes the result is incredible: The documentary "Gimme Shelter" comes to mind. Sometimes, not so much: The Paterno book.

I think you're trying to argue about a one-to-one parallel between what occurred at Penn State and what occurred after 9/11. But that's not really the case. Still, the potential similarites are at least worth considering. Public figures grant access for one reason and one reason only: Because they think it's advantageous to do so. heck, Mark Bowden's bin Laden book was criticized pretty roundly for lionizing the figures involved. It's a tough line.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Clinton literally did sexually assault a number of women.

And he killed Vince Foster!

Do you think he didn't sexually assault any women? There are a number of credible accusations against him.

There's all kinds of anger on another thread against Notre Dame, its football program, and its administration. But, there's only love for Clinton.

People want to love Clinton, so they don't want to seriously consider the accusations against him, or think about what kind of person he really is.

"Only love" for Clinton? What "people"? You're doing that thing you do where you generalize about "the media" and/or "people." David Maraniss's very sober biography of him, "First in His Class," is considered a political masterpiece, for example. Maureen Dowd, a flaming liberal, won a Pulitzer Prize for going after him day-in and day-out. After Romney's "binders full of women" comment, there was one meme after another posted making some joke or another about Clinton's philandering.

 

[Double Down]

This, by Tom Junod, is wonderful. Please read.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/richard-ben-cramer-what-it-takes-tom-junod-14954496?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_6546288

 

[Dick Whitman]

This, by Tom Junod, is wonderful. Please read.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/richard-ben-cramer-what-it-takes-tom-junod-14954496?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_6546288

That's an awesome piece.

I love the stuff about how writing "What It Takes" wore him down. Seriously, when I read it, I can't understand how someone pulled it off. I can't understand how someone found the time and the energy to do everything that needed to be done to write that book.