Deadlock the Inside Story of America's Closest Election

I don't care what Repubs say, there was no liberal media bias apparent in this book. They showed both campaigns, warts and all, and let the public form its own opinion. The book was a fantastic behind-the-scenes re-telling of America's most recent Constitutional crisis, one that could have disrupted government for years to come. Of course, recent events have taken peoples' minds off of this contentious election, but this book should be pushed as much as possible so people will never forget that every vote actually does count sometimes.

I followed the 2000 election with academic interest during the confusing aftermath. This book (along with "Supreme Injustice") is one of the best on the subject. It reads like a mystery novel and paints the most complex legal arguments very articulately. A true insiders view of the 2000 election, I strongly recommend this book to anyone wanting to get a good picture of the events that led to George Bush winning the whitehouse, despite getting half a million votes less than his opponent.

I personally think the Washington Post and NY Times are liberal rags that are generally not worth the paper they are printed on. However, in fairness, when they do well I think they should be commended. I read the NY Times "36 Days" and still think that book was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was nothing more than a reprint of their articles.Conversely, though, Deadlock was a well-written book. Two passages are worth noting. The first is about the book itself. About one-third of the way into the first chapter the book says: "These are the ... decisions, alliances, power plays, snap judgments and personality flaws revealed when a flukishly close election is played out for staggering high stakes. Both sides were nimble and brilliant and occasionally shady; both sides were also capable of miscalculations, divisions and blame. The best and worst of politics were on displayed in those 36 days, and both sides trafficked in each. This is how it happened." Although the Post endorsed Al Gore (no surprise) they tried to be equal in their appraisal of how the two campaigns sought resolution in their favor.As for the two sides' strategy one only has to look within the first three pages of Chapter 2 where the Post records that the Democrats enlisted the services of three authors who wrote "The Recount Primer". The book reads: "Anyone who read and heeded the booklet could predict how the two sides would play America's closest president election -- at least in the broad outlines. Gore would gamble; Bush would stall. Gore would preach a doctrine of uncounted ballots; Bush would extol the dependability of machines. Gore needed more: more counting, more examination, more weighing and pondering of more ballots. Bush needed it over while he was still ahead." The only trouble for the Gore forces with this gospel was that the Republicans knew the same gospel. The book attempted to show how the two sides played out the roles assigned them.For a behind the scenes objective look at the two sides, I think the Post did a very decent job. This could have been a... job on the Republicans and conservatives, but generally it was not (though I expected it). It could have been a... job on the Democrats and liberals, but it was not (nor did I expect it). I am not accustomed to this degree of fairness from the liberal Washington Post nor do I expect to see it very often in the future.

Even though the reader knows the outcome of this book, it reads like a political novel. What makes it even better is that there are reporters and interviewers with established reputations who have helped put the facts together. I suppose whether or not one likes this book depends on one's political views, but in my opinion it cannot be criticized for being slanted - the facts are the facts!

This is a clear and factual account of what happened in Florida. Though the final chapters of that episode are still being written as we discover more about what the ballots were really like, this is about as balanced an account as one can get this soon after the events. Some will (one reader obviously already does) find the facts inconvenient, but this is a necessary first step in building the historical record under which both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush will be judged.