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

Wow. Chozick manages to turn a grueling ten-year assignment into a witty, fast-paced adventure that feels surprisingly intimate. I was struck by the vulnerability she displays when discussing her personal sacrifices, specifically that surreal moment at the OB/GYN asking about freezing eggs mid-campaign. While the 'FWP' obsession might feel a bit much for some, it captures the genuine elation and later disbelief that defined that era for many women in the press corps. The writing is incredibly smooth. It blends high-stakes political reporting with the kind of self-effacing humor you’d expect from a close friend. Personally, I think her insights into the 'icy aloofness' of the Clinton camp explain so much about the 2016 outcome. It isn’t just a dry policy book; it’s a heartfelt look at the human cost of chasing power. Even if you think you’ve heard every possible angle on Hillary, this memoir offers a disarmingly honest vantage point that stays with you.

Finally got around to this memoir, and it is a total page-turner that captures the emotional rollercoaster of a decade spent in the Clinton orbit. The writing is incredibly sharp, blending a keen sense of humor with the crushing weight of witnessing a historic loss. I loved the ending where she reflects on the Hillary she wants her child to understand—the one who 'spent her life doing' rather than just the figure who lost. It’s a heartfelt approach that moves beyond the typical dry political autopsy we’ve seen so much of lately. Truth is, Chozick manages to make the reader feel the exhaustion and the stakes of the trail, from the endless flights to the constant threat of being 'scooped.' Some might find her focus on her own life distracting, but I thought it added a necessary layer of humanity to a story that is usually told through data and polling. It’s a masterpiece of campaign reporting that feels disarmingly honest about its own shortcomings.

Picked this up after seeing a few excerpts, and it really is a seamless merger of personal memoir and professional journalism. Chozick is a talented writer who captures the sheer absurdity of the campaign trail, from the 'joyless' optics to the bizarre interactions with fanatical 'Bernie Bros' on social media. I appreciated her willingness to admit when the New York Times got it wrong, even if some of her excuses for the email obsession feel a little thin in hindsight. The book is at its best when she’s describing the disconnect between the 'Acela Corridor' elites and the voters in the heartland she knew from her Texas upbringing. Look, you don't have to love Hillary to enjoy the way Chozick deconstructs the 'Saint Hillary' persona versus the private, gritty woman she occasionally glimpsed. It’s an authentic, fast-paced account that highlights the massive divide between the press and the politicians they cover. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who still feels a bit of lingering vertigo from the 2016 results.

As someone who followed the 2016 election obsessively, I found this perspective from the press plane to be uniquely illuminating. Chozick does an excellent job of illustrating the 'Nixonian' paranoia that permeated the Clinton camp, which explains why they were so terrible at managing the press. She describes the rigid hierarchy and the distance Hillary kept from reporters, contrasting it beautifully with the more accessible styles of Obama or even Trump. The book is surprisingly funny, especially when Chozick mocks the snooty arrogance of her own home office at the Times. Gotta say, her description of the 'guys' running the show as a shield for Hillary was eye-opening and felt very authentic to the power dynamics of that time. While the prose is easy-flowing and engaging, there are moments where Chozick’s desire to be liked by the Clintons feels a bit desperate. Still, it’s a valuable piece of the puzzle for understanding how a seemingly pragmatic choice ended in such a shocking defeat.

The chapter on 'The Guys' was particularly revealing, perfectly capturing the smug, insular nature of the 2016 Clinton campaign. Chozick writes with a 'pithy' style that keeps the pages turning, even when she’s recounting events we all know the ending to. I was particularly interested in her account of how the campaign’s rigidity and 'icy aloofness' prevented them from seeing the populist wave coming until it was too late. While she is clearly a fan of Hillary, she is surprisingly honest about the Times' own failures, including how they handled the email server story. Personally, I found the personal anecdotes about her Texas roots and her marriage to be a welcome relief from the 'joyless' grind of the campaign. It’s a well-rounded account that manages to be both a funny adventure and a sobering reminder of how easily the press can be manipulated. If you want to understand the vibe of that election from the inside out, this is the book to read.

After hearing so much about this book, I was surprised by how much I actually enjoyed Chozick’s 'disarmingly honest' storytelling style. She doesn't pretend to be a neutral observer; instead, she admits her biases and her childhood admiration for the FWP concept. This transparency makes her reporting on the 'Bernie Bros' and the campaign’s internal misogyny feel more authentic, even if it’s uncomfortable to read. The prose is breezy and accessible, making a 300-plus page political book feel like a quick weekend read. I did notice the lack of an index, which is frustrating, but the quality of the narrative arc mostly makes up for it. Look, it’s a book about the struggle of being a woman in a high-stakes, male-dominated field just as much as it is about Hillary. That dual narrative is what makes it stand out from the sea of other 2016 post-mortems.

Ever wonder what it’s like to spend a decade living on a press plane while the candidate you cover treats you like a nuisance? Amy Chozick provides a gritty, often hilarious window into that reality, though the 'whiny' tone some critics mention does creep in occasionally. She spends a lot of time on 'The Guys,' that inner circle of protective male advisors who seemed to go out of their way to make her job difficult. Frankly, the book could have used a bit more analytical depth regarding policy and significantly less focus on her own feelings of being snubbed by the campaign. To be fair, the lack of an index in a nonfiction work of this length is a major oversight that makes it hard to use as a reference. However, the anecdotes—like the weird drama over Natalie Portman’s dog—provide a level of 'fly on the wall' detail that few other election books achieve. It’s an engaging read, but it feels more like a personal catharsis than a definitive history.

Chozick is an undeniably gifted writer, but the self-pitying tone in the latter half of the book gets old fast. She seems to take Hillary’s distrust of the media—a distrust built over twenty years of scandals—as a personal insult against her character. This 'mean girl' dynamic she projects onto the campaign feels a bit reductive for a journalist of her stature. To be fair, she does provide some great behind-the-scenes looks at the 'Acela Corridor' bias and the mistakes made by the Times' editors. However, her treatment of the 'Bernie Bros' and her dismissal of substantive policy critiques in favor of discussing 'likability' feels out of touch. The book is a fun, gossipy read, but it lacks the intellectual rigor I wanted from a deep dive into two presidential campaigns. It’s a decent memoir about being a reporter, but it’s a pretty flawed piece of political analysis.

Truth is, this feels more like a personal diary than a serious political autopsy, but that might actually be its greatest strength. Chozick captures the sheer weirdness of the 2016 cycle, from Natalie Portman’s dog sitting in first class to the 'Charlie Brown dejection' of the press corps. While I found her constant 'whining' about not being liked by Hillary a bit grating, it accurately reflects the bizarre, codependent relationship between the Clintons and the media. The book is at its best when it’s being 'self-effacing' about the mistakes made by the New York Times in their quest for 'fairness.' It’s a fast, engaging read that offers a lot of color, even if it lacks the deep policy analysis some might be looking for. If you want the gossip and the grit of the campaign trail, this is definitely for you.

Not what I expected from a lead New York Times reporter, and frankly, the bias is just too loud to ignore. Chozick writes with a breeziness that borders on flippancy, often focusing more on her own wardrobe and social life than the serious geopolitical stakes of a presidential run. She makes several glaring factual errors. For instance, the debunked claim about the Clinton campaign funding Jill Stein’s recount really torpedoes her credibility as a journalist. The way she paints every Sanders supporter as a 'Berniebro' caricature felt lazy and dismissive of the genuine policy concerns that drove that movement. I also found it incredibly frustrating that she admits to seeing sexism within the campaign 'Guys' but didn't report on it in real-time when it actually mattered. In my experience, this reads more like a rejected rom-com screenplay than a serious look at why the glass ceiling remained intact. It is gossipy and self-indulgent, and the lack of an index just seals the deal on its superficiality.