I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
—Margaret Thatcher
Like all my previous books dealing with Hillary Clinton—The Truth about Hillary (2005), The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House (2012), and Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (2014)—this is a reporter’s book.
It is based largely on interviews with people who were present at events they describe or with friends and confidants to whom they spoke while memories were still fresh.
Many of these people spoke to me on the condition of anonymity. They did so either because they were not authorized to speak on the record or, more commonly, because they feared that if their identities became known, they would become the target of revenge and retaliation.
All contemporary political books use information from anonymous sources to tell important stories that otherwise would go unreported. Bob Woodward, an icon of American journalism, uses unnamed sources both in his reporting for the Washington Post and in his books. So do John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, who have used only anonymous sources in their Game Change books.
In gauging the trustworthiness of an anonymous source, readers are asked to rely on the character and reputation of the reporter who quotes or paraphrases the source. Everything depends on the reporter’s experience, judgment, and track record.
After nearly six decades as a journalist, including seven years as foreign editor of Newsweek, ten years as the editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine (during which time the magazine won its first Pulitzer Prize), and twenty-six years as a contributing editor for Vanity Fair, I take this burden of trust seriously.
Whenever possible, I have tried to use more than one source to reconstruct a scene or dialogue. Several of my sources were interviewed multiple times (in one case, twenty-four times) to check for accuracy and consistency.
I’m often asked by readers, “How come your books contain so much provocative material that no other authors have? How do you get your stuff?”
There are several answers to that question.
For one thing, over the past decade my talented researchers and I have cultivated unique sources inside the Clinton and Obama camps. Unlike authors who base their information on interviews with “official” sources—press secretaries, campaign advisers, paid political operatives, elected representatives, government appointees, bureaucrats, retired officials—my sources can more properly be classified as “private.”
These longtime personal friends and associates hang out with the Clintons and Obamas and are privy to information that is unavailable to official sources. These private sources are invited to intimate gatherings; they share meals and family time together with the Clintons and Obamas; and they speak frequently to the Clintons and Obamas on the phone. They are part of discussions that take place beyond the ken of official sources.
For their own sometimes-complicated reasons, these private sources want to speak with my researchers and me in order to make certain things known. They share the common human desire to brag about their connections to the high and mighty. It makes them feel important and powerful. They have what amounts almost to a compulsion to tell someone that they are in the know. Over many years they have become comfortable talking anonymously to me, knowing that I will never betray their trust and make their identities known.
Virtually all of these private sources have an agenda. Among the Clintons’ friends, there are those who are closer to Bill than to Hillary, or vice versa. Among the Obamas’ friends, some favor Michelle over Barack. These people try to shape the narrative of my books in ways that benefit their favorites—sometimes even at the expense of their favorite’s spouse.
Finally, many people jump at the chance to settle scores. Speaking to an author anonymously gives them the opportunity to aggrandize themselves at the expense of others without jeopardizing their standing in the corridors of power. They often try to make a point against someone as well as for someone by describing conflicts and confrontations that take place behind the scenes.
It’s my job as a reporter to weigh the accuracy of the testimony I’m given, test it where possible, and then present it to you, the reader, for your judgment.
—Edward Klein
New York City
August 2015