What do you think?
Rate this book
We're with Nobody: Two Insiders Reveal the Dark Side of American Politics
We're With Nobody is a thrilling, eye-opening insider’s view of a little-known facet of the political campaign the multi-million dollar opposition research industry, or “oppo” as it’s called. For sixteen years authors Alan Huffman and Michael Rejebian have been digging up dirt on political candidates across the country, from presidential appointees to local school board hopefuls. We're With Nobody is a fascinating, riveting, sometimes funny, sometimes shocking look at the unseen side of political campaigning—a remarkable chronicle of a year in the life of two guys on a dedicated hunt to uncover the buried truths that every American voter has a right to know.
191 pages, Paperback
First published January 24, 2012
15 people are currently reading
562 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
October 6, 2019
The other day I saw some “shocking revelation” on CNN—something about how, though Wendy Davis had been single, a mother, attended school, and lived in a trailer park, she'd only lived in theparticular trailer park in front of which she was pictured for a commercial for two weeks before she got re-married, and blah blah blah... I don't remember the specifics because all I could think of was who bothers to figure this sh*t out?!? The answer to that question is: these guys.
Turns out they're called oppo researchers :
What they do isn't as dastardly as it might sound. The authors (who alternate chapters) take great pains to explain why their work is very different from baseless mudslinging accusations that are flung about in the internet age.
My favorite character assassination attempt of yore, however, definitely has to be Thomas Jefferson's accusations that the incumbent John Adams had a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility or a woman." Yowzer!
So why only two stars? Frankly, they just didn't need a whole book to tell their story. It clocked in under 200 pages and was a quick read, but was probably better suited to the format of a Times Magazine article. By the end they're heaping on the tangential life lessons they've acquired through a variety of experiences (including working in a mannequin repair factory) and drawing parallels to the political world. Also, they try to weave in something about following the trail of the outlaw Jesse James, which would have been interesting if they hadn't just plucked that storyline from thin air midway through never to be examined again.
In the end, it was worth it just so that I can weave “dazzle camouflage” into casual conversation.
Turns out they're called oppo researchers :
We're opposition political researchers, which means we're hired by campaigns to compile potentially damning profiles of candidates.And it's not as sexy as it sounds - if anything they're clerical gangsters on the hunt for paper trails involving tax liens, child support payments and voting records.
What they do isn't as dastardly as it might sound. The authors (who alternate chapters) take great pains to explain why their work is very different from baseless mudslinging accusations that are flung about in the internet age.
We're deeply vexed by what Colbert calls the “fact-free zone” and are, of necessity, relentlessly objective, because there's no need for sycophants in the realm of opposition research.This phenomenon is something they call dazzle camouflage. Turns out, this tactic predated the advent of the hand-held bedazzler. In my favorite chapter (which only amounted to seven pages), Michael takes us on a historical journey of negative political campaigns. Turns out Cicero was pretty vocal about the shortcomings of his opponent, Cateline, who he called a scoundrel, accused of murdering his wife and marrying his daughter and of seeking to "destroy the whole world with fire and slaughter."
My favorite character assassination attempt of yore, however, definitely has to be Thomas Jefferson's accusations that the incumbent John Adams had a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility or a woman." Yowzer!
So why only two stars? Frankly, they just didn't need a whole book to tell their story. It clocked in under 200 pages and was a quick read, but was probably better suited to the format of a Times Magazine article. By the end they're heaping on the tangential life lessons they've acquired through a variety of experiences (including working in a mannequin repair factory) and drawing parallels to the political world. Also, they try to weave in something about following the trail of the outlaw Jesse James, which would have been interesting if they hadn't just plucked that storyline from thin air midway through never to be examined again.
In the end, it was worth it just so that I can weave “dazzle camouflage” into casual conversation.
January 9, 2022
here are an awful lot of comments saying the writers weren't up to snuff. Did we read the same book? The quality of writing is the reason I give "We're with Nobody" 3 stars instead of 2. Both Alan and Michael know how to write a story - if this book doesn't tell the story we all expected, well, that's a different issue.
I saw the authors pitching their book on The Daily Show a few weeks ago [review originally written April 2012]. Like many reviewers here, I expected something different from a book claiming to reveal the dark side of American politics.
What we get is a) these guys are former journalists who have taken up opposition research, b) they're all about documentable facts, c) what's done with the facts after they've written and delivered their report isn't their business, d) civil servants are frequently suspicious of people asking questions saying "we're with nobody", e) Alan doesn't like chain restaurants, f) Karl Rove is a lying slimeball (or ham loaf, for the Colbert viewers out there). I should have labeled this paragraph "spoiler alert" - while the authors expand on the themes above, there isn't really much more than this here. This is a story about how mundane opposition research can be, albeit gratifying for the researchers, and how crappy the rental cars are.
Taking the authors at face value, I applaud the value they put on verifiable fact - these researchers do not dabble in rumor or hearsay (unless they lead to documentation of the underlying facts down the road, that is). The authors lament what the American political process has become, or, perhaps more accurately, what the average voter invests in the political process. There's a subtle "you get what you pay for" theme here pointing the finger at We, the People because we don't invest much more effort than 140-character Tweets, 30-second soundbites, and The Daily Show. If we demanded more of our political process, would we really get the lies and distortions we see today? Difficult to say, although "We're with Nobody" is filled with stories where the less upstanding usually lose. Cherry picking? probably; biased view of who's upstanding and who's not? perhaps...
In any case, I'm droning on the same way the authors did in describing yet another visit to Podunk County Courthouse USA. If you want a tell-all, this is not the book for you, no matter how well-written it is.
I saw the authors pitching their book on The Daily Show a few weeks ago [review originally written April 2012]. Like many reviewers here, I expected something different from a book claiming to reveal the dark side of American politics.
What we get is a) these guys are former journalists who have taken up opposition research, b) they're all about documentable facts, c) what's done with the facts after they've written and delivered their report isn't their business, d) civil servants are frequently suspicious of people asking questions saying "we're with nobody", e) Alan doesn't like chain restaurants, f) Karl Rove is a lying slimeball (or ham loaf, for the Colbert viewers out there). I should have labeled this paragraph "spoiler alert" - while the authors expand on the themes above, there isn't really much more than this here. This is a story about how mundane opposition research can be, albeit gratifying for the researchers, and how crappy the rental cars are.
Taking the authors at face value, I applaud the value they put on verifiable fact - these researchers do not dabble in rumor or hearsay (unless they lead to documentation of the underlying facts down the road, that is). The authors lament what the American political process has become, or, perhaps more accurately, what the average voter invests in the political process. There's a subtle "you get what you pay for" theme here pointing the finger at We, the People because we don't invest much more effort than 140-character Tweets, 30-second soundbites, and The Daily Show. If we demanded more of our political process, would we really get the lies and distortions we see today? Difficult to say, although "We're with Nobody" is filled with stories where the less upstanding usually lose. Cherry picking? probably; biased view of who's upstanding and who's not? perhaps...
In any case, I'm droning on the same way the authors did in describing yet another visit to Podunk County Courthouse USA. If you want a tell-all, this is not the book for you, no matter how well-written it is.
July 10, 2012
I also finished reading Blood, Bones and Butter recently and feel similarly about both books in some ways, though BB&B got 4 stars for quality of writing. Memoirs with interesting content, good framing and context, that hit a weird point where they needed more structure. The thing about memoir is plot: what do you do when you closer to now? How to abridge everything that's fresh? That's more about BB&B, but here, I felt like these guys' editor needed to have a sit down and revisit the structure of the book altogether.
Generally, I loved hearing their perspective on politics, and as a former journalism student, I appreciate the commentary on research and documented facts. I don't think the "He Said/He Said" model worked, trading off chapters. It took me, often, about 1/3 through each chapter to realize what the thesis was and what I should be taking away from the sort of rambling anecdotes. Had the chapters been stamped, "Swindling," or "Road Rage" or whatever, I would have followed the general thread a bit more and not have felt so lost at times. Also, the repetition of the facts of being road weary and jaded got a bit old -- if the whole point was to explain to your friends and kids what you do, you could maybe have made a pamphlet instead.
That said, I learned things I didn't know, so I call it a win that could maybe have benefitted from a stronger editing hand.
Generally, I loved hearing their perspective on politics, and as a former journalism student, I appreciate the commentary on research and documented facts. I don't think the "He Said/He Said" model worked, trading off chapters. It took me, often, about 1/3 through each chapter to realize what the thesis was and what I should be taking away from the sort of rambling anecdotes. Had the chapters been stamped, "Swindling," or "Road Rage" or whatever, I would have followed the general thread a bit more and not have felt so lost at times. Also, the repetition of the facts of being road weary and jaded got a bit old -- if the whole point was to explain to your friends and kids what you do, you could maybe have made a pamphlet instead.
That said, I learned things I didn't know, so I call it a win that could maybe have benefitted from a stronger editing hand.
February 22, 2012
I really enjoyed learning about oppo research from two insiders. That said, I think this book had trouble defining itself. Chapters alternated between the two author's points of view. There were many personal stories, and those led into expositions on politics and politicians. I wish the authors had asked themselves "who are we writing this for, and what do we want to accomplish/say with this book?".
Overall, though, it was an easy read and very interesting to someone like me who had a minimal understanding of oppo research. I also want to applaud the writers for continuing to search for truth in politics, when so many seem to have given up!
Overall, though, it was an easy read and very interesting to someone like me who had a minimal understanding of oppo research. I also want to applaud the writers for continuing to search for truth in politics, when so many seem to have given up!
November 7, 2017
A very novel and highly profound tell-all book!
The book surround two journalists turned oppositional researchers, whose business is to research and obtain documented ‘problems’ that could be(come) problematic to one’s political campaign.
The thrust of the book centers around what information is gathered, how it is gathered (which is a hoot, depending on the location that the journalists are to obtain the information) with the considerations – how the information will be used- and the ramifications of how the information will be used.
The book is set up in alternating narratives between Alan and Michael as they tell their respective stories on how they go about their oppositional research. It can start with interviews, and then on to the state clerk’s offices, i.e., tax commission offices and motor vehicles offices as well as court clerk’s offices, to verify and gather the information. The battles ensue in terms of what information is requested and the question of how private or public is the information requested. Then of course, the natural question, as posed by the clerks: “Who are you with?”, to which the title of the book becomes clear, “We’re with Nobody,” which in turn, poses a(n understandable) question in the clerk’s mind: “Should I even give these guys this information?”
With some discussion, and subsequent possible conference between the clerk and his/her supervisor, the reporters are given, or have to utilize state resources (computers, which are outdated or purposefully hard to use to obtain) the documented information. Add to this that there are other people who may be in the same business and one cannot be(come) too chummy with the people at records’ offices, because the nature of obtaining the information is still confidential.
A nagging question throughout this book is the conundrum that while obtaining this information can be enlightening toward whether or not a candidate is fit or truthful with his/her platform in obtaining the position in question, there is also the disturbing question as to what the information will be actually used for. Take-down and scandal are two things; destroying someone’s life, perhaps irreparably is another. Therein lies the uncharted line as to what goes too far and what does not.
Alan and Michael do provide insights and clarity to the conundrum, with Alan’s observation toward the end of the book (Chapter 17) in which one can create an infraction, but one also can and does make amends toward it. Therefore, the record of the infraction is still there; is it to haunt the person for the rest of his/her life?
Another profound insight of this book along with the nature (if it can be called that) of oppositional research is the implications of what this research is against the backdrop of political campaigns as it now stands. Alan and Michael do the foot work: get the documentation, and do something that the average citizen can do (also) but chooses not to! Even with the internet, people have access to vast amounts information, but as Alan and Michael point out, it’s not always reliable. Yet, the voting public does not research candidates and then it wonders why these candidates do not actually and/or want to serve the people. The book also recommends FactsCheck.org for people to check the campaign commercial facts against what is said and implied in the political ads. Conversely, what is in or redacted out of documents can be also very telling about a candidate’s position. For example, Presidential libraries are to be repositories of the triumphs and foibles of our Commanders in Chief … but even here, the latter can be extracted or redacted out of the materials contained at these libraries. Classified is one thing: context of what is omitted is another. The point is that what is left out can be very telling; it still says something!
Despite all this, the book is very telling and fun to read! From Alan’s being sick, but still having to meet a deadline, to how to deal with clerks, to the crucial fact that there are public records, the book is very straight forward, humorous and enjoyable to read! I also love the fact the point of the book is the research itself with the implications both pro and con of the research, rather than just naming names. The point of the book is to see what comes up in the research versus what a candidate says and actually does, with how the voters will take that information, if the campaigns use it. The resulting view and process of politics is the bigger question here and we are all involved in this; it is not a simple matter of pointing fingers as to who is good and who is bad.
The book surround two journalists turned oppositional researchers, whose business is to research and obtain documented ‘problems’ that could be(come) problematic to one’s political campaign.
The thrust of the book centers around what information is gathered, how it is gathered (which is a hoot, depending on the location that the journalists are to obtain the information) with the considerations – how the information will be used- and the ramifications of how the information will be used.
The book is set up in alternating narratives between Alan and Michael as they tell their respective stories on how they go about their oppositional research. It can start with interviews, and then on to the state clerk’s offices, i.e., tax commission offices and motor vehicles offices as well as court clerk’s offices, to verify and gather the information. The battles ensue in terms of what information is requested and the question of how private or public is the information requested. Then of course, the natural question, as posed by the clerks: “Who are you with?”, to which the title of the book becomes clear, “We’re with Nobody,” which in turn, poses a(n understandable) question in the clerk’s mind: “Should I even give these guys this information?”
With some discussion, and subsequent possible conference between the clerk and his/her supervisor, the reporters are given, or have to utilize state resources (computers, which are outdated or purposefully hard to use to obtain) the documented information. Add to this that there are other people who may be in the same business and one cannot be(come) too chummy with the people at records’ offices, because the nature of obtaining the information is still confidential.
A nagging question throughout this book is the conundrum that while obtaining this information can be enlightening toward whether or not a candidate is fit or truthful with his/her platform in obtaining the position in question, there is also the disturbing question as to what the information will be actually used for. Take-down and scandal are two things; destroying someone’s life, perhaps irreparably is another. Therein lies the uncharted line as to what goes too far and what does not.
Alan and Michael do provide insights and clarity to the conundrum, with Alan’s observation toward the end of the book (Chapter 17) in which one can create an infraction, but one also can and does make amends toward it. Therefore, the record of the infraction is still there; is it to haunt the person for the rest of his/her life?
Another profound insight of this book along with the nature (if it can be called that) of oppositional research is the implications of what this research is against the backdrop of political campaigns as it now stands. Alan and Michael do the foot work: get the documentation, and do something that the average citizen can do (also) but chooses not to! Even with the internet, people have access to vast amounts information, but as Alan and Michael point out, it’s not always reliable. Yet, the voting public does not research candidates and then it wonders why these candidates do not actually and/or want to serve the people. The book also recommends FactsCheck.org for people to check the campaign commercial facts against what is said and implied in the political ads. Conversely, what is in or redacted out of documents can be also very telling about a candidate’s position. For example, Presidential libraries are to be repositories of the triumphs and foibles of our Commanders in Chief … but even here, the latter can be extracted or redacted out of the materials contained at these libraries. Classified is one thing: context of what is omitted is another. The point is that what is left out can be very telling; it still says something!
Despite all this, the book is very telling and fun to read! From Alan’s being sick, but still having to meet a deadline, to how to deal with clerks, to the crucial fact that there are public records, the book is very straight forward, humorous and enjoyable to read! I also love the fact the point of the book is the research itself with the implications both pro and con of the research, rather than just naming names. The point of the book is to see what comes up in the research versus what a candidate says and actually does, with how the voters will take that information, if the campaigns use it. The resulting view and process of politics is the bigger question here and we are all involved in this; it is not a simple matter of pointing fingers as to who is good and who is bad.
July 12, 2017
Very interesting insiders' stories from the truth seekers and dirt diggers, who do the actual leg work of digging up the facts, supported with actual documentation, in the labyrinth of county, state, and federal offices armed only with the public information act. Telling on the way politics works, the ways it's shifting, and often reads like some noir PI on the trail of that one piece of paper that will spring the case wide open... after dodging disgruntled record's clerks, surviving reading mind-numbing minutia for hours on end, and occasionally evading an unknown tail.
December 21, 2021
I rarely read non-fiction but I heard these guys on NPR and was intrigued so I bought the book. It was really interesting. Opposition research is often referenced but rarely discussed and I'd never heard it explained with such detail. I was once a speech writer. It's a special job. You either loved it or hated it. I loved it. Opposition research seems much the same way. These guys love it so you get a special window to see how it works.
February 9, 2025
I read this over ten years ago and was pretty disappointed. The authors made a great to-do about how they were involved only in the honest, scrupulous end of opposition research, taking care to substantiate their every claim with sound research of a candidate's financials, statements to the press, etc. In other words, no sleazy whisper campaigns or Swiftboating. Whether or not you accept their denials--and I sure didn't--that isn't the kind of oppo research that most people want to read about.
November 9, 2017
Elucidating, but not exactly interesting. Focuses a lot on the lifestyle of an oppo researcher — which, fine, it’s their book — but feels much more like retrospective at the end of a career than a subject dive into what is often discovered
February 21, 2021
I’m a former colleague so I’m biased, but this is a really interesting look into often unseen wold of politics. Only negative for me is it’s very wordy and often repetitive. Published in 2012, it would be interesting to read an updated version. I really enjoyed it.
April 26, 2012
Written by two journalists-turned-political-opposition researchers, Alan Huffman and Michael Rejebian, the book recounts their work digging up information on politicians, from US Senate hopefuls to local school board candidates.
The men tell their story in alternate chapters, but the gist of it is that they travel to local government offices to gather information that is supposed to be available to anyone who asks, i.e. voting records, tax records, court documents, etc. One big take-away from this book is that people who work in these government offices are frequently reluctant to share this information, even though it is their job to do so.
Time after time, the researchers have to cajole, flatter, and sometimes get indignant to get the information they need. The first question that is usually asked of them is "Who are you with?", thus leading to the title of the book. Their answer, more often than not, is "none of your business."
The government employees often stall, and the researchers have been followed back to their hotel and verbally threatened to go "back where they came from." This book reinforces the often-held opinion that government employees are uncooperative.
The men state that they are "guided, more or less, by the conviction that no one is fit to lead unless proven otherwise." They see themselves as "seekers of the truth." They believe that discovering the truth is"more crucial than ever, when today's news is prone to distortion, willful ignorance and lies."
I loved this quote: "Truth is a word that should never be qualified. It's like pregnancy; it's yes or no", and they quote Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who supposedly said "everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his facts." Amen to that!
One of the more interesting incidents happened when they talked to the ex-wife of a candidate they were researching. They were looking about information about his business dealings, of which she had none. In the course of conversation, she complained that he never took her anywhere, but he takes his new girlfriend everywhere, and that he was arrested for beating the girlfriend up in an airport.
That piece of information might be useful. She said it happened on vacation, so Michael found out where they vacationed, pulled out a map, checked possible routes, and proceeded to call airports to ask about arrest reports. After many, many phone calls, he finds the report.
That information is passed along to a friend of the man, who takes the report to the candidate and shows it to him. The candidate withdrew from the running.
The men say that finding information on politicians, such as who donated to the campaigns, and who benefits from their votes is important. They state "the same type of systemic abuse that results in poorly built sidewalks in an out-of-the-way township resulted in the failed federal response to Hurricane Katrina." I'm not sure I totally buy that, but it is something to ponder.
They don't name names, although the reader is able to figure out that they did research on US Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin.
Political junkies will enjoy this fascinating look at a part of the political process that is usually done under the cover of darkness, and has been done since the time of Caesar. The subject is interesting and timely in this election year, and you will look at political ads in a different light after reading this book.
The men tell their story in alternate chapters, but the gist of it is that they travel to local government offices to gather information that is supposed to be available to anyone who asks, i.e. voting records, tax records, court documents, etc. One big take-away from this book is that people who work in these government offices are frequently reluctant to share this information, even though it is their job to do so.
Time after time, the researchers have to cajole, flatter, and sometimes get indignant to get the information they need. The first question that is usually asked of them is "Who are you with?", thus leading to the title of the book. Their answer, more often than not, is "none of your business."
The government employees often stall, and the researchers have been followed back to their hotel and verbally threatened to go "back where they came from." This book reinforces the often-held opinion that government employees are uncooperative.
The men state that they are "guided, more or less, by the conviction that no one is fit to lead unless proven otherwise." They see themselves as "seekers of the truth." They believe that discovering the truth is"more crucial than ever, when today's news is prone to distortion, willful ignorance and lies."
I loved this quote: "Truth is a word that should never be qualified. It's like pregnancy; it's yes or no", and they quote Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who supposedly said "everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his facts." Amen to that!
One of the more interesting incidents happened when they talked to the ex-wife of a candidate they were researching. They were looking about information about his business dealings, of which she had none. In the course of conversation, she complained that he never took her anywhere, but he takes his new girlfriend everywhere, and that he was arrested for beating the girlfriend up in an airport.
That piece of information might be useful. She said it happened on vacation, so Michael found out where they vacationed, pulled out a map, checked possible routes, and proceeded to call airports to ask about arrest reports. After many, many phone calls, he finds the report.
That information is passed along to a friend of the man, who takes the report to the candidate and shows it to him. The candidate withdrew from the running.
The men say that finding information on politicians, such as who donated to the campaigns, and who benefits from their votes is important. They state "the same type of systemic abuse that results in poorly built sidewalks in an out-of-the-way township resulted in the failed federal response to Hurricane Katrina." I'm not sure I totally buy that, but it is something to ponder.
They don't name names, although the reader is able to figure out that they did research on US Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin.
Political junkies will enjoy this fascinating look at a part of the political process that is usually done under the cover of darkness, and has been done since the time of Caesar. The subject is interesting and timely in this election year, and you will look at political ads in a different light after reading this book.
March 14, 2012
The Positives: two guys who have 'muck-raked' do not name names but tell stories that had me alternately amused and stunned. Yes, they're right when they say it's all about the quality of character. If a guy has a history of bad financial dealings, he probably isn't the guy you want to hear talking about balancing budgets or being in charge of the Fed. I also appreciated the introspection that they do on admitting that their job can be construed negatively. No mention of Gloria Allred either.
The Negatives: These guys are great at not naming the names in their own investigations, but not when it comes to anything else. And if they don't name the names, they sure make it easy for us to know who they're talking about. They present facts when talking about their investigations, but their true blue opinions sure show through when talking about that second group of people, which include Palin, the DE Senatorial candidate whose name I forget, and Tea Partiers. They also fall foul of their own distortion of the facts. The late Andrew Breitbart (described as "a conservative web predator") did not railroad Shirley Sherrod in quite the manner they suggest. And for two people concerned about documented, provable facts, the book has no endnotes, sources, bibliography, etc. Which would have been useful for the times when they cried foul on Karl Rove, Andrew Breitbart, and Sarah Palin. What is your proof, gentlement?
Plus, could they not come up with better chapter titles? We go from "Alan" to "Michael" and back to "Alan" again. I get it. They alternated the writing of the chapters.
The Negatives: These guys are great at not naming the names in their own investigations, but not when it comes to anything else. And if they don't name the names, they sure make it easy for us to know who they're talking about. They present facts when talking about their investigations, but their true blue opinions sure show through when talking about that second group of people, which include Palin, the DE Senatorial candidate whose name I forget, and Tea Partiers. They also fall foul of their own distortion of the facts. The late Andrew Breitbart (described as "a conservative web predator") did not railroad Shirley Sherrod in quite the manner they suggest. And for two people concerned about documented, provable facts, the book has no endnotes, sources, bibliography, etc. Which would have been useful for the times when they cried foul on Karl Rove, Andrew Breitbart, and Sarah Palin. What is your proof, gentlement?
Plus, could they not come up with better chapter titles? We go from "Alan" to "Michael" and back to "Alan" again. I get it. They alternated the writing of the chapters.
July 11, 2012
I really wanted to like this book. Opposition research isn't about hiding behind trench coats and finding that silver bullet that brings down the opposing (or your own!) candidate. It's a lot of hard work in dirty basements, slogging through piles of papers, dealing with cranky employees and lots of research.
I think they captured that aspect really well--that it's not about being sneaky and it's rare to get a thing like the 400 John Edwards haircut or a George Allen "macaca" quote. It's about creating connections and seeing patterns. But I thought it was quite tedious of a read. They basically tell the same story over and over again, of long hours, bad food and uncooperative clients/candidates/government employees, etc.
There were some helpful tips on how to approach unhelpful sources, but without names or connections, this was a boring read. It could have been the city council woman of some small place in the Midwest or a Senator from New York. Any personal information would have been helpful, although I guess they were hindered by client privacy. Still, I've known oppo researchers who have discussed some of their previous clients' work, so overall this was a disappointment.
I think they captured that aspect really well--that it's not about being sneaky and it's rare to get a thing like the 400 John Edwards haircut or a George Allen "macaca" quote. It's about creating connections and seeing patterns. But I thought it was quite tedious of a read. They basically tell the same story over and over again, of long hours, bad food and uncooperative clients/candidates/government employees, etc.
There were some helpful tips on how to approach unhelpful sources, but without names or connections, this was a boring read. It could have been the city council woman of some small place in the Midwest or a Senator from New York. Any personal information would have been helpful, although I guess they were hindered by client privacy. Still, I've known oppo researchers who have discussed some of their previous clients' work, so overall this was a disappointment.
February 26, 2012
"We're with Nobody" tells the story of two oppo-guys (short for opposition researcher). An somewhat unusual job which consist of being hired by a political candidate to research the opponent, to dig up all the good and bad, so that the campaign can use it, for example for attack adds. The two authors have done this for about 20 years now, previously being newspaper journalists, they also have worked for politicians.
If you expect a thrilling tell all political bomb you will be disappointed. Rarely are any names given, not the exact time, name of the city or the politician. the chapters describe amusing anecdotes from a somewhat unknown profession. They do this with calm and humor and with no intention to smear anyone.
The text tends to ramble on from time to time and the "lessons" we, the readers, are supposed to take away are mentioned so many times that it can get a little redundant (facts matter, the process is flawed but ultimately good and democratic, you should k now who you vote for) but the book is slim and a fast and entertaining read, so I can forgive its shortcomings.
If you expect a thrilling tell all political bomb you will be disappointed. Rarely are any names given, not the exact time, name of the city or the politician. the chapters describe amusing anecdotes from a somewhat unknown profession. They do this with calm and humor and with no intention to smear anyone.
The text tends to ramble on from time to time and the "lessons" we, the readers, are supposed to take away are mentioned so many times that it can get a little redundant (facts matter, the process is flawed but ultimately good and democratic, you should k now who you vote for) but the book is slim and a fast and entertaining read, so I can forgive its shortcomings.
March 10, 2012
I really expected more from this book, and I wish I could have given it a higher rating. The idea of the book was very interesting to me. I was hoping for an in-depth look at opposition research, but I felt like the information conveyed could have been condensed into essay form. There was just too much fluff, and the book seemed to meander here and there without really saying a lot.
It also seemed like the authors were constantly patting themselves on the back. In one way or another they'd find a way to talk about how great and honest they were.
The other issue I had was the writing. The authors would tell some anecdote and then in the middle of it wander off discussing something else. Eventually they'd get back to telling the ending of the original story, but it was disconcerting and really unfocused. They did this throughout the book.
I didn't learn much from it, and I can't really recommend it.
It also seemed like the authors were constantly patting themselves on the back. In one way or another they'd find a way to talk about how great and honest they were.
The other issue I had was the writing. The authors would tell some anecdote and then in the middle of it wander off discussing something else. Eventually they'd get back to telling the ending of the original story, but it was disconcerting and really unfocused. They did this throughout the book.
I didn't learn much from it, and I can't really recommend it.
April 5, 2012
The authors' politics are entirely too left-leaning for my tastes. Having admitted that, though; I must admit that I loved the book. Huffman and Rejebian admit their biases, a rarity these days. A+ for honesty. Better still, their research methods are as solid as Gibraltar -- and very, very useful. As a freelancer, I can confirm that Huffman's advice (ch. 9)is worth the price of the book.
Best of all, _We're With Nobody_ is written in a style both anecdotal and reflective. Investigative reporters of any stripe will find this eminently readable account of two decades of muckraking/dirt-digging/"sh*t mining" to be hilariously (and sometimes painfully) familiar and accurate. Two thumbs up -- but I dock 'em a star for playing the "Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum" game.
Best of all, _We're With Nobody_ is written in a style both anecdotal and reflective. Investigative reporters of any stripe will find this eminently readable account of two decades of muckraking/dirt-digging/"sh*t mining" to be hilariously (and sometimes painfully) familiar and accurate. Two thumbs up -- but I dock 'em a star for playing the "Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum" game.
July 7, 2012
An easy read and an interesting insight into the world of opposition research. They didn't get into any real dirt on politicians, which probably helped the book - kept it from just becoming a mud slinging tool. I'm sure that their reputations would be impacted if they went around leaking everything they have ever found. Worth the read to have a better understanding in how the political system works and why simply searching the internet isn't good enough if you want to really find out who political candidates are. For all the 'attack ads' that are generated from the results of opposition research, it is pretty amazing that the information, for the most part, is publicly available and the citizens have access to it. That is something that many countries will not allow.
July 4, 2012
This was just OK. I think the parts I liked the best were the observations on our current use of information, data and facts in the political sphere. Maybe because each chapter was written by one or the other author, it felt a little disjointed. I didn't need any kind of narrative pathway, but I walked away thinking, "Hmmm, what was your motivation here." It was interesting but I don't know that I would tell people that they just had to read this. I think a more critical/deconstructionist contributing writer could have really taken on some of the ideas they were presenting about public/private information and its use in politics, but that wasn't really their aim. Would have been nice to have someone else overlay that with their experiences, though.
February 21, 2012
Interesting concept, but poor on the delivery. The book alternates between the two insiders and their tales. While I didn't expect an expose on what they know on who ... I expected more than why they ended up in the business of opposition research. I think I would have enjoyed the book more if they had shared techniques or anonymous adventure.
I am sorry to say that I just can't recommend this book for insight. While well written, it just doesn't tell the stories that it promises to tell.
I am sorry to say that I just can't recommend this book for insight. While well written, it just doesn't tell the stories that it promises to tell.
March 2, 2012
Mildly interesting and surprisingly moral book about the life of a poltiical opposition researcher. Well, two lives, actually. It was fun but a) I wish it dug more dirt, and b) I wish it named names, of course. They don't. You should know that. They take a moral stand saying names don't matter, and that their clients pay them for the info so the clients get it. I guess that's fine. But maybe talk about the better-known events? Things like Jon Edwards or Gary Hart? I dunno. I felt like it kept leading up to something but it never got there. But it was still interesting. And a quick read.
July 1, 2012
A really good book that reiterates the sad state of political campaigning in our country - be it at the local level or at the federal level. Some of the salient points are
1. Negative ads are about impact, recollection, reinforcement, changing minds and getting people to the polls.
2. People who watch and remember negative ads are more likely to vote.
3. The connection between the truth and the ad that it begat is tenuous at best.
Best quote in the book is from Seinfeld where George says 'it is not a lie if you believe it'. Indeed.
April 26, 2012
The authors don't name names but they offer an interesting peek behind the curtain of political campaigns. Clever and witty (2 of my favorite things).
The authors deal with the facts of candidates lives. They don't control what happens to it after they hand it over, so don't blame them for those crap political ads
I would definitely recommend this to anyone interested in our political process
July 22, 2012
You might be thinking that this book is filled with juicy stories about corrupt politicians, and if that's the case, you'll be mostly disappointed. The authors do share some stories, but never name names (though you can sometimes guess who they are referring to). Mostly the two authors reflect on the current state of our political system, and the status of truth in political campaigning. It is pretty interesting, and worth a read if the subject appeals to you.
March 20, 2012
Disappointing. I think this would have been better as an article - the valuable information included is diluted with repetitious and less relevant material. Detailed comments posted on A Just Recompense.
Read
August 1, 2019Some useful information about how political operatives gather dirt on the opposition, but since the authors refuse to reveal specifics about which campaigns and candidates they worked on, the book has a blurry feel to it. Wish they'd risked providing some more dirt themselves--even if it would have gotten them in trouble, and perhaps even jeopardized their political careers,it would have made this book a lot more interesting.
April 12, 2012
These guys are reporters, right? So maybe they should stick to x column inches, rather than full chapters in a book. The information is interesting, the first time stated. But by the third, fifth, nth I get it already. I understand their reluctance to name names, and I also get that when they get called off an investigation, they drop it. But that makes for not compelling, unfinished, vague stories. Potential, but the potential is not realized.
May 29, 2012
content was interesting but their decision not to name names got in the way of their narratives, since they are mostly based on shadowy or poorly defined characters. also, the book flips inconsistently back and forth between campaign trail stories and ideology / defending their work. quick read, though, and good for anyone interested in learning more about negative campaigning or oppo research.
April 27, 2012
It was an interesting book. The two men who wrote it are researchers for whichever campaign hires them, though they usually work for a democrat campaign. They tell stories of what they do, and really hit hard the fact that they are looking for the documented truth on candidates. I think these men are more the exception rather than the rule, but it was still an interesting read.
March 18, 2012
This wasn't the tell-all I had expected, but it was really cool to learn about the process of researching candidates. At the same time, it is disappointing to think of how campaigns use "opposition research" (a collection of actual FACTS! in politics!) in perverted, roundabout ways to destroy their opponents' reputations.
June 4, 2012
I saw this duo on The Daily Show and their story sold me on the book. I have to say that my expectations were not really met. While the job of an opposition researcher sounds interesting in theory, it is actually kind of boring. I respect the fact that the authors didn't name names, but it did make it a less interesting read. Enjoyed it, but not as much as I would have liked to...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews