RIP Richard Ben Cramer

[Inky_Wretch]

Dead at 62 from cancer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/richard-ben-cramer/266915/#.UOuO3o3zG6E.twitter

 

[Double Down]

One of my heroes, and one of the best journalists of my lifetime. Everyone should read " What It Takes" at some point. And, if not, At least read or re-read his piece on Ted Williams. A journalistic titan.

 

[JackReacher]

Just looked up What It Takes on Amazon. 1,072 pages.

Yeesh.

Also just read the piece on Ted Williams. Wow. That was masterful.

http://www.esquire.com/features/biography-ted-williams-0686

 

[Dick Whitman]

Just looked up What It Takes on Amazon. 1,072 pages.

Yeesh.

It's an unbelievable work of journalism. It's a miracle it exists, quite frankly, that someone had both the access to so many powerful men and the writing chops to take advantage of it to the degree he did.

I think I read that he got a $500,000 advance to write it. That was in the '80s.

Jesse Jackson, by the way, looks like a complete dolt for denying Cramer access when everyone else in the race threw open the doors.

I almost always change the channel when a politician is on TV being interviewed. They're mostly so insincere and spouting talking points. So slick. Amazing that Cramer got not just one, but a slew of them to open up and bare their souls.

What a ****ing masterpiece.

RIP.

 

[Double Down]

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?

 

[Michael_ Gee]

His daily newspaper work for the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1982 when he was in Beirut covering its siege by Israel was astonishingly good.

 

[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?

It's awesome to go back and read the opening stuff from the Astrodome with a young W., the presidency nowhere in his sights, throwing a fit about his seat location. (If I recall.)

 

[Glenn Stout]

Richard was one of the nicest, most approachable and engaged guest editors I've ever worked with on The Best American Sports Writing. Several years later, I asked him to blurb my oral history of the 9/11 clean-up, Nine Months at Ground Zero. Not only did he do so, but he actually read the book and called. I wasn't home at the time, but he talked my wife's ear off about how much he liked the book. RIP, a giant.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Comparisons to David Maraniss are inevitable. They mined the same subject areas but had very different styles. Cramer was very much a wordsmith, which I think sets him apart a little bit. Maraniss can write, as well, just not like Cramer. But he's certainly more prolific.

 

[Care Bear]

"What It Takes" was my only up-all-night book in college. All five years of it. Almost made me switch over to PoliComm, all on its own. Anybody here with any interest at all in politics should read it. Or anybody who loves good stories should read it. ****, every single person on this board should read it.

RIP, Mr. Cramer.

 

[Azrael]

One of our best, gone much too soon.

 

[ScottJBryan]

What It Takes was an excellent read, but I also very much enjoyed his book on Joe DiMaggio. One of the best sports biographies I've ever read.

 

[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 hell 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.