I didn't think it painted a particularly damning picture of her campaign; it suggested there were organizational difficulties and strategic errors and maybe a few personality conflicts, but I would think that kind of thing is more the rule than the exception with any group of humans involved in such an arduous and stressful task.
My quick rundown on how it makes the principal characters come off:
Barack and Michelle Obama probably come out looking the best. Dedicated, enthusiastic, hitting the ball out of the park when needed for the campaign. Obama's sole fault may have been too much optimism.
Joe Biden comes out looking fine, apparently came closer to running than was believed at the time.
Hillary Clinton comes off as easily the most prepared, hard-working, knowledgeable candidate in the race. Her mistakes are not portrayed as actions of malice but maybe misreading the electorate or else overcompensating for mistakes of the 2008 campaign in ways that hurt the 2016 one.
Bill Clinton comes off as slightly unpredictable, committing a couple unforced errors we know about, the biggest one the tarmac meeting with Lynch. Nevertheless his political instincts were probably more accurate than some of the younger leaders of Hillary's campaign, but unfortunately his advice was not always listened to.
Bernie Sanders is not portrayed as a hero- he is shown to be difficult, obstinate, hard to work with, not entirely prepared, and his primary attacks on Hillary's credibility are posited to have done real damage to her perception in the general, a point I see made here repeatedly.
Robby Mook gets a bit of a drubbing for being overly analytical and data-focused, to the point of making what would turn out to be some strategic errors. But even he isn't crucified by the book.
The only two people who come out of the thing looking like human train wrecks are Donald Trump and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
It's hardly some right-wing hit piece on HRC or her campaign.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read