I thought it was a cracker read, but I'm still kinda not sure which side I'm on in terms of the they-don't-cite-concrete-sources issue. Because, really, the only way they could've got any of that information out of the interviews would be by saying it'd all be deep background, and I like they way they handled things in terms of mostly using paraphrased dialogue and only using stuff that multiple sources agreed on. But... I don't know. Maybe I just really want to believe some things (like how unstable Palin was and how Obama was all "AW JOE SHUT UP YOU BUMBLEFUCK!") too much.