Apolitician running for office writes a book about her major accomplishments and charitable donations. what problem might a historian have when trying to use this book as a source for a historical argument?

There's no actual history. the politician is only stating her side of things,which for most politicians is better than most. there is also the fact that she only talks about  her good works and cheritable donations.there's no relaible historical facts or sources,about any given point in history.   for example,if she stated that she had given all of this  money during the great depression era,then you could argue that the great depression wasn't as bad as it's made out to be (not a good argument,but an argument).

hope this