All textbooks have a point-of-view. All textbooks focus on events and people that reinforce that point-of-view. I've read textbooks that tell the story of the US as one of horror after horror. And others that omit most of the horror. Authors do this because they believe that the overall story told by the textbook is correct, and that whichever events they've included/omitted help shape that narrative.

You may be 'thoroughly unimpressed' by the book -- that's your prerogative -- but you come off as, frankly, a pompous jerk. How many other textbooks have you read? Have you read the biographies of the authors of your text? Have you taken the time to understand why the authors made the inclusion/exclusion decisions they chose? Do you even know what it means to consider the intellectual genealogy of a work? To be completely honest, who the hell do you think you are? The authors of your text are some of the most well-regarded historians out there. Liz Cohen has a Bancroft (do you even know what that is?,) David Kennedy a Pulitzer, and Thomas Bailey was a professor at Stanford for 40 years. But you're unimpressed.

I'm also very protective of history as in if a historian I love gets even a small fact wrong I sometimes completely write them off as incredible

Protective of history? What the hell does that mean?

You're an insufferable jerk, kid. You're in for a rough life.

I did a search for reviews of the book as a whole from professional historians and couldn't find anything useful for you.

That's the book my class used a few years ago for AP US History, and to my recollection, it's okay. I got a 5 on the exam (D in the class, I was a rebel), but I was also the only person in the class to get a 5 on the exam. My teacher was incompetent, and not "Christopher Columbus discovered the world is round" incompetent, but "fired at the end of the year for a combination of sexual harassment and not reading students' work" incompetent. My only study was just from reading the textbook, so apparently it's a good book for exam purposes. David M. Kennedy is co-author of the current edition, and he's a pretty widely-respected historian with a long list of publications and a position at Stanford. Basically, though, any textbook that tries to give a survey of any long period of history for a general student audience is going to have its shortcomings. There isn't the space closely to examine debates in the historiography of a given subject, beginning students don't typically have the interest and high school teachers don't typically have the ability to teach history like that. Don't miss the forest for the trees, so to speak, and take what you can out of it. In my non-professional opinion it's a good overview, and if anything in it interests you in particular, read about it independently from other sources, which is presumably what you'll be doing at university anyway, assuming you want to study history there. Go to the library, get a JSTOR account, something.

I think you're misguided insofar as the CE/AD debate goes, however. Plenty of professional historians still use AD. It always struck me as a solution in search of a controversy. You're still using the birth of Christ as a reference point, and no one assumes endorsement of Christianity simply from using BC/AD.