Someone here should say something about the Scott McClellan’s Bush-bashing book that has turned out to be the rage of the day in the blogosphere. Having drawn the short straw, the task falls to me. First reaction: Who cares? Second reaction: Knowing a little about how the publishing industry works, McClellan’s memoirs would probably only have been a viable project if he took the tack that he did. McClellan could hardly write a serious book about the Bush administration. There were many more qualified hands for that job, e.g. Douglas Feith. More to the point, let’s face it – no one would have read or cared about the reminiscences of a charmless and charisma-deprived former press secretary unless there was a hook. So McClellan’s hook had to be that he has seen the light since leaving the dark shadow of the president he served. Unfortunately for McClellan, his bid for a “strange new respect” is off to a predictably stumbling start. Daily Kos front pager “Bill in Portland Maine” wrote this morning:
As I intimated up top, I don’t care much about Scott McClellan and never have. My indifference for the man is boundless. But the just-concluded McClellan saga provides some valuable information regarding the Bush White House. For too long, the president retained lackeys who were poor at their jobs because he prized loyalty. Quite frankly, after seeing McClellan maladroitly dispense of his press secretary responsibilities for a few years, it’s hard to imagine what he could possibly have brought to the table other than the promise of loyalty. Now that the tell-all books are beginning to flow, the White House’s management strategy is looking ever more dubious. Hopefully both of the president’s potential successors are paying attention.
