The Selling of Scott McClellan

I think it is important, if at all possible, to observe the news cycle of a controversial story for at least 24 hours before forming a hardened opinion.

I have watched and listened to a number of commentators discuss Scott McClellan's book, due out next week. Increasingly, it seems that there are 3 narratives that are coming out in response to McClellan's allegations. The juiciest of the assertions include: Cheney is a less than honest administrator ("No one knew better how to orchestrate what was behind the curtain"), Karl Rove and Scooter Libby undermined McClellan as a press spokesman by feeding him false information about the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity and the case for war in Iraq was made on a basis that was later found wanting.

Now, to the 3 narratives:

First, the White House response, which seems to be universal surprise. President Bush himself is said to be puzzled and saddened. I have seen Ari Fleischer on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Mary Matalin on Hannity & Colmes; he conveyed an aura of bemused hurt while stolidly defending Bush's character. Matalin was even more aggressive, and declared that it was payback time for McClellan since he was essentially fired. Matalin gave more details on the ostensible dismissal than I had heard from anyone else, saying that McClellan's replacement by Tony Snow was an integral portion of Josh Bolten's staff shakeup when he came in as the new chief of staff in the spring of 2006.

Then, the media response, which ranges from skeptical to full-blown embrace of all charges (think Chris Matthews!!). I thought David Gregory's comments yesterday afternoon on Hardball were especially interesting. Some of you fellow junkies may recall the famous exchange between McClellan and Gregory back when McClellan was spokesman. McClellan accused Gregory (to his face in the White House press room) of playing up his questions for the cameras, which led to a furious exchange, for which David Gregory ultimately apologized. Now McClellan says the press wasn't aggressive enough in its reporting on the Iraq War? Gregory wasn't buying it. UPDATE: You can read about the exchange between Gregory and McClellan here; look at the date, by the way. It occurred just a few weeks before McClellan left.

And finally, we have McClellan's own version, which none of us will fully know until we read his book. He did sit down this morning, though, for his first LIVE interview since the book's publication, with Meredith Viera of NBC's Today Show. He will also be with Keith Olbermann tonight on MSNBC, which means I'll probably be viewing that show for the first time, and he'll be with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday. Viera teased that McClellan might as well camp out at NBC for the next few days. I do wonder about the network choice McClellan has made for his debut. NBC seems currently to be the most hostile network to Bush of the big 3.

McClellan struck me as fairly straightforward in his interview with Viera, and Viera, to her credit, didn't spare the tough questions. I actually could buy McClellan's explanation of being in the White House bubble and thus failing to realize sooner than he did that he was in disagreement with key policies and thus would be an ineffective spokesman in violation of his own conscience. Power is very seductive and no place on earth exemplifies this axiom more than the Washington Beltway culture. But if McClellan was able to keep his reservations to himself while he was employed by the White House and even continue to defend the Bush Administration for a year afterwards, couldn't he at the very least have waited until President Bush was a private citizen to cash in on his former boss?

It would all be easier for me to swallow if McClellan's bank account wasn't being simultaneously strengthened as this book is released, probably by an exponential dollar figure. It looks like book sales will be on pace to match his advance; the book has shot to the top of Amazon.com's list and will probably debut close to or at the top of the NYT list. (McClellan's advance was probably decent, but I don't know how much it was and can't find it anywhere.) But would this book have sold as well if it had come out a year later?

There are no new revelations in McClellan's book, based on what we know so far. The frenzy has been caused because of the source, not the substance.

My sense is that no one will even remember this in a month or probably less, except for hardcore Bush loyalists and President-elect Obama or President -elect McCain as they pick their press secretaries.

McClellan has a right to tell his story. I don't believe he is doing wrong in taking the chance to do so when he feels he will gain a larger audience, but neither do I blame the Bush White House for feeling betrayed by someone they viewed as one of their own. McClellan had been a friend of Bush going back to the Texas gubernatorial days. Furthermore, McClellan's ire seems to have been raised over what he was told about Valerie Plame??? This I don't get. The Plame story is more reflective of the bitter partisanship of Washington than any other of which I'm aware. I have yet to meet an average American anywhere who even brings up the Plame affair; I wonder how many even understand it, let alone care about it. It was a manufactured political tempest in a teapot; Plame wasn't even covert at the time she was supposedly "outed", and had never been in any danger. Plame and Wilson made millions off of the whole controversy, and probably are continuing to do so. The only one to suffer from it all was Scooter Libby, who was given a jail sentence and fine not for outing Plame, but for giving contradictory testimony to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (see why people's eyes glaze over?).

I have already given this story more space than it deserves; maybe this will up my ratings along with Hardball.