Only in America.Land of opportunity.

It's funny how Osnos' article seems a bit off in the current context .  That is, Obama used that second book to explicitly push the argument for political change and reconciliation between the parties, an argument he brought to bear as a motivating justification for running for President.  Seems like in retrospect that second book seems less like someone cashing in and more like someone laying the philosophical justification for running for higher office.

Seems more to me like the Bushies are trying to deflect saying anything about McClellan's claims.  His going after money or not, they reveal what could easily be described as criminal intent.  Moving the national attention over to 'poor, misguided Scottie' doesn't begin to answer the content.

Well, now I'm intrigued.  Was McClellan ever spotted in the company of the late Janet Leigh?

There's no book.  If there is one, it's all not true.  And if it was written by McClellan, who knew, then it isn't really him!

Got it.

It will take a few days for Laura to read to book to George. These shallow insults have one purpose, 'buy time' till W understands What Happened.

Then a few more days will pass while he finds someone to fill Scott's rocker.

When Mrs. Bush explains people wrote meaner things about Lincoln, George will smile knowing all will be fine in a hundred years or so.

who cares, really? mcclellan seems like an asshole. he was an asshole when he was standing up and defending those flawed bush policies (especially if he privately thought they were flawed) and he's an asshole now that he's sold his old boss out (who he stuck by when it mattered) now that he's unpopular but it doesn't really matter. maybe if mcclellan weren't like the 20th retired bushie to do the same thing, we'd be interested, but who cares. he's just another asshole trying to cash in. I can actually believe it "doesn't sound like scott mcclellan" -- he was probably a loyal foot soldier before and now he's changed with the winds.

and no, I'm not a bush fan. I'm glad the truth about this awful administration has been coming out. but how much does mcclellan really add?

As Richard Clarke said, "I can show you the tire tracks", describing the results when he went public with his criticisms of the White House. Now the wrecking crew is coming down on Scott McClellan for not voicing his misgivings when he was the press secretary. If he had, he would have been shown the door summarily. This gang of aggressive liars is at it again, trying to blacken McClellan for writing his book. There will be adversaries of Bush who will scorn McClellan for not coming forth sooner. But I say, let's credit the man. He will undoubtedly make his pretty dime but he has just burned all of his bridges by going public. This surely ws not an easy thing to do. By the way, did anyone catch Karl Rove's comparison of McClellan to us, i.e., left-wing bloggers? I love the invidious parallel. This is rich coming from Rove. He and his crew exhibited the worst traits of the blogosphere, left and right - aggressiveness, finger-pointing, dissimulation, feigned outrage.

As an aside: Brent Baker's outrage over McClellan's publisher is, well, stupid. I mean, what's he expecting? That Regnery would have published McClellan's book?

Watch Limbaugh and Bill O if you want to see what the evolving script will be. Those guys are the point men in all adminstration attacks. Too bad nobody is listening. McClellan should have titled his book: DUH

LR -

"This is rich coming from Rove. He and his crew exhibited the worst traits of the blogosphere, left and right - aggressiveness, finger-pointing, dissimulation, feigned outrage."

Yes - that's why he said it. Make the accuser the accused.

How sneeky is that!  To sign a book deal before swearing in.

Well, wouldn't it have been stupid of him to wait tiil he was IN congress?

Judy [at the mission bell tower]: Scottie, why are we here?

Scottie: I told you. I have to go back into the past once more, just once more for the last time.

Judy: Why? Why here?

Scottie: Madeleine died here, Judy.

Judy: I don't want to go. I'd rather wait here.

Scottie: No, I need you.

Judy: Why?

Scottie: I need you to be Madeleine for a while. And when it's done, we'll both be free.

Judy: I'm scared...

I liked Osnos' point that Obama shouldn't cash in for serving "especially before it has been rendered". In the current climate of adulation, it is not likely that this information, especially coming from a man with bona fide left-wing credentials, will be reported in any of the big media outlets. It is a criticism of Obama, and that is just not allowed, as any criticism of him is deemed racist or crazy or both by his supporters and his campaign.

If he becomes a president, he might be competent but he will also be an authoritarian, complete with a cult of personality that is already in full bloom. It remains to be seen whether his association with various extremists will go well with the general election public. Who knows, maybe Bill Ayers and Zbigniew Brzezinski are just the one that they've been waiting for.

McClellan may be an asshole but he's still useful. Since most Americans have ADD and the war is no longer the #1 issue we need to be reminded maybe every month by a new Dubya defector that the war was not about WMDs but about the neocon agenda of imposing democracy upon the Middle East at gunpoint. Any enablers of that fiasco must be banished from elective office(after tar-and-feathering). That includes some Dems but Obama is the one appearing most likely to initiate pulling out so Bush-war-idiocy reinforcers are a good thing.

sleepyavl writes, "I liked Osnos' point that Obama shouldn't cash in for serving 'especially before it has been rendered'."

How did he cash in?  Is there something I'm missing here?  If you're talking about Obama's books, then normally writing a book is a shot in the dark, unless you're a well-known personality of some kind.  Which Obama wasn't, certainly when he wrote his first.  As far as I know, everyone has the right to write, so to speak, and nobody is forced to read it.

Is there no issue too small, too mean-spirited, too irrelevant?

irony, this is the man who says "to know Obama is to love Obama". I hold him to his standards and take him up to his word. He seems crafty and ruthless alright. Lovable? Not so much.

In any case, you find it difficult to tolerate simple irony, ironyroad, for your preferred politician, which was exactly the point of post - referring to Obamistas in general, not necessarily to you.

(There's nothing personal - my recollection is that you have always been a very civil debater.)

As for the mean-spiritedness, I read on these boards not only that the Clintons took too much money in book deals and speech fees, but also more fanciful stuff - that Hillary is a murderer, or a monster, that both are racists, or that Bill can satisfy 18 interns (the fine bloke behind that classy thought was wondering who provided the 18 interns).

But I haven't yet read your concern about such poisonous remarks, many of which are not just mean-spirited, but have nothing to do with reality.

irony, this is the man who says "to know Obama is to love Obama". I hold him to his standards and take him up to his word. He seems crafty and ruthless alright. Lovable? Not so much.

In any case, you find it difficult to tolerate simple irony, ironyroad, for your preferred politician, which was exactly the point of post - referring to Obamistas in general, not necessarily to you.

(There's nothing personal - my recollection is that you have always been a very civil debater.)

As for the mean-spiritedness, I read on these boards not only that the Clintons took too much money in book deals and speech fees, but also more fanciful stuff - that Hillary is a murderer, or a monster, that both are racists, or that Bill can satisfy 18 interns (the fine bloke behind that classy thought was wondering who provided the 18 interns).

But I haven't yet read your concern about such poisonous remarks, many of which are not just mean-spirited, but have nothing to do with reality.

I merely meant that it seems a little weird to condemn somebody for having written a book, and having had some success with it.  And in Obama's case, in contrast to some politicians' "memoirs," he probably wrote it himself.

ironyroad, that's a good point. I haven't read the book, but I did read some 50 pages of the first Obama book in a bookstore, and it was very well-written and interesting. So it his to his credit that he wrote it himself.