Excised during the writing process, don’tcha know, undoubtedly due to some of that helpful “editorial guidance” he was receiving. Follow the link and read the whole thing now, as Scotty Mac’s set to tape the O’Reilly Factor at 6 and I’m guessing he might just be pressed about this.
[I]nstead of whacking the press for not digging deep enough into the Bush administration’s rationale for war, as he does in his memoir, the proposal dings the press for a left-wing bias. “Fairness is defined by the establishment media within the left-of-center boundaries they set,” he offers. “They defend their reporting as fair because both sides are covered. But, how fair can it be when it is within the context of the liberal slant of the reporting? And, while the reporting of the establishment media may be based on true statements and facts, is it an accurate picture of what is really happening?”…
“I will directly address myths that have been associated with [the president], some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths,” he writes. His book, as published, would seem to indicate that after looking behind those myths, he apparently decided many of them were accurate.
McClellan also promises to “get into the influence of activist liberal reporters, like Keith Olbermann, Nation Editor David Corn, and Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin, and activist liberal media personalities like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bill Maher and Arianna Huffington.”…
McClellan promises plenty of material on the media and even offers a chapter on NBC correspondent David Gregory. “I will take a look at notable personalities in the White House Briefing Room, including David Gregory and Helen Thomas. I anticipate an entire chapter about the former,” he promises.
TV Newser wonders where the chapter went. In fairness, there are hints that McClellan intended to attack Bush on some points from the beginning — his alleged youthful drug use, Katrina, the Plame leak, the pernicious influence of neocons — but it’s all so vague and leavened with finger-pointing at the left that I have to wonder (again) if McClellan’s just an idiot, plain and simple. He could have squeezed a seven-figure advance out of a major publishing house if he had promised a hatchet job from the beginning. Instead it sounds from this like he was planning a more evenhanded book geared towards both the left and right, and quite possibly more towards the latter. Not as lucrative as what he ended up with, but ironically that book could conceivably have become the sort of “Rosetta Stone” to the administration that Olby was drooling about the other night. A critique of Bush from the inside, by someone whom conservatives know shares their disdain for media bias, would have been compelling and not easily dismissable. Instead, by embracing the lefty narrative, we’ll wonder forever. Whatever. He’ll get his money.
Stand by for O’Reilly video in case there are any magical “we’ll do it live!” meltdown moments. Exit question, per the latest book offering from a guy who should have opened his mouth earlier if he felt so strongly about things: How much did Sanchez get for his advance?
Update: Here’s the first and likely last time you’ll ever find me agreeing with MoveOn. One way or another McClellan’s a liar, so here’s how he can make amends: Donate the profits from the book to U.S. troops. If he lied knowingly about the war as press secretary, here’s one small way he can atone. And if he’s lying now, he can salvage his credibility by not profiting from it.