I didn't think I'd ever say this, but - thank God for Scott McClellan. With Thursday's Olbermann interview, tomorrow's Russert interview, and a spate of op-eds in the middle keeping this story alive, McClellan's book is the gift that keeps on giving. The more the media's Republican lens is on George W. Bush, the better off we'll be come November, and perhaps just as importantly, the Republican Party's reaction to the book is giving the mainstream media new insight into how the Bushies' minds work. Although it's nothing new to those of in the Netroots, a spate of quotes from folks like Mary Matalin and Bernard Kerik are making headlines by showing just how low the Republican elites can sink, valuing loyalty over corruption and honesty.

What first struck me when this book came out was not its "shocking" content, but White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's reaction: "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House." Perino seems to be saying there is only one possible explanation for criticism from a former employee: they're disgruntled. It is absolutely impossible for someone to work with Bush and Co. and have any real complaints; things here are so wonderful that if you're not in bliss the whole time, there's something wrong with you. Criticism is never based on truth; the only possible logical explanation is a lack of gruntle. Right... let that speak not to the fact that these people were blinders, but to just how big those blinders are.

Of course, you expect that kind of a reaction from the White House itself; they have to defend themselves. So maybe Perino gets a pass this time. With a paycheck and job description like hers, she hardly reveals the typical Republican mindset. We can get a better handle on the party by looking to folks without current official ties - folks like Bernard Kerik, who sent out an e-mail this week calling McClellan's truth tourettes, "DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE."

It's typical of Kerik, he of nanny trouble, abuse of power, conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax fraud fame, to value loyalty (to Giuliani, to Bush, to I'm guessing Spiro Agnew) more than ethics or truth. Mary Matalin, who's under indictment for absolutely nothing, joined him, saying of McClellan's loyalty: "This will stand as the epitome, the ultimate breach of that code of honor."

So honor, apparently, does not mean fighting for the weak, telling the truth, exposing hypocrisy, bringing down the corrupt, or even keeping your zipper zipped. No, to these people, honor is sticking with the guy who put you on TV, no matter what sacrifices that entails. We haven't heard word one attacking McClellan's actual points, only his loyalty, which is why these people are unfit to run for even county dogcatcher.

But that is not to say Scott McClellan actually has honor. There is one Republican I do agree with: Bob Dole, who e-mailed McClellan to say, "There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues."

McClellan is helping us from a PR perspective, and his effect on the media and campaign may help to prevent the future from being as bad as the present. This is a good thing - but the fact of the matter is, he could have helped us keep the present from getting as bad as it is. If McClellan were just now seeing the light, I would welcome his conversion and not cry "Too little, too late!" But this is not a recent conversion. He has been shopping this book since January 2007, and was appalled at some of these abuses of power while still in the White House. There's no honor in unfailing loyalty, but there's also no honor in sitting on the truth until you can cash in, allowing the administration to keep killing for that much longer. Dole says he won't read the book, not for his anger at betrayal but for his anger at hypocrisy. That, I can respect: "If all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

McClellan, like 98% of Bush's second term staff, has little honor, but we should still be thankful for him. He has brought the nuts out of the woodwork, and the louder our alarm clock, the faster this nation will wake up.

And with that, we turn back for more of the RBC and campaign 2008.

Update [2008-5-31 17:16:24 by Transplanted Texan]: RandomNonviolence has a compelling comment about those who place a high value on loyalty.

There's more...

Hear Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary, call W's former press secretary Scott McClellan "an inconsequential cipher." Robert Scheer thinks Hillary is trying to be the new Margaret Thatcher. Matt Miller and Arianna Huffington say they want a leader who'll fight for the right to serve -- but just not Hillary. And remembering Sydney Pollack.

There's more...

As Scott McClellan makes the rounds to promote his new book telling the traditional media what we already knew, one of the most startling accusations is not against Bush or the White House, but rather against the press:

"The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. ... In this case, the `liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

This statement has led to a backlash on the part of the press, who insist they did, too, do their jobs, but that McClellan stonewalled them too much to allow them to do those jobs effectively.  The argument from the press essentially goes that they asked the tough questions--what else were they supposed to do?

There's more...

This is fast becoming the biggest political story in a while. And McClellan is gaming this out like a pro: despite the fact that all the networks ran stories about his book yesterday, he didn't start doing any appearances until today.

Here's McClellan doing the Today Show with Meredith Viera:

He'll also be on the cable networks tonight, including Olbermann. Haven't seen yet if he's doing Fox.

I've heard the criticism that McClellan is only speaking out to make money, but it feels like more to me. McClellan's peers at the White House often kept him in the dark, fed him lies to parrot to the press, and then pushed him out before he was ready. Beyond that, some of the book's passages give the impression that McClellan finally de-programmed himself enough to realize how much self-deception really rules the Bush's White House. Obviously I don't think all McClellen's intentions are earnest, but I don't think they're all cynical either

Update [2008-5-29 13:14:27 by Josh Orton]: It's also worth watching how much CYA the political press does today, in light of McClellan's description of them as "deferential, complicit enablers" in the run-up to the Iraq war. There was already plenty yesterday, with Charlie Gibson saying "I’m not sure we would have asked anything differently [if given an opportunity to do it again]". Sigh. (h/t Crooks and Liars)

Update [2008-5-29 13:50:19 by Josh Orton]: Ugh, David Gregory's even worse. (via Oliver Willis)

There's more...

In the wake of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book describing in detail the lies, distortions and propaganda used by the White House to pressure, intimidate and cajole Congress and the American people into approving his invasion of Iraq, lest us not forget that Barack Obama was right on the Iraq war from Day One, while John McCain and Hillary Clinton let themselves be walked down the yellow brick road to the morass we find ourselves in today.

[Cross-Posted on my Blog]

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

There's more...