Snively Scott McClellan

By Jennifer J. Foster

Everyone’s talking about Scott McClellan and his “bombshell” new book, so I wanted to get my two cents in on this while it’s still hot.

From CNN.com:

The spokesman who defended President Bush’s policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

Let me say from the outset, and in fairness, that Scott McClellan held the job of White House spokesman during a difficult—and perhaps the most difficult—period of President Bush’s administration.

OK, I threw him a bone. But now I’m going to beat him with it.

McClellan whines—a lot—about Bush, Bush policies, Bush advisers, the White House cook, Beltway traffic, D.C. weather (yeah, so I made up those last three, but I’m sure they’re in the book somewhere).

The truth is that Scott McClellan was doomed to failure from the start—not because of what he may or may not have known and when he might or might not have known it, but because, as the briefings made clear, he was sorely outmatched in the briefing room.

Here’s the thing about being the press secretary: Whatever your failings, you can’t be weak. And McClellan—for all his protestations of being “deceived” and for all his efforts to blame Bush advisers for his failures, McClellan was weak. Need proof? Watch NBC’s David Gregory kick him around like a hacky sack in this infamous exchange. You almost feel like going and getting the teacher, because the dorky kid is being beaten to a pulp on the playground. Seeing him in a gaggle, I sometimes forgot whether I was watching a post-briefing on C-SPAN or an Animal Planet clip of lions devouring zebras at some remote African watering hole.

(Keep in mind when you watch that clip that McClellan says in his new book that the Press Corps “wasn’t aggressive enough.” I couldn’t disagree more. McClellan suffers from a complete lack of even a rudimentary understanding not only of his role as press secretary, but also of journalists’ roles—and responsibilities—as part of the Corps.)

Bush adviser Fran Townsend pointed out on CNN last night that McClellan never raised any objections about Bush policy while he was part of the administration.

“No one stands on principle and resigns,” Anderson Cooper remarked. “Everyone waits and writes a book.”

Well, not everyone, Anderson.

One of McClellan’s predecessors at the podium was a guy who was renowned for performing well in strenuous circumstances and under fire from a similarly grumpy Press Corps.

I’m talking about former Clinton White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Feeding the press from 1995 to late 1998, McCurry was simply brilliant before the hungry piranha, earning rave reviews for his apt handling of the Corps. Later in his “term,“ he was charged with talking to journalists in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Faced with an increasing discomfort about having to go before the press with incomplete information, he resigned in October 1998.

White House journalists were – can it be? – downright sad when he left.

But where Scott McClellan whines, “I allowed myself to be deceived” about the Valerie Plame affair, Mike McCurry intentionally kept himself out of the inner circle to avoid being put in a position of having to provide inaccurate information to the press.

See the difference?

And when McCurry left the Clinton White House, guess what he didn’t do?

Actually, this question has multiple right answers. “Write a book,” “Go on a publicity tour,” “Sell out his former boss” and “Try out for the lead in a Benedict Arnold play” would all work.

The unfortunate thing about all this is that McClellan’s criticisms may be right on the money. But he’s developed a track record of – how to say this politely? – being a lying opportunist.

So, which Scott McClellan are we to believe: The one who allowed himself to be deceived and who then peddled those deceptions to the American public through its press? Or the one who now swears he’ll tell you the truth about the Bush White House (for $27.95, of course)?

We already knew from watching him in front of the White House Press Corps that McClellan was witless and hapless. Now, with the release of his book, we can add “sniveling,“ “unprofessional” and “disloyal” to the list. It seems that Bush’s errors in judgment, whatever they may be, now include his assessment of Scott McClellan’s character.

McClellan adds in his new book, “I still like and admire President Bush.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the feeling’s not mutual.

Signals from Jenna

By Jennifer J. Foster

This just in: Jenna Bush has her own brain. And it’s functioning quite fine, thank you very much. 

First, she appeared on Larry King Live with her mother to promote the pair’s children’s book about reading. Sounds safe enough, right? And it was—until King posed a rhetorical question to Jenna about her presumed support for GOP nominee-to-be John McCain, and Jenna said she was “open to learning about the candidates.“

Next came The Wedding. You heard all about the gown, the ring, the shroud of secrecy, the way the guests were bussed to the ranch, even the limestone cross that was commissioned for the ceremony. But did you hear about the minister (slide 5)?

He was the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a noted “spiritual adviser” to President Bush and—surprisingly?—a supporter of Barack Obama.

You can read an interesting interview with Pastor Caldwell here.

The latest instance, and No. 3 in the series for those of you who are counting, came on Thursday when the new Mrs. Henry Hager appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show. DeGeneres had announced the day before that she intends to marry her longtime partner, Portia de Rossi, in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage.

(Incidentally, I bet that decision is available online. For free. But I digress.)

Anyway, DeGeneres got to chatting with the Jenna

Bush

Hager as she showed off her wedding photos, and—again, with her mother at her side—Jenna reportedly engaged (sorry, couldn’t help it) in this exchange with Ellen: 

Ellen: “So, the ranch was a great place to get married – it looked like nobody could fly over and get pictures or bother you, really.“

Jenna: “Yeah, that was really nice.“

Ellen: “So, can we borrow it for our wedding,“ DeGeneres asked. “Can we get the ranch?“

Jenna: “Sure.“

Ellen: “Okay, great.“

It’s likely that this was just Ellen being Ellen, much as she did when she asked John McCain to walk her down the aisle when he appeared on her show last week. But this recent exchange was notable, nonetheless, because it was the third in a series of such signals Jenna is sending that she’s ready to think on her own.

From the column: Analysis of a potential Obama-Clinton ticket

By Jennifer J. Foster

Although both camps denied it, talk surfaced over the last part of the week that Barack Obama’s people were reaching out to Hillary Clinton’s people about the potential for her to run as his No. 2. Bill Clinton is even lobbying hard for his wife.

Of course, that was all before Friday, when Hillary reminded everyone that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968.

So if the question had been whether Obama and Clinton could work together because of the acrimony that has sometimes characterized their contest, the question now is whether the two could work together because one off-handedly suggested that the other might be murdered.

Um ... awkward!

Anyway, the good folks at Politico.com have drawn a thumbnail sketch for us of “Why the Obama-Clinton ticket is nuts ... and why it isn’t nuts.“

So, here’s why Politico says the alliance is crazy:

1. Obama is too cool.  Clinton “would undercut the most fundamental appeal of Barack Obama’s candidacy: freshness, change, transformation,“ and Obama possesses “a kind of sublime self-confidence” that keeps him from being “bullied” into the pick, Politico says.

2. Clinton is too proud. Clinton still has a bright political future beyond the August Democratic National Convention. “Why would she diminish herself by taking a position that is, by constitutional design and practical reality, all about subordination and taking hits for the team?“ Politico wonders.

3. They would lose. An Obama-Clinton ticket “would combine two polarizing figures who reinforce each other’s vulnerabilities,“ Politico says; Republicans would pick up both anti-Clinton and anti-Jeremiah Wright voters.

4. They would win. The specter of the I-used-to-be president and the I-wanted-to-be president roaming the West Wing and the EEOB, constantly looking over Obama’s shoulder, should be enough to convince him to look elsewhere for a VP. But Politico has another—ahem, creative—reason; click on the link for more.

5. “Too much rainbow,“ as Politico says: “In some ways, the coverage of the Democratic race and the way Obama and Clinton both quickly raced to the front of the pack have dulled people to just how much both the candidacies of a black man and white woman will challenge old prejudices among many voters,“ it says. Obama will be “looking to reassure people who can accept some change but not too much.“

But, as Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast, my friend!“ Five reasons Politico says the skeptics may be wrong:

1. It’s not his choice. More than 16 million people have voted for Clinton in primary contests—including many from demographics where Obama’s support base has been less than stellar. “There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans,“ Politico says.

2. It’s a character test for him. Obama may not like Clinton, but unfriendly politicians forging alliances for political gain is hardly unprecendented. “Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is,“ Politico says.

3. The Sicilian hug. Enough said.

4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. An Obama-Clinton merger would join nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party and support them with the most potent fundraising operation in history, Politico says, and that’s not all: With regard to campaign infrastructure, like county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., “Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.“

5. She’d take the job — and be good at it. Clinton’s self-described “responsibility gene” means “she’d work hard and do well,“ Politico notes; she would be both an on-message partner in the fall and a “smart and effective adviser” thereafter.

What do you think? Do the pros of picking Clinton outweigh the cons for Obama, or vice versa?

And if it isn’t Clinton, whom should Obama choose, and why?

Taking no prisoners

By Jennifer J. Foster

The blogs are abuzz with commentary about Hillary Clinton’s explanation to the Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader about why she’s staying in the presidential race:

Clinton: “...people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa ... Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. Historically, that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

EB for the Argus Leader: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

CLINTON: I don’t because, again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it and there’s lot of speculation about why it is ...

Clinton later backtracked:

“Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Sen. Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968, and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nominating primary contests that go into June. That’s an historic fact.“

“The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Sen. [Edward] Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,“ Clinton added.

It seems everyone has something to say about this, but perhaps no one is as direct as the New York Daily News’ Michael Goodwin, who said Clinton’s RFK allusion “might qualify as the dumbest thing ever said in American politics.“

More from Goodwin:

SICK. Disgusting. And yet revealing. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama ...

We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul ... It’s like Tanya Harding’s kneecapping has come to politics. Only the senator from New York has more lethal fantasies than that nutty skater ...

She kept digging deeper, looking for the magic button. Instead, she pushed the eject button, lifting herself right out of consideration ... She needs a very long vacation. And we need one from her.

Say good night, Hillary. And go away.

Ouch.

The full transcript—and video—of the Argus Leader’s interview with Clinton that started it all is available here.

What do you think? Innocent historical allusion, or window to the soul?

And regardless of Clinton’s true motives, what does it say that most Americans don’t consider it even among the remotest of possibilities that a Clinton could be capable of any action that isn’t calculated?

143 days

By Jennifer J. Foster

GOPUSA’s Cheri Jacobus made this point in a recent blog post:

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.

143 days—I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.

Jacobus then goes on to preview a juxtaposition we’re likely to see a lot in coming months: John McCain has spent 26 years in Congress and 22 years in the military—1,966 days of which were spent as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.

This is how McCain will respond to Obama’s charge that McCain is a Washington insider and therefore incapable of sparking the kind of change this country wants.

On the flip side, what McCain will paint as a shocking lack of experience—Obama’s 143 days in the Senate—Obama will spin as proof that he hasn’t been in Washington long enough to become “one of them.“

Who do you think has the better argument? And to that question, what is the dividing line between having a decent amount of experience and being a “Washington insider?“ How would you counsel the candidates to handle the experience issue?

P.S. In the unlikely event that I’m ever invited to Cheri Jacobus’ house for dinnner, I’m not eating anything out of her refrigerator.