If I can speak up in defense of McClellan against attacks from other liberals, ask yourselves what's worse, carrying Bush's water for years and a couple years later admitting the truth, or carrying Bush's water for years and a couple years later NOT admitting the truth. So OK, McClellan was late to the party, naive, missed the obvious, self-deluded as well as lied to, but better late than never. Otherwise, at what point can McClellan come clean and not be denounced for failing to come clean sooner? John Dean is a justifiably respected pundit now, and the only difference I see between him and McClellan is 35 years.

If McClellan is willing to see reality and tell what he knows, then we should welcome that. Ari Fleischer, McClellan's predecessor who still seems untroubled by lying, said we would abandon McClellan in 24 hours. Let's prove him wrong.

Why is it always Obama's fault when Clinton is criticized for something she did or said? Obama had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary's assassination gaffe. Barack is not Edgar Bergen to Hillary's Charlie McCarthy. Hillary says and does what she wants and needs to accept the consequences herself, not blame Obama for her mistakes. This attitude by Clinton and her supporters that Obama is somehow responsible for everything with a negative connotation that sticks to Hillary demeans the entire feminist movement.

"I think that was the result of the Obama campaign lighting a match, and its friends in the media fanning the flames."

And what about you, Joan? What's your excuse?

McClellan, sure. Maybe something about the big sitdown tomorrow regarding MI & FL--but more on RFK?

You really could be better editor, Joan. For real.

It shouldn't at this point, but it continues to amaze me that Hillary supporters can spin her assasination remark into it being somehow Obama's fault. And you're right; the remark did offend me greatly. But it's not about your candidate. It's not about a five day cycle. It's about the comment. Don't you understand that when you start with an apology and end with a slam, the apology is pretty much nullified? If you don't mean it, don't bother. (And why bother writing about McClellan? It's obvious in this piece that you just wanted to criticize the Obama campaign more.)

Yeah, but he's lost it. (I used to send him impromptu fan male) Wildly and irrationally biased against Obama. Something's wrong with Atrios too.

Hate to say it but if Obama was white, Somerby, the Eschaton blog and Joan Walsh would be his hugest fans.

By the way did you interview that Altuna lady in Vegas? Did you do so in person? Did you do so over the phone. Certainly you could make that information clear, instead of this "was interviewed," "was reached by phone, crap."

By the way, since Calif. primary is over who'd did you vote for. I don't mean Schwarzenegger either.

Guess you didn't learn anything from reading those 1,500 letters. Just can't resist the poor Clinton as victim spin, can you? Oh, poor, poor pitiful HRC (and Joan Walsh).

Okay, here is how I see it:

McClellan sold his soul to the Republican machine back when he was manipulating the press. There is a tone of gloating to the book, and it doesn't speak well of him.

BUT.

What he is saying is more important and more damaging to the Republican Party for it. He does not come off as the hero here, and what he is doing is not heroic, but he does confirm what we knew was happening all along.

This means the press look like tools, the Republicans look like liars, and the timing of this, just before the general election, could prove incredibly beneficial to the country. Particularly seen as how the Republicans did it is so obvious and easy to see - by crying bias when faced with the facts going against the Republican cause.

While it is a bit late to do anything about Bush's abuses at this point, because Bush is out in November and America is so brainwashed that it actually thinks cutting communications with its enemies is a good idea, it does allow a certain degree of healing to begin.

The truth of the Bush years needs to be examined, and that is not going to happen until the mainstream press gets its ass handed to it by books like this.

Thanks for the link to the Daily Howler article. Good analysis of the boys of MSNBC playing dumb. I was dumbfounded, however, to learn that you watch the entire Hardball show every day. How do you stand it? That would be punishment as bad as reading some of the reactions you get to your columns here. (By the way, they're unfair.)

My girlfriend used to be the Editor-in-Chief at a college newspaper in Indiana. Her online commenters were as stupid as yours. Keep up the good work.

I don't believe sticking it to MSNBC's unbelievably sexist coverage means you are carrying her water, as they say. Rather, you're doing your job.

Obama 08

Did you not foresee that your comment about lighting a match was sure to, well, light a match?

Why'd you have to go and throw that in there?

What possible productive good can come of that?

It's nice to see you, all the same.

See, in freshman comp., I teach students how to write 5-paragraph essays because otherwise they write rambling pieces (because they are young and have not developed logic skills). A typical essay from first year students in remedial writing class often runs like this:

They start with a point about Scott McClellan and attacks on him. They then move on to Bob Dole and his erectile dysfunction. They then move onto to Bob Somerby, and how he praises them and how that praise means a lot because they get hated on and how Somerby is a voice of reason because he agrees with them. Then they reference a paper they had written earlier--a paper completely irrelevant to the Scott McClellan topic touted in their present essay's title--and they go on to reiterate the point they had made in that earlier paper, only this time they try to rephrase it as a counter to a counterargument--i.e., they say that understand that the RFK comment may have been unfortunate, BUT!. Then they mention what had been the thesis all along: Barack Obama is the devil, a sexist bastard, a manipulator, a thug, a thief (stole someone's right to the throne), unelectable, black, a Muslim, a terrorist, a woman-hater, oh, and sexist, and more sexist. And his friends and supporters--all 19+ millionof them--are the same. ALSO, they put things like "assassination" and "anything can happen in June" into Hillary's mouth, because she is a victim. Also, Obama is to be blamed for the earthquake in China and the melting of polar ice caps. But because MSM--which spent weeks on Rev. Wright and "bitter" comments, fueled by Hillary-the-consummate-victim--loves Obama, they will not report how Obama is essentially destroying the planet.

Honestly, Joan, I hope your daughter knows how to compose an essay because if she writes like you (and your pathological liar friend Taylor Marsh and logically-impaired Bob Somerby), then she will be spending a lot of time in remedial Eng 100.