WashingtonPost.com The Washington Post
reports today that a publishing industry insider describes
Scott McClellan's early memoir concept as "a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book." That's brought up in McClellan's WP chat.
Anonymous: I read this morning that your initial draft was seen as a boring, run-of-the-mill White House spokesperson piece that wouldn't sell. Is this true? If so, did money motivate you to be more reflective?
Scott McClellan: I do not know where you read that, but it is not true. As for the question about whether money motivated me, I encourage you to read an article in today's New York Times that addresses that question to some extent.
ALSO:
Chicago: Did Dana Milbank's shellacking of your performance yesterday in this morning's Post bring back any nostalgia?
Scott McClellan: I actually enjoy reading Dana's pieces much of the time. I guess he did not like my sideburns! Another piece I found interesting was Dan Balz's, which said the book should be required reading for all McCain and Obama staffers.
> Related from
Louis Bayard,
Dan Froomkin,
David Corn and
Jay Rosen.
