Naturally you'd focus on how the Left is portraying the book, and no doubt you assume that what RightWingers have to say about it must be the gospel truth. A little while ago I was watching John W. McBush expounding on his newfound concern for global warming and decrying partisanship, by which he--and all Republicans--meant it's all the Democrat's fault. Same partisan blinders.

You ought to read the book. I can reliably infer you haven't by the snarky way you asked me "Have you even read the book?"; you'd have said so if you had. Then you'd see that it's been misportrayed by everybody with an axe to grind everybody.

The thing that left-leaners would never mention is that, as Scott describes the toxic phenomenon of the "permanent campaign", he credits the Clinton White House with the first serious use of the tactic, and portrays the Bush White House as expanding and perfecting it. He feels personally betrayed by Bush's adoption of the permanent campaign because he was fooled by Bush's campaign rhetoric about changing all that, and because he was part of it, it's all for him very personal.

While the Left has spun, the Right has simply out-and-out lied through its teeth about the book. It's not an attack on Bush, by any means, and McClellan goes out of his way to find excuses for Bush and to blame the worst transgressions on his henchman.

As a memoir it's ho-hum. The book's real value, I think, may be to publicize the "permanent campaign" and its toxic effects. I'd love to see a litmus test develop under which candidates are grilled on their understanding of the problem and its consequences, and pressured into making a pledge to do things differently and leave politics at the door when entering the office.

That simple phrase, "permanent campaign", is clear enough and simple enough to become a powerful meme among the electorate.

With hindsight, it ought to have been a red flag when Bush's campaign staff moved en masse into the West Wing and took up the same duties under new job titles on the public payroll. If we see that happen again in the future, we'll know to get ready for at least four years of extremely ugly politics in Washington.

I asked "Wanna tell me you're still proud of voting for Bush, twice??", and your response was entirely evasive. It's not exactly news that you'd vote for a Republican regardless of qualification and character over a Democrat any day. But I remember full well your years of triumphalist arrogance, the praise of Bush's every move as a sign of Republican genius and a testament to the power of Wingerism. Your overweening pride to have voted for a Republican like Dubya. Have you learned anything from the last seven years, or are you gonna stay the course?