After researching, thinking about and writing the book he reached very different conclusions.
Rather than take on President Bush, McClellan suggests in the proposal — which was circulating in New York publishing circles in January of last year — that social conservatives and neo-conservatives were responsible for much that went wrong during Bush’s tenure. In his book, the finger instead pointed squarely at the president.Sherer also finds that comparison of McClellan's book with the proposal showed that the book took a very different view of the failures of the media than were suggested in the proposal.
He also offers in his proposal to counter the liberal caricatures of Bush. But as has been widely reported, he wound up only buttressing such portraits.
instead of whacking the press for not digging deep enough into the Bush administration's rationale for war, as he does in his memoir, the proposal dings the press for a left-wing bias. "Fairness is defined by the establishment media within the left-of-center boundaries they set," he offers. "They defend their reporting as fair because both sides are covered. But, how fair can it be when it is within the context of the liberal slant of the reporting? And, while the reporting of the establishment media may be based on true statements and facts, is it an accurate picture of what is really happening?"Logically there are two possible rationales for the change in tone the book took from that of the proposal. Either Scotty decided to spice up the book to increase sales while settling scores with some of the White House insiders he felt had misused him, or he found that after research and reflection his earlier opinions of what had happened was overly influenced by his closeness to and liking for George Bush.
Working in the White House at Scotty's level gives very little time for investigation and reflection. I can envision that originally Scotty wrote the proposal based largely on the "common wisdom" that floated around inside the bubble of the White House, and then, while writing, began to become aware that that "common wisdom" is simply wrong. Since he doesn't suggest that Bush was one of those who misused him, but was himself misused by powerful White House insiders, I am inclined to think the second choice is the more significant reason for the way his book turned out.
Scott McClellans book proposal is available here