A certain blogger that we mentioned yesterday might be the new Geraldo because of his/her sweeping sensational proclamations and irrational simile, sent us this email:
I’m not sure Tina read the Lizza New Yorker piece – it was great and really thorough, but I’m not sure anyone has really called “flattering,” except maybe those who value skill with backroom politicking.
The Fleischer comment is widely regarded as a heavy-handed attempt to chill speech, and I used it by way of example. But maybe I should watch what I say!
Thanks either way for the link.
See? Dramatic. We wrote back:
I did read your piece and you implied it [Ryan Lizza’s being denied access to Obama’s overseas trip] was because of the New Yorker cover – not of Lizza’s piece.
The Fleischer swipe is like calling everyone you don’t like a Nazi. It trivializes the actual event.
Way more after the jump.
They wrote back:
No, I asked if you read the New Yorker piece – that’s what you called “flattering.” You raised the notion that Lizza’s “flattering” piece weighed into it; Mike Allen, whose reported item I worked from – sourced the “fury” of the Obama campaign back to the cover.
I disagree about Fleischer – anytime people start warning darkly about being careful about what you say, I call back to that. I saw that as a very significant moment, and I refer to it often. So definitely no intent to trivialize there.
Just wanted to clarify that bit about the 15,000 word Lizza story though. I would really be surprised if anyone called it flattering, in general.
Yeah, it does look like you disagree with me. It’s clearly mutual.
Lizza’s piece made Barack look like a politician instead of a Muslim terrorist or second coming. It wasn’t a biting expose.
And that again, was not what your piece was about.
And they replied:
One more time: I didn’t say that’s what my piece was about, I responded to your mention of it, calling it flattering. That’s all.
Yeah, that’s all. Sure.