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.

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.

You're welcome.

TD

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.

We responded:

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.

TD

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.