USA Today reporter: I know more than a few reporters who’ve gotten White House e-mails like the one Woodward got

posted at 9:02 am on February 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Noteworthy, although I’m not sure which way it cuts. Younger reporters were tweeting last night that they get angry e-mails from political flacks all the time and that it’s no big deal, which is a nifty way to humblebrag about how they’ve upset Power by speaking Truth while also serving the liberal cause du jour of discrediting Bob Woodward. (Some serve more bravely than others.) Is that what David Jackson means here, that Woodward’s blowing routine White House grumpiness out of all proportion? Or that Woodward’s right and that veiled White House threats are more common than you’d think?

In a statement, the White House said that “of course no threat was intended. As Mr. Woodward noted, the email from the aide was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more. And Mr. Woodward responded to this aide’s email in a friendly manner.”

All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials. Yelling has also been known to happen.

Tension between presidents, presidential aides, and the people who cover them is inherent and has been around as the government itself.

Just as I’m writing this, Politico’s posted what’s alleged to be the full e-mail exchange between Woodward and Sperling, no doubt courtesy of a leak from the latter’s office. Quote:

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

Bob:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Follow the link for Woodward’s supposed reply, which is also conciliatory and even has him saying “You do not ever have to apologize to me” and “I for one welcome a little heat.” Here’s how Woodward himself quoted the e-mail to Politico in their interview yesterday:

The Obama aide “yelled at me for about a half hour,” Woodward told us in an hour-long interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington’s powerful have spilled their secrets.

Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill. “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” the official typed. “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said.

The fact that the “threat” came in the context of an apology seemed unusual even last night; as it is, if the leaked e-mail is accurate, Sperling actually apologized three separate times for getting loud and prefaced the “regret” part with “as a friend.” If he’s threatening him, rather than simply trying to steer him away from a wrong/unhelpful claim, it’s a threat so veiled I can’t see it. But stay tuned; Woodward’s set to appear on Hannity’s show tonight to address this, assuming he doesn’t so so elsewhere earlier in the day.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Well…
according to Politico..

Woodward “Attacked” Obama…
first

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 9:04 AM

I’m not sure I buy any of these emails as “threatening”.

Basilsbest on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM

“My bad?”

Who is Gene Sperling, a rapper?

Fleuries on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM

If he’s threatening him, rather than simply trying to steer him away from a wrong/unhelpful claim, it’s an awfully veiled threat.

It is a veiled threat. Is it really possible that Sperling actually forgot that Potus got his tax increases already with absolutely ZERO cuts? Adding MORE tax increases for a “balanced” approach IS moving the goalposts.

The Rogue Tomato on February 28, 2013 at 9:06 AM

He’s been taught well by the Chicago thugs.

“Hey, sorry about that ‘I’ll break your legs’ thing. It was just the heat of the moment…kind of. But hey, no hard feelings, right?”

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Oh please… The apology was an excuse to send the “veiled” threat to Woodward. Again, “sorry I raised my voice to you my good friend, and thats nice career you’ve had, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it”.

crazywater on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

It’s simply another chapter paragraph in Obama’s perpetual war campaign by proxies.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

“Hey, sorry about that ‘I’ll break your legs’ thing. It was just the heat of the moment…kind of. But hey, no hard feelings, right?”

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Business is business. I’m a legitimate businessman.

The Rogue Tomato on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

Is this the Chicago way or is it middle school?

Fleuries on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 AM

And so it begins…

And there’s a reason the term “snowballing” exists.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 AM

The best threat is “Veiled”

tbrickert on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Business is business. I’m a legitimate businessman.

The Rogue Tomato on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family Obama again. Ever.”

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:12 AM

I don’t know why people are acting so surprised by this. Obama’s gone after FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, that local news reporter in Dallas/Ft. Worth who dared to ask tough questions, the list goes on and on. Not to mention he’s had numerous closed door meetings with reporters and journalists at the White House including one within the last week.

This regime has made it very clear that the press better play nice with them or else it’s open season on any member of the media who dares to commit a random act of journalism. When even Bob Woodward isn’t too respected to be thrown under the bus, you know no one is safe.

Doughboy on February 28, 2013 at 9:12 AM

The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.

The Big Lie.

It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really.

Trying desperately to sell The Big Lie. Really.

There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. They are liars and we all know it.

fogw on February 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM

crazywater on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Yeah “I’m sorry to have to do this – it’s going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you – and I hope you know I’m just doing my job, but I’m afraid I’m going to have break your legs for you now.”

forest on February 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM

I think it’s a ruse to create the perception of some separation between Obama and the Democrat Media. Republicans will get played by it.

Buddahpundit on February 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM

“That’s an awfully nice career you’ve got, Bob. I would be a shame if something bad happened to it.”

kingsjester on February 28, 2013 at 9:14 AM

The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain

Reeks of extortion, no?

hillsoftx on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

In the land of sheep, Chicago way wins any day. Conservatives will either retake the school system, or the rest will eventually become moot in the land of Idiocracy.

Archivarix on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Put it all to the ultimate test!

If in the next couple of days, you see any of the lunatics on MSNBC start tearing into Bob Woodward like rabid wolves going after a slab of raw meat, you will then know the threats are indeed genuine.

pilamaye on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

You should head to Newsbusters for Andea Mitchell’s and Schmoe Scarbrough’s defense of their Obama.

Andrea: The Nixon White House threatened me!!
Schmoe: The Bush White House threatened ME!!!

You can always see the WH spin for the day first on that show: every President does it.

Marcus on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

A threat’s a threat. Veiled or in-your-face.

Doesn’t matter, can’t unring a bell.

tru2tx on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Woodward has made himself the target of scorn and ridicule by the self-same Liberal Pundits who once paid him thousands of dollars to speak at their rubber-chicken banquets.

He has become a pariah to the Liberal Elite, having dared question their messiah’s infallibility and unmatched brilliance.

To quote Police Lt. John McCLane,

Welcome to the party, pal!

kingsjester on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

….and through all this drama…the White House has still not debunked Woodward’s claim that Obama insiders pushed for the sequester that was passed by a majority of democrats and signed by Obama himself.

Own it boy king.

Baxter Greene on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

This is interesting.

Erick Erickson just yesterday wrote about conservatives and conservative media jumping at the wrong stories, and then this happens.

At least Allah is trying to offer a smidgen of reason. Hannity…well, reason was never his strong suit.

segasagez on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Bob caved

Gotta stay in the good graces

cmsinaz on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Woodward walks some of it back, trying to avoid burning his bridge to the WH. But still the fact is out there now that the sequester is Obama’s baby.

This is a major inconvenience for Obama, as he planned to blame the coming economic woes on the GOP sequester.

Significantly, Woodward didn’t walk back his “madness” comment. So it’s still out there that Woodward feels Obama is willing to risk inflicting economic hardship on Americans for the sake of his own political gain.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Spot on EG

Headline Woodward at war tells you all you need to know

cmsinaz on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM

segasagez on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Translation: Nothing to see here. Move along.

kingsjester on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM

the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

Instead, it forced Obama to take his Chicken Little routine on the road and congressional Democrats to admit they don’t want to cut any spending.

RadClown on February 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM

The best threat is “Veiled”

tbrickert on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Yes, it is made to give plausible deniability.

Notice how Sperling dances around the issue of changing goal posts in order to rationalize O’s behavior.

onlineanalyst on February 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

it’s a threat so veiled I can’t see it.

Try opening your eyes. It’s the “velvet fist” approach. I don’t know how you could miss it since my first question is… why is the WH advising a reporter on what they should not say? The fact that they are doing this tells you they are trying to manipulate the message to start with. And what person doesn’t notice “or you’ll be sorry” as an implied threat?

dominigan on February 28, 2013 at 9:23 AM

If he’s threatening him, rather than simply trying to steer him away from a wrong/unhelpful claim, it’s a threat so veiled I can’t see it. But stay tuned; Woodward’s set to appear on Hannity’s show tonight to address this, assuming he doesn’t so so elsewhere earlier in the day.

Threat or not, Sperling writes unprofessional e-mails.

My bad?

Refering to Republicans as “Rs?”

“Feel bad about that and truly apologize.”

Does he (Sperling) feel bad and is apologizing or is he demanding that Woodward feel bad and apologize?

By all accounts, not just Woodward’s, the rat-eared bastard did move the goal post at the last minute.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

….and through all this drama…the White House has still not debunked Woodward’s claim that Obama insiders pushed for the sequester that was passed by a majority of democrats and signed by Obama himself.

Own it boy king.

Baxter Greene on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Well they can’t realistically deny that. Obama negotiated it with Boehner and signed it into law. Those are facts. But they can distract people with the whole Woodward sideshow so that they lose sight of what started this entire public spat. Hopefully the GOP keeps hammering Obama on his authoring of the sequester. They’ve actually gotten some traction out of that.

Doughboy on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

This is interesting.

Erick Erickson just yesterday wrote about conservatives and conservative media jumping at the wrong stories, and then this happens.

At least Allah is trying to offer a smidgen of reason. Hannity…well, reason was never his strong suit.

segasagez on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

How much is the regime paying you for this?

Basilsbest on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Why would Woodward regret making that claim, though? It’s not false…Obama IS indeed moving the goalposts. That, to me, IS a threat, that at the very least they and others will go after him for being “wrong”.

Any way you slice it, it’s disturbing, as was the rest of the media’s knee jerk reaction to defend this White House instead of one of their heroes. I think it shows that Woodward still has some shades of journalism to him, while the rest of them are nothing but Obama cheerleaders. The cult of the One is a very powerful thing.

changer1701 on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Instead, it forced Obama to take his Chicken Little routine on the road and congressional Democrats to admit they don’t want to cut any spending.

RadClown on February 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Yeah, I’m really dreading tomorrow when the planes start falling from the skies, school children have no teachers, the border agents are all forced to stand down, and all the rest of the bad stuff we’ve been told will happen immediately when sequestration kicks in./

Seriously, with a 2% cut in spending, the administration plans to replace blaming Bush with blaming sequestration for all their failures and as an excuse to do stuff they want to do like free all the illegals being detained by ICE.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

I would certainly be nervous if I received an email from the White House telling me I may regret my action . Any time I told someone they may regret their actions in a dispute with me I meant to harm them in one way or another. If it was a disagreement I just told them I was right and they were wrong but not “regret”.

Herb on February 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

What business does Gene Sperling have telling Bob Woodward that he will “regret” anything?

If Woodward were to stake out a false claim, Woodward is a big boy and could take the heat for it.

But Woodward’s claim, by many accounts from both parties, is spot-on.

No matter how much this email was worded as an apology, the fact remains that an Obama administration official was doing everything they could to prevent Woodward from staking out the claim that sequestration originated from the Obama administration.

Gene Sperling should not have yelled at Bob Woodward for 1/2 an hour on the telephone, and should not have written that Bob Woodwardat would “regret” staking out a very true claim that was contrary to the administration’s repeated talking points.

Regardless of the level of intended threat, that behavior by Gene Sperling is unacceptable, and while it will never happen, Obama should publicly state that Bob Woodward is right and Gene Sperling “acted stupidly”.

ITguy on February 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Threat or not, Sperling writes unprofessional e-mails.

My bad?

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Ridiculous coming out of the White House of the United States President.
It’s loutish & thuggish & unprofessionally disgusting.

Badger40 on February 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Well they can’t realistically deny that. Obama negotiated it with Boehner and signed it into law. Those are facts. But they can distract people with the whole Woodward sideshow so that they lose sight of what started this entire public spat. Hopefully the GOP keeps hammering Obama on his authoring of the sequester. They’ve actually gotten some traction out of that.

Doughboy on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

From some tweets I read on Twitchy, the MSM no longer cares who authored the sequester now that it’s widely-known the idea was Obama’s. They now want it simply ‘fixed’. Of course, if it doesn’t get ‘fixed’, they’ll blame the Pubs.

Liam on February 28, 2013 at 9:33 AM

So as it stands now…Woodward had an hysterical hissy fit on national TeeVee?

The White House doesn’t coerce anybody…I guess that’s the current meme…

This will be interesting.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The press and the WH are the enemy! So boo effing hoo. Four Americans murdered in Benghazi? Crickets.

racquetballer on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Sharon Attkisson got the same treatment investigating fast and furious.

Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.” – See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-news-reporter-says-white-house-screamed-swore-her-over-fast-and-furious_595011.html#sthash.RaxGv8oV.dpuf

Trekgirl on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Hard to say either way just going by the email alone. This followed an hour long raised voices phonecall which I doubt was recorded. Gonna give Woodward the edge on truthiness here about it’s interpretation.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

The plot thickens.

farsighted on February 28, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Whether or not it was a “threat” is debatable but just the fact that the WH is spending so much time on this demonstrates that it hurts them.

Why can’t the Benghazi emails be released with such speed?

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Threat or not, Sperling writes unprofessional e-mails.
My bad?
Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Ridiculous coming out of the White House of the United States President.
It’s loutish & thuggish & unprofessionally disgusting.
Badger40 on February 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Evidently President Kardashian sets the tone.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

RB ‏@RBPundit

Right now there’s an email out there with instruction on how to attack Bob Woodward. And it came from the Obama White House. Guaranteed.

The effort to destroy Woodward is so massive that I’m beginning to wonder if Woodward has more on the WH than he has yet to divulge… and that the WH knows it.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

while also serving the liberal cause du jour of discrediting Bob Woodward

The agents of Woodward’s “regret”? Have they gotten their marching orders from Comrade Chairman O?

farsighted on February 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM

The effort to destroy Woodward is so massive that I’m beginning to wonder if Woodward has more on the WH than he has yet to divulge… and that the WH knows it.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No, I think the plan is to make an example of Woodward. “If we can cast out and destroy one of the most celebrated reporters of all time, just think of what we’ll do to YOU!”

That’s the message being delivered here.

As for those who are saying, “this isn’t a threat,” I’d gently remind them that there is such as a thing as an indirect threat. Not all of them are going to be saying “I break-a you face!” because that opens them up to the threat of legal action.

Doomberg on February 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

“Hey, sorry about that ‘I’ll break your legs’ thing. It was just the heat of the moment…kind of. But hey, no hard feelings, right?”

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Business is business. I’m a legitimate businessman.

The Rogue Tomato on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

“Please let Michael know it was just business. It was never personal.”

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Why would, how could, Woodward ever “regret” speaking the truth?

farsighted on February 28, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Lotsa ‘sleeper cell’ posters showing up from the progressive Borg to spin and dispense the official lefty talking points of the day.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 28, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The effort to destroy Woodward is so massive that I’m beginning to wonder if Woodward has more on the WH than he has yet to divulge… and that the WH knows it.
petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

The WH must know what didn’t make it into “the price of politics” and Woodward would have known he was burning the WH bridge by coming out with this latest info.

He either has the goods, or he is confident he has a reliable new Deep Throat.

One way or another, he’s got the goods. Bet on it.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yes. Because it is news the White House is thuggish and uses disreputable tactics to keep their acolytes in line and hide a dearth of wisdom…

Oh and the press, which has a lower rating than Congress is filled with dupes and fanboys of the President.

Marcus Traianus on February 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

This is interesting.

Erick Erickson just yesterday wrote about conservatives and conservative media jumping at the wrong stories, and then this happens.

At least Allah is trying to offer a smidgen of reason. Hannity…well, reason was never his strong suit.

segasagez on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM

How much is the regime paying you for this?

Basilsbest on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Obviously, not nearly enough!

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I bet Woodward voted for Obama and he’ll probably vote for Hillary in’16. Why, because crooks are good for his career.

racquetballer on February 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

The effort to destroy Woodward is so massive that I’m beginning to wonder if Woodward has more on the WH than he has yet to divulge… and that the WH knows it.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Woodie doesn’t have to have anything in-hand, the simple threat for example that Woodie might actually do journalism re Benghazi would terrify this White House.

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM

The David Plouffe tweet is really obnoxious. Jim Cramer on Mornin’ Joe was saying that maybe all these guys just have no idea who Bob Woodward is.

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

I think the plan is to make an example of Woodward.

Doomberg on February 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

That would explain it also. In any event, it would be fun to see them make an enemy of Bob Woodward.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

the simple threat for example that Woodie might actually do journalism re Benghazi would terrify this White House.

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Yup.

petefrt on February 28, 2013 at 9:52 AM

No, I think the plan is to make an example of Woodward. “If we can cast out and destroy one of the most celebrated reporters of all time, just think of what we’ll do to YOU!”

That’s the message being delivered here.

Doomberg on February 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Correct. The message is being delivered.

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:52 AM

So some WH aides yelled at Woodward and others. They’re just “passionate.”

This story is going nowhere for a couple of reasons:

1. The MSM has already made clear that a WH aide screaming or threatening a reporter isn’t story with greater implications about power or Obama. In fact, they’ve already made clear NO story about Obama’s WH has greater implications. So even if this happens 100 more times or is revealed to have happened 100 more times, it won’t matter. Unless someone has a transcript of Obama ordering a contract hit on a reporter, story will flatline.

2. Woodward already gave away the game, his character and the truth of his unwillingness to bring this to war when he said Obama isn’t to blame.

Woodward is just playing self-aggrandizing PR here. He will play it until he’s exhausted its value but he will never turn this into a war against Obama.

rrpjr on February 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Okay, that last post didn’t go the way I wanted it to. Ignore the strikes.

WisRich on February 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM

It doesn’t look as though it was a ‘threat’ from reading the email. I think Woodward went too far with that reasoning. But, from the email we get a look into what the WH ‘assumes’ was in the agreement:

It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

Why would anyone have sooooo many assumptions instead of putting it down on paper and having a solid written form to go back to, rather than some assumption.

Yes, thos savings are in the BCA, and they are going to go into affect. Deal with it. It is needed. The problem is Obama will not even entertain anything on entitlements that even comes close to making a dent. Also, he got his damn revenues ($600 billion) with the debt ceiling stand-off. Now is time for entitlements. End of discussion. Get off your asses administration and put real entitlement reform on the table. (I’ll be waiting…)

Patriot Vet on February 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I thought the Journolisters were going with the WH statement that Woodward was a washed up old geezer that should just shut up and go home..?

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM

What has been said cannot be un-said.

diogee on February 28, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I think the plan is to make an example of Woodward.

Doomberg on February 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

And that is why Woodward will feel “regret”.

The interesting thing to watch for will be how much of the criticism of Woodward is actually substantively about what he said about the sequester.

farsighted on February 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Oh please… The apology was an excuse to send the “veiled” threat to Woodward. Again, “sorry I raised my voice to you my good friend, and thats nice career you’ve had, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it”.

crazywater on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Exactly. And what the heck is anybody from Obama’s team doing calling reporters and “yelling” at them to begin with?

I have to wonder when reporters are going to figure out that these people aren’t their “friends”. If it’s become business as usual to act chummy with reporters and then abuse them if they fail to toe the approved propaganda line, that’s a psychological manipulation. It’s like a guy who beats his wife and then apologizes for it afterward. Both of them know he’s just going to hit her again next time he’s mad, but in the interim, he’ll be gloriously solicitous.

The bottom line here is that the sequester is Obama’s fault. It was his guys who came up with it. He approved it. He SIGNED IT INTO LAW AS WRITTEN and he did those things because he didn’t want another debt ceiling fight before the election. So all these protestations about what should have happened are nothing more than attempts at blame-shifting. He’s had eighteen months to either push for something different or to minimize the pain. He’s done neither because thought he could twist this all around so that Republicans would take the heat for it and he wanted it nice and hot. The fly in the ointment though is that he needs the media to push the lie. I expect it never occurred to him that a guy like Woodward would fail to stay chained and compliant to the Democrat dog house, hence the temper tantrum.

Murf76 on February 28, 2013 at 9:59 AM

The press and the WH are the enemy! So boo effing hoo. Four Americans murdered in Benghazi? Crickets.

racquetballer on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

At this point what difference does it make?

The indictment of the presstitutes is far broader than any single incident.

Among the charges:

1. No vetting of the rat-eared dictator before the 2008 election.

2. Ignoring the administration’s decision to not prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation.

3. Operation Fast and Furious and the hundreds of Mexicans and a border agent killed as a result of the administration’s gun running for drug cartels.

4. Benghazi, of course. But not just four dead Americans but all the cover-up at the highest levels and wrongful arrest of the maker of a YouTube video.

5. No negative reporting of the lavish vacations (at taxpayer expense) taken by the rat-eared bastard, his bitter racist spousewhore, and the mini-moochers. GWB couldn’t spend a few days at his ranch without the the press acting as if they were CPAs. Rat-ear’s family takes two 757s to the same location five hours apart and the media reaction is meh.

6. Candy Crowley all but sitting in the rat-eared wonder’s lap to “moderate” the second Presidential Debate.

7. The constant selective editing of stupid stuff said by administration officials. Ignoring it when “the smartest man on on the planet” calls the Navy’s medics corpse-men, refers to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives, or places Hawaii as part of Asia.

Need I go on? The press has become nothing more than a propaganda department for the administration. Jay Carney is their supervisor and the rat-eared idiot is their boss.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I had to get a restraining order and had to describe what happened to the judge and why I felt I needed one. The judge disagreed and said it was not a threat. (He stabbed the roast in front of me with a 10 inch knife, but he didn’t stab me.)

I felt threatened, thus, it was a threat.

I really am starting to fear for the safety of those who have courage to speak out against The One.

redmama on February 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Does anyone other than the State run media think this WH does not threaten its critics..? Journolisters forever!

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Rereading Sperling’s e-mail…

It is Sperling showing regret that he treated someone like Woodward the way he did. He knows he can get away with bullying and intimidating all of the other media appartchiks this way, but Woodward is a special case. He is someone who could harm the regime.

However, being a Chicago Way guy, he still cannot resist serving up a thinly veiled threat with his “regret” warning.

And I think that is how Woodward read it.

All of the “friend” crap is typical diplomatic window dressing.

farsighted on February 28, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I think the plan is to make an example of Woodward.

Doomberg on February 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Which shows us all just how vulnerable they feel about the real owner of sequestration. They want a compliant media making the claim that sequestration was thought up and initiated by the GOP.

And that tactic has been a massive fail. After two weeks of bald-faced lies about what sequestration hitting will mean the White House is backing off claims made just days ago.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Wouldn’t it be ironic if it were the liberal press’s attack on Woodward in defense of the indefensible one, that actually triggers Woodward to finally do the job exposing the faux messiah’s agenda that the media refuses to do out of complicity with the Obama leftist agenda?

Don L on February 28, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I think the “madness” statement by Woodward really hit home with Dear Leader…

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I remember the State run media defending the Bush White House when they threatened well respected “journalists”…wait, no, no they didn’t.

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

“…assuming he doesn’t so so elsewhere earlier in the day.”

—->

“…assuming he doesn’t do so elsewhere earlier in the day.”

Hannibal on February 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM

If I were to write a threatening e-mail I’d fill it with all the waffle words before I came to the point at the end, which would be that the recipient would “regret” doing whatever s/he did. The message gets across but hey, look! Look at all those waffle words! I was just joshin’ y’all.

Bob's Kid on February 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Tonight we will see how good Hannity is. Hopefully he will get Woodward to expand on a few things and steer him back to Benghazi which he had previously down-played the last time I saw him on.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM

If he’s threatening him, rather than simply trying to steer him away from a wrong/unhelpful claim, it’s a threat so veiled I can’t see it.

Allahpundit, you really need to stop making stupid analysis… Evil people always wrap their threats with niceties, in fact they enjoy doing it as such…

mnjg on February 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM

“My bad?”
Who is Gene Sperling, a rapper?

Fleuries on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM

.
I’m surprised Sperling didn’t follow up with “U mad, Bro?

ExpressoBold on February 28, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Lookout Lanny Davis…they’ll be coming for you!

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I remember the State run media defending the Bush White House when they threatened well respected “journalists”…wait, no, no they didn’t.

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

WaPo, circa 2006:

Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition formed three years ago that includes groups such as the American Library Association, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Society of Professional Journalists, called the changing pattern of coverage “quite disturbing” and part of a “rising tide of secrecy” in Washington.

“It’s another way of closing off responsibility and accountability and shutting themselves off from public view,” she said. “I think the public would prefer that somebody be in the room who is not there for their own interests to be served.”

Don’t know if you saw Bill O’Really last night-he started off the show with Beckel, and by the end Beckel was reduced to sputtering about “Cheney’s secret energy meetings”, which meant even he knew he’d lost the debate and couldn’t defend the Left’s hypocrisy.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Although Obama’s actual history is not to be found as regards school records, origination of SS number, school applications, passport applications, etc, his public record as a candidate and legislator is. He has always played dirty, threatening and treacherous. His campaign machine led by Axlerod and friends is also known for those principled attributes; look at the claims from Cutter and the rest over time and you know what I refer to. But now we have a POTUS who is finally being exposed, truly the “emperor” has no cloths. You can not listen to his words for they are lies delivered so eloquently that they lull you to slumber, so you have to measure this guy by his actions. His actions are despicable and will be judged more so with time and you better get ready for a faster decline of this government and country than you might have suspected before. Hang on it ain’t gonna be fun.The saddest part of all is that the press ignores the truth and are accomplices in this destruction.

Pardonme on February 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The Obama regime started this in 2007.

Anybody wanting any of his records was labeled a Birther

It didn’t matter that these were legitimate requests for his senate records both state and federal…college records etc.

The tactic was to apply the label Birther to any inquiry into Obama’s past.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Yet another story about our (liberal) leaders in government that the Mainstream Media didn’t think you needed to know about.

Socratease on February 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Yes. Because it is news the White House is thuggish and uses disreputable tactics to keep their acolytes in line and hide a dearth of wisdom…

Oh and the press, which has a lower rating than Congress is filled with dupes and fanboys of the President.
Marcus Traianus on February 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Oh, I don’t know — I’d say their dearth of wisdom is out there for all (who care) to see…

affenhauer on February 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Younger reporters were tweeting last night that they get angry e-mails from political flacks all the time and that it’s no big deal

Considering the almost non-existent negative press Obama gets, it would it is indeed “no big deal,” in the “it’s totally working” sense.

DrMagnolias on February 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Tonight we will see how good Hannity is. Hopefully he will get Woodward to expand on a few things and steer him back to Benghazi which he had previously down-played the last time I saw him on.

can_con on February 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Yep. I believe Benghazi is magnitudes bigger than Watergate. The extent to which the administration is in total lockdown mode over Benghazi is just a hint of what lies therein.

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Add these observations to the mix:
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/02/27/all-the-presidents-thugs/?singlepage=true

onlineanalyst on February 28, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Like Lanny Davis and the Washington Times?

totherightofthem on February 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Lookout Lanny Davis…they’ll be coming for you!

d1carter on February 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

The already have. See my 10:58 post. ;)

totherightofthem on February 28, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The Republicans have already kept their part of the sequester bargain — they voted for a bill which raised taxes without any decreases in spending. Now, it’s time for Mr. Obama to fulfil his side of the bargain — sign a bill which decreases spending.

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2013 at 11:01 AM

“You’re going to regret….”

It’s CLEAR that the Obama team is defensive about Woodward publicly announcing that Obama LIED about the Sequester, and that since Woodward has repeatedly made it CLEAR that OBAMA LIED about the SEQUESTER, that OBAMA will PUNISH WOODWARD FOR TELLING EVERYONE THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT THE SEQUESTER.

Got it now, AP?

Obama lies; but he doesn’t want that fact to be pointed out to people. And, if anyone points out that Obama lies, they’re gonna get it. Which is appalling for its adolescent attitude. And, like every adolescent liar and bully, they first lie, then they bully to cover up their lies.

Woodward just decided to point THAT FACT out to everyone too. And, just like liars and bullies, the liars and bullies backed down the MOMENT that their target made it clear he would fight lies and the lying liars who tell them by publicly outting them.

mountainaires on February 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Woodward’s set to appear on Hannity’s show tonight to address this, assuming he doesn’t so so elsewhere earlier in the day.

Woodward’s set to appear on Hannity’s show tonight to address this, assuming he doesn’t so do so elsewhere earlier in the day.

Kaptain Amerika on February 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM

[Andrea] Mitchell said “there isn’t enough tough reporting in Washington these days,” while Halperin admitted that “[i]t’s a little embarrassing that none of the rest of us were as aggressive as he was.”

Shorter Mitchell: Now that Bush is gone, there’s no longer a reason to do tough reporting.

Hey, Andrea…you’re a reporter, aren’t you?

BobMbx on February 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2