Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed
We have obtained, exclusively, the exchange. Here it is:
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.
Gene
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MCqi37Wv
= new reply since forum marked as read
I urge that Mr Woodward go into hiding and remain there until it is safe and Obama is no longer in office.
Of course, I never believe the conservanazi whiners until I investigate some of the background on the issue. The first conservanazi idiot was a clown named Edd Hendee. After that, it was Laura Ingram. The way they were portraying all of this was like a knock-down fight. Like Obama was running the country like the Chicago Mob. Lots of lies in between. They are trying to say it's all Obama's fault and that the White House is threatening Woodward.
First up, I would never let that guy back in the White House if he doesn't explain what he told the conservanazis and why.
The main problem right now that we have is that the MSM is giving face space and letting the conservanazis get on air and lie.
BTW, you can always tell when conservanazi repukes are lying.......... their lips move. 
Tweeted:
Ari Melber ?@AriMelber
Possibly the best one so far. RT @ObsoleteDogma Bob Woodward is moving the goalposts on what constitutes a threat.
...that Woodward has lost all credibility? He's now a legend in his own mind. He's reminding me more and more everyday of Bob Novak. I had absolutely NO respect for him long before this current flap he has stirred up making HIM the big story. Fuck Bob Woodward. The WH owes him nothing. Cut him loose. IMHO, respectfully of course... 
