Hint: Keep reading, you'll love my ending.

Following up on Gary Cohen's post, I decided to register my complaint to Rachel Sklar about her hit piece at HuffPo under the headline "Obama's Revenge: New Yorker Reporter Banned From Press Plane For Overseas Trip."

I just emailed this to Rachel under the subject line "Are you nuts, Rachel?" Of course, she isn't but I thought I would provoke a reaction. I got one. I wrote:

Having been a journalist most of my life, I understand the meaning of limited space. Sometimes there are enough seats on a plane. In the case of your assertion that Obama snubbed the New Yorker, there aren't enough seats on five planes to accommodate all the press that wanted to tag along. You're giving new meaning to "unfounded rumor."

I got this reply from Rachel:

If you've been a journalist all your life, then I would love to know how much success you've had cold-emailing strangers leading with flat-out insults.

First of all, the information was reported by Mike Allen of Politico. Was his note that the Obama campaign was "furious" at the NYer just fun color? Come on.

Second of all, yes there were limited seats for lots of requests. But there are norms that are established, regulars that included for a variety of reasons. Carrie Budoff-Brown from Politico is on the plane - so is Karen Tumulty from Time - so is Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun-Times - but it looks like there's someone from the Tribune, too. Why two papers from the same city? Because it's Chicago? Can't Ben Smith pick someone else's reports? These decisions are entirely discretionary. We both know that. We also both know (I am assuming) that Lizza has been writing on Obama for ages, for TNR and GQ and the Atlantic too. He is an ace reporter and has been doing some work of real substance on this campaign, has been out on the trail with a vengeance, and is well-known to Team Obama (and probably well-loved, considering some of his previous material). This isn't a case of suddenly the New Yorker is small potatoes. And it's not like drawing straws. This also seems consistent with certain other reactions of the Obama campaign. I stand by my analysis, and the concerns it raises.

But seriously, dude, you might want to rethink the subject line. There's no need to be rude. I might get offended and then deny you access - I hear that's done.

RS

to which I replied:

So, you didn't like the opener? There's as much truth in my subject line as there was in your headline. And also less of that "facts not in evidence" thing your post displays. See, it's a long way from saying that Obama's campaign is "furious" to concluding without a scrap of evidence that the New Yorker was "BANNED." Or didn't you learn that in journalism school?

P.S. Rachel's reply came with a line at the end that says: "This email is off the record unless otherwise indicated."

Sorry, Rachel, you replied before I agreed to the ground rules. It's ON the record. I guess that's another one your professors overlooked.

Rachel replied to my reply:

I didn't go to journalism school; you clearly didn't go to charm school.

Sorry, but I just don't understand why I should correspond with you. You're rude. If you weren't rude, I'd be more inclined.

I think Gawker sets it out better than I did, actually: http://gawker.com/5027132/obamas-cartoon-retribution

This is politics. Everyone knows what they are doing and what signals they are sending.

and I replied:

And EVERYONE knows that competition for those 40 seats was more intense than it has been for any other Obama flight, with more major media requesting seats. Maybe the Obama campaign just decided to give a few seats to other media that haven't always been as lucky as the New Yorker.

Here's the payoff, wherein Rachel admits she has no facts to support her conclusion. With "friends" like this in the "liberal media," who needs enemas from FOX News? Just got this from Rachel:

Interesting timing for such magnanimity, no?

And yes, of course, all of that is true. Plausible deniability. I looked at all the factors, and drew a conclusion. I truly do not think I am wrong. But definitely concede that I haven't proved it. Don't believe I said I had - just presented the ev, and my conclusion.