Battle to the Death: da White House Press Hard-Correspondents vs. Scott "Fascist Mouthpiece" McClellan

Ooooh, shits gettin' snappy in that cozy briefing room. If you enjoy witty repartee (read: hypercritical commentary with stunningly vapid responses), yesterday's White House Press "Beefing" is a must.

Highlights include:
Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Blah, blah, blah, blah...we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region. And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print? (Hold on, Bush isn't in charge of Newsweek?)
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help -- (Abort, abort!)
Q You're pressuring them. (smelling blood)

Q Let me follow up on that. What -- you said that -- what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, we would encourage them to continue working diligently to help repair the damage that has been done because of this --
Q Are you asking them to write a story?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- talking points, talking points, no relevance to the question
Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --
Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends. (Oh shit! No she did not just call him on his crap!)
MR. McCLELLAN: Avoidance, avoidance, blah, blah, blah...we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying. (I'm sorry, I had trouble following you on that one Scott. Are you asking Newsweek to sacrifice their journalistic integrity, or not?)

Q In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of background briefings, if that's what you're asking about, which I assume it is, let me point out that what I'm talking about there are officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others. I don't think that that is the issue here when it comes to the use or widespread use of anonymous sources by the media.So I think we need to talk about the larger issue here when we talk about it.
Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't. (The White House wants there to be a double standard? No way dude!)

All in all, the days tally was McClellan: 4 Press: 7. Not too shabby for a bunch of correspondence who are more broken in than my 6 year old mattress.