It began, innocently enough, with a Super Bowl undercard event: President Obama was interviewed before the big blowout by Bill O'Reilly, who has the biggest audience in cableland.
The interview was a classic of the genre with O'Reilly trying repeatedly to entice the president to answer questions that the president has always refused to answer.
I scored it a tie, with O'Reilly doing the best anyone can who will not commit an entire sit-down to a single subject. Eric Wemple, media writer of the Washington Post, agreed with my assessment in a blog post titled "Fox New's Bill O'Reilly aces Obama interview."
But the Washington Post's Dana Milbank did not. Milbank slammed O'Reilly's performance. And O'Reilly noticed.
O'Reilly opened my radio show Tuesday and took about a minute to get to Milbank, calling the Post's columnist "a far left kook," "a dishonest man," "a weasel" whom "the audience despises" who "cross[ed] the line into lying." (Transcript and audio here.) My talk with O'Reilly covered many subjects, including my assessments --pro and con of his interview, my correction of his misunderstanding of Hillary's role on the terrible night in Benghazi, and a quick note that he needed better prep on the Con Law stuff as the president had misled him on the Little Sisters of the Poor case-- which should underscore that O'Reilly doesn't mind an argument or a correction.
But he really dislikes Milbank because he believes Milbank is dishonest.