TNR's blog &c. thinks it has an idea what might have, um, motivated former White House advisor John DiIulio to pre-recant critical comments in an upcoming issue of Esquire.
(via Charles Murtaugh)
And here's Joe Conason's take, via Neptune World, which concludes thus:
Consider for a moment how the national press corps would have treated such a story from within the Clinton White House in December 1994. They habitually gave far more attention and credibility to material of far less substance during the eight years of that administration. And there is no way that Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart would have been able to shut down questioning about an article like Mr. Suskind’s as curtly as Mr. Fleischer did. [Ed.: And have the "liberal media" let them get away with it, too.]
Then consider, after reading the Esquire article, which will soon appear on newsstands, what the press apparently cannot report (and probably doesn’t know) about the inner machinations of the Bush White House. The new occupants have changed the tone, indeed: It’s either happy talk or dead silence.