Much of my current disgust with the Democrats developed in the 90s, when they were so willing to debase themselves and run interference for a corrupt liar in the Oval Office, enabling the first couple to continue on with business as usual–destroying evidence, gathering political dirt on their enemies, trashing their reputations, prosecuting people they found politically inconvenient, siccing the IRS on them, actually doing things that Nixon only dreamed of, all with the connivance of the press. As I’ve noted before, I don’t think they’ll be able to get away with it any more, with the emergence of new media.

Nonetheless, at least for now, such connivance continues. Mickey Kaus, in discussing the latest dust-up between her highness and one of her former Hollywood sycophants, points out what’s been missing in the discussion in the media:

Nagourney’s conclusion, and that of most other MSM pundits, assumes you can analyze which campaign won and which lost without assessing the truth value or appeal of what Geffen said about Hillary. In this “neutral,” strategic analysis, Obama lost because he was the positive candidate lured into going “negative.” Doesn’t it matter whether Geffen’s charges were true–or at least rang true–or were baloney? “Objective” reporters are uncomfortable making such judgments, but those are the judgments voters will be making. If Geffen was giving voice to what lots of Democrats were actually thinking about Hillary, and if by doing so he in effect gave Dems permission to stop suppressing these objections, and if those objections are powerful, he could have done Hillary damage even if her brilliant staff lured an Obama press aide into putting out a snarky press release.

Emphasis Mickey’s.

The media never wanted to discuss whether or not such things were true then, and they don’t now. In their adulation of the Clintons, they were always content to be stenographers for the White House spin machine. But now that Geffen has pointed out the naked emperor, will her shattered inevitability finally cause the press to turn on her as damaged goods, who can’t win the White House for their favored political party? Interesting times lie ahead, but I think that the Slick Grope Vets will hold their fire until she actually gets the nomination.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mickey also asks if the Clinton campaign is unaware of the Internet. Well, they shouldn’t be (anyone recall the name Matt Drudge?), but I think they continue to underestimate its power, again, as I’ve noted in the past.

[Update in the afternoon]

Here’s an excellent example of Mickey’s and my thesis that the MSM wants to talk about anything other than whether or not Geffen’s accusations were true. And note the little ad hominem on him, via anonymous third-party whispers, to undercut his credibility: