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:

“Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling,” he told Ms. Dowd. (Of course, many of Mr. Geffen’s former business partners say that he has had his own idiosyncratic relationship with the truth.)

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.

Some might call it Clinton Condemnation Disease. Do not heed their evil whispers.

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.

Don't be too hopeful about that. Leftist bias has seeped down to the very foundations of society, including some of the new media. Just look at the outrage known as Wikipedia. You also have to the claws of Goog.le and its founders.

Granted, on your side you have the other kind of new media: Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Rushbo in particular has always shone his spotlight on the evils of Hillary. He was deeply influential during your formative period. Who knows how many voters will listen to such new media luminaries this time.

I was always confounded by the anger at the pardon "scandal." Given all the other scandals that supporters blew off, why did that one matter to them? I mean, gosh, psrdoning is 100% within the purview of the executive, so they onl thing that made his supporters irate was something he had every right to do.

My answer has been that their collective guilt made them have to get angry at something. I think we may see something similar here--as long as the GOP is perceived as a threat, the Dems will rally to the Clintons. But if the conservatives ignore them, the Dems will find themselves unable to contain their own disgust.

When does the Wall around Fort Clinton turn into a trap? When do they become parodies of themselves? The more we see scripted, staged, controlled the longer they have to become obvious. The American Public will turn, eventually. At first they will look to one another in disbelief. Then move as one. Geffen is right. Hillary is unelectable. Her negatives give anyone a shot. Her positives only exist as long as her checkbook holds. Bill is the 800-lb Donkey in the room. What will he do while she is Pres?

Can she get him an Ambassador seat thru a Republican Senate? Will Diane Feinstein ever finish the Bill of Censure she promised to write?

She is too brittle. She cannot control her temper. She cannot abide people she cannot control... 17 months until the election. Thats a long time to hide her in the public eye...

It is significant that the great grandfather of Romney was a polygamist. The marriage record of Giuiani sheds harsh light on his character and suitability for public office. But any examination of the Clinton's marital problems is the politics of personal destruction, a kind of Swift-boating of a couple who have bravely worked through their marital problems. And so it goes.

It is significant that the great grandfather of Romney was a polygamist. The marriage record of Giuiani sheds harsh light on his character and suitability for public office. But any examination of the Clinton's marital problems is the politics of personal destruction, a kind of Swift-boating of a couple who have bravely worked through their marital problems. And so it goes.

With regards to Clinton vs. the media, the key thing here is who is making the charges this time around, as compared to the 1990s. A decade ago, accusations against the Clintons were almost exclusively from the right, other than a few outliers like Jerry Brown in 1992 or Bob Kerrey a few years later. That made it easy for the big media outlets to go with the flow and support the Clintons and their staff when they claimed it was all The Politics of Personal Destruction and part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Last week's attacks by Geffen and then the Obama camp are different. Hillary and her aides again trotted out The Politics of Personal Destruction coda again in response to the charges, but they couldn't use the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy claim, because this time, the attacks are obviously coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party. And within the media, there is also a split between those who still support the Clintons and those who believe Bill and Hillary triangulate too much to the center. Those people may not be openly rooting Obama on right now, but they're certainly open to going on the attack against Hillary from the left, as long as they believe a more liberal candidate than she is has a chance to win the 2008 general election.