If anyone wonders why I refuse to call the Democrat Party the Democratic Party, here’s Exhibit A. And the name of the act (as is often the case in such things) is positively Orwellian.

Whenever I read anything like this rewriting of history, it makes it hard to take anything else that person says seriously. It tells me that that person is living in some kind of Clinton-spun dreamworld:

As to Bill Clinton not being the focus of right wing hatred, I disagree strongly. For years, I would see bumper stickers around town that said, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bush.” The right wing-funded litigation was going after Bill, not Hillary. Ken Starr persecuted [literally] Bill, not Hillary. And, the Republican Congress impeached and tried the President — not the First Lady — for no other reason than he was unfaithful to his wife, and in the face of a 65% approval rating. No, they were after Bill, because they just couldn’t bear to have been beaten by a Democrat. Especially a Democrat that they had targeted, on which they had attempted political homicide, and who just wouldn’t go away when a lesser man would have quit. Clinton’s perserverence [sic], and the continuing efforts by the Right to downplay his two Administrations, simply reinforce my theory that the Republicans will do anything — anything — to win.

Emphasis mine. Not only were there several other reasons, but that wasn’t even one of them. I know that you’ll be shocked to learn that none of the articles of impeachment mentioned his wife, or his fidelity to her. He was impeached for things that are federal crimes. Worse ones, in fact, than the one for which Scooter Libby is currently having a jury deliberate, because they included not just lying under oath, but witness intimidation and bribery, and subornation of perjury from others. And Libby hadn’t taken an oath in front of the American people to see that the law of the land was properly executed.

And he can’t even keep his false story straight, because in the very next sentence, he says that he was impeached because he’d won an election (funny, how they’ve never done that with any other Democrat president).

And this guy’s supposed to be a lawyer?

This is the kind of fantastic denial about the nature of the Clintons among Democrats that I wrote about the other day.

It’s OK to have Representative “Frozen Cash” Jefferson on the Home Security Committee–just don’t put him in charge of anything serious, like taxes:

Pelosi removed Jefferson from the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in response to Justice Department allegations that the Louisiana Democrat had accepted $100,000 in bribes and stored $90,000 of them in his freezer. The speaker then gave Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security, and Democrats agreed to the change in a closed-door caucus in February.

“The idea that Homeland Security is less important than the tax-writing committee is ludicrous,” Blunt said Wednesday.

A German teenager has been locked in a psychiatric ward because she was being home schooled. And the court in Strasburg has no problem with the Hitler-era law under which this was done.

Ah, the enlightened Europeans. I wonder if this is one of the “foreign court decisions” that some Supreme Court justices think should guide their own?

Andy McCarthy asks what’s wrong with the Justice Department?

Jefferson is not only purported to be on tape, nearly two years ago, taking a $100K bribe, and was not only found to be in possession, nearly two years ago, of $90K in bribe money (stashed in the freezer). The government represented to a court that he obstructed the separate search of his home

Mark Steyn comments on the anti-Cheney chickenhawks.

Rich Lowry has more thoughts about Hillary’s past.

Distasteful though it might be, Democrats would be well-advised to revisit Bill Clinton

Dean Barnett says that Markos is going soft. Or, rather, to be more fair, growing up.

Ah, well, it was great while it lasted, and we’ll always have Fallujah. And we still have the Huffpo. Not to mention Metafilter.

Al Gore’s inconvenient 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. 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: