A leaked e-mail thread started by two Hillary Clinton operatives, Robby Mook and Marlon Marshal, has drawn some ire from Republicans who take offense at their message. Highlights include operatives calling themselves “Deacon” and “Reverend,” and threats to “smite Republicans mafia-style” and “punish those voters.”  Yawn.  Seems like Republicans are crying crocodile tears. Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with some young, sharp pols internally sharing their passion for the fight with some salty e-mails. Good for them. It’s part of the game. What I do see as a problem is the hypocrisy in how the mainstream media treat these types of revelations about Democrats vs. how they treat Republicans, as well as the conclusions the media tend to draw about the Republican Party as a whole while no such conclusions are made about the Democratic Party.

Can you imagine if these e-mails had been sent by a Republican –- say, Karl Rove? I can picture the New York Times and the other usual suspects swooning in faux shock, weeping and gnashing of teeth, their eyes rolling back in their head, struggling to maintain consciousness while pounding out another tired piece about how the Republican Party has destroyed politics and debased our political discourse with their cynical hate speech or whatever. Gasp! The media has no problem consolidating the actions of a few Republicans, extrapolating them and editorializing that they are a broad indictment of the Republican Party as a whole. But there is no such aggregation when Democrats are involved. It doesn’t matter how many revelations of bad acts there are. Even when an obvious pattern of Democratic behavior emerges, the media avoids drawing the larger conclusion that there is something wrong with the Democratic Party and refuses to question how any thinking person could be a Democrat.

Just look at Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about the deceitful way the Obamacare legislation was passed and how he dismisses American voters as stupid. And this is after watching the Democratic campaigns in Election 2014, where the premise was to actively hide what the candidates would really do if they were elected. Fortunately, voters saw through the deception from candidates such as Michelle Nunn in Georgia and Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky. Despite the Democrats’ historic losses after running campaigns with nothing affirmative to say, a president who encouraged candidates to deceive voters, the Gruber revelations and the Clinton operatives plotting thuggish tactics (to name a few) — nothing is ever tied together to make the point that the Democratic Party has lost its way. Their leaders’ approach isn’t really playing hardball, it’s matter-of-fact dishonesty. So where is the media conclusion about what the Democratic Party has become?

What does the Democratic Party stand for today if not just grabbing power, holding power, government for government’s sake and offering and maintaining dependence in exchange for votes? The Democratic brand and what it means to be a Democrat should get a hard look after the party’s six years in power. These recent incidents are not isolated -– they are indicative of a party that is moribund and needs a new reason to justify its existence.

Follow Ed on Twitter: @EdRogersDC