Trump saying Hillary was "schlonged" in loss of 2008 nomination is top story; but what if a Dem said it?

I notice that the broadcast networks are making a huge deal out of Trump's observation that although Hillary was far more experienced than Obama, and with her husband's help seemingly had the Dem nomination sewn up in 2008, she nevertheless lost the nomination to Obama--or as Trump put it, she was "schlonged."

Let me quickly say I'm not a Trump fan, but I think it's pretty clear that if a Democrat had said this, the media would have totally ignored it.  But since it was Trump, who shows every indication of being popular with the public, the media was determined to make this a big story.

You probably think I'm just being hyperbolic about that claim.  In that case you'd be enlightened to know that someone *did* use this exact expression--about a female candidate, on a national radio network!

You didn't hear a peep about that, of course--because the network was National Public Radio and the speaker was a liberal Democrat.

Huh...can you say "double standard"?

This guy could use the same expression Trump used, and no liberal or Democrat bats an eye.  But when they can use it as a weapon against Trump, fire away!

But wait, it gets better:  The speaker in question--one Neal Conan--has hastily written a piece for the staunchly Democrat-loving LA Times in which he defends *his* use on the grounds that *his* use was comparatively more accurate, since...well let's let Neal speak for himself:

I sent out a tweet suggesting that Trump had misused the word. Clinton, after all, came pretty close to the Democratic nomination in 2008, while the Mondale/Ferraro ticket really had been schlonged in 1984.

Get the difference?  Neal feels his use of "schlonged" is reasonable rather than crude, because Clinton came close to getting the nomination, while Mondale and Ferraro lost 49 states.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

But the topper is his final 'graf--the kind of non-apology "apology" liberals are famous for:

since my previous use of this word has apparently provided Donald Trump a veneer of respectability for yet another in a disturbingly long series of nasty, hateful diatribes, I apologize.

So in Neal's opinion Trump's use of the term was "yet another" in "a long series of nasty, hateful diatribes," but Conan says he's only apologizing for the fact that his earlier use provided Trump with a "veneer of respectability" for using the term.

It would be hard to find a more amazing display of hypocrisy.  But certainly no surprise.