You will remember a few weeks back that the President held a reception in the East Room for the Washington press corps celebrating his triumphal first one hundred days as chief executive. During the merriment, the President related a story that attempted to associate Winston Churchill with the administration policy on "enhanced interrogation techniques."

President Obama:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

The moment I heard that bold assertion, I immediately thought two things:

1. He better have this right.

2. It sounds wrong.

I was correct on one count. It was not a very reliable story. The historical account did not stand up to scrutiny. However, as it turned it, I was wrong on my first thought; it really didn't matter if he was right. For the most part, the members of the mainstream media were so grateful, evidently, to be invited to the nice party that they felt it awkward and impolite to criticize the host and guest of honor for his imprecise illustration.

Save for the conservative media (and, really who listens to them, anyway?), the President received a complete pass on his sloppy (perhaps even disingenuous) historical assertion. Oh, well.

New Question: does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi merit the same protection?

I wonder. Speaker Pelosi finds herself in an utterly indefensible position in which her public statements on torture and her actions as a key member of the House of Representatives look to be completely irreconcilable.

Will it matter? Could Nancy Pelosi actually be in some political danger? Hard to say. But the press is asking some tough questions. Even Jon Stewart gave her the "hypocritical political gas bag" treatment on his show (see here via RCP video).

Stewart's surprising reaction is perhaps indicative of the dilemma Obama-boosters face.

True, they are fierce loyalists to the President and remain intent on going to any lengths to ensure his success; however, and here is the rub, they are also desperate to maintain some moral rectitude in their own eyes--and it gets harder every day.

How to square their unquestioning fidelity to this President and their journalistic integrity?

Maybe you take down a non-essential player on your own team. Perhaps then you can sleep better at night, look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, and view yourself as an independent agent solely intent on safeguarding the public interest.

Am I saying that Nancy Pelosi is in danger? YES--maybe. Her downfall still remains extremely unlikely (she belongs to several protected classes--Democratic leadership being the most sacred). However, the NYT and Jon Stewart have her in their sights. They can pull the trigger on her if they want to. Will they want to? MAYBE. If this goes much farther, they may have to choose between their political inclinations and their tortured self image as fair-minded denizens of the Fourth Estate.

The fall of Nancy Pelosi may be just the tonic the mainstream media needs to revive their own beloved self delusion.