Edward Snowden would have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by now if a Republican were in the White House.

Given that, the liberal elitists of the mainstream media would have sainted the idealistic 29-year-old man who blew the whistle on government spying and lying on fellow Americans, the way it lionized Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers when Richard Nixon was president.

There are differences between what the two men did, of course -- and the times have changed. In Ellsberg's day, the United States had not been attacked by terrorists and had yet to become the police state it is morphing into where everyday government spying on Americans has become the norm.

But both men, American idealists, acted out of concern for their country, and the government's growing practice of deceiving the American people. That is why they stole and released secret government documents. They both considered themselves patriots, not traitors.

Ellsberg, by releasing the highly classified Pentagon Papers, exposed the lies and coverups of U.S. policymakers over the secret escalation of the Vietnam War, a war that tore the country apart. Those secret papers, embraced by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the rest of the liberal media, made a hero out of Ellsberg and helped set the stage for the eventual impeachment and forced resignation of Richard Nixon. The revelations also speeded up U.S. disengagement from Vietnam.

Ellsberg is now an honored poster boy for the left, who writes books, gives speeches and writes op-ed pieces for papers like the Washington Post. He is a hero.

By contrast Snowden, a fellow leaker of secret government documents who exposed the government's secret surveillance of millions of innocent, unsuspecting fellow Americans, is now a wanted man without a country. He is considered by many to be a traitor.

This modern-day Ellsberg is marooned in Moscow, resisting attempts to extradite him to face charges under the U.S. Espionage Act, the same charge that Ellsberg faced all those years ago. However, all charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped because the evidence against him was tainted by government misconduct.

Ellsberg, in a Washington Post op-ed piece last week, came out in support of Snowden's revelations, hoping that it would "spark a movement to rescue our democracy." Said Ellsberg: "Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I wholeheartedly agree."

But while Ellsberg remained free on bail and could seek public support for his anti-Vietnam War cause -- which he overwhelmingly received -- he advised Snowden to remain abroad because he "would almost certainly be confined in total isolation" if he did return.

"One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden's leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts." Leaks, he said, are "the lifeblood of a free press and our republic."

What Ellsberg left out is that the liberal, mainstream media at the time wholeheartedly supported Ellsberg and universally cheered him on. Back then it was difficult to discern who or what the media hated most: Richard Nixon or the Vietnam War, and the secret manner in which the war was conducted.

So when Ellsberg came along and leaked the highly classified Pentagon Papers to the liberal press, the story became a national sensation. Ellsberg was canonized by the anti-war, anti Nixon press. Ellsberg became a star, the instant anti-war champion the liberal media had been longing for.

The story provided fuel to the anti -war movement, shocked the Nixon administration, and helped change the course of American history.

Nothing like this can happen today.

It can't happen because the American press, once renowned for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, has gone so far in the tank to Obama that it is a wonder it has not drowned.

Gone is the era when the national press would storm the gates of the White House to hold the president accountable for scandals like Benghazi, the politicizing of the IRS, the secret spying on American citizens, the lying before Congress, and so on.

Now the press acts more like a palace guard, fighting off or ignoring stories that might tarnish the image of a failed president they love, worship and swoon over. 

A generation ago the Snowden story, like other political scandals, would have been revealed by American reporters, not the British press, which first broke the story, as it has with other political scandals the U.S. press has missed, ignored or dismissed.

Thankfully, the British press is doing the job that American reporters used to do. That is good. It is also quite sad.
