If the media doesn't cover Democratic sex scandals because they're not 'hypocrites' about it...
To conclude my thought, if the media's stance (which is implicit, and occasionally explicit) is that Democratic sex scandals are not newsworthy or important because they do not implicate "hypocrisy"...
Are they claiming Democrats favor marital infidelity? Jet-setting sex-jaunts to foreign pleasure domes with underage slave-girls?
In order for Democrats to not be guilty of hypocrisy for such matters, they'd have to pronounce, at some point, that they're cool with these things. No judgments, man. No judgments.
I never hear them say that -- but the media acts as if they have, and gives them a general immunity over such matters.
In fact, no Democrats ever claim to be in favor of such things, and if asked, they will of course say they're against them.
The only things Democrats have an actual position on, sex-wise, is gay sex and abortions. Now, given that the party has that stance, I can grant (grudgingly) that they should have a sort of immunity to scandals involving only those things -- admittedly, they wouldn't quite be hypocrites. (Unless there are additional factors, like underage gay sex, or pressuring a paramour to have an abortion.)
But how on earth does that translate into a full general immunity for all sexual transgressions?