Shills for Hill--The Spin Goes On

Is anyone else out there tired yet of the MSM's unflagging efforts to give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton? Even when the news ain't so good, the friends of Hill find a way to give this particular turd yet another coat of shellac and a nice shine--as witness yesterday's Newsweek piece on the results of their recent poll of voters in Iowa. The opening paragraph reads as follows:

"...Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a double-digit lead over her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in many national polls. But in Iowa, home to the January 2008 caucus that is the first major event of the electoral season, the Democratic race is much tighter, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. Among all Iowa Democrats surveyed, Clinton enjoys a 6-point lead over her nearest rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. But among likely Democratic caucus-goers, she is locked in a three-way race with Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, with Obama enjoying a slight edge..."

All very well and good and true enough--but if you look at the poll numbers themselves, it's possible to come away with a slightly different interpretation. The total point spread of support for the top three democratic candidates among 'likely democratic caucus voters' is six points--28% Obama to 22% Edwards. The spread between Clinton (24%) and Obama is 4%--in others words, half the spread. A bookie would like those odds, and so does the Obama campaign. Another way of looking at it: 69% of polled Iowa democrats and 76% of likely caucus voters want anyone but Hillary. Considering the relentless campaign to make voters regard Mrs. Clinton as 'inevitable' over the last few months, her lack of solid support is pretty telling.

There are even signs within the Mainstream Media itself that the wheels may be coming off the Clinton steamroller. The NY Times Op-Ed page (no longer pay-per-view content--thanks, guys) leads off with Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich pieces entitled, respectively, 'The Nepotism Tango' and 'Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?'

The Dowd piece has particular entertainment value, quoting the Literary Editor of The New Republic (in reference to Senator Clinton):

... She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.”

Frank Rich's column compares the Clinton campaign to that of another one-time "inevitable" shoo-in--former Vice President Al Gore. Gore played it safe in the primaries-- just as Clinton is doing-- and continued to do so in the general election.....which he won, sort of. If Gore's support had been truly impassioned, rather than a weary concession to 'inevitability'......might it have been a bit harder for Republicans to steal the election?

Hell--this time they might even actually win.