It's a question I've often asked myself lately and I think there are some simple answers right in front of us. First, and you will take this the wrong way I'm sure, Pat, the media is selling her to us more than any other candidate. It's actually pretty obscene but it has nothing to do with there being a "liberal media" which is exactly where you'll want to take that. Hillary is the headline and the first few paragraphs in any event the Democrats take part in. In many cases she is the only candidate mentioned by name and the other Democrats are just referred to as her "opponents."

I read some coverage of the last debate in the Post, NY Times, and Boston Globe and Mrs. Clinton was the focus of each article. In most each of the other candidates were given no more than a one line mention. In a few Obama and Edwards got a little more than that. Most of the articles did not even mention the names of all of the candidates. In one funny/sad article the reporter gave Clinton the first few paragraphs, then spent the next few giving a line from Obama, Edwards, and Biden that "challenged Clinton" as if all these guys were there to do was ruffle the feathers of our next president. The article did not even mention any other candidates until it reached this aside in the last line "Dennis Kucinich also took part in the debate."

Great huh? He may as well have been a piece of furniture on the stage because for all we know he said as much as my couch would have had they used it as part of the set. Andrea has stated here she does not even get coverage of Kucinich in Florida.

So, why Hillary? Well, there you go, one huge reason is because to most of the country there is only one Democrat running for president. I think most people are headline readers and six o'clock news watchers and there's only so much space and so much time in our "sell, sell, sell" media to fill us in and Hillary Clinton is like Britney Spears...a brand name and a soap opera most of America already knows. Even your talk radio heroes dedicate most of their yack-time vomiting on Clinton and the other guys are just an occasional aside.

Why are Republicans already handing the White House to Hillary? Well, they know their candidates suck in a big bad terrible way and ol' Dubya has made being a Republican a very bad thing. Plus Dubya (Rove the mastermind) turned the Republican Party into the party of militant fascist Christians and corrupt big business honchos...that has been the base for more than 8 years now...and the current crop of candidates don't fit the Dubya profile for the first half of that group. So, we're in an election cycle that favors the Democrats and since there is only one that most Americans know and the media is doing a solid job of making the rest disappear we get Hillary Clinton.

Does she suck? You bet! Is she the worst possible candidate at the worst possible time? You know it! Does she create the best possibility of a close and nasty election? Yes! What candidate can generate the most hate and divide the country in the most painful ways? Hillary!

So, just like back in 2000 when the backlash against Bill Clinton put Al Gore in a tough spot and we were in a Republican cycle, the media focused on Dubya among the Republicans because he was the worst possible choice for this country and much stronger, more qualified leaders from the Republican side...even though it seemed crazy to think it could happen...were made to just disappear and we got our boy George.

My question is this, why does the media always want to give us the worst possible choice? It's certainly not that they are "liberal" because if that was the case Hillary would not be their darling.

Oh and one last thing I'd like to add...on the fundraising front Hillary raised around 21 million and Obama 19 million in the last go round...these are also very important numbers to our media. They also to me indicate a problem...