For the liberal media, Hillary's just the next best thing, but she's no Bubba and never will be.
It was Bill Clinton the Dems wanted, and he couldn't legally run. So what did they have in the batch? Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt...I think if they'd had more time, they'd have gone with Edwards, but once Dean began to fray around the edges, the frightened libs made a beeline for the coolest head, the most hardened and experienced politician. They're sore about this, too. They feel they've been maneuvered somehow. (They don't seem to realize that Bush-Cheney would have rendered Edwards into chop meat in no time flat.)
And I have wondered if there was some funny business in Vilsack's Iowa. Kerry needed that win so bad. He might have folded if he hadn't won it. It gave him legitimacy and momentum. Yet many libs are sure they've been snookered. He's no Bill Clinton. He's not the candidate of their dreams. The lib media aren't thrilled with the material they must work with. When you're asked to trim a Christmas tree and it's a frickin' cactus, you naturally feel a bit resentful. Even before it pricks you, and Kerry is mighty prickly stuff.
Oh yes, and there was another moment that nicked the MSM's delicate hide: Teresa "Taserer" Heinz telling a reporter to "shove it." No matter that he was working for a "right-wing rag." He was one of theirs and thus she dissed them all.
With every passing day the lib media is getting more disenchanted with Kerry, who was so little enchanting to start with. Eventually the day may come when they see George Bush as precisely the best person to spite John Kerry, the most offensive salt in the wound. Hating Kerry might just become more satisfying to them, than hating Bush. We shall see!