I'm having a hell of a good time reading blog posts of Bush-hating lefties just apoplectic about the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. First, the offending comment by Chris Matthews:

Matthews: That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humilation of Bill Clinton.

To which Christy Hardin Smith responds:

What is wrong with Chris Matthews? With all of these media people? I mean that, in all honesty, what in the hell is wrong with them? Their personal loathing of Hillary Clinton shone through in every sniggering, overwrought report this week. Their building up of Barack Obama is only their prelude and set-up for the frenzied clawing and shredding of him that is to come. And they have well and truly written off coverage of either John Edwards or Bill Richardson solely based on their current fundraising numbers, and never mind that, as of yesterday, there had been two -- count them, only TWO -- Democratic contests.

The unspoken sentiment is, "they're supposed to be on our side..."

Ironically, Hillary Clinton herself doesn't make this mistake because she knows from experience--sharks maybe liberal or conservative, but they are always sharks. Chris Matthews doesn't really care if he's savaging Bush or Clinton, it just business. Find someone with high negatives and jump on the bandwagon.

Of course the real problem for moonbats is that it makes them face a very uncomfortable proposition: maybe, just maybe, their hatred for George W. Bush isn't something as noble as say, moral indignation. Maybe its just garden-variety, base hatred, indistinguishable from the kind that leads to lynchings, cross-burnings and other mob-violence.