Will Hillary's candidacy be sacrificed for Sec-Gen Bill?

Didn't hear anyone else talk about this today, but Rush is wondering why the Drive-By Media is so infatuated with Algore these days while actively trashing Hillary.

Here's why:

So you've got the New York Times, the Washington Post, New York magazine; you've got the blogosphere out there. They're just excited over Gore, and they don't like Hillary, and they're not in favor of her and when they start writing things: Is she just an opportunist? Is it just that she wants this because she thinks she deserves it? Yes, they're right about that, by the way. Plus she's like anybody else in politics, she's power crazy. Now the LA Times: Just get out of the way, Mrs. Clinton, so your husband can mean something again. But they say that Hillary, if she runs for president, Bill will never be allowed to run the UN while she's president, that the UN would never do that. So the LA Times is trying to suggest that she get out of the way on her own, so that Clinton can run the UN. Can you imagine a Clinton household if this subject came up? (interruption) Yeah, that's the thing. The thing that's the most amazing about all of this is how excited, near orgasmic these Democrats are about one of the most boring and colorless figures ever to grace American politics, and that's Al Gore.

Here's the Los Angeles Times piece titled, "Secretary-General Bill Clinton" and subtitled, "The U.N. needs Bill more than the U.S. needs Hillary."

I'm buying into this story.

In fact, I first wrote about it way back when. Go there and see how he's been campaigning for Kofi's job for quite some time now... See for yourself.