The press chooses favorite candidates regardless of how reasonable polls depict the races. Before, it was the press falling all over Mike Huckabee and blacking out Fred Thompson. Now my discussion centers on Hillary Clinton, after Monday.

Polls typically are conducted by news agencies and, therefore, little better than the paper on which they put the flawed statistics gained from flawed sampling and skewed leanings of the pollsters. Yet, as with Iowa, Clinton was, again, always said to be the favorite in every race that has come down the 'pike. Then, within days of the actual contests, a peculiar correction of great magnitude happens to demonstrate not just a small lead, but huge leads for Barack Obama. Zogby/Reuters showed a 14-point swing in favor of Obama in days. I say that Obama always was ahead, but because he is not the media's favorite, as is Clinton, he always was represented as back-burner and unelectable.

Now that these corrections are taking place to demonstrate the realities (so these polling firms and news agencies can save face), Clinton on Monday gave us a teary-eyed moment expressing her dismay to losing front-runner status. Someone hand me a hanky. How can anyone, even hapless Democrats, support a candidate for the most powerful political position of leadership in the world who boo-hoos when she sees her support plummet? Is that really what the Democrats consider material for the Oval Office? I do not remember Elizabeth Dole boo-hooing as her numbers plummeted when she ran in the 2000 presidential race.

How can there be any support for Clinton now that the bias of the press is so overt, continually misguiding them concerning their choices and support for candidates -- and given the unleashed show of emotional sensitivity of Clinton, who hopes to be elected to a position responsible for the toughest decisions in the world?

Will Tinney, Aiken, S.C.