AMONG GOV. ED'S nuttier utterances during this extraordinary election cycle - I mean, other than saying that Mitt Romney's the guy to watch, and that some whites won't vote for blacks - is that the press doesn't like the Clintons.

He dropped this dud this week in an interview with "The Fix," the political blog of The Washington Post.

"The media does not like the Clintons, for whatever reason," said Ed, adding that as things go south for Hillary Clinton's campaign, the press "has relished this fall with glee that I have never seen in any other candidate in the 30 years I've been in the business."

As Bill Clinton might say (punching out each word), "Give me a break."

It is precisely because Rendell and the Clintons have been in the business so long that he and they know this is a tired, empty excuse, an old saw that doesn't cut it.

The media historically slobbers over the Clintons.

You've certainly heard the right's take: CNN, the "Clinton News Network;" ABC, "All Bill Clinton;" NBC, "Nothing But Clinton."

The press doesn't like the Clintons?

What the press doesn't like is a formulaic story with the same players, such as a former "co-president" seeking to extend her family's occupancy of the White House.

What the press doesn't like is a presumptive nominee who's "in it to win it" touting an "inevitable" victory before any votes are cast.

The problem for Clinton's campaign isn't Clinton or her treatment by the press; it's Barack Obama and his treatment by the press.

The problem isn't that the press doesn't like the Clintons "for whatever reason," the problem is the press, for now, loves Obama.

"The press is enthralled with the story of Obama," says Lehigh University journalism professor Jack Lule, who was just interviewed by the BBC on this topic, "and Hillary is paying the price for that."

Lule adds that Obama has "another three weeks before the press turns, before the wonderful story of his primary campaign, an almost mythical tale, is over . . . then the scrutiny and the savagery will be in place."

He's right.

Are there examples of media unfairness to Clinton?

Of course, as there are for all candidates.

But she is, or was, the front-runner and therefore deserving of more intense coverage. That's how it works. And complaining about it always backfires.

Take her whine during Tuesday night's debate about how often she gets the first question from moderators.

Does she or any of her evidently schizophrenic advisors believe that's presidential? Does she or any of her handlers think viewers/voters care who gets what question when?

"God knows the media make mistakes," says Ford Risley, head of Penn State's journalism department, "just look at the recent New York Times story on [expected GOP nominee Sen. John] McCain.

"But I think she's gotten tremendous credit. Any other candidate losing 11 primaries in a row would have been buried by now . . . the press always has been and always will be a convenient whipping boy."

The truth here is that Obama's a better story.

And Rendell, who last year called Romney "the Republican to watch," and this year said some whites are "probably not ready" to vote for a black (a distracting, foolishly stated truism), certainly understands that.

The media's job isn't to like politicians. It's to constantly question their goals, motives and records.

That's happened with Clinton. It will happen with Obama.

And good stories will get written. You know, like that good story back in '92 about "the man from Hope." *

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer