I normally don't claim to speak for other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. After all, we're each nefarious in our own, individual way.

But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

The fact is she has turned out to be an impressive candidate. She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall.

Hillary is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. But she may well be the better candidate. After all, for all the talk of Obama's extraordinary ability to draw voters to the polls, Hillary has defeated him in the big states.

If you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses, and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported — Hillary trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total. She has achieved this despite much disparagement of her by liberal commentators, and in the face of the media's crush on Obama.

Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on "Fox News Sunday." In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, "Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?"

You're only anguished by an Obama defeat if you're rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he'd win. Now, they're rooting for him to close the deal.

If I were on the left I might be rooting for that too. But this preference for Obama has resulted in a refusal to give Hillary her due. It's startling how much of the commentary on the Pennsylvania results has had to do with Obama's flaws and mistakes — rather than Hillary's strengths and successes.

Which leads to this question: Will the media this week give Obama a pass on refusing to debate Clinton before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries?

Will he be chastised for his lame excuse? "We've had 21, and so what we've said is with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we're talking to as many folks as possible on the ground, taking questions from voters," Obama said Sunday.

We have had four one-on-one debates so far — and each has been revealing. A debate without a moderator, as Hillary has suggested, could be particularly interesting. But debates would give her equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama's advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant.

On Friday, Obama talked tough in response to a question: "I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism." And, he continued, "I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime." He's happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he's not willing to have a real debate with the real person he's competing against for the nomination.

Will Obama pay no price for ducking? Should paid ads determine the Democratic victor, not the performance of the two candidates debating at length in an unscripted setting?

Over to you, anguished liberals.

— William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard and writes a weekly commentary for The New York Times.