The L.A. Times exposed their pro-Hillary bias in their 1/18/07 editorial giving her a free pass on Iraq:

"This week, the faceoff between the two senators — not the party's only would-be nominees but certainly the most talked about — shifted from identity politics to Iraqi politics. That's not necessarily an improvement...Clinton is being forced to burnish her antiwar credentials against a contender who has the luxury of not having been in the Senate in 2002. And so, like many of her fellow Democratic senators, she is scrambling to get on what her party's primary voters deem the right side of history...For Democrats, Clinton's dialing-up of her opposition to the war may mean that they will have to choose between her and other would-be nominees — Obama included — on other grounds. That could be a positive development."

In other words, The Times doesn't want the election to bog down over the small issue of who was right or wrong on Iraq.  The best rebuttal to the Times comes from the folks at Petralia.com, who nicely sum up how establishment forces will align against Senator Obama in this campaign:

"We've got this fiasco in Iraq, which Clinton supported, and the Times thinks it would be a shame if her poor judgment worked against her in a Presidential campaign.  Let her reinvent herself, and then let's choose a candidate based on issues more pressing than THE WAR.  What those might be, I don't know, but on her website Senator Clinton boasts that, "In the 109th Congress, I became the senior Democrat on the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water subcommittee."  So the Times wants us to turn a blind eye to the clusterfuck in IRAQ and let Senator Clinton ride the resurgence of the walleye trout all the way to the White House. 

Why would the newspaper embarrass itself like this?  In a roundabout way, they are staking out an anti-Obama position.  They point out that Obama is "exploiting" his comments from 2002 that the war to topple Saddam was "dumb and rash."  The Times snidely points out that Obama "has the luxury of not having been in the Senate in 2002."  WTF?  A Senator has the power and the platform to combat an errant and incompetent Executive Branch.  That is the luxury that most Americans envy.   Twenty three Senators had the moxie to vote against the use of force in Iraq.  This wasn't Pearl Harbor, Senator Clinton had a choice."

Well said (full article here).