If I were pressed, I would probably order the three people the New York Post likes the least as follows: Bill de Blasio, who it dislikes more than Barack Obama, who it dislikes more than Hillary Clinton. The order on that is maybe backward; it could also be a three-way tie. It's really hard to say.

But it should not come as a surprise that the Post is now championing -- on its always-energetic front page, no less -- an exclusive: "Dems push Mike to run." The Mike at issue is former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. The office for which he is being pushed to run is the presidency.

(The big Bloomberg news was relegated to the bottom corner, given the urgency of a day-two story questioning Caitlyn Jenner's gender identity and a day-six-million story hitting Clinton.)

This Bloomberg thing is never going to happen, as we pointed out last month, and for a lot of reasons. And we can be skeptical of the Post's savviness in that regard given that the first three sentences contain obvious errors:

- "A dirty secret behind Hillary Clinton’s lead in the Democratic presidential race is the lack of a credible challenger." That is not a secret.
- "Despite rising voter disgust over sordid revelations about the Clinton Foundation, there is no appealing alternative." Voters don't seem to care about the foundation stuff -- at least at this very-early juncture.
- "The situation led some disgruntled Democrats to push Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run, an effort that folded yesterday." The push to draft Warren widely predates any of the foundation reporting and was due to Clinton's politics, not her strength. Also, one Warren group folded, while the larger one, Ready for Warren, remains.

Anyway, the crux of the story by the Post's Michael Goodwin is this: Dems "friendly to Bloomberg" went to talk to the guy and he didn't "start fiddling with his smartphone." One of the friendly Dems reported back to Goodwin, and here we are: Michael Bloomberg is now an unstoppable force in the Democratic primary.

It's not going to happen. The Post, to its undying chagrin, will likely have to put up with covering Hillary Clinton for the next 18 months or so. The good news for them, though, is that by January 2017 at least one of their three most-disliked people will no longer be in office.