Does it matter how Blair's performance is covered here? I think so. "The Brits" have been Bush's staunch ally on the Iraq Debacle. I think the Media has always seen that as a sort of legitimacy for Bush's Iraq catastrophe. Here's the
first cut:
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain returned to power on Friday for a record-setting third successive term, according to official election results, with a much reduced majority reflecting his unpopularity over the war in Iraq.
... The margin was Mr. Blair's lowest since he led his Labor Party to power in 1997 with a landslide victory after 18 years in opposition, promising renewal and an era of social reform. He had already announced that Thursday's election would be his last, and the result may speed his transfer of power to his heir apparent, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer.
... [T]he Labor victory was bittersweet, coming after a campaign in which Mr. Blair has been bruised by criticism over the war, shunned by some traditional followers as untrustworthy and denied a repetition of landslide victories in 1997 and 2001. Speaking after he was re-elected with a big majority as a legislator for his home district in northeastern England, Mr. Blair said that if the early trends were confirmed, "it seems as if it's clear that the British people wanted the return of the Labor Party with a reduced majority," and that Labor would have to respond to that sentiment.
"We have to focus on the things that matter to them," he said. He also acknowledged the damage from the war in Iraq. "Iraq has been a divisive issue in this country, but I hope now that we can unite again and look to the future," he said.
Iraq. Bush. Clearly Blair was slapped around because of them.