Likely yes... but how much... you can be sure, politics are involved there and the full lack of transparency is normal for NASA.
More accurately put, NASA needs to play the political game for survival, whether they want to or not. What NASA would select on pure technical merit and what they select on the need to keep our congress-critters happy are two separate things, sadly. I'm glad to see that SpaceX, a relatively new entity, has its foot in the door and is making things interesting.
The decision also cuts in a slightly different way - Boeing now (hopefully) feels a little heat from SpaceX to get their price point down. If SpaceX continues to deliver in CRS and demonstrates manned capability plus the bells and whistles of reusability at their current cost rate, Boeing is going to have to up their game, either by dropping costs for their tried-and-true rocket know-how, or by developing something truly innovative. I think NASA likes Boeing but wants to shake it up out of its complacency.
I hope USAF, ESA, and perhaps Japan have enough interest in DreamChaser to keep that project alive. I think if that flew a few full missions and came coasting on in for a few beautiful landings like the shuttle did, I think that would get some attention. A spaceplane does have some advantages. The problems with STS were with the boosters and external tank - the orbiter itself was an engineering wonder. I really see DreamChaser as a STS 2.0, learning from our mistakes.