The Newspaper and the Senator

"More than 1,000 feminists have signed a statement criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Obama for president--evidence that Clinton's support among women activists continues to decline. The group, 'Feminists for Peace,' started out with 100 signers before the super-Tuesday primaries, and has 1,200 signers two weeks later." Sarandon is among them.

On the right, the outlook for HRC is equally bleak, as in this Ed Morrissey post:

"Hillary will not convince anyone to cast a superdelegate vote for her if she can't win a lot more states. Right now, it appears that the more she tries to press, the worse she performs. Negative attacks and ridiculous charges of plagiarism only dug the hole deeper.

"We are just about to the end of the Restoration. If Hillary winds up losing Ohio, she has almost no hope of winning Pennsylvania in April, even if she manages to win Texas. She has to pull a rabbit out of her hat in the next two weeks, starting with the debate tomorrow night, and hope Obama melts down in the meantime. Otherwise, the superdelegate firewall will become her Maginot Line. She will be left with two choices: quit or face the humiliation of seeing her superdelegates abandon her at the first possible moment of the convention."

What about the plagiarism flap? Slate's Jack Shafer sounds like he's going to chide the media for giving Obama a pass, but winds up brushing it off:

"The speed with which reporters have circled Barack Obama to defend him against charges of plagiarism coming directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign indicates that the press is in the tank for Obama or--less conveniently for Clinton--that she's guilty of inflating his poor footnoting into grand theft larceny . . .

"So, did Obama steal the words?

"I think not. Most campaign speeches are composed by speechwriters who assume the candidate's persona. The candidate becomes the public 'author' of these words when he speaks them, even if all he did was a light edit of the script. A speechwriter would never claim he was plagiarized by his candidate, nor would a volunteer. In fact, the volunteer would be elated. Patrick and Obama, who rely on the same campaign wizard, David Axelrod, have shared enough campaign rhetoric to be declared separated at birth."

But at the Huffington Post, Rachel Sklar says this touches on something important about Obama:

"It seems to fit with the general modus operandi of the media: If it's Hillary Clinton, the intent was probably nefarious, if it's Obama, it's no big deal, and why is Clinton's team blowing it so opportunistically out of proportion? . . .

"The Obama campaign has said that this is no big deal. With respect, I disagree. I think this is a big deal, particularly for Obama, whose stock in trade is soaring oratory and his inspirational message of hope. I know I keep using those words -- and I'm not alone -- but it's important here, because it goes, in effect, to Obama's core competency. Put bluntly, Obama was attacked for offering 'just words,' and he made his case for the value of words by using someone else's recycled speech from over a year ago. This is his argument for why talk isn't cheap?"

In a case of Michelle vs. Michelle, Mrs. Obama draws a strong rebuke from Michelle Malkin:

"Like Michelle Obama, I am a 'woman of color.' Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation. Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it . . .

"Her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been 'hungry for change'? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe."

Will it blow over because she's just "the wife"? Don't be so sure, says Time's Mark Halperin:

"The dominant Old Media has not yet pounced on her remark. But if you sample talk radio and the conservative blogs, you will get a neat preview of what will happen if Barack Obama is the Democrats' presidential nominee and his wife makes similar statements as a potential first lady. The opposition will launch a full-scale assault against her judgment and (at least indirectly) her character and patriotism, and all previous remarks, including this one, will be recycled, replayed, and condemned. If she makes such a comment in October 2008, it could be disastrous for her husband's campaign . . .

"Those who think that the remarks of candidate spouses don't count should hearken back to 2004. Teresa Heinz Kerry's words were mocked, parsed, and censured by the Bush campaign and the Republican opposition, to great effect. In one incident, Mrs. Kerry was forced to apologize for suggesting Laura Bush had never held 'a real job,' and her occasionally brash statements and behavior contributed to the negative image of Senator Kerry as patrician and remote."

Stay tuned.