She can't only win Ohio and Texas. Delegate-wise, she has to win them both by 20-25 points, which -- particularly given the strange primacaucus rules in Texas -- is a virtual impossibility.

Tonight, Sen. Clinton showed she has a better sense of the math than most of her supporters. Power to her. I hope she stays similarly graceful for the remaining 13 days of this Democratic contest.

Again, you're not reading my posts. I never said Clinton was a plagiarist. I said the Clinton campaign is being disingenuous about this entire plagiarism issue.

As for questionable Clinton borrowing, please see the following:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/does-any-candidate-not-plagiarize.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-wolfson-plagiarism-at_b_87209.html

Again, I personally wouldn't say these constitute plagiarism. Rather, they're standard operating procedure in political speechwriting.

But they do hold water by the dubious standard that you're trying to hold Obama to. (And, rosewings, I'm sorry, but that double standard defense is patently ridiculous, whether you're using it or Howard Wolfson is using it.)

But, look, it's obvious I'm not going to change anyone's mind at this point. So, I'm off to make some dinner. Enjoy the misplaced outrage on this phantom issue for at least the next 13 days. I just hope reality sets in before November.

Were you even reading anything I posted? Whether Obama was at the Patrick speech is of absolutely no consequence. And the writing of academic essays and political speeches are two completely different beasts, as I've said several times now.

Sigh...oh well, I tried.

If you're willing to concede that Sen. Clinton, Pres. Clinton, Sen. McCain, Sen. Edwards, et al are all plagiarists too, then fine. Otherwise, I'm afraid your outrage is misplaced if it's directed solely at Sen Obama, for the reasons I've outlined below.

Also, I've spent time in both worlds, and the rules for academic writing and political speeches are quite different.

Even the Clinton campaign demurred when asked if they should be held to the same standard they're trying to set for Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/the-clinton-cam.html

That's cause they know the plagiarism argument doesn't come close to holding up. They're just hoping people will run with it anyway.

No, I'm pretty sure he knew Patrick had used those lines. From all indications, it sounds like Patrick got on the horn and said to him, "here, use these lines." Just as Sen. Clinton has taken snippets from Obama, Edwards,Cuomo, et al where they're appropriate. That's how politics works. You seem to assume there's one author behind everything a candidate says.

Look, as I said several posts ago, if you somehow believe Sen. Obama was plagiarizing here, and Sen. Clinton, etc. has not been, there's no real point in discussing it any further. That's basically contorting oneself into a pretzel in order to hold a double standard that is ludicrous on its face (See, again, the links I've already posted.)

To my mind, Sen. Obama did not plagarize, nor has Sen. Clinton. But the Clinton campaign is entirely off-base (and desperate) to call Obama a plagiarist based on actions that all politicians -- including herself and her husband -- take. And I highly doubt you'll be able to find a single speechwriter in the business who feels differently about this.

Who can say? It might well have been Sen. Obama, after talking about how to respond with Gov. Patrick. It might've been suggested by David Plouffe, the campaign manager of both Obama and Patrick. It might've been suggested by Jon Favreau, the head speechwriter, or Adam Frankel, another speechwriter on the team. It might've been suggested by Robert Gibbs, the communications director, or Bill Burton, the press secretary. It could have been any combination of the above.

That's the point. Speechwriting isn't like handing in an academic thesis. It's a much more fluid and communal process that often relies heavily on borrowing from other sources. Go read the Fallows and Kusnet posts I linked to earlier and they'll help explain the difference.

And, trust me, the same number of cooks have their hands in everything the Clintons say as well. If not more so: At least Sen. Obama wrote his own books. Clinton's, on the other hand, are the product of ghostwriters.

"Talking about how the sausage is made does not make what Obama did not plagiarism. The definition is not about current customs."

Sigh...Anonymous there is correct. You don't seem to understand how speechwriting or ghostwriting works. And you're not going to find anyone in the business who thinks this is plagiarism.

If you're willing to argue that Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards, et al are also all plagiarists, then, ok, "talking about how the sausage is made" might not matter.

But, you instead seem to be arguing that Sen. Obama is a filthy plagiarist, while willfully ignoring the obvious fact that this sort of thing is standard operating procedure for every politician/speechwriter/ghostwriter in the business (including the ones working for Sen. Clinton at the moment.)

In short, your double standard won't hunt. Either they're all plagiarists, or none of them are plagiarists. But you can't single out Sen. Obama and his staff for doing something that all politicans do -- including the Clintons.

I think the reason the story hasn't caught on is because there isn't much there there. People who think this is plagiarism don't seem to have much sense of how political speechwriting and ghostwriting works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's The Atlantic's James Fallows (himself a former Carter speechwriter):

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/on_plagiarism.php

Or see former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/18/former-clinton-speechwriter-weighs-in-on-plagiarism-gate-08.aspx