From Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT:

Hillary and her aides urged reporters to learn from the “Saturday Night Live” skit about journalists having crushes on Obama.

“Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” she said tartly in the debate here Tuesday night. She peevishly and pointlessly complained about getting the first question too often, implying that the moderators of MSNBC -- a channel her campaign has complained has been sexist -- are giving Obama an easy ride.

Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.

The Globe and Mail's Judith Timson issued a cri de couer on Wednesday about sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton:

There are certainly legitimate reasons not to like Ms. Clinton, but that doesn't explain the very different treatment she has received in the media. While grown media men and women have swooned over Mr. Obama, confessing that he is so charismatic he gives them goosebumps, Ms. Clinton has been mocked, trivialized and denigrated in a way that should give every woman pause.

Yes, some nasty things have been said about Clinton (and there was a point to her campaign releasing a photo of Obama in African tribal garb?), but Obama has been running the better campaign.

Clinton was miles ahead in the polls during the summer (question: Was she a victim of sexist pundit commentary then?), but now she's in deep trouble because a pundit with a long track record of making snide comments about politicians of all kinds called her an "uppity woman" and others mocked her choice in pant suits?

Clinton played it safe while Obama relentlessly drove an unlifting message of inclusive change -- something that Americans may welcome after the nasty, partisan, wedge politics that they have experienced for at least the past 20 years.

And frankly, if both candidates were white and female, Obama would likely still win cred for fashion sense. :)

However, it might be more comforting for some to believe that Clinton's campaign is foundering because of the mean old media. To use a hockey analogy, if you can't take a few slashes, then don't play in the Stanley Cup finals.

Timson might also be well advised to read this Feb. 11 Globe and Mail article, which also sprang from the Life section: Are you a Hillary or Obama at work?

An excerpt:

More than fascinating political figures, the two contenders in the U.S. Democratic presidential primary represent two basic archetypes: the experienced striver and the charismatic visionary.

Of course, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are complex people with more to offer than experience and charisma, respectively. But on a basic level, those traits define them in the public imagination.

Translated to the office, the Hillary types work hard and earn respect but don't inspire people, while the Obama types fire everyone up with their grand visions but struggle to persuade people they can get the job done.

"Hillary Clinton is the person the executives, the senior people, would like to have working for them. Obama is the type of individual people would like to work for," says Bruce Snow, a partner with Halifax human resources firm Robertson Surrette.

Addendum

Jon Stewart just asked NBC News anchor Brian Williams if he was biased against Clinton because he's sexist or against Obama because he's racist. :)