Obama’s Plagiarism Goes Wide
By NoQuarter on February 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
It’s the top story on CNN’s Situation Room. If you click on each of the images, they’ll take you to numerous links to numerous MSM and blog stories. For more background, see my story this morning. SEE ALSO: “RNC donor event outlines Obama attack plan at Politico.com. (Sample: “His greatest weakness is inexperience. He is not ready to be commander in chief. He is not ready to be president.”)
Yes, the first image is from Drudge. But his links to go MSM sites such as the Chicago newspaper blogs, Breitbart/AP, etc.
Memeorandum.com is a fun site you political junkies might want to bookmark. They have a “bot” that trolls the entire Internet blogosphere looking for the hot blog posts.
Don’t leave this out
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Late Update: Jake Tapper reports on the same conference call I referenced above:
I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.
They would not.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn’t be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had “lifted” such language.
“Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric,” Wolfson said.
OR
Clinton, plagiariam: Pot, kettle, black
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:54:32 AM PST
This will be short.
Back when Hillary “wrote” “It takes a Village”, she decided, after having ghostwriter Barbara Feinman actually write the book, to completely take credit for it herself.
The actual writing experience of working on It Takes a Village with Mrs. Clinton was not extraordinary in any respect. Together with our editor, we produced drafts in a round-robin style. We worked well as a team and things went about as smoothly as can be expected when you’re producing a high-profile book in eight months and one of you is married to the leader of the free world. The problem came when Mrs. Clinton decided, for reasons still a mystery to me, not to acknowledge my help, or that of anyone else by name. Because the White House had issued a press release early on in the process stating that I had been hired to “help prepare the manuscript,” when it was finished and there was no mention of me in the acknowledgments, the anti-Clinton forces went to town. The irony was that by not acknowledging me, rather than diminishing my role, she unwittingly elevated me to a sort of literary Joan of Arc with the likes of everyone from Don Imus to Maureen Dowd to Rush Limbaugh weighing in before Thank-YouGate blew over. Pundits had a field day opining how much of the book she had actually written.
Apparently Hillary has a short memory.
While this might not be technically “plagiarism” it certainly shows Hillary to be a complete hypocrite.
Uh, Obama’s supposed to be the different one, remember? When Obama’s supporters’ best defense is, “Yeah, Hillary’s the same” it undermines Obama’s selling point: he’s supposedly a transformational candidate.
Drudge is just feeding off the extra blood. Piranhas are that way….
Truer words …
funnily enough, he’s been usually very nice to Obama, instead hitting Hillary, because I figured he’d bought into the GOP meme that they needed to promote Obama, who’d be easier to beat in the general. But now he’s changing. I wonder why, unless he thinks it’s now safe to begin hitting Obama hard.
I think it might have something to do with the fact that Drudge could accuse Clinton’s people of planting a story in the same headline.
Susan, what’s so disheartening is that the response from Obama supporters - who are following the lead of their candidate - is that this is just no big deal - that, ehy, if Deval and Barack are okay with it, why is everyone in such a snit over it? The frame is that this is just another desperate ploy from the Clinton campaign.
No one seems to get that all those thousands of people thought they were hearing from the new kind of candidate, the candidate who was going to change how things were done. They compared him to JFK and MLK and praised and swooned over his oratorical skills - why are they not disturbed and disappointed that they were fed warmed-over, focus-grouped, recycled speeches?
And how is it the Clinton campaign’s fault somehow that something that was picked up some time ago by the Boston Globe, but went unnoticed, is now gaining some much-needed attention?
I know as sure as I am sitting here that if this were about Hillary CLinton lifting/using parts of speeches and not giving any credit or attribution, the media and the Obama campaign and all their supporters would be calling for her head on a platter.
There need to be some voices of reason who can communicate why this should be a concern, why it matters. There is a pattern here of making stupid mistakes because of a general shortsightedness and inflated sense of his own importance, followed by a “no big deal” apology, that makes me really queasy.
How can anyone really think this man should be the president?
Your almost last paragraph “There need to be some voices of reason” sums up the Obama campaign succinctly. It starts with his sense of being special and entitlement and ends in incompetence.
You want to get really depressed? Listen to America Left (XM 167) for a few hours- you’ll hear exactly the same Obama Talking Points bleated by Bill Press, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow…
A few weeks ago, it was “Hillary is running a Giuliani campaign- just keep waiting for a win” (ignoring the fact that she, unlike Giuliani, had already won many states.) I first heard this on CNN, then Press, then Rhodes, etc. etc. Then it was the “Superdelegates are evil” spin, coupled with the “Obama is ahead in the popular vote, delegates, etc.” spin/lie (he may be ahead now, after the Potomac Primary, but he wasn’t then.) Again, this spin is instantly repeated on EVERY media outlet, as gospel.
Today there are two narratives developing- one is the “Obama didnt do anything wrong by swiping Patrick talking points because he’s a friend” spin- and never you mind that if it was Hillary rather than Barack it would be called PLAGARISM, and the more odious one- that only Barack Obama can be the legitimate nominee of the Democratic party, because “he’s won more popular votes, he’s won more delegates, he’s won more contests” (as of NOW, I was unaware that the primaries were over…) and “if Hillary is the nominee it will split the party because the only way she can get it is by cheating..”
Attached to this last is the bizarre argument heard EVERYWHERE- on Air America, on CNN, on MSNBC, etc. that Hillary has to win every remaining state by roughly twenty points to overcome Obama’s massive (12 delegates, last time I checked) lead in the delegate count. How fricking bizarre is this? Can the media be any more blatant in trying to game the rest of the primary season to favor Obama? Watch how every ten-point Clinton win is painted as a loss! Step right up and watch Night become Day and Red become Blue, right before your very eyes, because the media says so!
Ugh, I hate this so much. So sad.
When Wolfson accused Obama of plagiarism, the Clinton campaign became intimately involved. They will deserve all the ridicule they reap from pushing this idiotic meme.
I completely agree that Memes have to be well managed, loose memes are hazardous. They are especially hazardous to the meme eaters who cannot get beyond the symbol to the meaning.
Thanks Susan..
Another reality Check for Obama and his supporters and thios is just the beginning..as Larry and Susan have been warning..and NO they are not responsible for this..They were just astute and smart enough to see it coming..Expertise is these Arenas belong to both of them..Remember..?
Unlike MacBeth Ghost.. People come here for GOOD Analysis..Opinion..and Insight..based on Reality..as the headlines state Above..Obama is NOT Prepared to be Commander in Chief..He is NOT Ready to be President..
George W. Bush and his “TEAM”..still have several months to make sure that the Voters are reminded that the World is a Dangerous Place..and Only a Good Neo Con Loyalists like JOHN MCCAIN..is fit to be Commander in Chief..Fair and Unbalanced..
I am going to goplay 18 holes of golf and have a beer..Right After I call the Ghost Busters..
Susan, do you really think that Republicans believe that Obama is the toughest candidate to beat in the general? In the RNC donor event article on Politico, Rep. Calvert says that a President Clinton doesn’t scare him as much as a President Obama.
I think the belief that Obama can easily beat McCain is a myth started by his surrogates and the media. If anything, I believe the Republicans hate Hillary and want to get rid of her asap then go after Obama who is the easier candidate to take down in the general. These are all predictions of course but just from analyzing which states Obama and Clinton have won in the primaries and caucuses thusfar, Clinton has won most of the major blue states that will carry the Democratic nominee in the general as well as swing states. Obama has only proven that he can win caucuses in red states that Democrats will never win and states with large African-American populations. How is this scarier to the Republicans?
No i don’t. they’re bashing hillary so that they can face Obama, who’ll be easy pickin’s. As I’ve said, besides all the dirt, they can simply trot out national security and the GWOT, and they’ll scare the pants off voters that he’s not ready to take on those serious issues.
do you really think that Republicans believe that Obama is the toughest candidate to beat in the general
DF,
Yes. This is why some floated the names of Condi Rice and now Bobby Jindal as VP candidates.
They need all the help they can get to combat Obama.
Condi Rice will not be the VP candidate. That is the most absurd thing I’ve heard today. All the Republicans need is one good scandal and Obama is done for. There is a negative side to being the hope/change candidate. His worshipers now think of him as a Saint and when it is discovered that he is just like any other politician who lacks integrity and morals that will be the day Obama and the Democratic Party look like total idiots. The selfish part of me kinda want Obama to win just to see the craziness that will ensue and to see Obama get beat down by the GOP machine.
DF,
Who said she WOULD be? See my comments to John.
John,
Did I said members of the GOP were floating these names, NOT that they would have a spot on the ticket. They are desperate.
If Obama is the nominee, what will be your poison come the first frost of autumn?
So your post had no point at all. Got it.
Wow, you have gone beyond foolishness straight into delusion.
If the names of Condi Rice and Bobby Jindal are being floated, it’s to fool people like you. Neither is coming anywhere near a spot on the ticket.
All the GOP needs to “combat Obama” is a reasonably-priced smear campaign- and Obama himself. Obama is going to be easy pickings this November. I just hope his followers don’t engage in mass suicide or something when reality slams them in the face with the first frosts of autumn.
John -
Have you noticed how shoephone/shurin/cee/ck are all the same idiot?
That is poor distinction on your part Howell. (unless you are simply smearing 4 people together).
What is the deal with such, well, high school pissant commentary of Obama? Like I said in my other meager posts, I’m not a fan of the Dems or Reps and beleive that the two party system in the USA is the most anticompetitive, yet sanctioned, piece of poop that shuts out too many other voices. The system will never last. It was designed re The Federalist Papers to keep the rabble, like us, at bay. On that note, Chomsky, has a recent post that–like it or not–dissects history and language and where we are in our presidential campaign.
Citing the Drudge Report?
Anyway, take a look at Putin’s outgoing speech for a nation state plan. To be in the positon they are is amazing. Even so, they have many problems–we will not admit that though. I wrote a piece on that speech and it’s floating ’round the Net. Scary to say, I know, that a lot of conservatives, I mean real me-first-politics, and give-me-an-opinion-liberal types, much to my surprise, found some common cause in their reviews.
Lastly, check out the Chomsky piece (long) for a forthcoming study that says we “people” have it right but don’t give a sh*& to make it come out right.
It’s become a really ugly election and the Hillary campaign, finding that it did not win with normal politicking, has decided to go totally negative on Obama, and they are dumping their unfiltered opposition research results to the owners of sites like this one, to keep their current True Believers frothing-at-the-mouth rabid while seeing if any specific item has legs. Last week it was “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. This week, it’s “plagiarism!”
It boils down to the fact that the Clintons aren’t winning the numbers game by sticking to the platform or by trying to borrow Obama’s “change” message, so instead it’s come down to the politics of personal destruction, which they execute via surrogates. At this point, they just want to win, no matter what, at any cost, so its scorched-earth tactics or even electoral chicanery at the convention, if that’s what it takes.
Obama is hardlyl a wonderful candidate, I’ve only decided recently I could even ethically vote for him. But the more I see of the Hillary campaign - and the online “suppporters”! - the more alienated and turned off I am by the ugly negativity and the tabloid slime politics so visibly associated with Hillary’s ground-level campaign.
Not that Markos Moulitsas, the Daily Creep himself, has made any points apparently for Obama supporters. I gave up the Daily Creep years ago, I haven’t read it since, so it could be that some people operating this site had such an atrocious experience dealing with Moulitsas’ Munchkins that they are merely responding in kind.
Or it could be that Larry and Susan just really are comfortable pandering to the weaknesses of an angry crowd.
What will it be next week? “Obama’s Secret History as a Satanist”?
what you keep demonstrating is that you can’t respect the different opinions while elevating your position as default correct.
I believe it could be a legit criticism of people pandering to the worst of our characters, but you really think all your comments make you seem different from your caricatures?
I agree most with what Joseph Wilson said, that America is despirate for a Post Rovian Echochamber.
The more you say its “Hillary campaign” doing this or that, you are the same. That’s what I’m sick of about Obama’s bullshit about “Change” because his followers aren’t acting any different than I watched Gore’s people attack my candidate in 2000. Attack, Attack, then claim you are above the game. Bullshit.
can you clarify your point? beyond some sort of vague denunciation of me, I couldn’t really see what your point was.
He was no more vague than you. I saw the point. You believe you’re right, therefore everybody else is wrong, and Hillary’s campaign proves it. Why can’t any Obama fan explain his policies and strategies in an effort to show why they support him instead of harping about how bad or mean or unfair Clinton is? BTW…would you like some cheese with that whine?
You are accusing Larry and Susan of “pandering to the weaknesses of an angry crowd”. Would you like to point out how it is pandering when…they simply posted something they see as important, others agree and you simply minimize the whole thing as “weaknesses” and “angry crowd”?
Its not a vague denunciation of you, I’m not vague when I say, “You Attack, then claim you are above the game. Bullshit.”
When you say Susan and Larry are pandering, you insult their integrity to call it as they see it because you disagree. Then when others agree, they are discounted too. Either way, you are the only one who sees clearly, understands clearly and cannot pander. Give me a fucking break. I’ve read your comments around here, you aren’t that stupid.
What will the scandal be next week?
Obama has a love child?
I predict: “Shocking DNA Test Proves Obama Is Willie Horton in Disguise!”
In other words, leading up to Texas, expect a re-play of Willie Horton. It’ll be the last shot in their magazine, and the most desperate, and the cheapest.
Plagiarism:
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
Please provide evidence of the above or use a different word.
Beat me to it.
From the horse’s mouth.
1. Plagiarism is the unauthorized use of language of another author.
2. Patrick gave Obama permission to use that language.
3. The use of the language was therefore authorized.
4. Plagiarism is not the “authorized use of language of another author.”
5. This is not an example of plagiarism.
The fact that Obama said he “should” have credited Patrick is irrelevant to whether or not this was plagiarism.
An interesting argument (kind of like the meaning of ‘is’… sure you don’t like Clinton?). He misrepresented these ideas as his own to the general public. I’m glad that his old buddy loaned him some language to use (when will he come up with his own), but it’s still close enough.
BTW, here’s another dictionary definition:
plagiarism
noun
1. a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work
2. the act of plagiarizing; taking someone’s words or ideas as if they were your own
Nothing there about it having to be authorized, so guess it depends on who you ask.
I never said I didn’t like Clinton, Bill or Hillary.
What I don’t like are BS smears that tear down our candidates.
Obama has acknowledged “stealing” from Patrick in the past.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/18/obama-s-quot-plagiarism-quot.aspx
Does Hillary Clinton not have speechwriters? By your definition, wouldn’t she be plagiarizing them?
I believe you should go back up to the response above you, as I agree with Sometimes-CIA-Defender…I don’t care about the specific “loaning”…
IF YOU ARE SELLING CHANGE
and using the same old language, you are a walking axiom.
IF YOU ARE SELLING CHANGE
but can’t come up with fresh slogans, from Si Se Puede, Yes We Can in Illinois Senate Race, to 2008 Presidential run…then you are a walking axiom.
IF YOU ARE SELLING CHANGE
but then use the same old tactics for propaganda as have been used in other campaigns by the same folks…then you are a walking axiom.
Dear Obama Supporters,
Forgive my internal Cognitive Dissonance for having two different signals crash upon critical thought, but that’s whats happening. All the pressure to buy into your soup isn’t calming my nerves on the issue, and creates further cacophany between, “CHANGE” and the reality of his base.
Cult Leaders can ALWAYS find devoted followers to jump in front of the bus when called upon- you can bet that no matter how many times Obama screws up, one of his slobbering minions will be standing by to claim responsibility. Anything to protect Dear Leader.
Who cares of Patrick gave Obama “permission” After the Fact? Obama was mouthing words that were not his own, and he was exposed as the total phony poser he is. Of course, the story in the media will be Oh Look Hillary Is On The Attack Again She Must Be Desperate. Because the media is NOT going to turn on Barack until they’ve made him the nominee.
Then- he’s done. And I’m sorry, I will not shed a tear for the Obamatrons when they come crying that their Dear Leader is being mistreated by their former friends in the media. Good for the Gander, as it were.
How about deception? Does that describe Obama repeating his fan’s favorite speeches and riffs
without ever stating simply that these fine words were written by or for a dear friend?
He let his followers to think the words were his.
Not very presidential, not honest, not nice.
It’s all over the tube as Deval’s speeches are compared to Obama’s.
The videos are run togwther splitscreen. They are one of the same and the plagarism is embarrassingly clear.
Obama’s excuses “I forgot to give credit”.
Press is spinning it for Obama. It doesn’t matter to Obamatons, as nothing bothers them. This is a guy who has done absolutely nothing. No record of accomplishment. Who is he? What is he? They don’t care. Very sad. If I hear about the Harvard Law Review again I’ll puke.
and the more his supporters try to make comparisons to “It Takes A Village” as if these are the same things, the more discredit they do to themselves.
When I go to a rally and the slogans get going, I’d hate to go back and find out that the campaign staff used that in a whole different race and simply popped it back out on me. It feels like watching a concert and finding the artist is Lip Synching. Hey Milli Vanilli, how much did those concert tickets cost?
Is it now not Plagarism because Patrick is fine with it? Red Herring. When I saw him say this Saturday, I already knew it was not his. And this isn’t the first time I’ve listened to such an old tune.
I don’t like fakes, and if you think he’s not fake then vote for him. I happen to think Hillary has a bit of a fake exterior after so many years of being in politics. But when she speaks on the campaign trail the level of bullshit in her speeches would be about the same as Obama’s, if he weren’t additionally trying to put butter on top of the bullshit, adding some sugar and syrup, and dropping the occassional, “Yes We Can.”
All politicians who promise massive reform like these two should be held in suspicion simply because we know that the bureaucracy and political games get in the way of most of them. But if one is going to elevate himself or herself as the Real Candidate of Change, History shows…thats bullshit unless its for the worse.
There are always changes, but “bringing change to Washington” is old, folks. Easy line to say, hard to realize.
Same excuse — oops I pushed the wrong button when voting — how many times??
When caught — Obama lies.
Anne & Susan-
This and any “realistic” story about Obama won’t affect the Obamaniacs. And really, for what it’s worth, it won’t matter. Most of the people trolling the blogosphere for Obama are young people who will drink whatever kool aid is hot at the moment (remember Gov. Dean, 2004 and the meetups?) One thing that 2004 taught us (members of the Dem party and therefore old fogies) is that young people do not vote. They never have. They won’t his year either. They may go skipping class and go to the caucus to see who’s new and who’s in, but most of them will have to leave campus during November to vote at home.
And they never do. Most of Obama’s base is as illusionary (and fickle - as young people are) as Dean’s was.
Hillary’s getting stronger by day. Wait til you see how she spanks him in bread and butter Ohio.
Now, if I can just get the local NPR affliates (which are college-owned) to stop being the Obama Radio Network, things will be just fine.
Did your generation vote for Kerry in 2004? Didn’t think so.
Stop denigrating young people. Just because we don’t agree with you on this doesn’t mean we can’t think for ourselves or that we don’t care about this country.
Young people did go out to vote in huge numbers in 04′ especially in the swing states. You’re just spouting old media narratives.
hey, please don’t equate the Dean campaign with the Obama one. I know, I was a big Dean supporter (hate the Fl and MI disenfranchisement) and we talked issues, issues, and more issues. Also, there were quite a lot of old fogies in his campaign, including me :-).
I am now with Senator Clinton for the same reasons Larry and Susan are: best on issues, extremely capable and experienced, scary smart, a fighter and battle tested.
I ran the Meetups here and was the leg. dist. coordinator. 95% of the people were middle-aged and older. They were such an impressive, literate group of people who were dedicated to Dean’s campaign because he was a longtime governor, had national exposure through the governors’ group, and was a physician with a small business who knew health care issues. We were initially attracted because of his opposition to the war, but became more and more impressed with his highly detailed policy statements.
I’m sure some Meetups were populated by younger people, particularly in cities. But not here.
Back in those days, I never went to blogs, didn’t even go to Dean’s blog. Never went to DailyKos. Just networked locally.
Anyway, that’s just one person’s story. But I totally SEE your point re the Obamadroids. Sadly, here, a lot of those older people are now for Obama — but I think this time around they haven’t invested in learning much about him, and believe the hype. For one thing, there aren’t the Meetups where we discussed issues in great detail. And the Dean campaign provided us with SO much great policy information — very little hype.
Here’s the main point:
So, he didn’t support him in 92 and 96 (probably because he wasn’t even paying attention, like me) but feels he can complain that “He had eight years to do what he was supposed to do.” This is just exactly the sort of thing that makes me realize how out of touch with reality Obama’s supporters are. Bill came in with a message of change. He was probably the most charismatic president of my lifetime. Charisma isn’t going to do it alone. Obama supporters have bought lies about the Clintons and refuse to see that they are not that different (apart from experience and substance).
Bill Clinton was supported by the voters, but his own party stabbed him in the back; the Sam Nunns, the Joe Liebermanns, the Zell Millers, and all the other DINOs. He could have done a lot more in his 8 years if he had his own party providing a wind at his back (like the Republicans in Congress have done for “W”) instead of knives at his back. Hillary may not be as inspirational a speaker as her husband, but she is someone who has been tempered by the fire.
I too am completely convinced that the Republicans believe that Obama is the easier candidate to pick off in the general election– there are so many weaknesses of his candidacy that they will pick apart. They will play up his inexperience, they will incite race against him; they will swiftboat him on being a muslim; they will attack his misquotes and his lies. The only solidly reliable constituency he has is the black vote, and they know that the Democrats are going to get the black vote either way.
I believe that that is why Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and other extreme nut jobs of the Republican party are trying paint McCain so much as a moderate, so they can get the people in the middle. It’s a deception. It’s also why they are trying to tell us all the time on the mainstream networks that Obama is harder to beat.
Don’t believe it for one second people. The DNC will be doing itself a disservice if they pick Obama as the nominee.
Impersonate…?? Imitate..??
Copy..?? Role Playing..?? “Fantacizing..?
Hoping while Hyping..” ” Script Scribing..??
Acting..? Wishful Thinking..? Obama “K”ing..?
Just like with George W. Bush…alot of people still want to believe there is a Pony..underneath that big steamy Pile..
This is the biggest BS “issue” I have ever heard of. Everyone who is pushing it should be embarrassed.
One of the criticisms of Obama is his lack of critical thinking skills, his lack of originality.
(Obama, or David Axlerod, that is).
How can a man without critical thinking skills function as the President of the US?
See: Dick Cheney, George Bush.
How will he know someone is pulling a fast one on him, trolling him into a set up in Kenya, say through his cousin? Is he gonna commit US troops to the area, exacerbating tensions with EVERYONE, will he become bogged down like Bush did in Iraq, allowing a foreign power to break the US economy, not knowing when to leave, or pressured by a PAC, or worse yet, someone like Auchi, to stay, for reasons contrary to the better interests of the United States?
How will he know, what will he do, how will he make the best decision?
Who will do THAT thinking for him?
His acolytes, BG, you?
No answer to be plagiarized, there, what’s he gonna do, see if H Clinton wrote a paper, and steal it, like he did her economic plan?
“One of the criticisms of Obama is his lack of critical thinking skills, his lack of originality.”
There’s the old, “some people say…” non-argument. I’ve seen no evidence Obama lacks critical thinking faculties. I think to say so is preposterous.
“How will he know someone is pulling a fast one on him, trolling him into a set up in Kenya, say through his cousin?…….”
That whole scenario is not plausible. To believe it could come true one would have to think Obama to be a complete moron. It is clear he is not. It is especially laughable that you come up with such a scenario when Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.
I think Obama showed fine judgment in that instance, and I think we could expect more insight like that from him in his presidency.
This whole “issue” is based on the idea that Obama “stole,” with permission, language that Deval Patrick used in his campaign. That is an idiotic argument.
If the Clinton campaign thinks that Obama stole her economic plan, why isn’t it making an issue out of that instead? This is utter BS.
Actually, all the reporting (NPR/PBS/corp media online) I’ve heard say Obama has won the speechifying category. Y’know, the SCRIPTED stuff. And here he didn’t even write that!
I realize all these politicians have speechwriters, but Obama is supposed to be different, right? Telling ‘his’ story, fightin’ the good fight, livin’ for the dream, running to make a change!!
And here it’s just the same ol’ recycled politico-babble. Whoops!
How well Obama can deliver a speech is a nonissue for me, except that it is an advantage in elections, and great orators can help inspire people.
This story is not about Obama’s skill with speeches, but is an attempt to somehow paint him as dishonest, a thief. Those are the connotations of plagiarism.
Since he got permission to use the language he “stole,” this whole story is a BS smear.
No, it’s that his “hope,” his “inspiration,” and his rhetoric are practically all that he is running on. Especially since he’s so short on experience and achievement, particularly compared to the other candidates.
And his supporters rarely cite the specifics of any of his supposed policies…. they just talk about how he inspires them.
If he’s borrowing other people’s words to inspire them - SAYING those words as if he’s the one who thought them up — he should at the least credit that person for the origin of the quote. On Saturday night, he wowed that Wisconsin audience with his lines about “words,” and I’m sure they all thought it was his own thinking. Sadly, they didn’t know he’ lifted the entire section from Deval, who’d gotten it from Axelrod. Then the next morning, Bill Bradley repeated the same lines — without citation — on Wolf Blitzer’s Sunday show.
We bloggers are SO careful to cite our sources, and credit them. It’s part of the ethics of the business. When I’ve given speeches, I always credited any source and never used it as my own without proper attribution. It’s a simple thing to do…. it ’s the pulling the wool over people’s eyes by acting like HE’s the ONE with THE message that gets to me.
If he’s borrowing other people’s words to inspire them - SAYING those words as if he’s the one who thought them up — he should at the least credit that person for the origin of the quote.
This also came from Drudge.
When does Hillary give Obama credit?
Since this silliness isn’t going away, when does Hillary give Obama credit?
Hillary Uses Obama Catch-Phrase “Fired up and Ready to Go”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweVOO-fhug
This is a non-issue. Since he did not use the words without permission, why does it matter where he got them? The Clinton campaign has speechwriters. Does any campaign cite speechwriters? No. Do you think that Hillary Clinton never puts rhetoric in her speech that her husband suggests? If what Obama did was plagiarism, then so is that.
If your problem is that his campaign is long on rhetoric and short on details, make that argument. It has some merit. It has nothing to do with plagiarism.
Plagiarism implies thievery and dishonesty. If it is not your intention to smear Obama as a dishonest thief, I suggest you alter the title of this article to omit that word. It is not accurate.
Don’t get so caught on the buzzword, “plagarism”. It is about perception of an authentic or borrowed candidate. Yes campaigns have speech writers, that isn’t the point either. When those speech writers steer their candidate into sticky waters, it is the candidate who pays.
Obama is using buzzy phrases to fire up his base…but when they are rehash and in fact line for line, its viewed as cheap BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING it was cheap. And I’m one of them. It was cheap, he looks fake. And I didn’t need YouTube to show me, I was watching it on CSPAN on Sunday 2am. He was all “just words” trying to be coy and sarcastic…but it wasn’t original, it came off as a pander to his base. But if he was trying to get me to vote for him, it not only didn’t work, it created more of a chasm.
Sorry some don’t like this reality, but it is reality none the less. Perception is reality. I see him as Fake, and you haven’t done much to demonstrate how it isn’t fake. Making excuses of “well Patrick was ok with it” won’t serve the Obama campaign, smearing me as a Republican Talking Point Water Carrier…that ain’t going to get my vote…and then topping it off with Change and Yes We Can…and you can’t get a vote at all.
He’s a fake trying to pander to my discontent with Washington. But since I interact constantly with Congress it doesn’t sell because I know how much of a clusterfuck it is in Congress. Obama isn’t going to change that. Nice try.
Its a damn shame too, because I don’t want to tear Obama down. I want to hope for extreme change. But this chant ain’t getting me any closer.
Can some of us view with our own eyes? Si Se Puede!
and BTW:
“If your problem is that his campaign is long on rhetoric and short on details, make that argument. ”
Many have done this, it is being ignored I guess, but I’ve read at least 100 articles to this direct issue, and that is what lead Obama to even use the “just words” tag.
Which is why you support Obama, you have no critical thinking skills, either.
And your argument, again, B, is a load of shit.
Obama has already made decisions which are playing out horribly for him, a lack of critical thinking. Why does he plaigarize for instance, was this a good choice, what about Rezko, would a SMART person have behaved that way, given he were going to run for President? He did not recognize, or reason, he is not capable of making well reasoned decisions, recognizing and integrating the numerous factors that comprise a final decision, a final action, factors you cannot comprehend. But just because you can’t comprehend doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You’re only ONE person.
I think the writing was on the wall concerning Rove for quite awhile, yet Obama missed it, or Axlerod did, choosing to use methods which had been nullified, ages ago, if they were ever potent. Why didn’t’ Obama see this, lack of critical reasoning? WHO is his enemy? Can’t tell, can’t make the connections? Lack of critical reasoning.
And we’re finding out more and more everyday, the best is yet to come, with Obama, and Rezko.
And despite your pretensions, you go on believing what you want about yourself, and Obama, but still, you end up losing, but it’s always someone else’s fault, right?
You say, “I see no connection.” I say ” I see a connection, look at his decisions re Rezko, and plagiarizing, what are the consequences, the implications of choosing to hook up with Rezko?
So, again, you’re either disingenuous, or really superficial.
What if someone deliberately set up Obama, with Rezko?
Where was Obama’s skill in determinig purchasing the house with Rezko was a bad decision?
It’s funny you say I have no critical thinking skills when you make such ridiculous arguments.
What does Rove have to do with anything? Are you comparing him to Axelrod? I know you aren’t making the argument that Obama has the more unsavory advisors, not with Mark Penn at Hillary Clinton’s side. In any case this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
“And despite your pretensions, you go on believing what you want about yourself, and Obama, but still, you end up losing, but it’s always someone else’s fault, right?”
I don’t know what you are talking about here. You don’t know anything about me and are in no place to psychoanalyze me.
“He did not recognize, or reason, he is not capable of making well reasoned decisions, recognizing and integrating the numerous factors that comprise a final decision, a final action, factors you cannot comprehend. But just because you can’t comprehend doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You’re only ONE person.”
Clinton made a mistake on the most important issue of our day. What’s more she won’t admit she made a mistake. Where was her critical thinking there?
Despite that mistake I don’t think she lacks critical thinking faculties, and would call anyone who says so a fool as well. I just think that was an incident of bad judgment.
I’m sure that Obama has made mistakes in his life. That is not the same as lacking critical thinking faculties. He has made very good decisions too, most notably on one where Clinton made a very bad one.
When someone makes a mistake about who they associate with or even the way they vote, that does not mean they lack the ability to think critically. It is unfortunate that you are incapable of seeing that distinction.
Booner,
Speaking of mistakes, think of Texas. Tom DeLay has to be laughing his ass off.
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state’s unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa’s heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston — where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support — could yield three or four times as many delegates.
“What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates,” Hinojosa said yesterday. “This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021702461_pf.html
Yeah, the real story is how messed up our primary process is with all these antiquated rules. I just hope that whoever ends up winning, Barack or Hillary, wins both the most votes nationwide and the most voter-allocated delegates. That would prevent a whole lot of bellyaching.
One thing is for sure though. The whole thing needs a major overhaul for the next time around.
exactly
but if Hillary is for example awarded the election via “superdelegates”, and then goes on to become president and de facto party leader, do you imagine for one moment that the core issue of the existence of anti-democratic superdelegates would get any reform at all? hell no!
personally, i the existence of superdelegates to be morally indefensible. they are an anti-democratic mechanism intended to insure the availability of top-down control. the only morally viable thing for them to do this year is apportion their votes in the exact percentage of the democratically-awarded delegate votes. that won’t happen, so they should go with the winner of the most delegates whichever candidate that is.
Simon,
I have to say that your comment back:
“Which is why you support Obama, you have no critical thinking skills, either”
just feeds his and others criticisms of base level sniping. I’m hoping he’ll use his critical thinking skills, you will, I will, and we will learn tons from this vibrant interaction.
not jumping your shit, just feedback.
This was a really funny reply. Booner is correct. This “issue” is a dog that won’t hunt, and for good reason. It’s not an issue. It’s the politics of personal destruction - Hillary’s campaign is trying to smear Obama’s character in the media using some trumped-up horsepuckey about TWO borrowed lines in a speech. She’s trying to make a mountain out of a molehill if it’s even that.
This “plagiarism” thing is almost as disappointing as the “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists” thing. Notice how, the moment it became known that Clinton had pardoned two of the Weather Underground members on his way out of office, “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists” disappeared from the air waves? And before that, when Hillary’s photo shaking hands with Rezko emerged, Rezko disappeared from the air waves?
These antics from the Hillary campaign are getting really tawdry, and I am beginning to really, really lose respect for the Clintons. For Christ’s sake! An ex-President should not be involved in this kind of low-grade mudslinging.
This shows your level of loony reasoning….
You lose respect for the Clintons because of a free speech ridden blog? You’ve said everything now. Why look at the Thomas Archive when I can simply read FreeRepublic, er DailyKos, er NoQuarter, er TPMCafe, er….
You act as if Susan and Larry work for the campaign. This is the key to your distortions. But do as you wish, you haven’t helped your candidate a bit with this lump sum distortion. I’ll vote on March 4th with more and more conviction. Welcome to the Political Process.
I’ve never heard anyone act more holier than thou than some Obama supporters who claim to love the fact that Obama wants to end “polics as usual” or the “politics of personal destruction,” usually in the same breath that they do exactly one or both of those things to Hillary. What could possibly be more politics-as-usual than bashing a Clinton?
I admit Clinton is capable of playing tough and loose (it’s called being a smart politician). Why can’t Obama supporters admit he does too? That’s why we think Obama supporters act like a loony cult: because they cannot admit that their candidate has ANY foibles at all. That is deifying him, that is crazy, and that is dangerous.
If I thought he were as bad a politician as some of his supporters think he is, then I’d REALLY worry. Putin will run circles around him as will the EU. They have their own agendas (just like the Republicans do) and no amount of kissing their asses is going to change that!
I can appreciate wanting to defend your candidate when you see him attacked, but denying the experience and substance are important or that he has aspirations appears beyond naive. He’s a sweet talker… we get it. Now what? Or as has already been asked, “Yes We Can — Do What Exactly?”
Actually, it’s not an act, it’s a strategy, act the saint, but be the devil, or a mediocre 70’s version thereof.
Really, people are earning good money, telling Obama this, how to act, what to say.
They just don’t do it very well, if they could only see themselves.
Mccain beats Clinton in the polls. Obama beats McCain. Try and get it right.
“Experience”
Oh yeah, I need another eight years of “experience”.
I hope if Obama wins he renounces the Dem’s and instead becomes an American President. As proven around here the Dem’s will cut the throat of their own just as easy as they would a Repubican if they don’t get it their way.
A) That could easily change between now and November. Especially since he lacks experience (I mean, who needs it? Bush lacked experience and look how that turned out).
B) How many Republicans could have responded to the poll saying ‘Obama’, hoping he gets the nomination so he can get trounced in November?