home

Obama and Deval Patrick's Shared Language: Issue or Not?

Update: New thread on this is here. Comments on this one are over 200 and closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm just getting online today and I see there's a big to-do in the media over Barack Obama's use of Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick's words in his speeches.

The Clinton campaign says it's plagiarism. The Obama campaign says Obama should have credited Patrick but the two are friends and share ideas. Patrick says he doesn't mind Obama's use of his words.

Obama's oratory has been an issue in this campaign. There's been a plethora of media articles about Obama's speeches being inspirational while Hillary's are not.

I've often reminded readers that speeches are written by speechwriters and I'm not impressed that Obama has the ability, with a teleprompter, to inspirationally deliver a speech written by someone else. Not long ago, the New York Times ran a profile of his chief speechwriter. [More...]

Jake Tapper at ABC News says this is really an issue between Obama and his supporters:

Thousands, if not millions, of Americans are inspired by Obama's words. They do not think they are "just words." But many of them also likely think they are at least somewhat original.

Dan Balz at The Washington Post says:

Words do matter, as do their origins. Ask Joe Biden, who took words from a British politician in 1988 without attribution and paid a high price.

You Tube has all the videos. Here's one with Patrick and Obama's on Saturday night in Wisconsin. Here's a side by side comparison.

I say we should decide the nominee based on their record not their promises. Speeches are just that, speeches. I've been suggesting we ignore Obama's scripted speeches for months. This is just more evidence of that proposition to me.

Ignore the speeches. Who has the best and strongest record, the most experience and the ability, once elected, to get their agenda through Congress? Who will be a better and more electable candidate against the Republicans in November?

Let's not get sidetracked.

< Will A President Obama Do Anything On Health Care? | Former President Bush Endorses McCain >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sharing ideas is one thing, Plagiarism is another (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    In your post of Hillary's and Jimmy Carter's words, the ideas are similar, but about the only words that are the same are "I see an America . . . " which are not copyrightable.  No one can lay claim to "I see an America."

    I agree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    that the candidates should be judged on their record. The problem with Obama is that he hasn't DONE anything. On the national stage he has only been in the Senate for a short time, just about a year before he started running for president.

    He has sponsored just TWO bills that became law. ONE of these was to NAME a Post Office. Some record.

    When you have no record, you only have the candidate's words to judge him on. Personally, I don't think that is enough to elect a president on, but if I set aside my concerns here, I am left with the fact that they aren't even his words!

    AND that his words (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    don't add up to a hill of beans...

    Being for change...isn't specific enough to have any meaning, outside of what logically (customarily according to Hume) occurs between today and tomorrow...change.

    [ Parent ]

    Bing (none / 0) (#24)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    !

    [ Parent ]
    At least get the facts straight (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    "Don't tell me words don't matter," Mr. Obama said, to applause. " `I have a dream' -- just words? `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? `We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?"

    (Emphasis added, and take from the NY Time article linked above)

    I don't think the Declaration of Independence really is the same as a speech, nor does it help the point he's trying to make, "just words?"

    Although a bit tangential, I find his logic confusing...in one case we're talking about speeches/words that were moving, on the other hand we're talking about a letter sent to the British crown that was an actual action (not just words).

    You forgot one thing: (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    Those words were spoken by people who actually DID something to make their words come true.  He repeats those statements, and of course they are uplifting, but what is he really proposing to make those words have meaning in action to benefit the PEOPLE?

    His healthcare is short of addressing the whole problem.  One of the candidates (I just don't recall who) actually said, that by designing his healthcare proposal short of making it universal, he has already capitulated to the insurance companies.  Now we are told that his adviser that was mainly responsible for crafting it actually was highly responsible for the failure of the first universal health care proposal of Hillary.  Now we know why his proposal is the way it is.

    [ Parent ]

    It's hard for him to have ringing phrases (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    about his bill to name a post office, half of his  proposals in Congress.

    [ Parent ]
    a little dose of reality please? (none / 0) (#213)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    bill to name a post office, half of his  proposals in Congress.

    You don't do your cause any good when you exaggerate so out of proportion that it becomes divorced from reality.

    See here for some counter-examples.  (Please note, the above was written while he had been in the Senate less than two years, and before he announced he was a candidate)

    [ Parent ]

    VA, I might be wrong, (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    but the idea is that BO stole the concept, execution and much of the actual phrasing from a Gov. Patrick speech, not that he stole them from the DoI. No?

    [ Parent ]
    Thats not at all what I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    I am saying, if you're going to lift someone else's speech, at least fix the issues with the logic already there...

    [ Parent ]
    Right on, I get it now. (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Words is words. Written or spoken. (none / 0) (#49)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:25:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes, words are words (none / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    ... and words matter.

    [ Parent ]
    We agree (none / 0) (#60)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    I'm saying words is words whether written or spoken, and they do matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Is that what you said (none / 0) (#61)
    by Firefly4625 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    when Ann Coulter did it? Tell the truth...

    [ Parent ]
    ????????? Explain please. (none / 0) (#82)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There is a difference between (none / 0) (#111)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    the words of a speech and the words of the DOI

    What you're saying is tantamount to "laws are words, and a speech is words, so a law and a speech are the same thing"

    which isn't so.

    [ Parent ]

    Nitpick (none / 0) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    DoI is not a law.

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#143)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    but the analogy is what applies...

    [ Parent ]
    No, sorry (none / 0) (#166)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    The analogy should be between a speech and a declaration - which are pretty much the same thing.

    [ Parent ]
    thats not so at all (none / 0) (#174)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    and it is very clearly so, without extraneous discussions...

    [ Parent ]
    so by your thinking (none / 0) (#177)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    The state of the union and a DECLARATION of war are the same thing? why? because they are both words...i mean really...

    [ Parent ]
    And to be more clear (none / 0) (#163)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:38:23 PM EST
    I am using laws as a substitute, for ease of the analogy...the DoI is somewhat unto its own, and harder to make a CLEAR analogy...

    DoI is less of a rhetorical work and more of an action...so in some sense, it is like sending the crown a "cease and desist"...an action on the part of the sender...where as the famous "I have a dream" speech was had no "doing" of its own...not an action...

    words are not always just words...sometimes they are also actions...

    Another example would be a contract, marriage vows, etc...they are more than just words, whether that be sentimental, or actual, words aren't always "just words"...

    [ Parent ]

    A few issues (none / 0) (#157)
    by solon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    There seem to be a few issues within this "controversy."

    (1) Should Senator Obama cite the Gov. of Mass? Absolutely, and he may lose a few votes because he did not do this. I don't think it is a major issue or a major act of plagiarism because of the connections of the two speakers and Senator Obama's remarks were impromptu and not in his manuscript.

    (2)The philosophical point is that words are constitutive as they create meaning. The Declaration is the same as a speech since, in accordance with Speech Act Theory, language creates and shapes meaning. A speech, in general, and the Declaration, in particular, may not have the same power, but all discourse is constitutive.

    (3) There is an interesting aspect of "invention." When writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson did not "invent" his argument since his discourse is modeled after an obscure Declaration, which was available to him while writing, (See the work of
    Stephen Lucas on the development of the Declaration of Independence.) In Jefferson's case, his theory of invention centered on using the available and known arguments of the time. It was not about creating new arguments.

    This would matter if Senator Obama received some rhetorical training (I am do not know this). His speech writers, who most likely have received an education in classical rhetoric as most have, may have given him this information.

    [ Parent ]

    Bleah... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    bad interpretation of the applicability of speech act/illocutionary theory

    You're confusing the the "action"

    Thomas Jefferson (actor) writes the DoI. Thus by writing, he is acting...thus all writing/speaking is action...that is what you're arguing...all speech is action That is true, only in the sense of making the action be of that which is done by the author.

    What I am saying is that the DoI was in effect an "actor"...much the same way a contract is an "actor"...in the case of a contract, its action is the binding of two parties for performance and consideration...in the case of the DoI, it does just that, makes our independence official (baring war)...above, I make reference to a declaration of war, an ACTION beyond the author construction...

    [ Parent ]

    Words are just that...words (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    I say we should decide the nominee based on their record not their promises. Speeches are just that, speeches. I've been suggesting we ignore Obama's scripted speeches for months. This is just more evidence of that proposition to me.

    I absolutely agree with BTD on this point. However, the Obama campaign has deflected the contention that speeches do not matter by claiming that words, particularly those of Obama, do matter.  And many voters buy this claim.

    Obama's lifting of Patrick's words highlight the fact that A) talk is, indeed, cheap and that B) maybe Obama's words are not so special afterall. Voters that may have placed some emphasis on speeches may be forced to reassess that emphasis in light of this information. I see these two points being a bigger problem for Obama than the plagiarism charge.

    On a side note, he kind of comes off as a hypocrite by claiming that words are important, yet not bothering to write his own. However, I don't see this being as big of an issue as the other 2 points I mention.

    Oops, Jeralyn's post, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    not BTD's.  I am happy to give credit where it is due ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting point (none / 0) (#112)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    This is a non-issue for me as I don't put much stock in speechifying, and I assumed it would not matter to others either. But your point B is interesting. I guess to the extent that his support is based on people beleiving that his rhetoric demonstrates exceptionalism, then this could be a problem for him.

    Again, based on what I know right now, it's not a problem for me, but I wouldn't be surprised if it matters to others.

    [ Parent ]

    Say what? (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    My gawd. Have you NO heard the things Obama has said about Clinton?

    Absurd.

    It's very hard to be objective about this (none / 0) (#54)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    But the exit polls in MD and VA (p. 5) asked which candidates attacked more unfairly.  Virtually nobody (4-5%) thought it was Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    When all he has are words he should at least (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    have some that are his own. I love refried beans as much as he next Mexican but I don't think that one should repackaging a campaign that someone just ran on a couple of years ago. If you see the YouTube video with both clips played next to each other you see it is just a national roll out of a marketing campaign Davide Axelrod tried on Mass.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

    again and again (none / 0) (#43)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    the no substance arguement that has ... well no substance to it.

    [ Parent ]
    You know how they say a "picture is worth a (none / 0) (#62)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    thousand workd"?

    This one speaks for itself.

    [ Parent ]

    I assume that cartoonist (none / 0) (#101)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    could read. Obama's wesite has as much if not more policey details than any canidates.

    [ Parent ]
    could not (none / 0) (#102)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    could not read. and I can't type.


    [ Parent ]
    loved it (none / 0) (#117)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    thanks

    [ Parent ]
    I like (none / 0) (#126)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    I liked the other one better (none / 0) (#139)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    I won't say that Barack Obama is an empty box. I'm sure he's a bright guy. I just don't know what he actually is for because he has demonstrated a skill of the non-position.

    [ Parent ]
    if you actually care at all... (none / 0) (#221)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    ...about "what he actually is for", then just take a look at his web site.

    As some op-ed columnist said (I'm paraphrazing): "anyone who doesn't know his policy positions doesn't know how to use google."

    So, you say you don't know.  All you need to do is look it up if you want to know, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes we can (none / 0) (#236)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:57:28 PM EST
    look it up.  That's true of any candidate.  But it concerns me a little bit that Obama's campaign drift is my policy positions have been published, I'm not hiding anything...but he continues to frequently talk and project an image that focuses on believing, change, inspiration, etc.  His campaign to me has almost made a distinction between motivating people and implementing policy.  It doesn't go far enough to bring the two messages together in a way that convinces me the energy for change will be harnessed directly to policy, and that people are signing on for the policy.  It's one of the things that I don't understand about Republicans supporting Obama - his positions are much to the left of people you have previously supported.  How does this not bother you?  And when will it begin to?  

    Plus, there are plenty of people who don't know how to use google in this country.  

    [ Parent ]

    Replace (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Firefly4625 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    Clinton with Obama and I could say the same exact thing - and yes, I could state it just as emphatically, as if it were stone-hard fact.

    Guess it depends upon who you believe in and who you support.

    Of course, it's just your opinion - and my opinion -  with no basis in anything.

    I will vote for either (none / 0) (#57)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    as they are close on almost everything I care about.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama rules (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    You always have to be nice to Obama, no matter what he does or says.

    An inspirational leader (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    should have his own words, not borrowed words.

    Is Obama an inspirational leader?

    No, I think he is an inspirational character. (none / 0) (#142)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    Is that what we want? Sure he has other good characteristics, but that is his big selling point.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," is pretty good, but I'm thinking about Churchill. ...That guy truly changed history with words. The British populace had every right to break during the Blitz and after a series of debacles, but he talked them into doing the right thing. (And in the British Parliamentary system, he could have actually lost control of the government if the population turned against him.)

    Excuse me but (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    isn't it Swift-boating when what is said isn't true? And isn't it true that Obama used much of a Patrick speech as his own? What's Swift-boating about that? I personally thought it was called plagiarism and that most people of integrity thought it was a bad thing. What am I missing here? (Oh, I forgot, Obama Rules.)

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/27/72417/8822


    I think it is particularly egregious (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    When in a speech about why words matter, neither the construct, the words, nor the ideas are Obama's.

    It's wonderfully ironic (none / 0) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    to someone, like me, who enjoys irony.

    All he would have had to say, was "in the words of my good friend, Governor Deval Patrick"...nobody would have had a deal.

    Creativity is important in a president.  When that president is about "change" and can't even figure out how to state original thoughts is a campaign that is known for its "simplicity," shall we say, then it's pretty easy to speculate that creativity isn't something he's going to bring to Washington.

    [ Parent ]

    But the inflection (none / 0) (#135)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    was his own!  We all know that's a critical trait for a good president.

    [ Parent ]
    Bluest (none / 0) (#176)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    BINGO.

    "Standing on the shoulders of great men who came before him"

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#181)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    This is somewhat of a non-issue, but if we apply the same test of the Obama-Patrick speech to any other, this would clearly be outrageous (although, not some disqualifier)

    Say for example, if Obama were to try to pass off MLK's dream speech...people would call it plagiarism...so when applied against other speeches if it is plagiarism or phoniness...it is here too...but it is no bigger of an issue than Biden doing the same...

    [ Parent ]

    Or! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    We'll win and have a Democratic president! Yay!

    Or is that what you're really worried about?

    And about "shared language" -- (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    I really hope I don't get that excuse from students who plagiarize.  "No, no, I was just, like, sharing language!"  

    Ugh.  I also grade down for such euphemisms.

    What do you think about (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    students turning in papers written by somebody else?  

    [ Parent ]
    it's not as if (none / 0) (#125)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    they had the approval of the people whose papers they copied matters...it's still dishonest

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#128)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    all politicians have speechwriters.  What counts as plagiarism is different for political speeches versus term papers.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow....good one. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've been a speechwriter, too (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    and I got paid for it.  Did Obama pay Chavez, the Hopi chief, Deval Patrick, and anyone else I missed whose language he has, um, shared?

    And in speechwriting for a good candidate, client, etc., a lot of time is spent to get their ideas first, reading their materials, then suggesting ways to put it, then getting their feedback for revisions -- they're very involved.  And that way, the end result doesn't come out as someone else's words, and word for word -- not the speechwriter's and certainly not the words of others with the same campaign manager.

    [ Parent ]

    also (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    if this skinny white guy who is writing Obama's stuff is such a master...then why does he have to crib?  For that matter, why can't he take what Deval said and make it better?

    I'm 1000% certain college aged voters will have no problem with this.  Anyone who works in education knows that plagiarism is a huge problem, mostly because the internet makes it so easy.

    [ Parent ]

    despite the fact that you are losing (none / 0) (#156)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    the argument on this blog, your candidate is getting creamed on CNN and ABC and I bet elsewhere on this issue.

    The blogs aren't your problem at the moment...only symptomatic of a much larger problem going on.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you think I think? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    It's an automatic F -- not just on the paper but in the course.  Was there more to this question, which seems so incredibly simple?

    [ Parent ]
    But it is not an automatic F (none / 0) (#193)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    when a politician delivers a speech written by a speechwriter. That which is plagiarism for students is not necessarily plagiarism for politicians.  Analogies drawn from student papers do not apply.

    [ Parent ]
    That was not your question (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    and I would give a different answer on this one.  But I'm done playing Karnak, having to come up with the questions to fit the new answers given here to avoid the perils of focus on a candidate's problems.

    [ Parent ]
    It was a rhetorical question (none / 0) (#209)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    refuting your false analogy between students and politicians with respect to plagiarism.  I didn't think I was going to have to spell out the point, but apparently I did.

    [ Parent ]
    In journalism (none / 0) (#208)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    It's expulsion from the program. Sometimes expulsion from the school.

    Not a good thing for a role model to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Plagiarism ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    just a word ... ethics ... just a word ... lying ... just a word ...

    Issue or Non-Issue (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by stillife on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    They're making a fairly big deal about it on CNN. The plagiarism issue could be crucial because it strike at the heart of Obama's candidacy - the eloquent orator who is unsullied by the dirt of politics.  


    I know I'm coming late to this (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    but I've actually had to (sigh) work lately:

    If Obama delivered, verbatim, MLK's "I have a dream" speech, would you say that it doesn't matter.

    I am a person who works with words for a living, and where I come from, if you are going to quote someone, you cite the source.  This is right up there with Obama stealing Clinton's healthcare and economic recovery plan.

    There has to come a point in this process where someone asks exactly what Obama stands for and who he is.  He takes others' words, their speeches, their positions...even "change" is unoriginal.  "Yes, we can!"  "Fired up and ready to go!"

    If, in fact, he is going to so radically "change" the way Washington works, he's going to need some original ideas to get the ball rolling.

    Every gameplay he is stealing comes from the Book of Status Quo.

    Commodity (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    It's not the plagiarism, it's that his campaign is marketing of a commodity. The strategy, theme and language worked in Mass, so they just apply it here. They are lazy. I have read so many talk about his authenticity. To me, that shows how inauthentic and actually how bad he is to just copy the strategy so blatantly and then claim that it was from Patrick. The worse part is all the sad followers who try to clean up after him and justify it. Imagine when he is President, you guys better start the clean up campaign.

    new media meme (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST
    For those of you who support Obama and feel that this is a nothing issue, think again.  

    Besides the plagiarism charge, that the media is sensitive to [for the reasons already posted above], it adds to the growing meme that Obama IS an empty suit--he hasn't passed any serious legislation in the Senate, always speaks in generalities, hates debates because he HAS to speak in some specificity, and now can't even give an original speech.  

    People are beginning to see that his "inspiration" and "charisma" are built on a shallow and vapid foundation.

    oh, please (none / 0) (#196)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    "he hasn't passed any serious legislation in the Senate, always speaks in generalities..."

    both demonstrably untrue.

    Can we stick to reality here, please?

    [ Parent ]

    TWO BILLS (none / 0) (#207)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    He passed two bills in the one+ year that he actively participated in the U. S. Senate, and one was to rename a post office.  Can we all agree that this is not a great resume???

    During the campaigning this past year, Hillary has pushed through FIVE major pieces of legislation --McCain and Obama NONE!!!!

    Check out their Senate web sites for confirmation.

    [ Parent ]

    Senate voting (none / 0) (#211)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    Also, Hillary throughout the campaigning came back to vote on over 50% of the bills up for vote during this year, Obama voted less than 37% of the time, and McCain less than 30%, so who takes their role of Senator more seriously??????

    [ Parent ]
    Issue. Because said issue could've been (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    sidestepped by a simple "To paraphrase a long-standing friend of mine about the topic, "words"..." and then gone on to pull his own Just Words? spiel.

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    that requires common sense.

    [ Parent ]
    Plagiarism is not "nothing"..... (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by miriam on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    Individual words are common property.  It's the way they're put together that gives a phrase its value and power.  Example: the words "best" and "time" and "worst".  If someone says to you "This was the best time ever, but some might say it was the very worst" you would nod your head, shrug, and forget what was said.  But, if someone says 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," that is far more memorable and it conveys something a shade different than the first sentence.  My name is Ishmael is definitive and pedestrian. "Call me Ishmael" is not the same, although it may sound that way at first.  Some of the difference is stylistic, some of it is contextual.  But both the Dickens and the Melville quotes reveal the creative processes of the authors and they are unique.  We all recognize them and would laugh if someone else tried to claim them as original.  

    Some of us make our living putting words together and hoping the result is unique.  Plagiarism is stealing. Using another's creative process and presenting it as one's own is robbery. I don't care who does it or for what reason.  It is dishonorable, dishonest, and deceptive.    

     

    It's all about ethics, people (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    When you claim to be a different kind of politician, that you will bring in a new era of civility and service to America. That you are the uniter and that you ethics are above reproach (no special interests, no lobbying money, etc.) then you better demonstrate that integrity with your actions.

    Someone who can read words and give them life is called an actor. An actor does not necessarily originate those ideas but can move us by his interpretation. Maybe that's why he likes Ronald Reagan so much. They are both acting out a script written by someone else.

    To  claim someone elses ideas and words as your own is egregious, it is unethical, and this is why it matters. It goes to the heart of what Obama says he is against.

    Perhaps he should learn the second part of Si se puede (yes we can) the chant he bit  from the Mexicans in the west coast...No se pudo!
    No, we couldn't!...that, is chanted after failure.

    IMO (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    Not.

    The Media seems to be disagreeing with me ferociously.

    Given that Obama's electoral strength is based on his status as Media Darling, it becomes an issue now.

    And don't forget that a Hopi chief (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    was the one who first said "We are the ones we've been waiting for" -- in addition to the more recognized co-opting of Hispanics' "Yes, we can."

    As one of the "creative class" who has been plagiarized, I consider it unconscionable.  But I don't count, of course, because everyone in the "creative class" is for Obama.  I know that because his supporters say so . . . or maybe it was Deval Patrick or some 26-year-old speechwriter who said so.  It's hard to know, huh?

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    Scroll past first para to get to the meat:

    "Creative class" for Clinton, also an author who's been plagiarized. I found a full page of an article I wrote lifted verbatim and posted as original work at several websites (for one example). At one of them, when I emailed to ask that they take it down or at least give me attribution, they told me they paid a consultant big $$$ to write it for them. Another website not only took it down, but added an "echinopsia sucks" page because I "falsely" accused them of stealing it when they really wrote it themselves, and it was cr*appy writing anyway.;-)

    Anyway. I agree that it's something. The media are going with it because they get hammered for committing plagiarism. Careers have been ruined in recent years over plagiarism (see The Disgraced Journalist's Club) It's a very touchy subject in JRN these days.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeh, I found my work on several (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM EST
    websites recently and raised some heck, was told a consultant (actually a prof, but not in a field that respects these rules) was paid $20,000 to lift my work and others' works, word for word for word.  And I don't get paid for my work.  So my ire went up and I called in some troops, that website went down.

    I decided to not let it go anymore after seeing my work used, word for word, on a tv documentary, too.    So I empathize with what happened to you -- and I suggest that we all keep fighting the good fight.

    This will resonate with a lot of voters, I think.  Even if they aren't writers, they have seen credit that ought to go to them go to others in their workplaces, in their families, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    I think what we are seeing is two-fold: the "sexist" remark from Obama, where what he has said in the past ("claws out") has been much more overt, combined with this plagiarism thing, lead me to believe that what you were predicting might happen a week ago is starting to come to pass:  With McCain in the front on the other side, the media has decided to switch horses.

    Now, I'll add my own bit, which is that I've heard all over the place (and from friends covering the elections on the ground--the ones you never hear from who do all the grunt work so the "real" writers can tell the story) that the Obama camp has stopped giving the press preferential treatment.  They've cut off access, they've stopped feeding good stories and I think the biggest thing is that the press have now heard these speeches so many times, and see so many people crying and fainting, etc, that they've become jaded about it.

    But, we'll see.  I don't think it ever matters if it's really a story or not.  The thing that makes it a "story" is when the story keeps getting told...

    [ Parent ]

    Shall we start posting (none / 0) (#2)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    lines Hillary has borrowed without crediting?Pretty easy to do, if need be.

    [ Parent ]
    "Talk is cheap" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    is a line.  We all borrow lines.  That is the nature of language.

    This is not a line. It is a portion of a speech, almost verbatim.  

    [ Parent ]

    Then do it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    I would call it a nonissue too.

    The difference here is Hillary is no Media Darling, quite the opposite.

    Obama NEEDS the soft touch from the Media. I thought he would get it on this. He has not.

    Incredible how the stupidest things spur the Media.

    [ Parent ]

    she is mocking Obama (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    when she borrows his phrases and turns them into something else, like when she turns "yes, we can" into "yes, we will."

    Apples and oranges.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a difference (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    She is not running on the strength of her oratory. Her argument is different.
    He is supposedly a breath of fresh air with these visions that will bring us together. Instead he is just ripping off speeches from others. And with limited improv.


    [ Parent ]
    I guess he stole his (none / 0) (#72)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    charisma as well.

    This is a loser meme for Clinton. It comes off as desperate. Hillary goes negative about Obama's speaches, is not a headline she needs right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#104)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    You should seriously contact her campaign. I'll bet they'd love some advice from an Obama supporter who wants her to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    She was mocking him? (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    How presidential.

    [ Parent ]
    You coulda been a contender after all. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Obama doesn't mock? n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Probably, I have no idea. (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    I pay very little attention to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Well the truth is (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    the garbage comes around from all directions

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree with that conclusion (none / 0) (#59)
    by independent voter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    it certainly appears that when a slogan starts to catch on for Obama it is quickly repeated in similar form by the Clinton campaign.


    [ Parent ]
    but not (none / 0) (#76)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    the other way around.

    [ Parent ]
    I honestly can't think (none / 0) (#87)
    by independent voter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    of a slogan that did catch on for Clinton. It seems to me the message has changed weekly.

    [ Parent ]
    Ready to lead on day one (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    was stolen. By an Obama supporter, for one example, who repeated it here until he was banned for chattering.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, stolen by a supporter (none / 0) (#132)
    by independent voter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    doesn't count. The initial complaint here is that Obama "stole" words.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a common fallacy (none / 0) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    Equating intellectual property with real property.

    They aren't equivalent.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. And once Obama "borrowed" (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:38:00 PM EST
    the words and ideas of others, was he planning to give them back?  No, it only works if he gives credit -- and up-front.

    The fallacy operative here so often also seems to be that if it's legal, it's ethical.  That someone does not land in jail for this does not mean it gets them into heaven.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong on so many counts that (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    you apparently are neither a writer nor a lawyer.  

    I and others have addressed all of these points at length here.  Please read the thread.

    [ Parent ]

    But does that work both ways? (none / 0) (#165)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    They routinely discuss and share ideas, language, rhetoric, and advice.

    In all fairness, isn't Hillary criticized for doing the same with Bill?

    [ Parent ]

    parody (none / 0) (#188)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    is allowed under copyright law...

    [ Parent ]
    It is an issue because media has decided it is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    and I am curious as to why?  Are they beginning to think that Obama might not be that easy for the Republicans to beat once the whole democratic party gets behind him? Or that if Hillary is being beaten by Obama, maybe they are boosting the wrong democratic nominee.

    Are they beginning to hedge just a little?  If the media becomes "nice" to Hillary, would you then switch your support to Hillary at this time?

    [ Parent ]

    Said it before (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by herb the verb on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM EST
    there can be only one Media Darling, and it won't be Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I said that first! (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:54:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#197)
    by herb the verb on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    Great minds think alike then.

    But did you say it with Queen's anthem from "The Highlander" booming in the background and starring Christopher Lambert as Duncan McCloud? Ho ho!

    [ Parent ]

    It has been said... (none / 0) (#21)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    The art of creativity is concealing ones' sources.

    If that is true, Obama is gonna take a big hit here, at least from the media because one thing that they don't give free passes on...that is stealing someone else's lines

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, it is an issue for media (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    as I said in the other thread.  They jumped all over Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Ambrose, the Washington Post -- they have seen colleagues fired since then in newsrooms across the country for plagiarism, etc.

    Words matter to media, many of them plagiarized often, and they don't like it at all.

    [ Parent ]

    his strength (none / 0) (#32)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    is a lot more that the MSM liking him.


    [ Parent ]
    True but that has been... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    ...a big aid to his rise, the fact that MSM pummels his opponent and gives him plenty of positive stories and constant momentum stories.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary Clinton: (none / 0) (#4)
    by SpindleCityDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies...

    I see an America where we say that 47 million people uninsured...

    I see an America where we have schools worthy...

    I see an America where college is affordable again

    Jimmy Carter:

    I see an America poised not only at the brink of a new century, but at the dawn of a new era of honest, compassionate, responsive government.

    I see an America with a tax system that does not steal from the poor and give to the rich.

    I see an America with a job for every man and woman who can work, and a decent standard of living for those who cannot.

    I see an America in which my child and your child and every child receives an education second to none in the world.

    I see an America in which Martin Luther King's dream is our national dream.

    I see an America on the move again, united, its wounds healed, its head high, a diverse and vital nation, moving into its third century with confidence and competence and compassion, an America that lives up to the majesty of its Constitution and the simple decency of its people.

    How lame (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    The "I see an America" formulation has been around forever. Here's an old William Safire article that gives several examples from long before Carter:

    I SEE . . . : A rosy-visioned device most recently revived by Richard Nixon at Miami Beach. An early halcyon-evoker was Robert G. Ingersoll, who orated in 1876 on behalf of James G. Blaine: "I see our country filled with happy homes . . . I see a world without a slave." F.D.R., in 1940: "I see an America where factory workers are not discarded after they reach their prime . . . I see an America of great cultural and educational opportunity for all its people." Adlai Stevenson, in 1952: "I see an America where no man fears to think as he pleases, or say what he thinks . . . I see an America as the horizon of human hopes."


    [ Parent ]

    Nonissues (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    you agree no?

    [ Parent ]