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

"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?"

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.

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

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.

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.  

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.    

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.

The Media seems to be disagreeing with me ferociously.

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.

A leader leads by his/her actions and his/her words.  Words and speeches are not irrelevant.  If they have the ability to help people overcome fear, or help inspire them to do something good, then they accomplish a great deal.  Bush was able to whip up a lot of enthusiasm for invading Iraq -- he did it, in part, with words and speeches.  FDR was able to help calm a nation in the depression, and again during the early part of WW-II when the US was losing a lot of battles in the Pacific.

I always find it amusing when Obama people say "I was planning on voting for Hillary but after this..."

"They said he was different."

(cue black and white picture of Obama, speaking, in slow-motion, from some irreverant and exaggerated angle.  A snippet from the speech, one that sounds most like Patrick's speech.)

" - but they sold you a bill of goods."  

(another black and white picture, from Patrick's speech, in 2006, with a byline and date.)

---

Of course, the GOP will be able to come up with crazy, black and white, scary attack ads about either Clinton or Obama, so that doesn't move me much.  I suppose the revelation about the shared language helps to feed the "empty suit" theory about Obama's detractors, and his partisans will be unmoved (or start complaining about Clinton's language, which has never been as important to her campaign as Obama's language).  Do voters care about plagiarism?  I don't know; I think Biden was forced out in 1988 by the press and by Democratic donors deserting him over the shared language, more than by voters.  

The phrase "grasping at straws" is what immediately comes to mind.

It's clear they are getting desperate.  Do I care that BO appropriated someone else's words/thoughts/content in a speech? Not in the slightest.  I believe that all politicians borrow from each other in their speeches.  Most of them use speechwriters.

Frankly, I worry that this makes HRC look very childish - (picture her pointing at BO and saying "but, but, but....he stole someone's words!")

I hope the HRC campaign is able to move away from their recent silliness (plagiarism claims, accusing BO of being a Reaganomaniac, etc) - it's really making her look bad because, frankly, none of it will stick.  At least when the race-baiting nonsense incident occured (MLK vs. LBJ), the media seemed to be making the fuss which allowed BO to appear above the fray.  When these come direct from the campaign, HRC can't rise above any of it.

BO is such a helpless pol, it seems very easy to find reasons why he is a weak candidate.  This is getting a bit nit-picky.  

So, every time you see an MLK speech in a textbook or elsewhere, the family has been paid a royalty.  I wonder what Barbara King, whom I've seen at many Clinton fundraisers, would think of this usage?

The descriptions from the participants make it sound like Obama and Duval developed this language together.  In that case, I guess they sort of have joint authorship.

Plus the Axelrod factor, and that Patrick has, in the minds of MA voters, proved to be all words and no action, does not bode well for Obama.

And and of his supporters who act like they would also think this is a non-issue if HRC did this are, IMO, being disigenous.