home

Barack Obama - Deval Patrick Thread II

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Agree or disagree, Barack Obama's recycling of words taken from campaign speeches of Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick is a big story today. Here's just one compilation from Mememorandum.

Our original post has more than 200 comments, which means it's time for that thread to close. Since readers have more to say, and the cable news shows are about to start, here's a new one.

Is the media being too harsh on Obama? Not harsh enough? Is his run as media darling about to hit a snag? Or is it all a tempest in a teapot?

A line from a Bob Dylan song keeps running through my head -- I'll change the gender to fit the occasion: "He never stumbles cause he's got no place to fall."

Does Obama have enough of a space carved out to rebound from misses like this?

Update: Comments over 200, now closed.

< What The DNC FL Fiasco Can Cost Us: FL In The GE | Does It Smell A Little Like New Hampshire? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Barack Obama - Deval Patrick Thread II | 202 comments (202 topical)
    My prediction is the media will protect him (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    by somehow making this about Hillary Clinton.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    as long as HRC is in the picture she is the lightning rod. The game changes after she leaves the scene (which I sadly assume will be the case).

    [ Parent ]
    Media may believe HRC is not in the game (none / 0) (#110)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    It's time to hit Obama to make room for the maverick.

    [ Parent ]
    CNN is on it pretty hard and also on (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    Michelle for saying that for the first time in her life she is really proud of her country. That really got Dobb's off. I don't think she meant it the way it sounded. We just have to remember it's "what Michelle meant".

    [ Parent ]
    What Michelle Meant (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    It really doesn't matter what Michelle meant if Obama becomes the nominee. That is a line that will be played over and over again by the Republicans. It will be another slice off the voter pie.

    [ Parent ]
    Words... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    don't matter

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the media is unfair to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM EST
    ... and treats Obama like a rock star.

    But what saddens me is that because of the above situation, many people take their frustrations out against Obama.  It's the media's fault, not Obama.  Is Obama exploiting it?  Sure -- so should any candidate who gets that free benefit if he/she wants to win.

    (Not only is the media unfair to Hillary, but some of it is just plain sexist, which is doubly damaging to our society).

    But the anger about this, quite justified, should be directed at the media, not at Obama.

    This is about right. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nowar99 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    I think that this is about right.  I am a supporter of Hillary (who will definitely vote Obama if he is the nominee).

    I am trying to not blame Obama - things happen, and when you are giving multiple speeches every day, this type of slip up happens - especially when you have a speechwriter.

    My frustration is what would be the reaction if this was Hillary Clinton.  But that's not Obama's fault.  Its the most minor of offenses, and it'll be forgotten (even by the media) with tomorrow's polling results.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't blame Obama (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    But I've written off DKos, Move On, and most blog sites because instead of sticking to the issues and pressing each candidate to advance the progressive agenda, the blogs have been joining the media.

    [ Parent ]
    Ya there go (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Kitt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    I've not been much on Daily Kos anyway; I have other places since Al invented the internets.  But I stopped sending money to MoveOn.org because of their endorsement. I don't think it's their place to endorse.

    Here in my own state one of the longest running blogs has sucked down the Obama kool-aid and has been pretty hard on those of us who are not Obama fans or still haven't decided. As it's a joint venture, it's been a headache for some of us. What's wrong with having two in the race up to and including the convention?  Nothing as far as I see.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand that Senator Obama, (5.00 / 17) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:06:50 PM EST
    periodically, when he's feeling up, recycles Deval Patrick's words as a way of trying to boost his appeal.

    LMAO (none / 0) (#199)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What a surprise?! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    Nightly news and CBS evening news bent backwards and sideways to make Clinton look bad. CNN however was fairer. But ofcourse nothing like what happened to Joe Biden.

    Something  I found on MyDD.com :

    "It's time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I'm not asking you to take a chance on me. I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope."
    Barack Obama, right?

    Wrong.

    These are the words of Governor Deval Patrick.

    So I was right? I avoided them because (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    I figured that is what they would do.

    [ Parent ]
    Then it's a pattern (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    CNN was saying that his other speeches should be looked at to see if there's a pattern.  Wonder what they'll say when it pops up?


    [ Parent ]
    CNN asked if Deval Patrick (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:22:22 PM EST
    had used any of Obama's lines in his speeches as Obama claimed... they traded lines back and forth... they said they will look into that.

    [ Parent ]
    what they'll say is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    but, Hillary did it, too!  I saw some of the "examples" on NBC and ABC.  The first was using something from the Bible--and something that Bill had said before.  The second was her making a remark about being able to keep up with people who rent tapes at Blockbuster, so why can't we keep up with them at the border?  

    The second one interested me the most, because they showed Edwards saying something similar five months prior.  Now, I put the emphasis on similar because she did not use his exact words.  She certainly did some lifting, but she did not in any way quote him exactly, which it appears that Obama is doing with Deval.

    I'd also like to point out that all the charges that were made about Deval before he took office are very similar to the charges against Obama, and that currently, Deval is universally accepted as close to useless by the people he is supposed to represent.


    [ Parent ]

    will these speach rules (none / 0) (#41)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    apply to Hillary? Her campaign suggested they didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    She isn't hyped as the great orator (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:13:58 PM EST
    and the one who inspires with soaring words.  So it will hurt Obama -- as without those soaring words, he is just a fine baritone to most folks.  They haven't looked into what is behind the voice.

    To give him credit, Obama did not blame the 26-year-old kid speechwriter (or Ted Sorenson).  But  Obama tried to dismiss it, and that is not doing well for him.  He will have to address it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Pot, Kettle . . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by Randinho on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    Black:

    In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.

    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.

    Hillary's own communications director essentially acknowledges that what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    But he's right, Clinton has never claimed any great rhetorical power.   Obama does (ironically in the passage he lifted from Patrick's speech).  Or, as Wolfson also said

    "If you're going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own."


    [ Parent ]
    So . . . (none / 0) (#135)
    by Randinho on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    Double standards are okay for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    No (4.50 / 2) (#183)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:19:09 PM EST
    It's about judging the candidates by their own standards.  

    It's like finding out Hillary never did any work and spent all her days at the beach, making Deval Patrick hold meetings for her.  She claims to be about WORKING for change.  She's derided speeches as "just talk."  When you do that, it doesn't matter as much about what you say.  

    Obama claims to be about INSPIRING change and has defended the power of speech, thus elevating the importance of what he says.

    [ Parent ]

    Great - Clinton's own rules!!! (none / 0) (#185)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM EST
    Its plagerism - ie. theft, when he does it.

    Its OK when I do it, because I am a lousy speaker.

    My gawd...and this is the candidate you want to go up against the Republicans?

    [ Parent ]

    Tano (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    Did you know  that Obama's  post-South Carolina  speech  using   the phrases  "that ole okie-dokie,"    "Don't  be  bamboozled  or  hoodwinked"   came  right out of  Malcolm  X?  

    Heck, his phrase  "We  are  the ones  we've  been waiting  for"  isn't  even original.  

    He  should  write  a  NEW  book titled   "The Audacity  of   Recycling  Words."

    [ Parent ]

    and who said this? (none / 0) (#19)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    "We have seen thousands and thousands of Iowans over the last week and we are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa,"

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    but I assure you it was someone long before either Hillary or Barack.  There is nothing unique about either of these phrases.

    I certainly hope that Barack does not intend to claim "fired up" or "ready for change" as intellectual property. That's absurd.

    Anyone who saw the speeches, side by side, knows that Obama did more than appropriate a quip, a truism, a phrase, slogan, etc.  An entire portion of a speech was lifted almost verbatim, and any person who has gone through the rigors of the higher education system knows the difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Practically... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:49:12 PM EST
    I wonder...did Obama ever work on, say, a publication?  Something like a newspaper or a journal or something?  Because, if he hasn't, then he couldn't really be expected to know the rules about plagiarism, and how lifting someone else's text word-for-word is not an homage, but deceitful.

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    "did Obama ever work on, say, a publication"

    Ohh, I dunno, for starters, he wrote two books (without a speechwriter or ghostwriter), and he was president of Harvard Law Review.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:02:54 PM EST
    I believe that is Kathy's point.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe the point being made (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    is that if he has, he knows what plagiarism is, how serious an ethical breach it is, and he should have known better.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you positive there was no ghostwriter??? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm positive that . . . (none / 0) (#202)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    Obama said that there was no ghostwriter.  That's good enough for me, as it'd be easy to disprove and really blow up in his face

    [ Parent ]
    Wonk (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    your supposition is based on a false premise.  Ghostwriters sign contracts stating they will not reveal their participation in the writing of the novel for the life of the copyright without suffering severe penalty.

    Please note that I am not in any way saying that Obama did--or did not--have a ghostwriter.  I am saying that if there was one, we would never know.  The financial repercussions of revealing such an arrangement would be devastating to the author and result in blacklisting in the publishing community.

    [ Parent ]

    Attribution for other's words is de rigeur in the (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jawbone on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    academic world, with which Obama is well familiar. He didn't make an attribution bcz it would lessen some of the magic, would raise the question of just how much of his soaring rhetoric is actually, you know, his.

    It might make his listeners step out of the "moment," take another look at everything he says.

    Plus, they thought no one would notice. Otherwise, in some way, there would have been a hint of attribution as cover.

    [ Parent ]

    was wondering where you were (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    welcome back...

    [ Parent ]
    had to work (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    good to be here, though--and such turmoil!

    I wanted to bounce an idea off you for a book I had.  It's called the DaVinci Code.  I've got this friend name Dan Brown, and we share a lot of ideas and stuff, and I'm sure he won't mind.

    What do you think?  Would it make you proud to be an American for the first time in your life if I was able to do something like this?

    [ Parent ]

    yeah....and (none / 0) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    I can do the movie...go for it. It's ok. My take, packaging. This is packaging, commodity. I blame all those parsers with all the framing stuff...frame!! that is just dishonest. If you cannot say it honestly and the people go for it, it's propaganda and marketing. That is why it makes our skin crawl.

    [ Parent ]
    we need us some (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:20:11 PM EST
    Rezko to take this stink away.

    I have noticed something funny in news programs lately: they have again and again said that Clinton and Obama are in a "very tight race."  Remember how right before NH results they were being so very, very cautious--the whole tone changed because they had exit polling and knew that this was not the vaunted Obama sweep they had been predicting all week, so they backed off it big time.

     Maybe I am reading into this, but linking it with the Hillaryis44 quote about something "very damaging" coming down the pipleline...
    maybe they know something
    we don't know
    and to make it rhyme
    I will end this with Rezko...

    [ Parent ]

    Packaging a commodity. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by carolyn13 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    A friend of mine, 25 and multiracial, said Obama's campaign reminds her of a feminine hygiene commercial. "It's new! It's fresh! It's Obama!"


    [ Parent ]
    Ruh Roh (none / 0) (#99)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    Anyone who is educated and has written papers, particularly at his level, has a keen grasp of when attribution is appropriate. Their education and careers depend on it.

    This "fired up" and "ready for change" justification strikes me as intellectually dishonest. I know what I saw on youtube.

    [ Parent ]

    But we only know this (none / 0) (#141)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    because the Clinton campaign spurred this compare and contrast.  It's not like they were upfront about this to begin with.  I don't really think it's a big deal, but I'd imagine someone who lived in Mass., who attended these Patrick rallies, listening to Obama, would probably feel somewhat eerie.  

    Quoting someone from 40 years ago is one thing.  Quoting someone from 2 years ago is a little different - you can't really say you're quoting a great tradition there.  And what Obama is basically doing now is adding quotation marks after the fact, no?  

    Obama reiterates a section of a previous speech.  For doing this, Hillary would at least be called a robot.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not an issue of copyright (none / 0) (#182)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    No one is suggesting that Obama be sued for intellectual property theft. It's not a legal issue, but one of authenticity.

    This is between Obama and the American people, not Obama and Patrick.  

    If Barack Obama is going to claim that his words are special, that they are unique in their ability to inspire, transcend, and unite and it becomes clear that his words are not his own, what's left?  His tonal inflection?

    I don't vote for presidents based on their speeches, but 1) Barack Obama argues that voters should and 2) that his rhetoric is special. Obama's lifting of Patrick's words undermines both of these contentions.

    Though I am sure you would like to argue that this  is an issue of legality, which is a strawman, it is not. It's an issue of authenticity.

    [ Parent ]

    So his words are not special? (none / 0) (#217)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:19 PM EST
    I just want to make sure I understand your position.

    [ Parent ]
    What else could Patrick Deval say? (none / 0) (#191)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    that would not hurt his friend? And Deval could not possibly copyright those lines that is known to belong to some other people.   If the plagiarism does not legally apply, at the very least, it is COPYING!

    But we quote sources all the time.  Obama should have taken better care by ascribing authorship to JFK, Jefferson, MLK; worked it into his speech and still come out inspiring because he would be reminding the voters of all those great leaders that came before.  He was careless.  As a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, you'd think he would be more sensitized to these things. And Michelle Obama was also careless in saying, "for the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American!"  

    [ Parent ]

    ObamaMama (none / 0) (#205)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:48:13 PM EST
    Did  Obama's   listeners  know  that  those  were  the words  of   Duval  Patrick?  

    Why  didn't  he   admit  they  weren't  his own?

    [ Parent ]

    "attacks" (none / 0) (#186)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    "Deval Patrick himself suggested to Obama that he use the material after Hillary began her "I offer solutions" attacks."

    Attacks?  Saying that Obama offers speeches and she offers solutions is attacking?  I didn't realize that comparing and contrasting is now considered attacking.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama wants to be elected on his style (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    He proved that style is not necessarily divorced from substance. A great many leaders since have proven this to be true: Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy and King, among others. Barack Obama is just another name on this distinguished list.

    No one argues that style and substance are divorced, but Obama offers little substance.  He has not been tested, and is asking the American people to elect him on his (pre-packaged) style.

    The people you mention all have a record of action along with their style, and frankly, I think it's offensive to compare Obama to people that actually did effect real change.

    [ Parent ]

    He had to wait (none / 0) (#198)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    to come out with his policies because he was waiting for Clinton to come out with hers...

    [ Parent ]
    Only journalists know what plagiarism is? (none / 0) (#226)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    Has he ever gone to college?  Written a paper?  You learn about plagiarism in your first English class if you hadn't already learned it in High School.  It's not something they overlook, it's an extremely serious issue.

    [ Parent ]
    They both plagearized Cesar Chavez (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    and Delores Huerta with fired up and ready to go. so give it a rest.


    [ Parent ]
    Well, yes.... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    but only one 'borrowed' their copywritten slogan "Si se puede" - "Yes We Can!"

    Oh, well...

    [ Parent ]

    They took it from NASCAR (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    and the Indy 500.  Hardly the same.  Why is it so hard to understand the difference between mouthing cliches vs. appropriating, word for word, others' ideas?

    [ Parent ]
    because then they would have to admit (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    that Obama did something wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    good thing (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:54:09 PM EST
    that you haven't made this personal...NOT

    [ Parent ]
    it's "Cream" actually (4.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:24:57 PM EST
    and she has great standing with me as well as, I am sure, many other posters here.

    She seems to have a very good understanding of plagiarism and has stated very clearly why she believes this is a clear-cut case.

    I happen to agree with her, so you may as well go ahead and attack me as well.  Let me give you something to play with: the act of granting permission is meaningless unless the permission is in the public domain.  By your argument, if I went out and preached the theory of relativity and didn't tell folks that my buddy Albert Einstein said I could use it as my own, then that is not a case of plagiarism.  In other words, what's a little "stealing the credit" between friends?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#153)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    If one person talks about hope then anyone else who does is plagiarizing them?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. I think you've got it! (none / 0) (#156)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    And stop it right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Mass. voters saw what Deval Patrick didn't deliver (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    and didn't fall twice for the same game.

    After the Deval Patrick campaign was over, the time came to deliver on Patrick's pretty rhetoric; Mass. voters found that Deval Patrick couldn't deliver.

    They heard the same words from Barack Obama, saw the same inexperience and lack of accomplishments and took a pass. Despite the much vaunted endorsements of both Mass. Senators, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, and the daughter of JFK, Carolyn Kennedy.

    You'd hope that this would at least give pause the rest of the country, that the national media would pick up on what the Mass. media has been saying.

    I'm not holding my breath, Mr. Free-Ride-with-the-MSM skates on down his glossy path with nary a bump.

    Link is here if you want to see the story:
    Bay State voters know their limits

    From the 12 February 2008 Boston Globe article:

    In 2006, Deval Patrick ran for governor of Massachusetts on what his consultant, David Axelrod, called "the politics of aspiration." Patrick talked about hope - a lot. And when people said they were just words, he quoted the Declaration of Independence to upbraid those who think words don't matter. He told voters "Yes, we can," and later, more broadly, "Together, we can."

    These words had a lot of power, as it turned out, propelling Patrick to a landslide. They echoed words that had been used by Barack Obama - also advised by Axelrod - in his record-setting Senate race in Illinois in 2004.

    Last week, many voters in Massachusetts heard some of those words again at a massive rally for Obama's presidential campaign, joined by Patrick and the state's two senators, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. But the next day, the people of Massachusetts went out and voted for the candidate of experience.

    ya never know . . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    Obama was trailing Clinton by 30 points before Kennedy and Kerry endorsements.  The fact that the results were closer (15 pts) may have been partially due to their endorsements.

    [ Parent ]
    I hate to cite Drudge, but (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    is it significant that about half an hour ago he led with the Michelle Obama comment, but has since excised it completely and replaced it with a charge that Hillary is now plagarizing Obama?

    Looks like the commenter above was right -- they found a way to blame all this on Hillary after all.

    So Much for Drudge Being in the Tank for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    Not that I ever believed that.  Drudge rules their world.  So does Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    that not hard to do (none / 0) (#178)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    first off, a ridiculously over-the-top accusation about Obama being a thief? She is not to blame for that?

    And of course, the self-inflicted wound of the perfect set-up - making a charge like this is just an invitation for everyone to scour your own words for borrowed phrases, and you can be sure they will be found in droves.

    And to top it off, that totally hilarious comment by Wolfson - that it would be okay for Hillary to borrow phrases because, after all, no one considers here a good speaker?

    This whole episode is a total Clinton desparation move, and she most certainly will be, and should be called on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense, Tano (none / 0) (#216)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    This  whole  episode  shows  us    what  an empty  suit   Obama  is.

    [ Parent ]
    Fainting (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    I wonder if some reporter looked back at many of Deval's campaign gatherings, if there wouldn't be a whole string of females fainting in front row seats like we've seen recently at Obama's events???

    it's not plagiarism (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Turkana on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:37:12 PM EST
    but given that axelrod worked for both of them, it tells me that axelrod is good at getting his candidates to stick to effective rhetorical flourishes. i never expected obama to be authentic, and those who think he is won't be dissuaded by this from thinking so.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:54:00 PM EST
    But I wonder if this isn't sending a shiver down the spines of the Super Delegates - one more reason to worry about the free pass that Obama's gotten in press coverage.  

    I don't think Obama is corrupt, by any means, but he's a politician who has risen to the top awfully damned fast, hard to believe he hasn't cut his share of deals along the way.  Which is all fine and good, I just wish I knew what they were now instead of finding out in September and October.  

    Now, if he's the nominee, I'm with BTD in hoping we don't find out until December, but what are the odds of that happening?

    [ Parent ]

    You nailed it (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    I think if there is anything that people will take away from this it will be the issue of authenticity.  I don't understand why they are even trying to suggest it is plagiarism.  This clearly speaks to whether or not Obama represents a movement and transcends or is he another creation of a very slick political marketing team?  

    [ Parent ]
    I am ashamed to say this (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:42:14 PM EST
    but on the "real" news that more Americans watch (Entertainment Tonight), they had a very, very positive Clinton story against the Obama plagiarism one, plus, they included the 'fainting' episodes at Obama rallies and contrasted the footage with Hillary talking about how the middle class is the backbone of America.  Not a flattering contrast for Obama.

    Then, they showed Obama's camp charging that he "owns" fired up and ready to go and "change" (tm BR), and then they had a Clinton spokesperson respond to this, saying [from my memory], "He stole an entire speech from his friend, with exact phrases.  She used a couple of soundbytes. This is apples and oranges.  There is no way to compare the two."

    I remain your intrepid reporter from the so-called infotainment sphere...

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:04:50 PM EST
    You watch ET so we don't have to!  

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    I am taking one for the team!

    [ Parent ]
    And we thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    Better you than me.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you very much (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    Since their audience is undoubtedly much larger than the "news", I gotta think they're more important.

    [ Parent ]
    ET - thanks for watching (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:38:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    I was in a mediation all day today and can't believe I missed this whole super-gigantic controversy!  Btw, my Ohio cab driver today couldn't even remember Obama's name, but knew that his middle name was Hussein, that he won't say the pledge of allegiance, and that he prefers that Muslim whaddyacallit book to the Bible.  Then he said that if it was up to him, he supposes he'd have to make Bill the first lady - in other words, seems he was a Democrat.  What a country.

    Obama's Problem (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    is that he's based so much of his campaign on his ability to inspire and move through his speeches.   Otherwise, I'd tend to agree it's a misdemeanor political violation.   But he's the candidate that can't really claim that "it's no big deal, they're just speeches" - indeed part of the language he's accused of lifting is why speeches are so very important.  And they say irony is dead!

    That's why it's a good attack (none / 0) (#142)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:46:55 PM EST
    It's Rovian in that it hits right at the strong point of the opponent. This may be the tipping point for a lot of the Democratic voters left to vote in the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I have read a few Comments in different Blogs (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    about how Obama is good in speeches but falters on debates and press conferences.  I guess is the Lack of TelePrompTers in the debates and conferences.  Go figure.

    define falters (none / 0) (#102)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    it is not like his debates are car crashes. he hold his own with hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    He does pauses a lot more (none / 0) (#113)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    when he does not have a TelePrompTer and he sounds a bit unsure some times.  Anyway I said that I have heard comments about this not that I necessarily thought that he lost any debates.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think he quite clearly (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:25:37 PM EST
    has lost debates against her.  One-liners and the resulting laughter are not "points," in my opinion.  They are the kind of juvenile posturing that got us stuck with Mr Nice Guy "I Wanna Have a Beer With You."

    We need a president who understands how to communicate his or her ideas simply and accurately to the people.  I do not see this ability in Obama.  He comes across as a college professor, not the presidential material.  I am not saying that he is a horrible creature; I am saying he needs TIME to learn how to be president.  He needs to become a more seasoned politician and he needs to give himself a record where he has taken firm stands on issues.

    [ Parent ]

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    he has a record (none / 0) (#209)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    ... if you'd care to look at it.

    And his speeches do not sound like a college professor at all!

    [ Parent ]

    Is it a record (none / 0) (#220)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    of change and transcendence? It seems pretty mediocre to me.

    Nothing about his record bolsters his argument about transcendence.

    [ Parent ]

    this is the worst yet (none / 0) (#222)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    Absolutely EGREGIOUS thievery.  And from children!

    Bob the Builder

    [ Parent ]

    Riskier for him (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    Because as soon as they think he's phony or untrustworthy, his whole house of cards comes down.

    I mean that's one reason I don't support him--because I think it's all about Barack and the material is just there to whip up votes.

    As I read through the comments (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:19:08 PM EST
    I keep getting the impression that the defense of Obama by his followers is that Clinton has done it too, or that he is a politician.  I think that would not be a problem except that since the beginning of the nomination process his campaign and his followers have been telling us that he is special and not just a politician.  I hope his campaign is ready for the Republican machine if he wins the nomination.

    That wouldn't be my defense (none / 0) (#145)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    A better defense I believe is to remind people of how in fact trivial the story is, and talk about policy specifics contrasting the two candidates in a way that puts Barack in a better light. Saying "Oh she does it too!" is childish and whiny.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahh, but calling it trivial works for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by goldberry on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    Because, what Obama would be saying is "ignore the best part of mem it's no big deal".  His whole movement, his persona, his whole reason for running is encapsulated in the words he lifted from someone elses speech.  If it were some other part of his speech unrelated to his "agent of change, hope, unity, inspiration and ponies for everyone", then it  would be trivial.  But instead, it looks like Deval sat down with Obama one day and said, "Here, try this line.  It always brought the house down.  Crowd went on for so long, I nearly missed my next appearance.  Oh, and this one too.  Brings tears to the eyes of the ladies."
    His charisma now looks scripted and delivered for maximum emotional impact and no longer sincere.  And yet he can't brush of this part of his identity by calling it trivial without calling attention to the whole facade.  It may take a few days to sink in but I think this is not going to help him.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by chrisvee on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    The issue here is not whether this meets the technical definition of plagiarism.  The issue is that a campaign that's built on lifting people up to dedicate themselves to a higher political calling has let us see the man behind the curtain so to speak twice within a very short period of time (e.g. lifting phrases from Patrick and also the 'fainting' scripts).  The more that Senator Obama's approach looks like a technique rather than an art, the more people will start to suspect that maybe they are being manipulated (which they are because politics is sadly about manipulating people to a certain extent and all the campaigns do it) and the more likelihood that folks take a second look at Senator Clinton.

    The media can turn on him at any moment IMHO.  I don't see any Democratic presidential candidate continuing to receive favorable treatment for any substantial period of time.

    Fainting? (none / 0) (#122)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    At Deval speeches too?

    [ Parent ]
    The difference between (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:33:41 PM EST
    the "fired up and ready to go" stuff and the Obama/Patrick thing is that the "Just words?" was the gimmick to his speech.  It's the difference between design...take for instance logo design as an example.  It's one thing where two different designers use circles in their design, but when one design rips off the basic composition as a whole including its elements from another designer for his design, it's plagiarism.

    Exactly. Use of words or ideas (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:49:04 PM EST
    of others is how plagiarism is defined.  One or the other is sufficient to meet the definition.  Both makes it over the line . . . and as noted, especially appealing to comics for weeks to come with the irony of Obama doing so in a speech saying that his words are more than "just words" and really mean something, defining him -- his ideas.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the irony...it burns. (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:15:47 PM EST
    I am especially peeved at this because I am a graphic designer and I deal with plagiarism all the time (hence my example).  I despise plagiarism, truly despise it, so when this came up last night it was the icing on the cake for my dislike of Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not plagarism really since the (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST
    same person, the campaign manger, is responisble for both candidates' entire indentities. As others have posted, it's simply a reflection on Obama's "authenticity".

    By the way, Deval hasn't been the most successful of Governors. He's had a hard time delivering on his rhetoric.

    Uh (none / 0) (#181)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:17:24 PM EST
    well then couldn't that be prophetic about the rhetoric, then?  

    [ Parent ]
    See my post above about Deval (none / 0) (#193)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    Patrick and what Mass. voters think of him... article from the BOston Globe.

    I have also heard the same thing from numerous MA colleagues. They didn't want Romney's Lt. gov. and Deval sounded good, although light on experience and record (sound familiar?). So they voted for "change".

    Now he hasn't been able to deliver. There was no record because he never accomplished anything and he didn't know how to make the levers of government work.

    We either learn from their mistakes or we relive them on a national basis with Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    or maybe . . . . (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:52:36 PM EST
    maybe Patrick and Obama are different people.  Generalizing from one instance to all others is not particularly sound.  I can think of instances where a wife was elected after a husband and did a poor job.  Should we generalize to this presidential race, too?  I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    Allow me to quote Eliza...hum along... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!
    I get words all day through;
    First from him, now from you!
    Is that all you blighters can do?
    Don't talk of stars burning above;
    If you're in love, Show me!
    Tell me no dreams filled with desire.
    If you're on fire, Show me!
    Here we are together in the middle of the night!
    Don't talk of spring! Just hold me tight!
    Anyone who's ever been in love'll tell you that
    This is no time for a chat!
    Haven't your lips longed for my touch?
    Don't say how much, Show me! Show me!
    Don't talk of love lasting through time.
    Make me no undying vow. Show me now!
    Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme!
    Don't waste my time, Show me!
    Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall!
    Don't talk at all! Show me!
    Never do I ever want to hear another word.
    There isn't one I haven't heard.
    Here we are together in what ought to be a dream;
    Say one more word and I'll scream!
    Haven't your arms hungered for mine?
    Please don't "expl'ine," Show me! Show me!
    Don't wait until wrinkles and lines
    Pop out all over my brow,
    Show me now!

    Should be Hillary's new theme song.

    It's kind of unbelievable... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by frankly0 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    Obama does something which by any reasonable account is just wrong, and for which he should be held accountable to whatever degree might be appropriate.

    The Clinton campaign criticizes Obama for his mistake.

    Whose ox gets gored by TPM and much of the MSM? Why Clinton, because of her out of control negative campaigning.

    Man, if you want to know how much of a bias there is at TPM and in MSM, this would be exhibit A.

    Feels like (none / 0) (#212)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    Bush 2004 all over again, doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    swooning (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    Has anyone checked out film clips of Deval Patrick's 2006 campaign to see if there were a series of swooning incidents by girls sitting in front seats?  

    If so, then there is a pattern of phoniness, and cynical manipulation.  

    The voters in MA bought this "hope" shtick from the Patrick campaign two years ago, but check out his approval ratings now--they're in the toilet.  Perhaps that is why Hillary won handily over Obama in the MA primaries. They saw this flim-flam show once, and they aren't going to be fooled again.

    It was a good campaign move (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pontificator on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:13:45 PM EST
    on Hillary's part, and allowed her to win the news cycle for the day.  These types of attacks are precisely what we're going to see in the general from the Republicans (turning little misdemeanors into the biggest scandal evah), so I'm interested to see whether Obama responds effectively.  So far, I think he's done well, getting Deval Patrick's testimony into the public record.  I suppose tomorrow's results will tell the story.  If Obama wins big, this story is dead.  If Hillary surprises, I expect we'll see it repeated as we head to March 4.

    Best Buds (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by pedagog on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    What do you think Deval would say--gee I'm disappointed that my good friend Barack plagiarized my speeches??

    [ Parent ]
    Now watch how many ways Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    says, as she has, that she is proud of her country.  The Other Obama's words today are going to be spun and spun -- one of those phrases that no doubt wasn't meant as awful as it sounded, but it's too late to say so.  Picture it on a continuous loop.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's right (none / 0) (#61)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:57:59 PM EST
    I had been annoyed about the attacks by the Clinton campaign, but they do give Obama a chance to prove he can take a punch.  If he can,  that's a good sign for the GE.  If he can't, better to find out now.  So bring 'em on!

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure "attacks" is the right word (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jawbone on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    I think we can't imagine exactly what the ReThugs will come up to attack Obama, were he the nominee, but since he is so little known beyond his soaring rhetoric, I think they could have an effect on the public.

    Attacks? By Hillary? C'mon. Compare and contrast is not an "attack."  

    I'm not sure Obama's every been really attacked.

    [ Parent ]

    Well attack then (none / 0) (#123)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    You can't simultaneously attack and say he hasn't been attacked! Though if accusations of plagiarism and dishonesty aren't attacks, I don't know what are.

    [ Parent ]
    What would be an attack? n/t (none / 0) (#140)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you are joking, right? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:11:01 PM EST
    A charge of plagerism, ie. being a thief and a liar, is not an attack?

    [ Parent ]
    Tano (none / 0) (#213)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    Attacks  are more like  YOU  claiming  Bill  Clinton   is  a  racist,   which  no one   believes  is  true.

    [ Parent ]
    Not when it's true, no. (none / 0) (#224)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:04:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Deval Patrick cannot be an apron string (none / 0) (#126)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    I don't think Obama has responded in a way that he looks good.  The whole ordeal makes Obama's oratory look phony.  The point is not that he said the words, but that the words cannot be appropriated any more than he can deliver JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..."  I can't wait until Jon Stewart and Letterman make fun of him.

    [ Parent ]
    I dunno about Letterman (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    But if you haven't noticed, The Daily Show has become an Obama love-fest. It's a bit nauseating. Colbert is slightly better, but his audience certainly isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    I've noticed. (none / 0) (#147)