The showdown in Austin — was it a Texas-sized moment?

February 22, 2008

For weeks, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have done just about everything they can think of to stress the significance of another head-to-head debate with Barack Obama. When Obama balked at an event in Wisconsin, Clinton ran ads taunting him over it.

All of this had the effect of hammering home a simple point: Clinton couldn’t wait to get back onto the stage with her Democratic rival. One assumed, given the emphasis, that she would use the next debate to practically tear Obama apart. Indeed, she probably wouldn’t have a choice — it’s been a rough few weeks, her quiver is running noticeably low on arrows, and time for game-changing events is running out.

So, what happened last night in Austin? Well, I should note that I slept through the whole thing, but have read much of the transcript and lots of reports on what transpired. And if there’s a consensus, it seemed to be that nothing happened last night that changed the dynamics of the race in any significant way. Josh Marshall’s response seemed typical of most:

The level of specificity and detail in discussions of policy questions spoke well of both of them. Hillary had a strong closing. Obama has clearly improved as a debater and seemed to embody the frontrunner mantle. All of this points basically to a tie. And in the context of where this campaign is, a tie is a win for Obama because he’s winning. And Clinton needs to change the dynamic of the campaign.

Notwithstanding the inflamed partisans on both sides, I think the great majority of Democrats like both these candidates, genuinely like and admire both of them. You could feel that in the responses from the audience tonight. But that pleasant equilibrium is losing the race for her right now.

I have to admit, I find this rather surprising. By any reasonable measure, Clinton is losing. If she wasn’t going to use this debate to shake up the status quo, then what was the point of pushing the importance of debates so aggressively the past couple of weeks?

This is not to say that Clinton didn’t take any swings at all; she did use an obviously-prepared line to go after Obama on the silly “plagiarism” flap.

“[L]ifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in; it’s change you can Xerox.” If the audience’s reaction was any indication, Obama fared better in the exchange.

There was also quite a bit of attention focused on Clinton’s compelling closing statement.

“I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life,” she began. “And I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me … ‘How do you keep going?’ And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I’ve had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.”

Then, with the careful geographical precision that is one of her political strengths, Clinton ended this riff by describing a wrenching visit to wounded soldiers at the Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio. It would be melodramatic to believe that a single debate response could rescue a drowning candidate. But Clinton’s Austin answer seemed destined to, at minimum, be remembered as a high point of her campaign.

And then maybe out of carelessness or amnesia, Clinton went a beat too far. Turning to Obama, she said, “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine … I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.” It was a lovely sentiment, one that would make any presidential debater proud. The only problem was — as the Obama campaign gleefully pointed out in a press release shortly thereafter — that John Edwards had used almost the identical words in a mid-December debate.

Does this mean Clinton is guilty of plagiarism? For the love of God, no. It’s just a reminder that sometimes politicians borrow words and phrases, all of which is routine, and none of which is worth raising a fuss over.

So, who “won”? Most seem to agree that there was no obvious “winner,” which as a practical matter, means Obama has a reason to be pleased this morning.

I think Clinton’s tired. She lost the pulse of the people. She doesn’t know whether to go negative or stay above the fray. It seems when she’s gone negative in the debates, she’s been booed and then lost another primary. I think the combo of fatigue and not knowing how to turn things around resulted in her very amiable debating technique last night. At least she can end things on a civil manner. Or, the cynic in me says maybe she’s fatigued like a fox and there’s some strategy in here that we mere mortals haven’t figured out yet.

  • I was thrilled that she clearly decided to not damage Obama, and often went out of her way (except for the silly season segment) to avoid creating soundbites the retHugs can use.

    I think Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic) about nailed it: “This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination.”

  • IMHO, Clinton wants as many debates as possible, because for the most part they allow the public to not only see here fairly strong mastery of policy, but to also see that she is not the horrendous child-eater many on the right and some in the Obama camp claim she is. Clinton, for the most part, comes off very personal and likeable in these debates. Everyone knows she (maybe not her immediate political entourage) is a skilled and driven politician. Her biggest negative is her partially earned (but largely unfounded) public persona that has been pounded into America’s collective psyche by the far right nutjobs since around 1993. When she is seen live, debating, this persona does not present itself, and what appears to be a fairly decent and caring human being instead appears. It really is her only true chance to overcome Obama in the primary, as most of us are pretty pleased with both Obama and Clinton as our candidates–the petty negative attacks simply will not work. Clinton needs to sell herself, not beat down Obama, and these debates provide a good forum for her to do just that. But for all intents and purposes, she should have started this tactic weeks ago, as it seems Obama has skillfully seized the momentum, and it is likely too late in the process for Clinton to overcome that.

  • I think HRC’s closing complimentary remarks were appreciated by Democrats and puts her in good standing with Obama folks. She may not win this election, but she will speak at the convention and be a political force in the future as part of the Obama administration or as a powerful leader in the Senate. She will influence the direction of this country much like a Hubert Humphrey or Ted Kennedy.

  • The plagiarism exchange was a horrible blow to Clinton. She had made a mediocre charge, only to see Obama knock it out of the park with a response that both acquitted himself well and dismissed it as a silly topic. It seemed like she should have walked away, but then she launched the lame and obviously prepared Xerox line.

    She did well elsewhere in the debate, I thought. Mastery of images and, as bubba said, she took advantage of the format to show she’s an actual human being. I still find her speaking style, as with most politicians, to be a little contrived, but she looked good when she was focused on the actual issues. The final statement was a good one, but it almost seemed too conciliatory and almost a concession speech.

    But ultimately, for her sake, Obama had to stumble. And he didn’t. He showed a solid command of the issues and touted many of his own achievements. He’s definitely gotten better at the format, which is a benefit of the drawn out campaign. (After 19 debates, he should have improved too.) He parried away Clinton’s best attacks, but generally played it safe as you’d expect a frontrunner to do. In the end, I thought he looked presidential.

  • She may not win this election, but she will speak at the convention and be a political force in the future as part of the Obama administration or as a powerful leader in the Senate. She will influence the direction of this country much like a Hubert Humphrey or Ted Kennedy.

    My thoughts exactly. She has a real shot to be a power in the Senate and, like Ted Kennedy, now that she’s made her presidential run, she’s raised her profile in the party even more.

  • My take: Clinton did a great job – Obama held his own but she was the superior debater. Ironically she was the more eloquent.

    I was surprised more sparks didn’t fly, too. Several times Clinton was fed questions designed to provoke conflict e.g. “what do you mean when you imply Obama isn’t qualified?” But she used 95% of her answer time to brag about how qualified SHE is, instead of going after him. When she did go after him it was vague and gentle. I was impressed, but confused. This isn’t going to help her.

    My mother has a theory, that when candidates are sitting down, they are less aggressive. I have to think she’s on to something. This and the previous debate were the two most civil I’ve seen this cycle, and they were both seated.

  • There is another debate next Tuesday night…so this isn’t the last chance for sparks to fly.

  • Plagiarism is wrong, no matter who does it. Obama people who try to brush this off as trivial are doing no favor to today’s youth who may ruin their careers by absorbing a message that stealing ideas from others is acceptable behavior. He has certainly undermined my efforts to teach my college classes that plagiarism is intellectual property theft. There was an interesting post about this at InsideHigherEd.com yesterday, describing the problems of the Columbia Teacher’s College psychology professor who has been accused of plagiarizing work by her students and colleagues. Her defense (other than flat denial) is that African Americans have to work twice as hard as everyone else to get promoted. What is Obama’s defense, other than a flat denial that plagiarism is actually wrong?

    Clinton has 100 fewer delegates than Obama in a race where both have more than 1000 delegates. That is hardly losing. She has been ahead in polls in both Texas and Ohio, when polls have sometimes underestimated her support. Calling her a loser is a campaign tactic, not meaningful analysis of this race. Whether she wins or loses the next several primaries, suggesting that she has given up is idiotic — or maybe wishful thinking from Obama supporters.

    This debate was not a concession speech. My hope is that elections are not determined by media attempts to suppress her chances by prematurely calling the race for Obama. Shouldn’t we let people vote before we insist that she bow out?

  • what the hell was up with the ac/fan that kept distracting obama b/c it was blowing the pages of his notebook up. he had to keep putting something on the pad or hold the pad down. anyone else notice this?

  • I’ve heard it said before, here or elsewhere (so don’t accuse me of plagiarism) but she’d make a great Senate majority Leader, and would function well as a counterpoint to Obama in policy crafting. Harry Reid is obviously in need of a career change. Perhaps he could could work as Dubya’s butler after he steps down, as giving him everything he wants seems to be where his strengths lie.

  • Mary, here we go again!

    STEALING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the hell are you smoking? how did he steal? please please explain mary.

    i get your frustration, and you are right, that the media is calling for an end to hillary before she deserves it, but you shouldn’t be going around accusing obama of STEALING.

    so again, please tell me how you can steal something from someone who gives it to you?

  • If you read many posts on the internet – Hillary supporters seem to be getting bitter.

    I’m hoping it’s just the anger portion of mourning.

    But, I think if Hillary loses graciously, she’s a potential cabinet member. Maybe even Sec of State. (You want the communicator in the Pres. job and the Smart Like a Fox person in the Sec State job, no?) Personally, I’d like to see Hillary in this sort of top post. She simply is too polarizing for the president role and people are tired of polarizing presidents.

    But, Hillary for Sec of State sounds pretty good to me…

  • Mary (#9),

    While I agree with your sentiment that this is not over ’til it’s over, and to suggest otherwise is premature, please drop the plagerism claim. As Obama rightly pointed out, the man whose words he supposedly plagerized is one of Obama’s national co-chairs AND suggested he (Obama) use those words.

    I have said it before: we Obama supporters should not be strutting around thumping our chests. Clinton deserves more and for party unity’s sake we should not act that way. I do think Obama supporters like myself can be guardedly optimistic about his chances.

    And I have to say, Clinton’s performance lifted my impression of her. I was convinced she would go for broke and throw everything at Obama. She didn’t and showed a lot of grace and class.

  • It has reached the point where there are very few in the blogging community – and even in the media – who are not clearly taking one side or the other; Josh Marshall has shown in how he has chosen to headline the posts and links to other media that he favors Obama.

    And this place? Ditto.

    I didn’t watch, but I listened to the whole thing, and found listening to Obama maddening. If he wasn’t hesitating and stumbling – “Uh, uh, uh…” – he was trying to align himself with Clinton – I call that the “me, too!” aspect of his responses (which also evidences itself in plans and policies he takes from her and claimes as his own) – or he was once again giving his “what I really meant” explanation about something.

    And just like after the Wisconsin primary, he talked on and on and on – and Campbell Brown let him. He got rebuttal time, when Hillary didn’t. He got rebuttal to her rebuttal when she finally demanded it, but almost always, he got the last word. Once again, the moderator wants to control the story – but I would expect nothing less from Mrs. Dan Senor.

    Hillary’s closing, though, was masterful enough to get a standing ovation.

    And can I just say that the Obama campaign’s continuing effort to claim that every word that comes out of Hillary’s mouth these days was said by someone else first is petty and graceless? I get that he wants to get in her head and make her hesitate about everything she says, but it’s a stupid way to take the focus off his own transgressions in that area. We can all see how petty it is, and how it does not compare to what he did.

  • Hehe…I keep hearing people suggest Senators for cabinet posts, and some of those posts may eventually be filled by senators, but seriously, we don’t want to drain the Senate majority to fill the cabinet. I’ve heard names like Biden, Kerry, Webb and others tossed out there. These are all great choices, but unless their respective state rules allow for another Democrat to backfill the posts it would be a bad idea to take them all. Often it is the governor who chooses the replacement and if that governor is a republican, then there is a problem.

  • Mary must be an absolute delight in the classroom.

    When your students dare to see things differently than you, do you go insane on them too?

  • Dose of Reality (16)

    I’m a relatively crazed Obama supporter but I agree he was rather stumbling this time around, especially compared to Hillary who had an almost flawless delivery. I disagree with you that he was overly “me too!” with his answers – both of them had a lot of me too going on, because there’s a broad agreement between them on actual policy. So of course they’re going to be me tooing.

    But I don’t have a clue where you’re coming from here:

    And can I just say that the Obama campaign’s continuing effort to claim that every word that comes out of Hillary’s mouth these days was said by someone else first is petty and graceless? I get that he wants to get in her head and make her hesitate about everything she says, but it’s a stupid way to take the focus off his own transgressions in that area. We can all see how petty it is, and how it does not compare to what he did.

    The Obama campaign only points out areas where Clinton has borrowed rhetoric in order to fend off her accusations about it. They’re not pressing the point, they’re defending against her silly attack. They’re basically saying “look, her argument is crazy, it’s not a big deal, and look she does it too, so WTF?” They want to get past it.

    We DON’T want to press the point. I think Clinton’s concluding statement last night was brilliant, and not in the least bit flawed by how similar her last paragraph was to Edwards. We’re just trying to nullify a stupid argument, not throw it back in her face. How is that so horrible?

    P.S. put me down for Hillary as Senate Majority Leader. I think she’d be brilliant.

  • I thought Hillary was more at ease and in control. Obama frequently uttered “uhs” and “hmms” and didn’t seem as quick on his feet. I groaned when he started off with the “Washington is the place good ideas go to die” line. We just heard that in a speech, we get it, ok?

    I disliked Hillary’s dodges when put on the spot about Obama (e.g. why do you think he can’t be commander-in-chief), and her jump back into the healthcare issue when that wasn’t the question at hand.

    I liked the “human touch” she showed at the very end, although I feel a bit different now knowing that her lines were echoing Bill and John Edwards. Funny thing is, on blogs and forums full of Obama-supporting Hillary-haters, they just used it against her (“oh, she’s pulling the victim stunt”). Seems this woman (and all women in positions of power?) can’t get a break with the haters. If she’s assertive and commanding, then she’s shrill and power-mad. If she shows compassion or tenderness, she’s slyly putting on an act. I’ll use the sexism card – the Hillary-hate is largely due to people who think assertive women who’ve risen through the ranks are manipulative you-know-whats.

    I wish Hillary well, but I don’t think there is any reason for another debate, and I doubt she has much of a chance for the nomination. The winds are blowing in favor of Obama too much.

  • TR @ 5 gets it right.

    He took the plagiarism fastball and literally batted it down her throat.
    She looked like a sick canary as the applause swelled and elongated.
    She then lost her poise, went tharn, and slimed him.
    Boos rained down.
    That was a remarkable moment.

    I can’t ever remember a democrat getting the bronxed by a Dem. audience.
    Ever.

    Game. Set. Debate. Barack: (6-2) (6-3) (6-5)

  • Mary,

    Again you are distorting the issue by confusing the idea of plagiarism from different venues. Work done by a professor under their name is not the same as a political speech. Writings by a professor under their name should be entirely their work, and anything else should be attributed to others.

    In contrast a political speech is commonly a joint effort. A politician giving a speech is not expected to have written the speech itself and it is routine to use material contributed by others with attribution. I recently posted material from James Fallows who, besides being a writer for The Atlantic, was a former speech writer for Jimmy Carter. He supported this view.

    You are holding Obama to standards which simply do not exist with regards to political speeches. Besides, if you want to use such a standard you must be consistent. Clinton would be guilty of far more than Obama by this standard but they came up with some rational as to why this standard should be applied to Obama but not to her. This came out in an exchange which Jack Tapper reported during a conference call where the Clinton campaign was making these accusations:

    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.

    It doesn’t fly to first invent criteria, and then to only apply them to the opposing candidate.

  • Correction to comment above:

    One sentence should say, “A politician giving a speech is not expected to have written the speech itself and it is routine to use material contributed by others without attribution.”

  • If last night was the first I’d seen of the candidates, I’d be hard pressed to make a choice. But after the cheap and/or silly attacks Clinton and her campaign have leveled at Obama, I found her performance unbearably two-faced.

    She’s all courageous going after him before her supporters, but in front of a mixed audience — where he’s present to defend himself — she’s makes nice. Sorry, either her charges are valid or they’re trumped up red-meat for the faithful. Now we know, and the audience registered their opinion by booing.

    And having seen her closing remarks again, I still think that last line, “I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about,” was snarky.

  • Jambro, yes. The AC fan was driving us nuts. I’ll run down to campus and talk to Operations about their fan power. 🙂 Seriously, those stage lights are hot, so they had the AC cranked to keep it cool.

    It’s not plagiarism if you have the approval to use it. This is beating a rather silly dead horse. If that’s the best argument against Obama being President that Clinton can come up with, we Dems are in a good place to win the election.

    I just wish their egos weren’t so big that one of them might consider being vice-president for 8 years, then taking over the reigns. These two on the same ticket would be unstoppable!

    God help us if McCain is elected. 100 years of war would not only turn the U.S. into a pathetically poor nation, we would have even fewer international allies, and our sons and daughters would keep dying in an unjust war when the draft is reactivated.

  • I just wish their egos weren’t so big that one of them might consider being vice-president for 8 years, then taking over the reigns. These two on the same ticket would be unstoppable!

    YES YES YES. I want them BOTH. Let Obama run the WH and be the fresh face of America in the 21st Century, let Clinton preside over the Senate and push policy like Darth Cheney did. UN-frickin-STOPPABLE!

    And the fascists will scurry for the shadows, knowing that detox has begun …

  • All Mary needs is a chorus of tiny violins. Reason and fact have no impact on her. No need to bother.

  • A little something the Clinton campaign put together to remind us that we’ve probably all said “whatever happens, we’ll be fine:”

    Don’t think it’s common? Here are a few examples of just how widespread the phrase is:

    Laura Bush: ‘Whatever happens will be fine’ [El Paso Times, 5/19/00]

    NBA Star Shaquille O’Neal: ‘We’ll be fine, no matter what happens.’ [AP, 10/8/03]

    Actress Lindsay Lohan: ‘No matter what happens, we’re going to be fine.’ [AP, 4/19/07]

    Former Redskin Dexter Manley: ‘Whatever happens, I’m going to be fine.’ [Washington Post, 7/26/98]

    Former Redskin Gus Frerotte: ‘I look forward to whatever happens. We’re going to be fine.’ [Washington Times, 12/22/98]

    Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski: ‘Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine back there.’ [Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski, 4/22/07]

    Angels GM Bill Stoneman: ‘Whatever happens, I’m going to be fine.’ [Los Angeles Times, 2/22/03]

    Former Giant Christian Peter: ‘And whatever happens, I’m going to be fine.’ [Asbury Park Press, 1/29/01]

    Chicago Cub Larry Rothschild: ‘I’m not worried about that. Whatever happens, I’m going to be fine.’ [St. Petersburg Times, 4/1/01]

    Diamondback Edgar Gonzalez: ‘Whatever happens, I’ll be fine because I’m in the big leagues.’ [Edgar Gonzalez, Diamondbacks, 5/2/07]

    Hockey player Richard Hamula: ‘Whatever happens I’ll be fine with but hopefully I can still stick around here.’ [Richard Hamula, hockey player, 9/20/02]

    Leonard Hamm, interim commissioner for the Baltimore City Police Department: ‘Whatever happens, I’m going to be fine.’ [Baltimore Afro-American, 11/19/04]

    And Ron Chusid – do you have children? Would you take the “no big deal” approach if your kid was suspended from school for using another kid’s work – and would you be able to keep a straight face explaining to the administration that it was no big deal because your kid and his or her friend agreed that it was okay? Somehow, I don’t think so.

    What about if your kid didn’t get into the college of his choice because his essay was found to be lifted from someone else? Could arguing that the school should ignore that because your kid’s friend gave him permission to do so reverse that decision? Yeah – good luck with that.

    You probably don’t think there’s anything wrong with athletes using performance-enhancing drugs, either, do you?

    It’s not different, everyone doesn’t do it, and that it’s politics doesn’t make it okay.

    You would be howling for Hillary’s head on a pike if she had passed off whole chunks of someone else’s speeches as her own, so quit trying to tie yourself into a pretzel rationalizing Obama’s actions.

  • I groaned when he started off with the “Washington is the place good ideas go to die” line. We just heard that in a speech, we get it, ok? -David

    You have to keep in mind that most of the people who are engaged enough to read political blogs and comment on them have paid more attention. Not everyone has watched every debate and speech, so what sounds repetitive and tired to us may be the first time a larger chunk of people have heard it.

    —

    I have a question: Does Hillary owe the Xerox company royalties for her supid, debunked zinger? It’s silliness like this that makes her unqualified to be a leader; I’ve had enough of one for the last seven years who behaves like a child.

  • …for her supid, debunked zinger? -doubtful

    Hah, I invaldiated my own complaint by misspelling ‘stupid.’ D’oh. Where is that pesky edit button….

  • Bob Shaeffer pointed out something interesting on CBS this morning. Hillary started really slipping back around MLK day when she made her LBJ comments which some people took to be racially charged. Now, she can’t attack Obama face to face without that flying back on her. Meanwhile, her jockeying for the FL and MI delegates is making her look more cynical and conniving. Which scares Democrats who want a change from the sewer rats in the Whitehouse now.

    Going for the jugular is really dangerous for her right now. Too many voters are too suspicious of the “Clinton Dynasty.” I think she did what she could to be gracious and affable, and meet people on an emotional level [much like the tears surge in NH]. And it was probably the only right thing she could do. I can see her picking up a straggling vote or two with it. But, she didn’t stop Obama’s momentum. At this point I don’t see any way she could possibly finesse that on her own. It would take some sort of bomb shell.

  • You would be howling for Hillary’s head on a pike if she had passed off whole chunks of someone else’s speeches as her own, so quit trying to tie yourself into a pretzel rationalizing Obama’s actions.

    No. No, I wouldn’t. The only people tying themselves into a pretzel are you and Mary.

    You can try to project your pettiness on the rest of us, but you’re missing the point that this type of idiotic, meaningless bullshit is precisely why many of us have lined up in the Obama camp. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out, and had a tough decision between Obama and Clinton. I liked a lot in both, I had concerns with both.

    And then the Clinton campaign started spinning furiously and flinging feces at the wall. And suddenly my choice was clear.

  • It is ridiculous to me that the Obama campaign took out a press release stating that Clinton had used the same verbage as Edwards in her speech. Is this really the change he has been talking about? This is more of the same, and a much larger stretch than what Obama quoted.

    I am an Obama supporter and think that Clinton really did better in the debate last night. She stuck to the questions a lot closer than Obama did (although they were both all over the place), and clarified their differences much better. After the debate, while still an Obama supporter, I realized that if Clinton is the nominee I will have no problem voting for her.

  • You would be howling for Hillary’s head on a pike if she had passed off whole chunks of someone else’s speeches as her own, so quit trying to tie yourself into a pretzel rationalizing Obama’s actions. -Dose of Fiction

    She has ‘borrowed’ rhetoric. The same people who don’t care that Obama used Patrick’s words (with permission) don’t really seem to care too much about Clinton’s borrowed phrases, either.

    It’s the hypocrisy we’re getting all hung up on.

    Seriously, is a trumped of charge of plagiarism, which has been debunked thoroughly, all you’ve got?

  • OMG ChicagoPat just plagiarised me! I’ve been saying Hillary would be a better Senate Majority leader on the internets for a while now!!!

    Seriously tho, Clinton know her issues well and is a talented politician. What she is not is a leader of the people. Her style of browbeating, strongarm and willfull obtusiveness is much more suited to a leader of politicians that need to be herded like cats. Reid so far has done a poor job getting policy moved through the Senate, and seems to be often outflanked in rhetoric by the R’s. I saw he’s got thru ’09 to turn it around or Clinton takes over and what she does best. Senate majority leaders don’t have to be liked, they just need to be effective.

    Obama OTOH demonstrated he is a strong canidate. He parried most of her attacks deftly and broadened his policy positions w/ satisfactory specificity. He’s still got some work to do to beat McCain, but he gets better every debate. He will be a very imposing candidate in the fall. The worst alligations so far made against him have been completely lame, and that’s not for a loack of trying on Clinton’s part. Let’s not forget all the skeleton’s in her closet that Obama has graciously let lay low, but have no doubt if Hillary is the nominee we will have months to be reminded of Whitewater, Lewinski, Travelgate, Vince Foster, China and all the other Clinton scandals of the 90’s from the R’s.

  • Dose of Reality,

    There is no comparison between a political speech and work turned in at school. Political speeches are not claimed to be a candidate’s original work. The candidate makes no claim that they are his own words, and everyone knows that they are often written by others. This is a “rule” purely invented by the Clinton campaign (which she doesn’t even follow herself). Nor is there any comparison between this and performance enhancing drugs.

    The examples you give are a straw man argument as these are not the real problems. Clinton has borrowed many other statements throughout the campaign.

    You would be howling for Hillary’s head on a pike if she had passed off whole chunks of someone else’s speeches as her own, so quit trying to tie yourself into a pretzel rationalizing Obama’s actions.

    That’s really nonsense. Clinton has been taking material from others for quite a while. Nobody was howling for Hillary’s head at the time. Nobody is really howling for her head now either. These are just being pointed out because of the hypocrisy of Clinton accusing Obama of what she is actually guilty of. Besides, there is a big difference between Obama using words written by a campaign adviser (which is conventional for a political speech) and Clinton using other’s words without permission.

    When Clinton resorts to bogus attacks like this she only provides a perfect example of the type of change in politics which Obama is talking about. Most people understand this, which is why Clinton was booed when she tried to bring up a bogus attack like this.

  • Still no questions on Global Warm….

    [we interrupt this blog comment with a commercial – Clean Coal is great!cleancoalcleancoalcleancoalcleancoal]

  • “Would you take the “no big deal” approach if your kid was suspended from school for using another kid’s work – and would you be able to keep a straight face explaining to the administration that it was no big deal because your kid and his or her friend agreed that it was okay?”

    If the child and his friend were working on a group/pair project, it’d certainly be ok. Political campaigns are nothing if not group projects. No politician writes all their own material, as evidenced by Hillary lifting lines from her husband (“Sure I’ve taken hits, but it’s nothing compared to you good people every day…”) and co-opting Obama’s themes throughout the entire campaign (Yes We Can = Yes SHE Can, etc.). Which is further evidence that the plagiarism nonsense is just that – nonsense, especially when lobbed from the glass house Hillary and her supports are lobbing it from. There’s nothing wrong with borrowing lines, but if you’re going to bust somebody’s chops about it, you’d better be the king (or queen, as it were) of originality, or you end up making an ass of yourself.

    That some Hillary fanatics (with whom I sympethize, I might add) fail to see this disconnect says more about them than it does about either candidate.

  • This is what happens when you have been well and truly beaten: you can’t see where your enemy is and you throw punches that land where he isn’t.

    I’ll put in here again Chuck Spinney’s analysis of where Clinton is at vis-a-vis Obama in 4GW strategy terms:

    I think Obama is running (no doubt unconsciously) a classic Motherhood & Mismatch (M&M) strategy (or Boyd’s Moral Design for Grand Strategy) on Hillary. That is to say, Obama is driving wedges of contradictions between the 3 poles of the triangle: (1) What she SAYS she is; (2) what she REALLY is; and (3) the WORLD she has to deal with. And she is blundering into one cul de sac of her own making after another … it is a little like watching Sen. John Tower fold up in OT&E debate in mid-80s (discussed in Coram’s book on Boyd).

    The biggest mismatch of all has yet to become manifest, which gets to your point about Alinsky: The mismatch between her central claim of competence (what she says she is) and her incompetence in running a large organizations ( which creates mismatches between what she really is and between the world she has to deal with). This is clear once one considers that the primary campaigns are the biggest organizational endeavors she and Obama have ever run … and clearly, based on her performance, particularly given her hugely advantageous position last summer, the answer to the question of WHO IS THE MOST COMPETENT MANAGER? becomes self evident. Add in the health care fiasco of 1993 and the case is overwhelming.

    My conclusion: Obama is so far inside her OODA loop that her orientation is now shaping her observations and decisions, and it is beginning to look like her decision loop is predictably going non linear and producing entropy at a rate that is blossoming into chaos. — and that kind is what moral isolation and collapse is all about.

    But, like Patton, I have to say, “god help me, I love it.”

    And what we saw last night is what happens when the decision loop “goes non-linear.”

  • What a country! Having just had my evil and worthless cable disconnected til next football season and having modem hookup for net, I had to look for a radio station. Only found ONE station am/fm that was carrying this important debate and it was 1200 miles away, fading in and out. Wonder what kind of coverage McCain gets?

    Kudos to both. The petty sniping was at a minimum and it sounded like the audience really appreciated it. Maybe the strong booing about the xerox comment had something to do with it. Hooting down a candidate like that is undemocratic and innappropriate for one comment. I too felt like Obama was my fledgeling leaving the nest, but he has to use his own wings.

    Agree that HRCs closing was better, less tired and narcissistic. Obama often seemed comparatively tentative. O handled the issue of HRCs superior military experience,ha ha, well. The mandate issue is old, . established and skirts the serious issues neither addresses about true health care reform. O missed a good chance to inject a little self-deprecating, endearing humor about his spokesmans lack of knowledge of his accomplishments. Their relative agreement on many issues was reassuring. Loved their shots at Bush and McCain. O does express a better understanding of the plight of the lower economic half of the country. It’s the main reason I support him.

    O is still my guy but I finally listened to all of his stump speech and he does promise more than anyone can deliver and I hope he shows better on Tuesday. Being the frontrunner in a tight race, against a better debater, is a tuff spot. I’d call it 55-45 for HRC.

  • Frankly, considering we have two talented, smart and successful politicians battling for the top prize in American (if not inthe world) politics, in a close and highly contested primary, it seems to me, based upon about 40 years of interest in politics and as someone who has watched politics closely for that period, that this has been a very tame contest. The crap Clinton has thrown out against Obama is minor indeed. When Obama has chosen to attack Clinton, such attacks have also been minor. Considering what can occur when two successful politicians finally go head-to-head in such things, this campaign has been pretty clean in comparison. Do I wish the candidates would phrase their criticisms of each other differently? Absolutely (why can’t Clinton say that Obama is ready to be Commander-in-chief but that she is much more ready? why can’t Obama say Clinton is very nice, as opposed to ‘nice-enough’, and able to work across party lines, but that he is much better positioned to bring the change necessary to get this country moving forward?). But all things considered (sorry NPR), this has been a relatively clean campaign by both sides.

  • Please Mary, keep pushing the plagiarism attack on Barack. That went over really well for Hillary, who rightly received boos for her obviously planned Xerox line that a wiser politician would have decided against after Barack gave his strong defense. All this does is undermine your candidate and make you look silly.

    And honestly, if your students don’t know why they’re expected to turn in their own work and think this is the same as a public speaker using the same lines as someone else, you’ve got bigger problems than plagiarism. Plagiarism in an academic setting is wrong because the entire point of students doing their own work is to prove that they understand the material. Plagiarism in a professional setting is wrong because people get paid for their words and plagiarism is tantamount to theft; akin to downloading copyrighted music. But when politicians use each others lines, particularly when one politician uses the same line as his ally, this isn’t plagiarism.

    But again, please don’t let that dissuade you from continuing your silly attack. Things are fairly hopeless for Hillary whether or not she attacks him, but every attack hurts her more than him.

  • Bill Clinton, 92: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

    Hillary Clinton, last night: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

    What are you guys arguing about? Simply my candidate is better and more honorable than yours. They are about as close to each other as could be. That is why there are silly arguments, because what else is there at this point?

  • While I finally saw the human and likable side of Hillary last night (and wondered why she hasn’t been showing it all along), today I find out that almost everything she said in her closing statement was cribbed or lifted from Bill Clinton and John Edwards, I’m riled up all over again. And to top that, she’s back to arguing for Michigan and Florida!

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_will_press_Florida_and_Michigan.html#comments

  • And then the Clinton campaign started spinning furiously and flinging feces at the wall. And suddenly my choice was clear.

    You just made me spit my coffee out. LOL

  • Mary, Hillary has “stolen” as much or even more than Obama. Just look at her closing statement last night. Almost word for word from Bill and John Edwards. I presume you’ll be just as indignant about that too, right?
    Wake up, these silly distractions don’t help your candidate and make you look petty. Last night’s debate should have made this abundantly clear.

  • Hooting down a candidate like that is undemocratic and innappropriate for one comment. I too felt like Obama was my fledgeling leaving the nest, but he has to use his own wings.

    Michael – I entirely disagree with that. This has nothing to do with protecting Obama. He had an excellent answer to the question, and she ignored it and imagined she had some great zinger in reply. Had the question gone to her initially, or if he had flubbed his answer, I could see her “zinger” being more effective. But as it was, he rightly labeled this part of “the silly season” and brought the subject onto a higher level. Were Hillary as savvy as people think she is, she would have taken the opportunity to agree with him and let the issue slide. But she had a “zinger,” she unwisely delivered it, and she got the audience response she deserved. This wasn’t about protecting Obama. This was about punishing a bad line. She wasn’t hooted down or prevented from speaking. She was booed for saying something she shouldn’t have.

    BTW, people have a right to their opinions and there is nothing undemocratic about people expressing it. It’s one thing when people use noise to stifle someone else’s free speech, but there’s nothing wrong with booing someone for something they said. And as you said, this probably kept the petty sniping down, so I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.

  • If this is plagiarism, then plagiarism is quite common.

    On Wednesday my office lab had an inspection. During the inspection it was noted that one of the policies in the policy manual lacked a required portion. I went to the web site for the organization conducting the inspection, cut and pasted from material on their site pertaining to what was missing and added it to my policy manual (with the inspector fully aware of where this was coming from). The inspector removed the deficiency from her report when I showed her the new policy which I quickly came up with. In this case “plagiarism” of their material was quite acceptable.

    Every patient who comes in gets a copy of our privacy policy, and if you go to any medical facility you should receive one. If anyone bothers to read them, I bet you will find a lot of common language in the policies from various sources. When I wrote our policy I found examples from other facilities on line and then just edited to fit our particular situation, as does most other places. Whole paragraphs are taken from other sources Nobody cares if the writing is original.

    I type out multiple patient histories and physicals and consults. If you look at the language, I bet there are a lot of phrases which I picked up out of texts on physical examination and have incorporated into my reports over the years. Similar words will be found in exams done by others. Nobody considers this plagiarism.

    Sometimes work is expected to be original, such as in school papers, essays in college applications, and published papers. In many other situations it is totally normal to use language taken from elsewhere and nobody would consider it to be plagiarism. This includes political speeches which take ideas from elsewhere and which include input from speech writers and others advising a campaign.

  • Would Obama be plagiarizing HRC if he called he a plagiarizer? Bet HRC doesn’t bring it up again, but Obama might. A strong win of an essentially trivial point for Obama, but she started it!

  • Imagine where Clinton would be in the delegate count if we just had debates and unbiased reporting on which to base our opinions. After two months of being portrayed as a villain by the media, while her opponent has received little scrutiny of any kind, Hillary Clinton is only down by a small amount of delegates. I think she’s shown an incredible amount of endurance and willingness to stick up for what she believes in. Qualities some people believe we might need in a president.

  • Three quick points, followed by a query….

    1.) It is mere justice that, when Clinton tried the attack strategy last night, the good people of the Lone Star State responded by booing her. When was the last time this happened so late in the political process of a primary season? Methinks that “the misinformed, uneducated enthusiasm” pointed out by the Fortress Clinton minions is no longer unique to “bloggers with anti-Hillary sentiments.”

    2.) Clinton debate strategy:

    ***“I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life,” she began.***

    Am I—and the good people of Texas, Ohio, and everyone else—really supposed to buy into the “phantasmagoric ” idea that she deserves to be President, because her husband cheated on her? Where in Hades’ name is Rhett Butler and his “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” line when you need it? The problems faced by this country are in no way similar to having an unfaithful husband (although I imagine an over-aged cheese like McCain could argue the merits of “divorcing one’s self from reality”—since Bu$h does it on a daily basis).

    3.) Clinton closing comments:

    ***“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine … I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”***

    I don’t know about anyone else, but the ” … ” in this citation, if I recall correctly, included a comment about “having the support and prayers of our friends and families.” As I’m interpreting this, it comes across that she’s saying “Bill and I will be fine, because we’ve got our families and friends to fall back on—but if you don’t vote for me, then all of you are so-ooo screwed.” She’s still playing the “Sith” card—the “with-me-or-suffer” card—but now it’s more along the lines of “Sith Lite.”

    And now, for the query. I’m hearing from a few friends down that way that after the debate—once the hall was clearing out—there were a lot of Clinton signs just left behind. On the floor; on the seats; in the aisles. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it’s true, then it’s a bad sign for the Clinton folks—it’ll mean they lost supporters last night….

  • Hillary: “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine … I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

    Not only is this Edwards’ line, but it’s one of his worst. If nothing else, it’s extremely self-aggrandizing.

  • I don’t find Obama’s uses of phrases crafted by other politicians to be plagiarism or theft. Sometimes, the phrases borrowed simply capture the feeling best and to some extent have become part of the political lexicon for the then current political season (or in this case, extended season which includes the last few years). In general, attribution should be noted somehow, but considering the parties involved in Obama’s campaign, attribution does not seem necessary or required. However, I must say this comment from above is way off base:

    “Sometimes work is expected to be original, such as in school papers, essays in college applications, and published papers. In many other situations it is totally normal to use language taken from elsewhere and nobody would consider it to be plagiarism. This includes political speeches which take ideas from elsewhere and which include input from speech writers and others advising a campaign.”

    Although political speeches may borrow concepts or short phrases from others, the work in them is for all intents and purposes expected to be original to the politician making the speech. They are much more like school papers, etc. (the public is grading and judging the politician based upon such speeches) and not shorthand notes used by people in non-public professions (in most cases such content, and originality, is not something upon which the employee is being measured).

  • Getting away from the plagiarism and back to my favorite meme of the week:

    Hillary for Majority Leader.

    That would make me very happy, at least for a while.

  • Dr. BIO

    Maybe the timing and limited extent of the booing strongly mitigates it’s potentially ominous nature, but remembering the way ProNam administration speakers were often treated in the 60s, something I no longer find amusing, and other far darker intimidations from history, I tend to err on the side of caution in such matters. I’d much rather there were no live audiences, unless it’s a townhall format, although it would be more boring.

  • “…this is change you can Xerox”. I guess Mrs. Clinton either plagiarized that line from its originator, or paid $240,000.00 to use it. Either way, it wasn’t much of a bargain.

  • After two months of being portrayed as a villain by the media, while her opponent has received little scrutiny of any kind… -Go Vegetarian!

    Yeah, Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim with no experience hasn’t received any scrutiny. When was the last time Osama’s picture was ‘mistakenly’ shown instead of Clinton’s? Like your beloved candidate says, it’s time to get real.

    Oooo, did I just Xerox her?

  • Although political speeches may borrow concepts or short phrases from others, the work in them is for all intents and purposes expected to be original to the politician making the speech. They are much more like school papers, etc. (the public is grading and judging the politician based upon such speeches

    bubba – That’s simply not correct. Politicians use writers, including Barack and Hillary. I doubt that much of anything that comes from Bush’s mouth during official speeches was created by him, and we’ve all seen the horrible results when he actually does write his own material. And even then he’s using prepackaged phrases created by others. The fact that he uses them so poorly is just more evidence of what a dunce he is.

    But in no case are we grading politicians on the basis of their ability to write their own material. Hell, I have no doubt that many of the best people we could hire as president are HORRIBLE public speakers and couldn’t write a good speech to save their lives; which is why these are the people politicians hire to do the actual administering. That’s just one of the flaws of democracy we have to live with. The whole point of a politician speaking publicly is to convey their ideas and tell people why they should be elected.

    This isn’t about picking the person who creates the best rhetoric. This is about picking the person who we think best can serve our country. And if that means that they have to crib every word they speak from someone else, that shouldn’t be a problem. The only problem is if the words from their mouths don’t match what they actually plan to do (eg, Bush and Reagan). But if stealing lines from an ally, opponent, or Abe Lincoln is the best way to convey what that politician really is planning to do, that shouldn’t be a problem. We grade politicians on their ability to get the job done; not on their writing skills.

  • Getting away from the plagiarism and back to my favorite meme of the week:

    Hillary for Majority Leader. -Doosh

    I’m not fond of this meme. She has shown she cannot handle leadership through the mismanagement of her campaign. Some of her donors are complaining about that mismanagement, most notably the high salaries of ineffective consultants. What about her campaign has shown that she could be effective in a leadership position? She was completely unable to choose an effective staff and has rewarded ignorance. I’ve had enough of sycophants and unqualified staffers.

    She is a very smart Senator who writes good legislation. There is no need for her to be anything more.

    We need a real leader, someone who won’t be afraid to vote against corporate immunity, to be Senate Majority Leader.

  • Maybe the timing and limited extent of the booing strongly mitigates it’s potentially ominous nature, but remembering the way ProNam administration speakers were often treated in the 60s

    Michael – That’s the kind of thing I thought you were talking about and don’t like that kind of thing at all. But honestly, wouldn’t it be better if Bush heard the occasional “Boo” whenever he laid a stinker? I completely agree that it’s not good to stifle speech through noise, but Hillary really needed to be booed for that line. Not because it was a cheap shot (which it was), but because it was a lame line delivered at a bad time. Barack had just given a good defense of himself which the audience liked and Hillary really should have known better than to use that prepackaged line. She did a good job last night of not going cheap, but that was her opportunity to take the high road on a silly issue and she blew it to deliver a stinker.

    BTW, how many people here actually believe that line originated directly from her, rather than one of her spindoctors? Perhaps I’m wrong, but it sure sounded like the kind of thing that sounded better when it came out of someone else’s mouth and she liked it so much that she decided to use it.

  • I’m with doutful @60 and don’t want Hillary as a Majority Leader either. What’s wrong with being a Senator, anyway? We shouldn’t be handing out leadership positions like concilation prizes. This would make sense if she had a Senate record showing that she gives the good fight, but she doesn’t. And do we really want a Senate Majority Leader who likes to saber-rattle against Iran…repeatedly? Plus, it will give Republicans a good reason to reject any sort of compromise with us at all. Even if a Republican Congressman might want to work with us, his constituents will be upset for “caving” to Hillary. While I’m not suggesting at all that we get a Republican-friendly Majority Leader, we need one who isn’t already poison to them.

    If anything, I think it should go to Dodd. His work on the FISA bill was quite strong and he showed real backbone and strength. More importantly, he took the politically smart position and showed that he’s good at out-manuevering Republicans on these kind of issues. His only problem is that Reid over-powered him in ways that don’t even happen to Republicans. I actually always liked Reid and thought he was a definite improvement over lame Daschle. But Reid clearly has some taint about him and I actually wonder if he’s being blackmailed or something (perhaps some things don’t stay in Vegas). While I wouldn’t be upset if Reid stayed, I definitely think we could do better.

    I’m not going to pretend to know all the other good options for Majority Leader, but I’d much rather see Dodd over Hillary. I think Hillary’s a fine Senator, but don’t see what achievements she’s had which show she’s got the backbone to stand up for what we need. I’m not sure why her supporters imagine that she fights for our behalf, but I’ve seen nothing of that from her.

  • I’ve posted this before (like the other day), from ABC News, December 21 2007

    “But you know in the end, don’t vote your fears. I’m stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe.”

    Is this plagarism? Stealing? I think not.
    RV

  • Uh, Steve, the last question posed to the candidates was not “tell us why you deserve to be president,” it was “tell us about the biggest personal challenge you’ve faced and how you got through it.”

    It was pretty much a “gotcha” question, since as soon as it was asked, everyone in the room and in the viewing audience knew what that challenge was for Clinton.

    She got a standing ovation at the end of her remarks, and loud cheering throughout – I don’t know where you got the idea that the signs left behind means something ominous, excpet that that’s what you’d like it to mean. Could be the signs were handed out and people were told to just leave them and someone would pick them up.

    Is it at all possible for you to show any objectivity? Never mind – your comments already answered that question.

  • Re: Dodd for Majority Leader. Right on. We need a senator with some sack like him to whip the troops into shape. He definitely knows how to fight the good fight. I was very impressed by his FISA work.

  • Whenever I’ve been at a political rally people would go around passing around political signs. Supporters would typically grab all they can get and afterwards you could see people walking off with a pile of their souvenirs. I don’t know the specifics of this debate, but I’m skeptical that people were told to just leave them for someone to pick up.

  • “bubba – That’s simply not correct. Politicians use writers, including Barack and Hillary.”

    Dr. Bio, we must simply agree to disagree. Yes politicians use writers. But, those writers work from the ideas and thoughts and outlines provided initially by the candidate, in most cases, and may also provide ideas to the candidates for the candidates approval. And each candidate who is worth his or her salt then edits and re-edits the product before it goes out to the public. That does not mean the speech is plagiarized, or that it is not ‘original’ to the politician. But the final work product is the politician’s 100%. And your choice of Bush as an example merely presents the exception and not the rule. Anyway, my point was that Mr. Chisud is simply wrong in comparing political speeches to his work habits and writings, where he is not being judged on his materials, and most likely where in his line of work speed of analysis is much more important than originality of thought. Politicians are in fact graded and judged by their speeches (Obama more than most by a whole lot of people) which makes them more like school papers, etc. where ‘originality’ matters.

  • Is it at all possible for you to show any objectivity? Never mind – your comments already answered that question.

    Dose – I think that question should go back to you even more. Why is it that every time someone says something that could be critical of Hillary, you people insist it’s an unfair attack against her? You people keep trying to tell us what we’re not allowed to say and guilt-trip us into being nice to Hillary. CB sees something he thinks might be indictive of something, and you assume he’s being biased for saying it and insult him for it. It’s one thing if these were unfair attacks. But you guys scream bias because we honestly disagree about something fair; like whether or not the signs left behind indicate something. CB suggested it might, you think it doesn’t. There’s nothing unfair about this, except for your insult of CB’s integrity.

    Can’t you see how that’s one of Hillary’s biggest problems? Nobody wants a victim for president. We want someone who can fight for us, not someone we have to fight for. And the best you can do is to tell us to stop picking on Hillary. I’m sorry, but even if we’re being unfair, tough. If we’re blind to our pro-Obama bias, tough. Deal with it. While I do think some people are unfair to Hillary, you guys are absurd with your defensiveness, seeing attacks that don’t exist. And again, if you think it helps to keep telling us to stop bullying Hillary, that’s her biggest problem.

    I personally think Hillary’s a decent person and would have supported her if I thought she was the best candidate. But one reason I didn’t think that was because I didn’t like supporting a victim. Even when we talk about how she unfairly attacked Barack, you guys accuse us of unfairly smearing her. Again, we don’t want a victim for president. If she can’t stand up against biased liberals without your protection, then she shouldn’t be in the Whitehouse.

    Sure Barack supporters often do the same thing, but it’s usually done from the position of a bully pressuring others; not of a victim demanding mercy. If you can tell us why Hillary’s the best candidate, do so. But please stop crying about bias every time someone says something critical of Hillary. That hurts Hillary more than anyone. She’s your candidate. Make her look good.

  • Politicians are in fact graded and judged by their speeches (Obama more than most by a whole lot of people) which makes them more like school papers, etc. where ‘originality’ matters.

    But bubba, why should originality matter? I gave the example of a politican who cribs ALL of his speeches, but as long as it represents what he believes and intends to do, it doesn’t matter. Now you have to explain why it matters. You can re-assert your position, but you’ve explained nothing.

    BTW, I also disagree that Bush is the exception. Besides that I also cited our Actor President, I’m confident that a good number of career politicians don’t work as much at their speeches as you suggest. I agree that I’d prefer a politician who does, and believe that Bill Clinton was a good example of that kind of thing; but I think he’s more the exception to the rule.

    But I don’t think most politicians care enough to bother. And why should they? As long as the words represent their opinions, what does it matter if they wrote it? These guys aren’t speechwriters. They’re usually out-going clubmeisters who know how to give good lunch and convince people with money to give it to them. Politicians don’t have time to work on every speech they give. They just want something good to say in order to impress people. And while I’d prefer that they not do it this way, I don’t see what the big problem is and would never suggest this is plagiarism. In this context, that word doesn’t mean anything. We’re hiring adminstrators and legislators; not speechwriters.

  • I’m hearing from a few friends down that way that after the debate—once the hall was clearing out—there were a lot of Clinton signs just left behind. On the floor; on the seats; in the aisles. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it’s true, then it’s a bad sign for the Clinton folks—it’ll mean they lost supporters last night…. –Steve, @52

    Nah. All it means is that her supporters were a bunch of mindless slobs. Used to having someone else picking up after them (maybe that’s why they like her Mommy approach to politics). Not caring much about what happens to all that trash. Not worried about leaving the signs behind, because they can always pick up new ones, for free (easy come, easy go; there’s always more where this came from, etc)…

  • “But bubba, why should originality matter?”

    Because it shows that the person is who he or she claims to be. Because it provides some insight into their thought processes and beliefs. Because if someone claims to inspire others by their words and deeds, and if words indeed matter, then such words should pretty much reflect the speaker’s ideas, views and positions. And the more original, the better, as it is very clear that those who are speaking from the heart, their own (or near their own) original words or ideas, they are much more likely to move the masses than those who don’t believe a word they are saying, like your example Bush.

    But I disagree that I need to explain why it matters. My point was not so much on originality as it was to note that political speeches are more like school papers and essays, where people are jusdged and graded on the content of what they say and the manner in which they come across saying it, especially when what they are saying is fresh, than like crap we put out everyday pursuant to our duties at work. Stop moving the goalpoasts. And I disagree again that most politicians don’t care enough to bother. Most shitty ones, maybe, but most good ones do care. A lot.

  • i think people are missing the point. the point isn’t what he said, it’s where he got it. I remember being surprised when massachusetts resoundly rejected obama, even with the governor and kennedy and kerry backing him.

    the people of massachusetts were sold on ‘hope’ once, and they aren’t buying it again.

    “[S]ome of Patrick’s liberal defectors said his rocky start on Beacon Hill played a key role in their support for Clinton. “We’ve now seen firsthand what happens when you put someone in office who lacks experience, but has extraordinarily inspiring rhetoric,” said one lawmaker who asked for anonymity. “The inspiring rhetoric is compelling and appealing, but what has that gotten us?”

    “Both men are black, with Chicago roots, Harvard educated, and skilled at bringing together diverse coalitions of supporters, using their personal histories as backdrops to persuade voters to join — in their word a “movement,” while competitors run “campaigns.””

    from
    http://www.devalpatrickwatch.com/

  • Because if someone claims to inspire others by their words and deeds, and if words indeed matter, then such words should pretty much reflect the speaker’s ideas, views and positions.

    I’m sorry, bubba, but you’re totally making my point for me. Speeches need to reflect the speaker’s ideas, views, and positions. What does that have to do with writing skills? And I agree that it’s even better when the words come directly from the politician themselves, but no one has an expectation that this is what always happens. As you say, better politicians have a stronger hand in writing their speeches, and “shittier” politicians don’t. But there is no case where we consider it to be “plagiarism” that they’re not writing their own material. It’s my opinion that the only reason you’re not explaining why this matters is because you can’t. Neither can I.

    As you say, it’s better when the words are entirely original to the speaker, but that’s rarely the case except with low-level politicians who can’t afford speechwriters. A good speechwriter knows how their boss thinks and writes in their style to express their opinions. I read an article quoting Barack’s head speechwriter saying that same thing, and bet that Hillary thinks the same of her’s. The point isn’t who crafted the words, but whether or not they represent the opinions of the person saying them.

    Now, unless you explain why it matters who wrote the words, you’ve failed to make your point. You can disagree with me all you want, but that’s how debates work. Even if you’re right, if you fail to make your point, you’ve failed. And I generally find that when people can’t make their point it’s because they don’t have one. I’m not trying to be a jerk (too late), I’m just saying that you haven’t presented your side very well. You don’t have to convince me, per se; but you do have to say something.

    BTW, the problem for Bush isn’t that he didn’t write his own words, but because he’s an idiot. I doubt Reagan had a strong hand in writing his speeches, particularly towards the end when his mental skills started slipping. But people believed him all the same. Hiring an actor to be president was a brilliant move. I’m sure Bush’s speechwriters think the same thing. A good actor can make bad lines sound good; a bad actor sounds like Bush.

  • Actually no Dr. B. You continue to move the goalpoasts from my original post on this. I have explained all I need to explain–at this point you are being simply intentionally obtuse and difficult (and ignore as well the thoughts I outlined above). I am not making your argument for you–but one of your last posts seems to make a potential case for Clinton over Obama. Believe what you want, that is fine, whether correct or not, but we must agree to disagree on this. That is OK. Such is life.

  • Susan, the source you cited exists for no reason other than to bash Gov. Patrick. Hardly an unbiased and trustworthy source.

    And 41% of the population of MA voted for Obama, so it seems silly to write them off by saying “the people of massachusetts [sic] were sold on ‘hope’ once, and they aren’t buying it again.”

  • I thought they both did well but hope each of them hones their argument. They are saying the right things but without as much focus as I’d like.

    I think Obama was asked first if he was mistaken to oppose the surge. I would have liked to see him answer by saying (1) you need to remember that in 2006 Gen. George Abizaid went to every commander in Iraq and asked for a recommendation, and every one said we should not send more troops, because we needed the Iraqui troops to step up; (2) we all know that America’s military is capable and that sending more troops would help bring violence down, and they have done that; but, (3) it is only increasing and extending Iraq’s dependence on the American military, not weaning them off of it, which is our goal, and (4) almost none of the benchmarks Bush announced one year ago have been met or are even being pursued at this point.

    Obama said it very well when he described it as a tactical victory in the midst of a strategic blunder, but needs to show why.

    By the next debate, the plagiarism issue will be old news, but if I was Hillary, I would have said “look, he ripped off a section of Deval Patrick’s speech, and it’s not important whether Gov. Patrick consented, it’s important whether he told the audience he lifted it. All of this would be silly by itself, but it’s part of a pattern. I announced a plan for 5 million green jobs, next thing you know he has one up on his website too. I announced an infrastructure plan, he borrowed it wholesale. As a U.S. Senator, both of us are always willing to jump on board and cosponsor a good idea. That’s not the same as ripping off an idea and presenting it as your own.

    Hillary also didn’t make the case on experience nearly as well as she should. She’s got to say, no of course I am not saying he’s incompetent, I am saying there’s a learning curve associated with being President and I’m a lot further along the learning curve. It’s not a good thing that Barack’s a “Washington outsider.” A lot of times, it is important to know the background and history of issues, what was our policy in the past, what were the debates, what decisions have been made, what decisions need ot be revisited, who the players are. It’s important to know something about the leaders of other countries we are dealing with. I’ve been around the world and met many of the leaders we’ll be dealing with. On the armed services committee I have worked on many of the detailed issues that confront our Generals and dealt with them personally. I’m ready to hit the ground running.

    Obama’s best two arguments I thought he presented quite well. On the experience issue, he turned it around to judgment. She’s wrong on the biggest vote of her life. I was right. That trumps everything.

    In his place, I’d develop the universal coverage argument a little more. Politics is the art of the possible. I’d love to have universal coverage too but I don’t want a repeat of 1993-1994 when we shot for the moon and failed. I know it’s a core Democratic belief that we should have universal coverage but I want a plan that will get moderate Democrats and Republicans on board. Punitive mandates won’t sell with Congress or the public. We need more carrot and less stick. If my plan works, and it has a better chance of passage than hers, we’ll have the chance to extend it universally after the plan proves itself. We’re on a march from Medicare to universal coverage in this country and when we get too far ahead of what will pass, it sets us back from our ultimate goal.

    (By the way I say this only to express his argument. I personally think she’s right that the goal should be universal coverage, not less, and we should make that point number one in a general election.)

  • bubba – What goalposts have I moved? The only problem I had with what you wrote was when you said that speeches are “much more like school papers, etc” and insisted that originality was what they were being graded on..

    But then you go on to write about how it’s “better” for politicians to write their own material. Can you imagine a teacher telling her students that it’s “better” if they write their own papers? Or a publisher telling her writers that it’s “better” if they write their own books? Of course not. It is forbidden for these people to copy other peoples’ work, yet that seems to be the standard you’re applying to politicians. But these standards aren’t even close and I suspect that the only reason you created that standard is that it makes Obama look a little worse.

    I think that all you were saying is that it’s “better” for politicians to write their own lines, and I agree with that completely. But that’s just not the same standard as school work. In school, it’s not just better to write your own words; it’s mandatory. And it’s expected that even the best politicians use words and phrases written by others; which is also forbidden to students. These standards just aren’t the same, even for Obama.

  • I didn’t see the debate, but one of the big problems I had was when Hillary said she wouldn’t have talks with Cuba until they enact reforms that nobody expects them to enact. Where as Barack said that he’ll have talks in order to get these unlikely reforms enacted. And while the end result is probably that the reforms won’t be enacted, I definitely prefer Barack’s diplomacy-first attitude over Hillary’s diplomacy-never attitude; which happens to be the neo-con approach. They believe that diplomacy should be used as a reward for good behavior, but that it serves no other purpose than to help our enemies.

    I was just wondering what any Hillary supporters thought of that part. It was one of the few real differences I heard of, but for me, it’s a significant one. I want to go back to how things used to be, when it was acceptable for us to engage in diplomacy with our enemies; rather than the Bush-era policy of denying diplomacy unless it’s unneeded. Just so it’s understand, I’m not attacking Hillary. I’d just like to hear what her supporters thought of that.

  • doubtful,
    that’s exactly why i provided the link. Further searching provides many reputable articles about concerns, but that link (for obvious reasons) had the most succinct phrases to make my point…which is…

    she isn’t repeating this to make a case about plagiarism, she’s repeating it to get people to look at the other links between the two campaigns.

    it’s a valid point, but not an easy one to make directly.

  • she isn’t repeating this to make a case about plagiarism, she’s repeating it to get people to look at the other links between the two campaigns. -susan

    Okay. I gotcha. That might be quite a leap for people to make, though, and the boos leveled at her last night make me think it’s not working.

  • i think the hope is that they’ll make the connection more easily in rhode island, which is closer to massachusetts and has a more restrictive primary.

  • Two things emerged from the debate … Clinton OWNED the close with her superb comments. It’s really too bad you missed it, Steve. They are testament to why she should be President. AND, Mr. Hope very quickly became Mr Hypocrite. In an attempt to do damage control following Sen. Clinton’s amazing closing remark (which received a standing ovation) the Obama campaign went on the attack, charging Clinton with plagiarism. If this is “silly” politics, as Obama claimed during the debate, then isn’t it JUST as SILLY if he’s doing it?

    Obama keeps saying he’s about change, but his actions don’t match his rhetoric.

    BAC

  • The Clinton campaign failed to anticipate the American Idol zeitgeist that would determine the winner of this campaign. I’ve supported her but don’t believe, at this point, that she will win the nomination.

    • Comments are closed.