Skip to content
Categories:

Clinton Accuses Obama of Plagiarism

Post date:
Author:

Guest post by Ron Chusid

The latest nonsense to come out of the Clinton camp is charges of plagiarism against Obama. The charge is based upon similarities in a passage from a speech that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick used at a campaign rally in 2006. The problem with raising a charge of plagiarism is that it is only plagiarism when a line is used without permission.

Patrick has defended Obama and criticized Clinton’s campaign for this attack. Both Obama and Patrick freely admit that they share ideas. Patrick is currently an adviser to Obama. There is nothing wrong with Obama using a line with Patrick’s permission.

The other implication in this attack is that Obama is incapable of using his own words. Obama responded to this charge:

“Now hold on a second. I mean, look here, I’ve written two books. Wrote most of my speeches,” he said. “So, I think putting aside the question you just raised in terms of whether my words are my own, I think that would be carrying it too far. Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and, you know, he’s occasionally used lines of mine. I was at a [Jefferson-Jackson] dinner in Wisconsin used some words of his. And, you know, I would add that I know Sen. Clinton on occasion has used words of mine as well.”

Obama said he frequently gives credit to others for ideas or language he has gotten from others. “I’m happy to give Deval credit, as I give to a lot of people for spurring all kinds of ideas,” he said.

While Patrick is willingly sharing ideas with Obama, Hillary Clinton has felt free to borrow words from Obama without permission.

The Obama campaign immediately struck back with a document headlined: “Here are a couple of places Clinton freely borrowed rhetoric from Obama.”

Among the examples are Clinton’s use of Obama’s signature chant “fired up and ready to go” in Davenport, Iowa, and later her echoing of his rally cry, “Yes, we can!”

A question from Jack Tapper at the Clinton conference call shows yet again how Hillary Clinton does not believe the rules apply to her:

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.

No she is not. Senator Clinton is running on the strength of whatever bogus attack she can come up with to attack Obama with every day. The Clinton campaign regularly holds conference calls such as this to feed surrogates and friendly blogs the same talking points to use to attack Obama. This is the consequence of running for president based upon claims of inevitability and false claims of having greater experience as Clinton is grasping for anything to try to convince a declining number of supporters to vote for her.

Cross posted from Liberal Values

Comments

  • Steve

    says:

    The character of a candidate, whether the Fortress Hillary groupies want to admit it or not, can be judged by the words and actions of that candidate.

    Clinton = LIE.

    Clinton = CHEAT.

    Clinton = STEAL.

    Hillary has become a Republican Borg. Resistance to her futile assimilation = TRUTH.

  • SmilingDixie

    says:

    How low is too low?

    Petty. Petty. Petty.

    Thow enough mud against the wall & maybe some of it will stick.

  • CHEEZBURGER

    says:

    Pathetic. This demeans everyone involved, Sen. Clinton in particular. How old is she, 12? Rather than spending so much time parsing Obama’s words, maybe she should have taken the time to familiarize herself with the delegate-allocation rules in “must-win” Texas. I swear, her campaign is beginning to look like a satire.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    He also points out that Clinton recently lifted part of a speech from Jimmy Carter.

    It’s not only Carter, and Obama. I’ve seen some Kerry supporters come up with lines Clinton used this year which sounded just like things Kerry said in 2004, such as that people should get the same health care that Congress gets.

    Not that this is necessarily terribly shocking. If you go back to previous campaigns I bet there are plenty examples of very similar language being used.

  • Wrecktum

    says:

    Since the “Obama is a sexist” line of attack hasn’t gain traction for the Clinton campaign (it worked against MSNBC, so they figured it would work against Obama), now it’s the old plagiarism gambit. Don’t think this one’s gonna work either.

  • Danp

    says:

    In addition to the “fired up and ready to go” and the “yes we can”, her mantra was “experience” until she changed it to Obama’s “change”. After New Hampshire CNN noted that the difference between her rhetoric and Obama’s was that she says, “I”, “me” “my”, while he says “you” and “we”. The next day she changed her speeches to reflect that change. Her campaign is so full of these self-inflicted wounds. It just goes to show, sometimes words are cheap. Sometimes they’re costly.

    I can’t believe Clinton wants the reports to be about plagerism, “pimping out”, “words are cheap”, “these states don’t count” and “we might overcome the voter’s choice with superdelegates and states we agreed not to campaign in.” But they are self-inflicted wounds.

  • james k. sayre

    says:

    Hillary has copied her slime and smear tactics from Bush and Cheney and Rove. Would she call that “plagiarism?” It’s all over for the pathetic vicious Hillary Pillary machine: she expected her coronation and crowning on “Super Tuesday,” February 4, 2008 and that didn’t quite work out, did it?

    Hillary’s stupid comments about speeches being “just words” is an echo of Bush’s moronic comment that our Constitution ‘is “just a goddammed piece of paper.” Hillary is profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-thought and anti-humanistic.The corporate Hillary is crashing and burning… “Good widdance to bad wubbish,” to quote Elmer Fudd.

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    Negative campaigning by Candidate A doesn’t work if I didn’t have a good reason to vote for Candidate A in the first place. “Less worst” isn’t good enough anymore. This makes me think that Candidate A has run out of ideas and is desperately throwing mud to see what sticks.

    I’m seeing less and less reason to support Candidate A, so I’m supporting Candidate B.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    Interesting, I notice TPM is giving the current Clinton campaign attempt a 25-cent phrase: Challenge to authenticity. Learned cutesyness! Certainly that gives it a shine of respectability. On the street it is known much more frankly as character assassination.

    By the way I have no problem with that.
    Billary should go for it. As I get the feeling she is going to energize that which he might not want to reenergize.

    To wit:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related
    66,196 views! Going for 100,000!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related
    214,041 views! Going for 250,000!

    Challenge to authenticity time…
    Seed ’em baby, seed ’em!
    Woot!

  • Harold in Buffalo

    says:

    Hillary’s campaign spokesmen are, you should pardon the expression, behaving like primo schmucks. Their charges of plagiarism are so absurd that in making such allegations they have probably cost her any hope of winning the nomination. (Do such stupid morons get paid for their “services”?)

  • Steve

    says:

    My kid sister called a few minutes a go. My kid sister—a rabid Clinton fan just down the road a ways in Akron—asked me the best way to get a bumper sticker off.

    I’ll give you three guesses who the bumper sticker was for….

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Well, I guess this proven plagiarism by the Empress means that when she retires from the Senate, she’ll be precluded from taking that position as Dean of the William Jefferson Clinton School of Government Ethics and Public Morality.

    Hey, Hils – this is even more pathetic than last week’s pathetic bullshit. You’re looking a lot like Napoleon III on the eve of the Battle of Sedan in 1871 (where the Glorious Leader was captured on the battlefield, thus ending the Second Empire).

  • L Boom

    says:

    I’m pretty sure Mark Penn told her at the start of the campaign that she’d be greeted as a liberator, and given flowers and kisses as a result of her electoral Shock and Awe campaign. Why plan for anything else?

  • doubtful

    says:

    At least we know the Clinton campaign chose ‘play dirty,’ when deciding what to do between now and March 4th.

  • lars

    says:

    bill, the creepy old man who has young interns give him blow jobs then lies to the countrty and perjurs himself.

    hillary destroys records that are subject to an investigation, lies, attacks, claims victomhood.

    sleazy in the extream.

    we deserve better than these two ruthless corrupt hacks.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    This is such stupid shit. Why are you even posting this crap? Is it just to stir up more Clinton hate? Posting to people who agree with you or further your “Clinton is shit” attacks coming from someone who’s done little but criticize. I bet right now you are scurrying off to find another smear Clinton subject…of such little importance outside of political bickering.
    Who gives a crap about such pettiness. Let’s encourage more divisive bickering among democrats. My son has been saying “yes we can” for years…WTF? Going out of your way to find something to bitch about the Clinton campaign. Just pathetic…with all that is happening in the world this is what you post?

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Joey,

    You seem to miss the fact that all these attacks originate from the Clinton campaign and her supporters.

    It is remarkable how Clinton supporters not only continually raise such bogus attacks, but also protest that it is unfair when anyone debunks them and presents the truth.

    With all that is happening in the world the problem is that this is how Clinton chooses to campaign as opposed to concentrating on the real issues.

  • Brooks

    says:

    Which Clinton campaign strategist thought that self parody was a good strategy, and will they please fire him or her post haste? It’s like they are going out of their way to prove that they represent everything that is dirty and cheap and insincere about politics. Doesn’t someone over there realize that their attempts to salvage things are only making things worse? They have forgotten the first rule for when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging!

    I like Hillary, but I think she is getting some terrible advice.

  • RSchewe

    says:

    I hope Clinton is citing her speechwriters.

    If what the Clinton campaign say is taken to it’s logical end you are going to have to hear a lot of credit in every speech you hear from every politician. Does anyone actually think that every word they utter in a public speech is their own?

    I can see it now…

    “These talking points I am citing to you here were thought of by my senior staffer and that thing about the Republicans and the war, it was by my speech writer.”

    This is all so silly. It is entertaining though to see the Clinton supporters and Drudge on the same page getting up in a lather about this. Isn’t it ironic after what Drudge did to Bill in the 90s with Monica?

  • DragonScholar

    says:

    Hillary Clinton I am sad to say, is slowly becoming the Nader candidate – a distraction at best, a self parody at worst. It’s a sad end to a smart person.

  • Doctor Biobrain

    says:

    Joey, Hillary the Victim was sooooo two weeks ago, after she realized her attacks on Barack kept backfiring. Now that she’s realized that the victim thing wasn’t working either, she’s back to attacking Obama with attacks that will once again backfire. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing wrong with us defending Barack against these silly smears. If you don’t think Hillary should be denounced for these attacks, you really should try telling her not to make them.

  • doubtful

    says:

    It’s the classic monkey strategy, fling shit and hope it sticks… -jackpine savage

    Or another attempt to attack Obama’s strengths.

  • Jim

    says:

    This is really sad. I had no idea that Senator Clinton’s campaign had gotten to the point of this type of hysteria. At least she still has a good day job to fall back on.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    Yet another reason to doubt the Clinton campaign’s competence: too stupid to know the definition of plagiarism. And Wolf Blitzer’s show is leading the half hour with a story on the charge. Explain to me again how I have to swallow my discomfort with this sort of right-wing politicking and vote for Clinton in the fall if she wins the nomination, because I’m not seeing the difference between her and McCain again.

  • libra

    says:

    “Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric,” Wolfson said.

    Without hearing it, just on paper…. It could be interpreted as “she’s running on the strength of HIS (Obama’s) rhetoric”. Sloppy phrasing, Mr Wolfson, just like Obama’s “feeling low, periodically”. But, I think I’ll willfully misinterpret it and wrap myself in the mantle of outrage.

  • Doctor Biobrain

    says:

    Explain to me again how I have to swallow my discomfort with this sort of right-wing politicking and vote for Clinton in the fall if she wins the nomination, because I’m not seeing the difference between her and McCain again.

    Uhm, unless you’re planning some sort of self-hating write-in vote, I’m fairly sure the rest of us are ok with you voting for Obama in November. But beyond that, the reason any Democrat is better than any Republican is because of the people they’ll bring with them. Not just the Whitehouse staff, but the cabinet members, agency employees, and judges. And while these might not be the same people Obama would choose, they’ll still be better than the anti-science, anti-government crackpots McCain would pick. But again, while this thing isn’t over yet, I’m having a hard time seeing Hillary still in the running after March 4 and I’m sure she knows it.

  • Mary

    says:

    I’ve associated the phrase “Si se puede” with farmworkers, unions, and Latino issues forever. To hear Obama’s minions spouting it in English (yes, we can) grates on me every time. There was no wink to any of us when he appropriated it. If he is borrowing other things from other people, it is just more of a free and easy attitude toward such things, in my opinion. Some people don’t understand what the fuss is about when it comes to intellectual property. Other people understand that recognizing those who contribute is important. It doesn’t surprise me to see Deval Patrick close ranks behind Obama when he is caught plagiarizing. I wish Obama had some actual Latinos or other people of color on his staff besides African Americans.

    This is more swiftboating of Hillary Clinton — making her appear foolish for trying to point out that Obama’s feet are clay, just as everyone’s are. The piling on in the comments here is just depressing. You can drive off the Hillary supporters from this blog with this sort of garbage, but they will still exist as voters on election day. Obama’s comment about Clinton becoming periodically depressed and attacking him, and his reference to her having her claws out are both obviously sexist language aimed at playing the gender card. When you deride Clinton’s people for pointing that out, as they should be doing, you refuse to acknowledge that your guy is just as dirty as any other politician. What troubles me is someone who pretends to a high horse he doesn’t actually ride. Idealism about his New Politics is unwarranted — it is the same old stuff and he is, if anything, a conservative instead of a progressive, as you will find out if he is elected. If that’s what you want, so be it. Just don’t let yourself be fooled (as people were fooled by Bush).

  • Mary

    says:

    P.S. I don’t mean conservative Republican, I mean conservative for a Democrat. This is a cautious, religious man who admires Reagan and fits in fine with political machine politics (such as those in Chicago) and doesn’t mind a few big corporate donors (coal mine owners, pharmaceuticals).

  • Doctor Biobrain

    says:

    This is more swiftboating of Hillary Clinton — making her appear foolish for trying to point out that Obama’s feet are clay, just as everyone’s are

    The swiftboathing of Hillary?? Please. Stop. You’re just embarrassing yourself and insulting us by pretending we’re victimizing Hillary when our defense of Barack. As I said to Joey earlier, the “Hillary the Victim” phase of her campaign is over and she’s on the attack again. Deal with it. She’s trying to smear Barack with anything she can get her hands on, and now you’re attacking us for laughing at her feeble attempts. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but if you don’t want us defending Barack by laughing at Hillary, she needs to come up with some better material.

    And I fail to see how Patrick is closing ranks by saying that he doesn’t consider this to be a problem. As others have pointed out, Hillary doesn’t provide citations every time she uses someone else’s words. This is just a silly attack by a desperate candidate. I know you don’t like that, but that’s not our fault.

    And remember, you guys are the ones who insisted Barack was a lightweight who couldn’t take a punch. Now you guys scream murder every time we punch back.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    Deja vu… As I read the Obama supporter comments, I’m too often reminded of the New England Patriot fans. Good luck with that guys.

  • N.Wells

    says:

    I’m an academic, so I’m usually hypersensitive to issues of plagiarism. However, ever since Biden got into trouble, it has seemed to me that political speeches should have MUCH looser standards on plagiarism. Appropriating an opponent’s slogan to get yourself elected is tacky, and stealing someone else’s speech is out of bounds, but political speeches aren’t books and they aren’t term papers. They are all about communicating key ideas succinctly and in an inspiring manner to inspire people to work toward a shared goal, so I would think using other people’s felicitous phrasing should be okay. Giving credit is fine, but speeches don’t come with footnotes, and shouldn’t have to.

  • Doctor Biobrain

    says:

    Mary – There is absolutely no reason to imagine that Barack is a conservative. Please stop. Barack never said he admired Reagan’s ideology. He just spoke of him as being someone at the right place and the right time. But he never said he wanted to be a conservative. He has almost all the same positions as Hillary, PLUS he was anti-war, while she supported the war…and wants to take a strong position threatening Iran. And do you really want to compare the people giving them money? Really?? And the political machine connection? Are you serious?

    I’m sorry, but at best your argument is that Barack is just as bad as Hillary, and if you don’t understand why that’s the worst sales pitch ever, then you really need to be joining Hillaryland, as you’re exactly the kind of “Shoot her in the foot” advisor she seems to like. You need to give us some reason to like Hillary; not just tell us that he’s just as bad as Hillary. But that’s been her problem the whole time: She was only the best candidate if a better one didn’t come along. Unfortunately for her, one did.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    Shalimar @31…Explain to me again how I have to swallow my discomfort with this sort of right-wing politicking and vote for Clinton in the fall if she wins the nomination, because I’m not seeing the difference between her and McCain again.

    Hey…I’d be happy to explain it. When it comes to right-wing politicking, Obamabots are at the front of the class. We need look no further than your ridiculous statement above.

    And if you were a democrat that embraces the principles of the party, you would vote for Clinton without hesistation, should she win the nomination, because you know for certain what another 4-8 years of a republican presidency will look like. Buy a clue. Borrow the money if you have to.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    This is hilarious!

    He has almost all the same positions as Hillary…You need to give us some reason to like Hillary

    Irony with cherries on top.

  • TR

    says:

    I wish Obama had some actual Latinos or other people of color on his staff besides African Americans.

    Boy, Matt Rodriguez is going to be saddened to hear he’s not Latino.

  • biggerbox

    says:

    Gee, as a Democratic voter, would I rather look forward to a presidency full of inspiring rhetoric or one full of quibbling whines?

    Does anyone in the Clinton campaign actually think it makes me more likely to vote for Hillary to see an attack like this one? This is the way they intend to convince me that Hillary is substantial and NOT about rhetoric? To pick a fight about the wording of a campaign speech? Come on, folks. You’re trying to win the Presidency of the United State of America. Get serious.

    The whole thing only matters if you buy the Clintonista assertion that Obama’s just “running on his rhetoric”, which is ridiculous to anyone with a web browser and the ability to read his web site. Worse, it’s a direct echo of the the repeated GOP smear that the Democrats have no ideas, or have no plan, which has been their lie over and over.

    If I am supposed to judge the quality of a Hillary Clinton presidency by the quality of her campaign, I have to say, no thank you! I’m sick of a President who sends underlings out to degrade the public debate with lies and absurd personal attacks.

    Sen. Clinton, Obama gives a better speech than . Get over it and start showing me positive reasons why I put you in the Oval Office.

  • Lex (jackpine savage)

    says:

    N.Wells @38, thank you and well said.

    As an aside, am i the only one who thinks that this whole campaign is rapidly descending into silliness? I like one candidate better than the other, but i could type reams here poking holes in either one…and not even have to find shades of innuendo or resort to petty bickering.

    I will make this pledge: the first candidate who suggests that the other is breathing his/her air will not get my vote…ever. And i’m not so sure that such a charge is that far beyond the horizon.

    I have to say that some of the stuff that Clinton supporters are coming up with reminds me of teaching Korean kindergarten kids. Please, please, please call Sen Obama a “crazy, evil monkey boy.”

  • libra

    says:

    I’ve associated the phrase “Si se puede” with farmworkers, unions, and Latino issues forever. To hear Obama’s minions spouting it in English (yes, we can) grates on me every time. — Mary@34

    I know zero about popular Latino slogans, so I have never associated Obama’s “yes we can” with Latino issues. Nor do I know just how long your “forever” is. OTOH… Almost 30 yrs ago, I read — to my, then infant, son — a book called “The Little Engine That Could” and always thought that its “I think I can” was the spirit underlying Obama’s message, just changed to “we” to be more encompassing than “I”.

    Whatever the message is, we all bring something of ourselves and our own experiences to it, when we hear it. You see a theft and it irritates you; I see a timeless message of hope…

  • Steve-O

    says:

    From BarackObama.com…

    Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage.

    Does anyone know how he intends to enforce this mandate? Thanks.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    And if you were a democrat that embraces the principles of the party, you would vote for Clinton without hesistation, should she win the nomination, because you know for certain what another 4-8 years of a republican presidency will look like. Buy a clue. Borrow the money if you have to.

    Yeah, you support a candidate who is floating this ridiculous idea that Obama is obligated to accept public funding in the general election (which will do serious damage to his chances and hurt the party as a whole should he win the nomination), one who seems intent on waging a divisive inter-party war to get the Michigan delegates seated even though none of her opponents were on the ballot, Tell her about embracing the principles of the party instead of fighting to the last for her own self-interest.

    IMO it will be more damaging for the country to have a Democrat rule like an autocrat than have a Republican do it. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think the difference will be that great.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    Does anyone know how he intends to enforce this mandate?

    Does anyone know how Clinton intends to enforce her mandate that everyone get coverage? “He’s just as bad as my candidate” is not a good campaign slogan, you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind with it.

  • David Drissel

    says:

    What’s really amazing is that Hillary Clinton has often lifted phrases and ideas from conservative politicians without attribution. At least Obama is using lines from one of his top confidants/advisors, which is fully appropriate. As Bay Buchanan noted tonight on CNN, Hillary’s frequent use of the phrase “we’re going to take back America” was lifted straight from her brother Pat’s political speeches when he was running for president in the 1990s. Moreover, Hillary’s insistence on a universal health care scheme including mandatory compliance for all citizens comes straight from Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts’ playbook. Before the Romney’s Massachusetts’ plan, virtually no one had ever insisted that health care coverage would have to be mandatory to be universal.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    btw Chusid*** here’s another take on your opinions: I truly thought Obama was saying this stuff in his speeches because he was creatively inspired and it was just flowing from his heart. Needless to say…what a let down…

    “…”yes we can” didn’t come from Obama either- read this

    During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:

    “If you’re going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own.” – Howard Wolfson

    Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they’re authentic. The problem comes when they’re canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama’s convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don’t and they aren’t. They’ve all been said before. “Yes, we can reuse slogans!” says Ben Smith. “You bet your life we can,” quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.

    Deval Patrick in October, 2006:

    ” … All I have to offer is words, just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. ‘Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”

    Barack Obama in Wisconsin, February 16th, this past Saturday, as he tries to con Wisconsin voters in preparation for Tuesday’s primary:

    “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. Just speeches.”(plus he was reading from an index card)

    A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:

    … Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, “Plagiarism?” It was all about how Obama’s “just words” riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick’s speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama’s speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others’ campaigns wasn’t that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it’s going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.

    It’s what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:

    One small Obama-related detail from last night: The “Yes we can!” refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.”

    I thought he was making this stuff up…that it was coming from him…didn’t you? At least he didn’t record the speeches and then pantomime them.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    btw***say8ng these attacks are coming from the Clinton campaign and we are just responding back is crap also. You have an obvious bias intended to belittle Clinton…you attack her for waht you claim is an attack on O. First she didn’t attack O she just pointed out a fact…an observable fact which you fail to recognize…it’s not plagiarism that she mentions…the term misses the point…she’s talking about the actor pretending to be inspired to creatively express his inspired originality…acting like he’s speaking from his heart only to find out that the words weren’t even his, that he was acting like they were his but he was reading them off of a cue card…It’s the pretend part that is offensive but you act like…oh it’s no big deal and she is blah blah blah for pointing it out…then like Dr B. you begin talking down to anyone who might possibly view this as other than what you view it as as ssoooo yesterday like some condescending know it all becase how dare you not see it the right way…they way he sees it…something must be wrong with you. Noone is smearing O by pointing out this fact…I was disappointed because I thought he was speaking from the heart and these were his words…I guess I should have known better because look at what Clinton does and then after smearing the hell out of her and how dare she and so petty etc act like you are only reacting to her vileness. What horse shit. Your bias prevents you from seeing yourself because after all you are right for everybody. Here’s another opinion I ran across for your amusement:

    btw Chusid*** here’s another take on your opinions: I truly thought Obama was saying this stuff in his speeches because he was creatively inspired and it was just flowing from his heart. Needless to say…what a let down…

    “…”yes we can” didn’t come from Obama either- read this

    During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:

    “If you’re going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own.” – Howard Wolfson

    Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they’re authentic. The problem comes when they’re canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama’s convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don’t and they aren’t. They’ve all been said before. “Yes, we can reuse slogans!” says Ben Smith. “You bet your life we can,” quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.

    Deval Patrick in October, 2006:

    ” … All I have to offer is words, just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. ‘Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”

    Barack Obama in Wisconsin, February 16th, this past Saturday, as he tries to con Wisconsin voters in preparation for Tuesday’s primary:

    “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. Just speeches.”(plus he was reading from an index card)

    A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:

    … Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, “Plagiarism?” It was all about how Obama’s “just words” riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick’s speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama’s speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others’ campaigns wasn’t that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it’s going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.

    It’s what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:

    One small Obama-related detail from last night: The “Yes we can!” refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.”

    I thought he was making this stuff up…that it was coming from him…didn’t you? At least he didn’t record the speeches and then pantomime them.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    None of this has a damn thing to do with these candidates abilities to be president but for some reason this bickering is kept alive to justify the politics of identity. I could include a huge list of subjects and issues we should be concerning ourselves with and this post is about as important as Edward’s haircut. The fire outside rages and here we are discussing whose cigarette is smoother and how we flip our ashes differently.
    Here’s an agenda. The government has decided to regulate Exxon/Mobile to use the $11billion in profits this quarter as a rebate to all energy customers because no one should profiteer to that extent on our energy needs.
    Also Obama admits he and Clinton’s healthcare plans still allow private corps to profiteer off our healthcare and has now decide to push a NOT FOR PROFIT system saying that health care is a right and not a privilege. Clinton has cut the defense budget in half using the extra billions to rebuild our infrastructure and to help Iraqis (Not foreign contractors) build hospitals and schools and a new infrastructure putting all Iraqis back to work…God the list goes on and on and on… why are you not adding to it?

  • Royston Vasey

    says:

    Old news: Barack, 21st December 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.”

    ABC News

  • Steve

    says:

    In the end, Mary, it would seem that Hillary is the only candidate in modern times to so successfully swift-boat her own campaign—unless you are suggesting that “truth” is now deemed an act of swift-boating….

  • Allison

    says:

    I don’t understand why this website is committed to tearing down another democrat. The attacks are personal and not substantive. I will not come here again.

  • Mary

    says:

    Plagiarism is stealing another persons words or ideas. It is cause for dismissal in academia, where words and ideas matter because they are the intellectual product upon which careers are built. If words sway voters, then they matter in politics too. Obama borrows other people’s words and ideas without crediting them. He is a plagiarist, regardless of who is willing to say so. If you want to vote for a plagiarist, do so. However, don’t pretend it is something trivial that doesn’t matter. It is a sign of character — bad character — that suggests he would engage in similar forms of cheating or take convenient shortcuts in order to attain success. Will it undermine his campaign in the Fall if someone finds out he plagiarized other things he has written, such as a thesis, dissertation or law journal article (that should have resulted in expulsion)? Will there be scandels concerning funding shortcuts that will be unearthed later? Would he take seriously the fine points of law and administration once he were president and fire staff for lying or outing CIA agents, or accepting inappropriate contributions, or other small stuff? Or would he be like our current president, who thinks these small violations are trivial?

  • Sparky McGruff

    says:

    Hillary would never plagiarize, of course not! However, she just might take credit for being the sole author of a book that was written by a ghostwriter. “Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out.” Especially not the one who the publisher paid to write the damn book.

    That’s not plagiarism, though! Look over there! Obama’s used a common phrase!

  • Greg

    says:

    OBAMA IS ALL TALK..

    Besides that, his rhetoric is getting old. I really hope America wakes up and realizes that we need real solutions to real problems, and a candidate who will not be made to look like a newcomer to politics who is untested, and who’s record shows that he has a tendency to NOT vote, or in the case of state politics, vote “present”.

  • Greg

    says:

    I feel like I’m watching the greatest hope for our country go down the drain.. nearly 2 million Democrats in Florida, a CLOSED primary are being disenfranchised while other states allow Republicans to decide who the DEMOCRATIC nominee should be, and their voices are being heard.

    The super delegates should be allowed to differentiate between the bullshit and the truth, but are being told that the tainted results of these open primaries & caucuses should matter more than the truth. If enough actual DEMOCRATS are saying that they don’t want to watch a newbie lose in November, and they should know in their hearts that this is likely to happen because they’ve been around long enough to know, then those super delegates should choose the BEST CANDIDATE and not the one who talks pretty.

  • A Running Commentary

    says:

    In the beginning of The War Room, D.A. Pennebaker’s documentary on the ’92 Clinton campaign, James Carville says to a room full of staff: “If we can win this, we can knock this sh** back forever”. What are the chances that an Obama win would knock the Clintons’ nonsense back forever? That would be nice.

  • tommyarcata

    says:

    Am I crazy or are Hillary and her people starting to resemble Bush a little much. This petty swiftboating bullshit and her condonement of it make her unfit to represent a CHANGE ticket. She is made of the same evil debris that has polluted our government for far too long. If we are to care again about our voice in government meaning anything, if we are to care about politics and politicians after all these lies and deceptions, this MUST STOP! Shame on Hillary! I am tired of holding my nose at the polls. This hurts us as a party, as a country, and it speaks poorly of humankind in general. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!