Barack Obama's "Plagiarism"

John McCain said at the end of his speech the other night that he was "fired up and ready to go." Are we going to accuse him of plagiarism?

It is absolutely absurd to call this plagiarism. Obama's campaign has put out this blurb on the number of times Hillary has stolen Barack's language http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-clintons-languge/ . The only reason Barack used this language was that Hillary made the same charge against him that Patrick's opponent, Kerry Healy, made against Patrick! Somebody needs to look into whether Hillary "lifted" Healy's attack.

If you were going to defend yourself against the charge that speeches were "just words," which speeches in American History would you go to to defend yourself?

This makes as much sense as deciding that someone who says "you're fired," is plagiarizing Donald Trump.

It probably will make some headway, however, because Barack has been defensive about it,the press hasn't covered the above linked info, and his surrogates are not doing a good job of defending him.

This is so sad. Only proves that the Clinton campaign has plagiarized the Republican attacks against Deval Patrick.

I am so outraged at this. Talk about grabbing at straws, Hillary should be ashamed. Plus, the bald-faced assumption that Barack is "running on his rhetoric" is just plain insulting. Obama's response to Hillary's charge that 'words don't matter' from Madison that was aired on CSPAN was a delight and a wonderful articulation of what Obama is really running on.

I have lost so much respect for Hillary and her campaign. This is disgusting.

Let's see, we have AMC on the Andrew Sullivan Hit Hillary All the Time bus instead of the Straight Talk Express. JNS has been an Obama partisan since she signed on.

Karen is basically a straight reporter.

Jay Carney is a Dittohead. Michael Sherer and Joe Klein have been MIA.

Glad to see the even handed treatment.

gee amc - "no one's buying it" ...seems kind of overbroad...how about saying "i'm not buying it." and maybe even telling us why you're not buying it. That might get us somewhere near the journalistic ballpark. If you guys would try a little harder maybe Hillary wouldn't try this kind of stuff...

ivb, do you have any substantive answer to these tactics, other than attacking the messanger for bias?

I'm curious about the other side to this kerfluffle, but it's looking more and more like there is no other side, and that this is just the Clintons riding dirty.

KathyR,

Assuming you are not suffering from aphasia I am sure you recognize that line in Sen. McCain's speech was intended as parody. McCain delivers the "I am fired up and ready to go" line here at 3:21.

After years of dealing with right wing wing-nuts who take pride in feigning irony detection deficits in order to pose constantly as offended parties, please don't tell me we're going to have an outbreak of the same affectation on the left.

Ana, Ana, Ana. You linked to future Washington Times Editor Jake Tapper.

AMC is Time's Maureen Dowd and Andrew Sullivan. Blech!

Safe to say, AMC will be neither inclined nor allowed to circle the wagons for Sen. Obama if he gets the nomination.

Ozzie, Thank you for asking. My post was basically crankiness on my part because I felt an overload of Anti-Clinton posts, particularly from AMC. JNS has been overawed by Obama since her first post here.

Your question made me go back and look at the posts for the last week -- my characterizations.

AMC -- Anti-Clinton or Pro-Obama -- 14 (there were all those videos -- even though not from her campaign, she was blamed.)

AMC -- McCain or General -- 9

AMC -- Swampcasts (an occassional Hillary snark, but mostly even handed) 3

JNS -- 2

Karen -- Evenhanded, even if topic is something like SEIU endorsing Obama

Jay Carney -- 3

I was just feeling Hillary could do nothing right in the Swamp. (My little survey also highlights the obvious that Karen and AMC have been doing the heavy lifting!)

Just heard on NPR that Obama said today he probably should have credited his friend Patrick. The two speeches are side by side on YouTube. Years ago when Joe Biden used some lines from a speech by Neil Kinnoch, a Dukakis operative told about it and it derailed Biden's campaign.

I think Clinton's campaign shouldn't have made a big deal of it, however, I always find it interesting to reverse the players. Think of the outrage if it came to light that Hillary had used another person's words.

We are spending too much time stirring up teapots.

superterrificdelegate said:

This is so sad. Only proves that the Clinton campaign has plagiarized the Republican attacks against Deval Patrick.

I made a similar point on another blog earlier today:

Here's the thing that people keep missing. Deval Patrick was accused by his opponent of only being "just words" and he came back with the appropriate response, and guess what? It worked. He's the Governor.

Hillary, in all her infinite wisdom is attacking Obama the same way Patrick was attacked, and what does Obama do? He uses the same response that worked for Patrick. I wonder what happens next....

Well Chris Mathews has declared it plagiarism.

Its a stupid charge but it works for what they want it to work for.

This is just silly. I'm a professor of history at a large public university, so believe me I know plagiarism -- sadly I usually get 2 or 3 cases a semester. We're talking actual plagiarism. You know, where students take other people's work and represent it as their own. Cutting and pasting from the Web. Copying from a published work. You know, plagiarism.

Barack Obama did not plagiarize. For the Clinton camp to even SUGGEST that he did is execrable. The whole dustup is a sign of (a) how low the Clinton camp is willing to stoop, and (b) how desperate the Clinton camp has become, and (c) what a politics-as-usual leader Hillary Clinton would be as president. Not to mention (d) how trite media coverage can be.

So let's move on to something substantive and stop giving this piece of fluff & nonsense the attention and prominence it most assuredly does NOT deserve. The media. Sheeesh!!

I'm not anti-Clinton but I find it hard to believe that the Clinton supporters here can't just admit that Wolfson and Penn are major league jerks.

I realize that there's a divide here -- that some think that we "need our own Karl Rove" and all that. Count me out of that one.

It seems like the Clinton campaign keeps falling into these holes – turning their “strengths” into weaknesses. She was supposed to have the team of experts, the deep pockets, and ability to sweep the nation quickly. It came out the opposite with infighting/loyality over expertise, running out of money, and behind in the vote count.

Now the vaunted Clinton “War Room” attack machine is pulling out the knife but ends up stabbing themselves. Hitting on this “leveraged” words topic makes Clinton look petty and has the voter asking “is this the worse we get with Obama?” Not only that, but then it brings up her past with ghostwriters that she doesn’t give credit for and gets people resurrecting an issue that is over 10 years old.

Deconstructing Obama:

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/parsing-obama.html

Ana, one can't help but notice a certain...sensitivity you have for criticisms directed at Sen Obama. It's a bit unseemly.

Jay Carney was John McCain's front man yesterday on This Week:

Today:McCain Previews General Election Strategy: Dems Were Wrong About Iraq:

At a press conference today, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain signaled his general election strategy: Dems were wrong about Iraq; Bush's strategy is "succeeding," the surge worked, if we had done things the Dems' way, Al Qaeda would have succeeded in Iraq...

Yesterday: This Week: Iraq is McCain’s Winning Issue

CARNEY: On Iraq, I’m not sure that it’s…that he can’t win that argument. I think that if you’re forward looking, that the public has already decided what it thinks about what happened and how we got in and whether it’s been done well. But I think, you know, McCain can effectively frame an argument that says, you know, “I’m a much better steward going forward” than Democrats who are going to come in and say, “let’s just get out.” Imagine what will happen with the military brass and conservative establishment and people who just don’t want to see us hightail it out of there without honor.

Reading McCain's talking points on the air, Mr. Carney, or serving as McCain's chief strategist without telling us? Hmmm?

Or just a coincidence? Yeah.

michael in michigan --
"So let's move on to something substantive and stop giving this piece of fluff & nonsense the attention and prominence it most assuredly does NOT deserve."

Absolutely!!

TomT --
"I'm not anti-Clinton but I find it hard to believe that the Clinton supporters here can't just admit that Wolfson and Penn are major league jerks."

Wolfson and Penn are indeed major league jerks. Have not liked Wolfson since the first time I saw him. Stuart Zechman pointed out that running a good campaign and being president are two different skill sets, which makes me hopeful.

I keep saying we have two good candidates (had three and more) and I wish the media would stop slamming one in order to whip up fervor.

I'm afraid they will turn on him even more quickly after the nomination is settled.

And then MRS. Jay Carney chimes in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Probably works better against Obama than Clinton?

SHIPMAN: Yeah, and also I think it works better if the subject shifts back to Iraq than the economy. I mean, I think people are so focused on the economy right now, I’m not sure that’s going to be a compelling issue…

Just a preview of what we are up against, while all you Dems are eating each other alive.

ivb...Maybe this will relieve your crankiness!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9z-Aatd0wA

Sorry for the crappy formatting. Dunno how that happened.

If McCain's camp had mentioned the cribbed words I'm sure the media would have proclaimed them to be plagiarism and taken the issue seriously.

I keep saying we have two good candidates (had three and more) and I wish the media would stop slamming one in order to whip up fervor.

I felt that way for a while. But now, as a supporter of the 50 state strategy, the Clinton campaign is working me into a furor without any help from the media. All these comments about certain states not counting is the kind of Rahm Emmanuel ignore the red states garbage that has kept the Democratic party weak. I have no tolerance for it

Then Stephanopolous and our very own "Sparky" Halperin jump on the McCain strategy bandwagon:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But I also wonder if he’s damned by success in Iraq, Mark Halperin, if it’s going well, yes, people may have forgotten that they didn’t like the war in the first place, but if it’s going well, that could become all the more reason to bring the troops out.

HALPERIN: Well, it could be, but there’s going to be a troop presence there. The Democrats, if you talk to their advisors [inaudible] of course there’s going to be a troop presence there for the foreseeable future, of a pretty substantial size. I don’t Iraq goes off the table, and I think again, you’re right. If it gets better there, maybe he can’t argue as much about the importance of it. But he’s going to have to make foreign policy—Iraq, War on Terror—the centerpieces of his general election campaign or he could not win.

Why are you so infatuated with picking on Hillary Clinton? Remember, after the New Hampshire debate, you were all like, "I just saw the moment her campaign ended" and the voters were all, "That was awesome" and then she up and won New Hampshire?

What's wrong with taking perhaps, I don't know, a few hours to see how something plays out, and then write something substantive with a sprinkle of perspective thrown in?

The press will continue to have a pro-Obama bias so long as the Clinton campaign continues to spew out this kind of brain-insulting nonsense.

AMC has extra time on her hands...There's no longer a need for her to assist the Mittster's boys in their service to country!!!

So we gonna hear anything on this site about Saint McCain's little tricks to try and flout campaign finance law? That seems to me to be a much bigger story that this piffle.

Please cover the Hillary Clinton campaign's stealing the Republican attacks (seriously, Deval used the "just words" language for a reason--he was accused of hope mongering or something). Or the McCain's stealing of the Clinton attacks...or, what the hell, they're all the same. They're in cahoots. Senator Obama is double, triple tag teamed again (first Hillary and Bill Clinton, now team Clinton plus team McCain) and he'll still win, I predict.

CMike:

Oh dear. I would have thought from my entry that it was clear that I don't think McCain was plagiarizing. He clearly knew we would all get the reference, so he didn't need to say "As Barack Obama says..."

I'm not sure what the actual plagiarism charge is here for Obama - that he chose the same quotes from historic speeches? That he said "Just words?"

I still think that the Clinton people knew that Patrick said this because they were repeating what Healy had said to Patrick.

This smacks of last-minute desperation from the Clinton camp. Plagiarism? Give me a break...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Jay was even worse:

CARNEY: On Iraq, I’m not sure that it’s…that he can’t win that argument. I think that if you’re forward looking, that the public has already decided what it thinks about what happened and how we got in and whether it’s been done well. But I think, you know, McCain can effectively frame an argument that says, you know, “I’m a much better steward going forward” than Democrats who are going to come in and say, “let’s just get out.” Imagine what will happen with the military brass and conservative establishment and people who just don’t want to see us hightail it out of there without honor. I think that can be a very effective argument and the Democratic nominee, whether it’s Obama or Clinton, has to have an answer to that that’s acceptable.

Here's the link.

This s so disgusting on this comment board how people are taking this "plagiarism" thing so far.

And to attack AMC on top of it for having some common sense for what this garbage actually is...garbage.

Obama is a fake! this isn't the only time he has plagerized, and why this is important is because this is his mantra. If he can't use his own words what else is there, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
This isn't the first time obama has plagerized others words in his speeches. The following was lifted from Native American's and/or a title of a book, as shown in the following links.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." - Barack Obama on Super Tuesday

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/messages/oct28/hopi.htm

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/wearetheones.html

Obama also likes to lift others polocies and claim them as his own.

. "Obama's (economic) plan. is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen. He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own. If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school," said Kevin Hassett, Sen. John McCain's economic advisor and the Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute

And more

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/13/professor-obamas-political-plagiarism/

Here's the thing. Gov. Patrick used a series of quotes, and Obama used the same series of quotes. Is quoting the same people in the same order plagiarism? He borrowed more from MLK, Kennedy, etc, then Gov. Patrick. That is, he borrowed a shared database of "great speeches" to respond to a rather juvenile and shallow accusation: "words are cheap."

While the Dems are eating each other alive, McCain has consolidated his team in the Republican Party and recruited his allies in the mainstream press, like Jay Carney and his wife. They're ready to go.

And people are putting forth loony theories like Clinton and McCain being "in cahoots." (huge eyeroll)

It's Dem another debacle in the making. The Republicans are already designing their campaign against Obama. I'm pessimistic.

McCain Embraces Third Bush Term: ‘I’d Be Honored To Be Anywhere With Him’

Standing at an event this morning with former President George H.W. Bush to receive his and Barbara’s endorsement, McCain was asked whether he “would be in effect carrying out a third Bush term.”

“I’d be honored to have President George Bush’s support, his endorsement,” McCain responded. “And I’d be honored to be anywhere with him under any circumstances.” He added, “I am proud of this president’s strategy in Iraq.”

Go ahead, bash each other all you want. The McCain team is getting a huge kick out of it.

I can't wait to hear which of John McCain's jokes Joe Klein giggled at the most, the one about "the Asians", the one about "the Arabs," or the one about "the women."

(I couldn't get myself to use the terms that John McCain uses for the above quoted items. I wonder if that's TIME magazine's excuse for covering it up.)

After chatting about Blood Meridian in another thread, why not keep up the lit cross pollination here. For those of you unaware of his writing, here's a link to Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story," from The Things They Carried.

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/WritingVietnam/readings/tob_true_war.html

Time and again, the book my students connect with the most. Many pro-war students I taught in red-county Florida, after reading O'Brien, started questioning this war and all wars.

Picking up on LA James' comment, this is the best counterargument to Mac's post-Vietnam life and the core lesson he took away from his experience--that war is enobling, that it can be crafted into a narrative arc with heroes or villains. When I hear him speak about leaving Iraq with honor, I think of this novel. I also try not to puke. Hopefully dems can find enough unity to prevent this maniac from taking office next Jan. And in reading passionate voices like O'Brien, how can Americans not be enraged.

Sorry, but I find it hard to defend Time, its scribe shills, MSM or the dems who rolled over and played b-tch to Bush. Sorry, but if more people read lit in lieu of this tripe, we might be way better off as a nation.

Thanks for that link, OJC. I hope others on this thread will read it. Maybe reality will eventually kick in. I don't want the kind of irrational frenzy we see on this thread and elsewhere to bury our chances to rid this country of the cancer that is the modern Republican Party. Right now, I'm profoundly pessimistic.

Yeah, I hear you on the pessimism James--as I age, I think I transcend pessimism to a full blown faithless nihilism. Good thing I have jesus to fall back on :) Despite my sometimes positive experience in the classroom, the quaint little victories, I tend to see the larger sweep of the passage of time--while one person comes to see things through a truer prism another comes into the fold of conservativism. The roads to Damascus a confusing nexus of twisted psychologies. What's the oft-repeated expression--those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but as others have said more eloquently than I (particularly after my 3rd Guinness), we know the history but we're intent on repeating it anyway. Case in pt. - Mac. I can sympathize w/ parents of fallen soldiers and maimed survivors clinging to some sliver of constructed meaning in a world gone askew, that their sacrifice had meaning. I cannot condemn them nor do I dare reckon that I can fathom such suffering. I even, at least before he sold his soul to the political devil, would have had great respect and sympathy for Mac. What I have much greater trouble abiding is the fallen hippy, the revolutionary that sold out, the anti-Vietnam activist that by the age of 50 or 60 gave Bush a free pass to wage war on one of the poorest nations of the world, preemptively no less.

Keith Olberman on MSNBC debunked the issue of "plagiarism" very successfully:
(1)Obama and Deval Patrick wrote an article published in the Boston Observer last year in which they candidly discussed the fact that as friends, they shared many ideas and phrases with each other.
(2)He showed a clip of an Obama speech last December in which he stated something and then acknowledged right then that he had borrowed this from his good friend Deval Patrick
(3) Olberman showed another clip in which Hillary said something and then quoted a biblical passage - identical to a speech her husband had given two years earlier. Then another example, in which Hillary borrowed a line from something John Edwards had said several months earlier.
The bigger issue here is, as all the commentators on TV tonight stated, that Hillary is desperate at this point. She needs to worry more about her husband's angry interaction with two audience members during a speech he gave recently. Bill is perceived as a loose cannon who simply is unable to back away from the spotlight for any length of time - he is a real detriment to her campaign, unfortunately.

The thing to keep in mind is what happened to Patrick. It was all words as it seems in case of Obama too. Talk big, discard past as a leper but bring nothing new eventually.

MA is an example of all talk , no action. Till now we saw it at a state level, now we are seeing it at a national level.

Can AMC not follow this line since she is insuniating that "no one" is buying the plagiarism? It is easy to insuniate if you are not neutral. (Same applies to me too I guess :-) )

her husband's angry interaction with two audience members during a speech he gave recently

Right. This one with the crazy Obama supporting heckler?

A Barack Obama supporter claims former President Bill Clinton slapped his face after he repeatedly heckled him during a speech in Ohio.

Robert Holeman made the allegation after he chanted Obama’s name as Clinton campaigned for his wife at a rally in Canton yesterday.

As soon as Clinton finished speaking, the Canton native darted to the ropeline to give Clinton a piece of his mind.

“This is the last hurrah. After March 4, Hillary Clinton will be out of the race for good, and Obama will take the commanding lead,” he said.

“She should back him with her delegates immediately. That’s what Im asking them to do,” Holeman heckled.

Holeman told MSNBC news that Clinton was “irate” and jabbed his finger at him. “I think he even hit me in the face with his hand,” he said. “He did give me a little pop.”

Clinton could be seen pointing at Holeman, but it was unclear whether there was any physical contact.

Or this one with the crazy pro-lifer:

At a rally in Ohio for his wife Hillary Sunday, former President Bill Clinton took on a heckler in the crowd. In happened in Steubenville, when protesters held up anti-abortion signs.

When one man interrupted Clinton several times during his speech the former president became irritated and addressed the heckler directly. Clinton said, "We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors, and we disagree. We don't want to criminalize women and their doctors. I'm against abortion. Tell the truth. If you were really pro life, if you were really pro life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you know you wouldn't do that because you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that reduced the number of real abortions instead of the hot air you're putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America."

Yes, what a real detriment to her campaign--a guy who had the balls to tell two different kinds of cultists to f--k off with that kind of spontaneous eloquence when they got in his face.

Terrible, isn't it? What a show-off!

I'm with you on all particulars, my friend. When Mac sold out on the MCA, he sold out on supposedly his most deeply held principles. I guess they really weren't all that deep. The man is no more fit to hold public office than George W. Bush is or was. And once again, the Democrats take their positions in the circular firing squad. Once again. I've been down this road before, more than once, and it's all laid out again before us.

I have personally heard Obama mention the fact that he writes his own speeches. To hear him quote another politician verbatim and not give credit to the originator shows his inexperience and reflects poorly on his character.

The difference between Obama and some of the other candidates is they are not making the same claims of writing original material.

Many of us believe the best choice for this Country is Hillary Clinton with Obama as the Vice President. Forget about gender. Forget about race. Forget about who slept with who and lets vote for someone who can get us back to double digit job growth and an economic surplus. Bottom line the Clintons have accomplished that and Obama hasn't. It is her turn, she has paid her dues and his turn is next and as a party we can greatly benefit from both of these great candidates.

Let's deal with the substance behind the "plagiarism" charge by the Clinton camp. The plagiarism is not the substantive issue...it is the fact that the Massachusetts electorate fell for Deval Patrick’s rhetoric and elected him. But Patrick's on-the-job performance has been a "Train Wreck." This is a cautionary tail to the American people---beware of candidates (prophets) who speak in glittering generalities. Read the article--http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/12/bay_state_voters_know_their_limits/BTW, the Bible warns us to beware of false prophets--

Massachusetts went for Hillary Clinton in their primary despite the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements for Obama. What do the voters of the Bay state know that the rest of the country should know before they go to the polls?
Are we be experiencing the irrational exuberance phenomenon with Obamarama? Beware of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Let's see an in-depth discussion on this issue --Larry King should have on some of the reporters of the Boston Globe who have covered Deval as well as others who can analyze David Axelrod's recycling of his campaign strategies. Come on, Anderson Cooper--I trust you will take this issue on your show and Keep the Obama machine honest!

Sounds like DEVALGATE has trumped BJ's slapping that Obama supporter, so far.

Please keep us posted, on any more late breaking Biden moments.

Allah bless you.

I was going to post my own message till I saw the one below that actually pretty much says it all. If the so-called man of change, this great orator and creative person, who is supposed to bring the "countreh" together, can lift as much (not a couple of words) as he did from another's speech and we fall for it again--well, we're to blame. Deval Patrick has been a terrible governor so far though he ran a great campaign. Healy was no Hillary though. I get ill every time I see Obama speak--he is pulling a fast one on those of you who hope for great things. A year ago I told my wife that I didn't want Hillary as president--now I can't see anyone else I'd rather have as president. She has shined in her knowledge of the issues, including both foreign and domestic and really done well in the debates. She doesn't sound like a Baptist preracher though and ofr osme reason that has hurt her instead of showing Obama as the phony he is.

From CarolP--Let's deal with the substance behind the "plagiarism" charge by the Clinton camp. The plagiarism is not the substantive issue...it is the fact that the Massachusetts electorate fell for Deval Patrick’s rhetoric and elected him. But Patrick's on-the-job performance has been a "Train Wreck." This is a cautionary tail to the American people---beware of candidates (prophets) who speak in glittering generalities. Read the article--http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/12/bay_state_voters_know_their_limits/BTW, the Bible warns us to beware of false prophets--

Massachusetts went for Hillary Clinton in their primary despite the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements for Obama. What do the voters of the Bay state know that the rest of the country should know before they go to the polls?
Are we be experiencing the irrational exuberance phenomenon with Obamarama? Beware of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Let's see an in-depth discussion on this issue --Larry King should have on some of the reporters of the Boston Globe who have covered Deval as well as others who can analyze David Axelrod's recycling of his campaign strategies. Come on, Anderson Cooper--I trust you will take this issue on your show and Keep the Obama machine honest!

Ana Marie, or maybe I should direct this toward Time itself--why have a blatant Obama supporter blog on your site? There is nothing impartial --and certainly nothing creative-- from this terribly biased pseudo blog writer. Hmm, I think I just answered my own question. Time, as biased as the rest of the mainstream media.

We voters are not stupid, or are we?

Can we all not see that Hillary is for Hillary and that her motivation is for herself and not for the country? Her motivation to help the country is driven by power, dominance and control rather than service, help and sincere and honest compassion!

Do these Hillary supporters not see that?

Three reasons why Hillary is not winning:

1.) Her real character of power, manipulation, and divisiveness is shining through. How she has ran her campaign is an indication of how she will run the country. Remember the situation with her daughter from the comment of the MSNBC reporter? She wanted more than blood but also vindication. This showed to me not only a lack of forgiveness and tolerance but a welding of power, revenge and dominance. She would have done much more for herself by just giving the reporter a pass or settling the manner privately and in consideration. However that takes character and that is her problem she is void of character. The problem the Clinton campaign strategists cannot solve is Hillary not Obama.

2.) Obama is a good person. Attacks do not work well with a good person. Also when you attack someone you only reveal something about yourself. In essence you are attacking yourself. Every attack and criticism she gives Obama could also be given to herself to some degree. Barack is a family man with an outstanding wife and can connect with the common person because he is the success story of the common person, the American dream! Bill hurts Hillary and also hurts the sacred office of President of the United States with his behavior and dramatic productions for the camera. A President or past President cannot act in that manner. The office of President is the ideological pinnacle to which Americans look up to. That office cannot be tainted, which Bill Clinton did as President and is doing now. Conversely Michelle is an asset to Barack and is an example of the ordinary person being the extraordinary person.

3.) He is an excellent communicator. We are finding out from this election and elections in the past that Americans respond to communicators. Remember Ronald Reagan as the great communicator and Martin Luther King. Leaders do not have to necessarily have to have all the answers because good ideas and the great ideas come from a synergy of many people inspired to a common goal. What makes leaders is their ability to inspire, bring people together not apart and motivate people to dream of something great and better yet be something great! Great men and women start with dreams and expectations or hope of fulfilling that dream. Obama has inspired me to simply expect more from myself and aspire to something great. That is an example of leadership.

This latest example of Hillary on plagiarism is only example of one thing her character. It is low, desperate and reveals a woman who has been a master of deceiving almost half of the country of who she really is!

However it is all okay. I am a staunch conservation and Republican. We as Republicans will become very united if Hillary is the nominee.

So please do all that you can to elect her. You Democrats will blow the best chance you have had to take the White House in the last decade.

That last comment has got to be some complex trollery...

You can always tell what kind of leader a candidate will be by looking at how they run their campaign.... That said, is it worse to use someone else's good ideas to exceed predictions or to create fighting within the infrastructure while falling into debt because you can't live up to expectations?

Plagiarism? In this case the accusation of plagiarism is an attack against the speaker to deflect the power of the message.

Plagiarism is a transgression in the academic and commercial worlds. In the academic world, academics are distinguished by their words. Their words are their work product and it defines their professional status. In the commercial world, plagiarism is a violation of copyright. It is profiting monetarily from the work of another speaker/author.

In the political world, plagiarism has no place. Ideas developed by politicians are placed in the public domain as soon as they are articulated. The Clinton accusation was intended to blunt the meaning of Obama’s statements. The Clinton campaign is hiding behind the plagiarism accusation because Obama’s speech puts their core message to bed.

Words are the weapon of the politician. If he/she cannot wield them eloquently then their message is diminished or lost. Loss of message is loss of solution. Words are the medium in which solutions are forged. Without words there can be no solutions.

Plagairism is a big deal. The fact that Obama didn't attribute his phrases is plagairism.

If my son asks his sister if it's okay to submit his report as her own and he says okay and she submits it without attributing it to her brother, that is plagiarism and she'd get an "F" on her report!

"F" to Obama!

He seems to be a serial plagairizer and has copied phrases and more from elsewhere without properly attributing them.

For example from the Hopi Indian tribe (which he didn't attribute): "We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Hopi Elder's creed).

He never prefaces such plagairized words with something like, "We can learn from the Hopi elders words....We aer the ones we've been waiting for."

Since he is running on lofty rhetoric and being able to inspire the American public, if the words are not his own, he is a fraud!

He is not what he is making himself out to be and he definitely isn't "the one I've been looking for."

David Brooks turns his attention to Mr Hopeful today. Have been away: no change here. The Obamaists see nothing wrong with their Divine Leader and everything wrong the the White B****. The Clinton supporters ask why, if Deval Patrick is such a great leader, Mass (Clinton and Kerry country)went for their candidate.

AMC and JN-S are heavily invested in carrying water. Karen remains above the fray.

The sad thing is so many journalists are in the tank for Obama. They have left their professionalism at the door. And they have propogated some of the vile anti-Clinton stuff with glee.

This is a swamp indeed, and the monsters that lurk here are called scribblers.

Sorry Hillary fans, AMC is practicing responsible journalism by dismissing this tripe for what it is. If Howard Wolfson holds a press conference and announces that Barack Obama turned him into a gnut... but that it got better. The press is not obligated to consult a geneticist to see how much gnut DNA Wolfson could have and still look human. Media does not have to have a round table discussion on whether or not Barack Obama is practicing the black arts, and another round table discussion on whether the phrase "black arts" is a racial slur.

The fact that one group attacks another is not in itself a story. Responsible journalists check into the veracity and the significance of the attack and make an informed decision as to whether it is news. In the case Obama's use of phrases from Patrick, a few calls from Patrick to the media quickly showed that the real story is of friends and colleagues sharing ideas on how to address specious attacks.

Wolfson and Co. have turned themselves into caricatures of Karl Rove. And here I thought Karl rove was a caricature of Karl Rove.

Ana,

Many people are not "buying it," sure. Especially people, like you, who know how campaign speeches get written. But talk radio is all over it. It was a mistake for them to lift so much of the speech without attribution. You may recall (they certainly do) the whole Biden/Kinnock thing.

History prof:

I agree that this was not plagiarism, in part because, at one point in my life, I also was a history professor. I've found, though, that arguments from authority are especially weak in an anonymous forum. I come out of the closet as a lawyer now and then, but only when I think it's appropriate, after carefully examining my conscience to try and be sure that I'm not just being full of myself. Most people here know what plagiarism is, and know why is basically irrelevant to campaign speech (like, for example, legal brief writing).

That said, this will be used against him in the primary. There will be a sophisticated version ("I'm not saying it's 'plagiarism' in the technical sense, it's just evidence of lack of substance blah blah see above") and a less sophisticated version ("remember they told you in high school that plagiarism is bad"). It will hurt, if they cannot correct it.

Note that I am not carrying water for Clinton here - I've long given up on defending her in this forum, and this may well hurt her in the primary.

I had a chance to interview HIllary Clinton about the plagiarism charge, Here is the transcript:

RKA: Senator Clinton, how do feel today after your opponent committed plagiarism.

HRC: Well, RKA, I am fired up and ready to go.

RKA: How did your campaign figure out that Obama had committed plagiarism?

HRC: Well, let me just say this. If we can track movies at blockbuster, we can track quotes from the barackster.

RKA: How do you think this will affect your chances to win the nomination?

HRC: Well, when it comes to going after the republicans in the fall, I say "Send me!"

RKA: Senator Clinton, thank you for this interview...is there anything else you'd like to say to the voters?

HRC: No, thank you RKA. I think it is time to turn the page on this interview.

Both camps made mistakes.

It was a mistake for Obama to use parts of someone else's speech without attribution in a attempt to say he was more than all talk.

It was a mistake for HRC's people to be so serious about the gaffe. They should have poked fun at it and used it that way.

This plagiarism feud just shows that the Democrats have absolutely no idea what they are doing right now. You Americans may just as well elect John McCain right away. I mean, seriously - the Democratic Party is putting up a woman and/or a black man against a white true American war hero, who happens to be a moderate Republican as well? I guess the Democrats thought that after 8 years of W, anyone would do. Oh boy. Certainly both Hillary and Barack have more than eminent qualifications, but that's entirely beside the point. The American people does not elect according to qualifications but according to "americanality". Remember that the American people is the people who put Ronald Reagan in the White House, and even W (albeit with some help from the Supreme Court)! OK, so let's see - is there a serious and credible Democratic candidate for 2012, perhaps? I think there is, and I think his (yes, a he it is) initials are JE.

Its moments like these, I'm actually grateful for the short shelf life of the American attention span.

Ironic because I usually find it infuriating.

Wow.

Don't people know what plagiarism is anymore?

Obama plagiarized. Sorry, but he did. I know y'all like him, but he did. (And he has done so on at least one other occasion, the "we are the ones we're waiting for" line, which he did not attribute to its author, poet June Jordan.)

It makes absolutely no difference that this was cool with Deval Patrick, just as it makes no difference when a student's friend says it's cool if he copies his work.

Obama was not the author of the material that he presented as his own observations to the audience. It makes no difference that he changed a word here and there. That's still plagiarism because the audience assumed that this brilliant rebuttal of "just words" was conceived by Obama himself. It was not. That's intellectual dishonesty. And he knows better. They teach 'em stuff like that at Harvard.

If Hillary plagiarizes, then that's bad, too. I'm not saying that plagiarism is only a problem when Obama does it; I'm just saying he *did* it. And it's alarming to imagine what the Kool-aid is spiked with these days if otherwise rational and, I assume, college-educated folks seem to have gotten blurry about what plagiarism is.

Here:

http://nutsandbolts.washcoll.edu/plagiarism.html

XEROXGATE, Day 2.

Or IS it Day 3?

Time for another re-count.

After they finish Nevada.

And Long Island.

XEROXGATE, Day 2.

Or IS it Day 3?

Time for another re-count.

After they finish Nevada.

And Long Island.

Or just think of it as adjective re-cycling.

CNN hemp party hats for Castro retirement party attendees Raul!

flygirl130, Thanks.

Obama has been lifting other people's words for quite a long time. Is that evil? No. Have other people done it? Yes! Politicians and other public speakers adopt other people's phrases and even whole paragraphs at times. Even MLK did it on occasion. Is it plagiarism? Probably. Does it matter? In this case, yes. Moreso for him than for others? Yes. Obama has little else besides rhetoric that qualifies him for the presidency.

You would think that all of the college educated folks that Obama attracts would be smart enough to know that taking another's words and using them as your own without giving credit to the creators of them is pretty low behavior for someone that wants to govern a nation. We still have at least one not so truthful person in the White House, how many more years of nonsense do you college folks want in the White House? There are many ways to lie and using another's words as if they are your own is deceitful. If this is what your college education is giving you, it's time to drop out and join the living. Deval's words were used with permission but Obama did not give credit to him. Fine. Did he give credit to the Hopi Nation for "We are the ones we've been waiting for?" I don't think so. Time to sift through all his words and wake up folks.

kempis,

But Obama isn't someone submitting a journal article or a term paper. He's a politician giving a speech.

I promise you that few if any of Clinton or McCain's speaks are actually written by the candidate. Are they all plagiarists?

I spend much of my professional life writing things for other people's signature, for which I receive no attribution. Is this plagiarism?

Justin,

Same questions.

I can't believe that none of the columnists have brought this up, but here goes:

Is what Obama did the same thing that Joe Biden did in his first presidential run?

Joe Biden dropped out of the race mostly because the press made a big deal out of it...

Stuart:

The talk radio folk are sure as heck bringing it up.

I think Obama used just snippets of someone else's speech and he had permission.

Or at least his friend is covering for him.

The MSM isn't going to make much out of this. Or Michelle's "really proud of my country" remarks. Just the rightwing radio and press.

Which means most Americans won't really hear about this stuff until the general election and the Repugs will trot it out.

Well, Stuart, Pat Buchanan tried to bring up the Biden analogy last night on Hardball. So don't worry, there are fine, reputable pundits on the case!

...the reason I bring it up is to see whether the facts are similar enough to presumably warrant similar press treatment...

...if so, and if the press treatment were substantially different, one might reasonably conjecture something about the press...

I suspect that the MSM senses, correctly, that this is a non-story among Dems and most independents, and knows that the right wing media market will take care of itself. Very different media market than 1988, as well as a different level of public sophistication (or cynicism, if you prefer) about how campaigns work, etc. There are any number of reasons other than bias for the media to play it this way.

Add to this the fact that a brokered convention would potentially be an incredible circus to sell us. The media would hate for anything to hurt Obama too dramatically, at this stage in the game.

All that said, AMC needs to stop hating.

CLINTON: FIRING BLANKS AND (HOPEFULLY SOON) 'READY TO GO'

I truly believe that history involving all of us - We the People - is about to be made: I believe in Barack Obama. Hillary is mostly involved with herself; Barack is a Uniter, who wants to empower us all.

This latest Clinton ploy, nit-picking at the supposed 'plagiarism of Obama's close friend's speech' ploy - a friend who couldn't care less if Obama borrows his words or not! - is merely another sign of how extremely desperate the Clintons have become.

And trying to twist Michelle's SENTENCE about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life is merely an indication of how wildly successful Michelle has been: despite never even using a note card during her countless fantastic speeches, they never had a chance to lay a finger on her before, so now they pounce, or at least try to pounce, on the fact that Michelle said she never had a chance in her adult life to be proud of her country's participation in the political process. And this charge coming from the Clinton campaign that's always hawking that the Obama campaign deals in fluff, not substance?: as a Democrat, I feel it's downright embarrassing; as an American it's doubly embarrassing when you remember that the whole world is watching...

This brilliant "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" has been used all across the country at house parties and fundraisers - hope you enjoy it, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

WE ARE THE CHANGE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR

WE CAN - AND WE WILL

FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

All power to the Soviets!

Democracy is the rule of the majority. As long as the will of the majority was not clear, as long as it was possible to make it out to be unclear, at least with a grain of plausibility, the people were offered a counter-revolutionary bourgeois government disguised as "democratic." But this delay could not last long. During the several months that have passed since February 27 the will of the majority of the workers and peasants, of the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, has become clear in more than a general sense. Their will has found expression in mass organisations—the Soviet’s of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.

How, then, can anyone oppose the transfer of all power in the state to the Soviets? Such opposition means nothing but renouncing democracy!

Stuart,

The Biden thing wasn't just a few words, as I recall it was paragraphs. It was pretty bad.

Annevilla, Michelle's words will bother some moderate to conservative Dems and turn them off. The Repugs will use it against Obama.

They tried to use Kitty Dukaksis against Michael. They tried to used Hillary against Bill. They tried to use Teresa Heinz against John Kerry. They even tried to use Cindy McCain against John.

So it's no good pretending what Michelle means nothing.

I'm sure she and others in the Obama camp have a ready answer if she's asked about this.

Sorry for the double post but Annevilla I just watched that video and it's dreadful. Stuff like that is one reason Obama could very well lose the general election, it's setting him up to become a joke, a parody.

Interesting flap. Good comments on HRC's frequent lifting of Obama's campaign slogans.

Someone complained somewhere that her kids say "fired up, ready to go" all the time. And accused Obama of plagiarism.

He actually spoke on camera about the little old lady who came up to him after a speech and said she was "fired up, ready to go", and he said he was so inspired by it, he decided to use it.

Good grief, people seem to just hunt for things to get wound up about.

yes, he should have attribbed the comment to Deval Patrick. But that's about it.

Plagiarism is the deliberate representation of someone's copyrighted work, as in an article or book or published music, and claiming it's your own creative work.

In effect, the only thing he borrowed from Patrick was the words "Just words" in between all those famous quotes that are used constantly, such as "the only thing we have to fear..." etc.

It was the idea of using famous phrases to debunk the desperate sniping of the Clinton campaign that he borrowed, not the exact words. It's just not the same thing.

But it gave the press something to diddle with in the break between primaries.

Oh, there's a primary tonight! Yay, several more days of commentary ahead, thank God.

No comments about Hillary plagiarizing the GOP attacks on Patrick? Really? OK....

From

Obama's speeches, it turns out, are similar and even identical to Patrick's in places because they both hired the same political consultant to head their campaigns: David Axelrod.

Therein lies the answer to the 'plagiarism' charge. Obama did not say the same phrase as Patrick because Obama plagiarized Patrick's speeches, but because both candidates hired the same political consultant to manage the message of their campaigns. When Patrick was accused of being all-words-and-no-action by his opponent in the 2006 gubernatorial election, Axelrod devised a response for him that involved poking fun of the charge by referencing great speeches of iconic American leaders--JFK, FDR, MLK. And it worked.

When Clinton used the same critique to go after Obama, Axelrod simply reached for the same solution that had worked for Patrick and gave it to Obama.

Why not? What is wrong with doing this?

Absolutely nothing is wrong from a legal or even a political perspective. Candidates often draw on the successful messages of other politicians, both those that came before them and those against whom they are currently competing.

The problem is one of perception and image.

Cindy McCain has just sniped at Michelle Obama.

I'm kind of surprised CM said what she did. Cindy McCain's problems were used against John McCain in 2000 and you think she would be a little hesitant to jump on someone else's slip of the tongue.

No one's buying it eh? Maybe you should check out the rest of your website, and what Tom Bevan has to say about it on Real Clear Politics. It also references Jake Tapper from ABC.

The main issue isn't so much that Obama borrowed some language without credit, it's that it runs counter to his image. It seems in-authentic, and calculated, and a bit dishonest, all of things he claims not to be.

Obama claims to be a different kind of politician, and about Hope. But the more he's examined the less and less that appears to be true. I really wish the media would stop giving him a pass and start doing their job.

I am so disappointed in Obama and his reaction. He should have admitted it was just wrong. Words do matter. I wonder what Oprah (remember James Frey?) would say about his borrowing without attribution?

Presidential candidates hire speechwriters to put words in their mouths. Their own words. Not somebody else's words. Obama could have used: "Ask not what you country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country!". But, using such an iconic line wouldn't be considered plagiarism because it's too well known. See, what becomes plagiarism is some great material that just never quite made it to a wide enough audience the first time around. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's speech qualifies on that criteria. Obama, get your own material.

العاب اطفالالعاب اطفال جميلة اجمل العاب الأطفال الفلاش العاب فلاش اطفال
العاب سياراتالعاب سيارات العاب سيارات فلاش جميلة عالم المغامرة والسباق والتحدي
العاب رياضيةالعاب رياضية العاب رياضة كرة قدم وتنس والعاب قوي عالم الألعاب الرياضية فلاش
العاب جميلة العاب جميلة جدا روعة العاب جميلة فلاش العاب فلاش جميلة
العاب كرتون نتوركالعاب كرتون نتورك اجمل العاب افلام الكرتون نتورك العاب فلاش كرتونية
العاب كمبيوترالعاب كمبيوتر فلاش العاب الكمبيوتر روعة اجمل العاب الكمبيوتر منتدي العاب
العاب اكس بوكسالعاب اكس بوكس اجمل العاب اكس بوكس العاب روعة اكس بوكس
العاب اكشنالعاب اكشن جديدة العاب اكشن فلاش مغامرات وقتال العاب فلاش
العاب قتالالعاب قتال خطيرة روعة العاب قتل وقتال فلاش
العاب حربيةالعاب حربية العاب حرب العاب قتال حرب العاب فلاش
العاب ذكاءالعاب ذكاء جميلة قم بالتحدي العاب ذكاء تحتاج الي التركيز الشديد اجمل العاب ذكاء
العاب ديزنيالعاب ديزني عالم والت ديزني العاب فلاش العاب كرتون ديزني
العاب بلاي ستيشنالعاب بلاي ستيشن العاب بلاي ستيشن روعة تمتع بأجمل العاب بلاي ستيشن
العاب نايتندو ويالعاب نايتندو وي اجمل العاب نايتندو وي جميلة تمتع بألعاب نايتندو وي
العاب ديكورالعاب ديكور جديدة العاب ديكور البنات اجمل العاب ديكور
العاب باربيالعاب باربي البنت الجميلة باربي العاب فلاش باربي اجمل العاب باربي
العاب مكياجالعاب مكياج اجمل العاب مكياج بنات تزيين بنات روعة
العاب طبخالعاب طبخ العاب فلاش طبخ طهي العاب روعة فلاش

منتديات-دردشة
كتابية--صور
قلوب-صور طبيعية-صور
متحركة-شات
الغلا-منتديات الغلا-تحميل
العاب-برامج-كتب
مجانية-برامج جوال-مقاطع
بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات
نوكيا-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-دروس فوتوشوب-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-اخبار الفن-صور
فنانات-افلام-افلام
اجنبية-اناشيد
اسلامية-صور
سيارات-كاس امم اوروبا-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات
عامة-كاريكاتير-نكت-الغاز-خواطر-قصائد--حكايات-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-فساتين-منتديات
عروس-حلويات-اطفال-الطب
البديل-علم
النفس-مركز
تحميل الصور-دليل
المواقع العربية-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-برق-19-p1-p2-p3-p4-78-71-20-21-59-60-58-61-67-53-56-9-a9-a1-a8-a12--a15-a16-a18-ماسنجر-صور
بنات-51-26-a-b-c-d-e-e-f-g-h-j-l-29-43-47-13-6-dd-p18-f8-12-62-65-49l-f11-f86-مسجات
حب-مسجات عتاب-مسجات
شوق-صور ماسنجر-مسجات حلوة-صور
حب-صور بنات-شات
بنات-شات
الود-اغاني هيفاء وهبي-دردشة
بنت السعودية-عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-صور نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-دردشة
الشلة-نغمات-قصص-تامر حسني-العاب-طرب
توب-اوز-دردشة
اماراتية-شات اماراتي-دردشة
قطر-دردشة بحرينية-شات
قطر-شات البحرين-دردشة
لبنانية-شات
بنات-دردشة
اردنية-شات اردني-شات
عراقي-دردشة
عراقية-دردشة
سورية-شات سوري-شات
كويتي-دردشة كويتية
-ترافيان
-صور لميس-اناشيد
العفاسي
-صحيح البخاري-صحيح
مسلم-هيفاء وهبي-سنوات
الضياع-مسلسل نور-صور
اطفال-صور تامر حسني-صور
اليسا-صور مضحكة-صور
رمزية-صور ترحيب-صور
نانسي عجرم-صور حسام الرسام-صور
حزن-صور مهند-صور
نادرة-صور بنوتات-صور
للمسن-لعبة باربي-لعبة
الجاسوسات-شات
سعودي

العاب ،
دليل ،
منتديات ،
منتدى ،
مسجات ،
افلام ،
العاب سيارات ،
بيجامات ،
اكسسورات للموبايل ،
اكسسورات للجوال ،
فساتي