Joan, I write for a living, too, and the story struck me as absolutely ridiculous. As an author and frequent public speaker, I know the difference between an address and a published article (whether on-line or on paper). I do not expect speakers to lard their talks with references to other people when or if they use language that's not original, unless the person is famous and put something especially well. Both Obama and Patrick were using iconic quotations from our common American rhetorical heritage in that first example, and both were responding to similar charges of being all talk and no substance.

As for the second example, it's just one line shared by friends who have shared an adviser. Clinton even sabotaged her own plagiarism charge by saying David Axelrod was putting words "in both their mouths." That's ventriloquism, at the worst. A really serious charge of plagiarism would be made if you found a series of attributions missing in Obama's books. I'm sure the Clinton camp is combing through them now, hoping for something. But I doubt it. He's a lawyer, and too smart for that.

We got married in Canada on our 21st anniversary for many reasons, even though we knew it might be years before the US recognized the marriage--if ever. We live in Michigan and travel to Canada sometimes half a dozen times a year and have always felt at home there--it seemed natural to be married in a country where it was legal, vs. getting married in a state (like Massachusetts). As my spouse likes to joke: we belong to a select club in terms of the countries where it's legal: Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and a few others.

This is what I wrote before getting married:

http://pageoneq.com/news/2005/lev_111405.html

It's a wonderful feeling to cross the border and be equal. . . .

This debate came closer to what we really need: a true debate, not a series of interviews. There were times when the candidates actually spoke to each other as opposed to the audience or the moderators. But eventually they were cut off. Why? The format still works against people learning anything, and I am sick of pretty people asking biased questions, as Campbell Brown and Jon King both did. As for the audience applause, and the standing ovations, they were ridiculous and turned the event into even more of a cheesy theater piece than it was already. I'd like to see a debate where each candidate got to ask the other at least one question so we could see them interact directly and break out of the mold.

Nader only got .03% of the vote last time, and he won't better that. Nader, too, represents the old Washington. People will look at him and McCain and see a tired cranky old man. As Bill Maher said, it'll be a battle between YouTube and the feeding tube.

Since when were we supposed to put a hand over our heart while singing the anthem? That is the act of a nitwit or a coward afraid of being bullied by the right wing.

You put your hand on your heart (if you want to, of course) for the Pledge of Allegiance because it's a pledge. You're pledging allegiance. but the national anthem is nothing of the sort, and proper behavior is to listen to it with your hands at your side, not fidgeting, or talking, or doing anything to distract others. That's all that's necessary to show respect.

What is the right wing going to ask for next, genuflecting when we pass the White House or the Pentagon? Kissing the President's ring? The more this country drifts to the right, the more it wants studied, ersatz acts of patriotism, that last refuge of scoundrels.

It's all difficult because pretty boys like King are only interested in looking good, hanging with other pundits and pseudo-journalists. He spends more time at the gym and shopping for Brioni suits than he does doing basic research on issues that are important--or should be, given his job. At the last debate he repeated the GOP talking point that "the surge is working." Clinton smacked him down, but it's not the first time I've heard King say exactly the same thing. He is just a shill. Well-coiffed, well-dressed, and well-manicured, but a shill nonetheless.

Clinton tried to outdo Obama and instead got hoist with her own petard. He made her sound prissy and foolish, and demonstrated once again his unflappability and good humor. As an author and former professor of English, I had always assumed that to denounce was more powerful than to reject, and the dictionaries I've double checked tonight confirm that. Her rhetorical ploy failed.

I have gone to I don't know how many services where the shofar is blown, and most of the notes to me sound like tenor notes. The blasts are on the edge of being harsh, and rightly so, since they're supposed to wake the conscience.

I read this breathlessly (because I'm not a singer), and can't wait for the next analysis: Obama is winning against Clinton because he's taller. Thank you salon.

Baruch is the Hebrew name derived from the word for blessing/blessed.

Barack (or Barak) is the Hebrew name that means "lightning," which is very appropriate for this new political star.

As for the comment from one reader that "It isn't helpful that 'anti-semitic' is now [sic] most frequently used to mean 'anti-Jewish', and I understand your confusion," I don't understand yours. The term anti-semitic has meant anti-Jewish since the late 19th century. You could look it up. Try the OED.

Dear Juan Cole:

Your etymology is incorrect for Barack's name.

Please take a close look at the Hebrew. Genesis 1:22 does not say bareka, but barecha. Baruch and Barak are spelled and pronounced differently and mean different things.

It's a pretty basic difference.