Plagarism is presenting someone else's words or ideas as your own without attribution. Permission is not a defense.

Obama has used whole passages from Patrick's speeches. Not just a couple of words or a phrase. He's borrowed from other sources as well, or his speechwriters have.

"Everybody does it" is not a defense either.

What is especially troubling is that Obama is supposed to be different, and is supposed to have a unique ability to inspire people.

But it turns out he's just repeating other peoples' words and ideas. Is anything about him original?

That includes the major blogs and Salon. Everyone keeps saying it's no big deal, but I notice that they don't show the full story and run all the quotes side-by-side so people will realize exactly how bad it is.

It's more than two candidates using the words "hope" and "change." It's more than a similarity of ideas.

It is copying whole passages of speeches, virtually word-for-word.

Plagarism is passing off other peoples' words and ideas as your own.

Permission is not a defense, and neither is "everybody does it."

What is most disturbing is that Obama is supposed to be unique and special. His biggest strength is supposed to be his ability to inspire and motivate.

But now it appears he is only reading someone else's words off a Teleprompter.

That IS a big deal.

I would like to see the "speechwriters code of ethics" re: plagarism, because according to the posters here there is no such offense. Wholesale copying, word-for-word, is acceptable from what these alleged professionals say.

Obama used someone else's words and ideas, without attribution. That's plagarism. He didn't put someone else's ideas into his own words, he copied whole passages.

Is it the worst offense in the world? No, but it is a serious one for someone who markets himself as new and original. Is he inspiring people with his vision of the future, or is he just reading the words of someone else off a Teleprompter?

As for JFK, MLK, or anyone else who may have plagarized in the past, shame on them. It doesn't excuse others.

What is the rule for plagarism in speechwriting? I keep hearing that what Obama did is okay by professional standards, but there don't seem to be any from what you say.

What constitutes plagarism by the standards of professional speechwriters?

Permission is not a defense to plagarism. If my brother lets me copy his term papaer, it's still plagarism.

You didn't answer the question.

That article is devoid of meaning and doesn't answer the question: What, if anything, constitutes plagarism in professional speechwriting?

"A 1000 monkeys banging on typewriters have written everything before?" An opinion piece by someone I've never heard of?

Obama knowingly quoted whole passages of someone else's work and didn't give attribution.

That's plagarism by every definition I've ever seen. Sweetie.

Is there a professional organization of speechwriters with a code of ethics?

What are the rules?

You must be an Obama fan because you start in on the personal attacks rather than engage in cogent argument.

IOW - you have nothing.

Still nothing

Your comparison is invalid. Why is a three-day old story comparable to one that has been thoroughly investigated and reported over a decade ago?

Or is it because it concerns a candidate you support?

If your reasoning was correct, no musician could copyright any of their work.

Since that is not true, your argument fails.

How much copying is permissible before it's plagarism?

What's the rule and please cite your authorities.

When, if ever, is it plagarism to "borrow" from other politician's speeches?

How many words are permissible?

All I hear is that the rules for speechwriters are different. Fine, what are the rules then?

Whether or not Hillary has also engaged in plagarism is not a defense for Obama.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Why the personal attacks?

Could it be that you have nothing else to offer?

The first is whether or not Obama committed plagarism. It's obvious he did. Whoever else might have done so is irrelevant.

The second is how serious it is. This is where it is fair to compare his behavior to others.

It is clearly not "life-or-death" serious. But it is serious considering that Obama's strength is supposed to be his eloquence, and considering the allegations that he is just reading the words of others from a Teleprompter.

Do Obama supporters want to compare him to Hillary, when they claim he is different (and better) than she is?

Please explain how my argument is a borderline strawman.

How have I set up an argument in order to knock it down?

Be specific, don't just make a vague hit and run.

You're embarrassing yourself and you're not helping Obama.

Where did I say I was a Clinton supporter? When did I say that eloquence was Obama's "only" strength?

You make personal attacks because you have nothing else to offer, no cogent defense of Obama, no authority to support your assertions, nothing.

I wasn't the one making the allegation, I was pointing out the seriousness of Obama's plagarism in light of the existing allegations made by others.

You don't address the plagarism issue however.

Permission is not a defense to plagarism.

You are obviously incapable of rational discourse, and I can only conclude that you are an Obama troll who is too cowardly to even use an alias.

I have better things to do than debate with half-wits who can't even form cogent arguments in defense of their idols.

You keep watching Hallmark, I'll be watching ESPN.

Your sexist attacks are lame and puerile. Is that the best you have?

Your boss would be ashamed. Mr. Rove could do better in his sleep.

I know you aren't really an Obama supporter, no progressive would talk like that. Obama sure doesn't.

Go back to and tell Karl that you failed little boy.