NO ONE in American political life supported the third option: NO ONE. To set no limits on Saddam after the gulf war was unthinkable politically and there was no way to control what he did within his own country. Are you serious? Really that is a serious question, can anyone have that short a memory or such a complete lack of historical knowledge.

The video clearly shows Obama saying "feeling down". The quote is correct a it stands. Unlss HRC dubbed the tape?

"I know every candidate has speechwriters."

OK, so your entire argument is baseless.

"So no speech is 100% the candidate's own words."

And you admit that you're just blowing smoke.

"But. The Obama Brand emphasizes his oratory gifts, the power of *his* words to unite people for change."

So Obama has to write every word of his own speeches, even though other politicians, with different "brands," need not?

"The Deval Patrick speech was crafted for a different man, a different occasion, and a different context."

Yes, and when these two good friends discussed the campaign last week, Deval suggested these lines to Barack. Your point?

"This lifting of Patrick's speech is not only intellectually dishonest, even if Patrick sanctioned it, it can call into question the credibility of Obama the Brand."

Intellectually dishonest even though no voter, including you, thinks Obama writes all his own lines, and even though Deval gave the lines with permission? Honey, what's intellectually dishonest is that you have bought the Clinton campaign talking point that "Obama is all talk" so deeply that you literally are unwilling to believe that the man has put forth policy proposals every bit as detailed as Hillary's.

The fact that you are unwilling to believe that a great orator can also be an intelligent man is testimony only to the smallness of your mind and the limited scope of your imagination. You are pathetic.

Iraq then and Iran now, are very different situations.

Because of the position we are in, everyone knows the Bush administration is very unlikely to bomb Iran. Only some neo-cons actually want to do it, but they've lost. Even more clearly now.

It's a matter of putting the country in a strong position so that force won't be necessary.

And Hillary voted for it. Is she a neo-con?

Ann Coulter supports her...

"It's a matter of putting the country in a strong position so that force won't be necessary."

This is the reason Hillary says she voted for the Authorization of Military Force to invade Iraq. She says she supported it just as a "political posture. Despite the fact that the NAME of the bill was "Authorization of Military Force." As though that were unclear. Making the same argument to support her vote on Kyl-Lieberman would be hysterically funny, if it weren't also potentially a threat to American lives.

I'm a feminist from way back and I can't see anything sexist about this at all. Really this is a nothing quote and I don't know why it's being singled out. And let's face it, the comment singling out the word "periodically"...Hillary is over 50 and surely she's not getting periods anymore. Let's get over this silly stuff and talk about the campaign.

Plagiarism is still plagiarism *even if* the original ok's the theft. The "victim" is the audience/reader of the words, thinking they are yours, when they are really someone else's. If the original writer did not give permission to deceive the audience, then they are *also* a victim. (For example, a palgiarist can *also* be charged with copyright infringement).

Plagiarism is an act of fraud.

In this case, Deval Patrick was not defrauded. But everyone who heard, read, or wrote about Obama's speech was.

This. Is. A. Big. Deal.

Do I think Obama is evil? Do I think he;'s pons scum? Do I think he should quit? No. But he should apologize. and he should never do it again.

And, I will look carefully at *everything* he says going forward. I hope the press will too. And if we see a pettern emerge, then I will reconsider my above questions.

If you don't understand that, do not sign up for a class or a job that requires writing.

What would lives mean to Queen Hillary. Almost four thousand American men and women have already died in Warhawk Hillary's eagerly supported enterprise in Iraq.

In your last post, you admitted that every candidate has speechwriters. Including Obama. Now you say,

"In this case, Deval Patrick was not defrauded. But everyone who heard, read, or wrote about Obama's speech was."

Honey, we can't be defrauded if we know Obama has speechwriters.

Seriously, aren't you dizzy from spinning so fast?

But I don't see a new face, I see a two face.

LOL! Juliebird, don't sign up for a job or a class that requires logic!

because I'm not sweet-talking you, you demeaning troll.

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader.

Obama and his speechwriters (like any other candidate) work together to create an oratory style, a way of expressing the candidate's ideas, personality and vision. That is what I refer to as "the Obama brand." That is *not* a crime, nor is it dishonest. I do not expect any candidate, including Obama, to write 100% of his speeches himself.

There is a wide, bright line, straddling a deep lava-filled abyss, between "the Obama Brand" (or the HRC brand or the McCain brand, etc ad nauseum) and a candidate lifting whole paragaphs from another source and passing them off as his own ideas. *That* is plagiarism. *That* is dishonest. *That* is fraud. *Even if* the original source (n this case, the Patrick Brand) is cool with it.

I don't even understand your letter. Your concern seems to be that he used a "whole paragraph" of Deval's speech, with Deval's permission. Does this mean that even though you concede Barack can employ speechwriters, that Barack can only use individual sentences contributed by his speechwriters, but not WHOLE paragraphs?

I wonder how you feel about Hillary Clinton co-opting the "Yes We Can" chant or saying she is "fired up and ready to go?"

Actually, no I don't wonder how you feel about that. I already know that you think her "borrowing" was a sly dig at the patriarchy that is trying to Keep A Woman Down.

Right on, sister!