Uh-uh. The "deeper truth" is, Obama has charisma, Hillary does not.

By your "logic" if HRC started inserting entire paragraphs from other peoples' (Benazhir Bhutto, Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, Amy Winehouse, whoever you choose)public works (speeches, books, song lyrics, short stories) without mentioning the original author or context, you'd be totally ok with it as long as they'd "given permission."

You are an idiot.

I would love it if Hillary read whole paragraphs by famous writers. Her speeches would be a hell of a lot more interesting.

You owe that guy an apology Juliebird. I'm afraid Juliebird's the big birdbrain in this instance.

First of all, unless Duval Patrick is on Obama's payroll as a speechwriter, he shouldn't be writing Obama's speeches.

Secondly, lifting entire paragraphs is a much bigger deal than repeating a 3-word phrase, though I can see cases wher a 3-word phrase can be plagiarised ("This Coors' for you" would be a 4-word theft from Budweiser).

Thirdly, don't you know what self-plagiarism is? It's when you reuse your own words in a new context (like an academic reworking the same article without attributing the earlier writing) and passing it off as "new." That's what Patrick (or his speechwriters) would be doing if he/they were an Obama speechwriter.

This was sloppy. No one would have a reasonable complaint had Obama attributed the stolen speech to Patrick. (Then it wouldn't have been "stolen", it would have been "quoted"). Speechgivers do this all the time. The fact that he didn't means he wanted to take credit for someone else's ideas.

Oh, but don't you see? Fooliebird thinks that campaign speeches require citations, like term papers. She doesn't know any better. I think we really should pity her instead.

Jules, in case you didn't know it, in 1925, Khalil Gibran, wrote: "Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country?"

Funny, I don't remember Kennedy mentioning Gibran.

Maybe because the citation rules for political speeches are DIFFERENT.

Your English teacher must be very proud.

Post a link to the YouTube clip where President Kennedy in his speech gives credit to Khalil Gibran for that quote, and I'll concede my point. Otherwise, you have two choices. You can argue that Kennedy is a plagiarist too, or else you can Give. Up.

So if a campaign volunteer asks Obama to add something to his speech about enforcing child support orders, and Obama does so, does Obama need to credit the volunteer for the idea of adding this material to his speech?

If you had your way, the speech would be interrupted after every sentence with a Modern Language Association citation. That's not how political speeches work.

Ibid., op. cit., e.g., i.e., supra, infra, you're clueless.

I'm starting to see you more as Cuckoo bird.

That egg you've laid repeatedly won't hatch. It's not really an egg, it's fecal matter- much in the vein of your picayune and beyond trivial taking to task of Obama for a quote from a friend and supporter. If you doubt Obama's eloquence, trying reading one of his books. You know reading: that's where you absorb words, turn pages, and mayhaps, along the way, learn something. And do yourself a favor about that constipation. It may not bother you, but it bothers us. The American people need someone with real vision. If Obama borrowed a telescope, would have have to lay a wreath at Gallileo's grave? What a thimblewit. love heywood.

"1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

2. something used and represented in this manner."

-Randomhouse Dictonary

"the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." -dictionary.com

"Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution." - wikipedia

And here's a link about plagiarism in politics.

http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm

These definitions do not solely apply to academic situations.

These definitions also do not say "but if the original author says ok, go nuts and claim it as your own, it's cool".

Quoting a poem in a speech may or may not be plagiarism. (My mention of Amy Winehouse was a joke). Referencing something that is "common knowledge" (something that people would easily link to the original source, like quoting Shakespeare) without attribution is not plagiarism.

Presenting someone else's speech as your own speech is an act of fraud.

but does he want them to count in the General Election where the majority also voted for Hillary? Will the Super Delegates that represent Obama in areas that Hillary won like NJ and MA and other states she won where he has more Super Delegates side with her?

He cannot have it both ways. Also, Obama and his supporters want him to be declared the winner when the majority of the people they claim are supporting Obama have not even voted yet! Shows how informed they are.

So tell me, which is it? Are there rules set in place or not? Or does Obama and the Anti-Hillary gang only change the rules that do not benefit them?

we're all really impressed. That's quite a term paper. All your citations seem to be in order. You get an A (head pat).

You are the failure of the public education system.

Who in the what now?

It wasn't Obama, but the Democratic National Committee, many months ago, that decided that the delegates in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count.

You know this as well as I do.

Yet you represent as true something that is not true.

Where I come from, that makes you a liar.