somebody sorely needs to get his swollen head out of his or her ass. and you know who you are.

I disagree that Hillary is pulling the hypocrite vote; I think that in this case, Hillary is pulling the self-important, bloviating, hypersensitive, hypercritical, pain-in-the-ass vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midol

right aka?

HILLARY IS A COPYCAT!

That was a joke -- about Mr. Clinton getting it from Ms. Clinton.

It does not matter if the person gives permission to use his exact words. The person delivering the speech or publishing his text must still give attribution for the information of the intended audience. If Obama had only said something like: "In the words of my good friend Deval Patrick" he wouldn't have been subject to an accurate accusation of plagiarism.

CRL page 29 I think most people who are voting are individuals voting for a candidate that they agree with and whom they believe will work the hardest to get policies enacted that they (the voter) believes in, and the candidate with greasted ability to achieve those policies. not democratic activist, who believe that any one running as a democrat is good enough. Most of the time the democrats stand for what I believe in, but that does not mean that there can not be a candidate from the democratic party that I do not think would be a good president. And it does not make me or any other voter a traitor because we choose not to vote for the democratic nominee. I do not think Obama is qualifiied or principled enough to earn my vote and he will not get it.

Which is not the same thing as a plagiarist.

Here's a real objective example of your truly brilliant insight, which objectively demonstrates that you prefer baseless innuendo to subjective insight.

SocsandTwigs says: "Her [Hillary Clinton] 'centrist' politics helped lead us to war ... people have been killed, we are a hated entity in the world. Is she justified in her votes on Iraq and Iran because they may help her get elected?" And we are supposed to assume that that means that Hillary Clinton is responsible for all bad decisions after that vote, related to Iraq. Sorry, my friend, that is not logical.

I will explain what happened for any of Obama worshippers that have your head-in-the-sand. Hillary Clinton gave authority to the President to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing the inspectors into Iraq. That worked well until the current "uniter" in the White House went back on all his promises and began to wage this criminal war. Remember that this is a war that your perfect buddy has voted to fund, against his moral objections to the war. Well, maybe he thought that would get him elected. So, I guess he has blood on his hands too.

Oh, that’s right only you can read other people’s motivations. It is quite objective that both you and Obama have a little trouble with logic and integrity. I guess I have to ask: Do you read what you write? (By the way, just so you know, that is parody, not plagiarism.)

According to your record, people cannot have opinions, only distorted facts and empty rhetoric. My subjective but well reasoned insight is that Obama is clearly an egotist. You just cannot see it.

Of course, going back to my original post, it was so clever of you to focus on a more subjective part of my post because you did not want to face the objective reality that Obama is a plagiarist, oh you coy one, Socs.

I thought Bill's problem was that he didn't get it from her.

You said: The point is that Hillary has gone very pointedly on the attack against Obama for plagiarism due to an extremely minor instance in which he used three sentences that a friend of his authorized him to use because he felt they would be effective.

I will try to explain yet again. Deval Patrick giving Obama permission does not absolve Obama from plagiarism. That is because Obama did not tell the audience that the words were Patrick's.

(holding hands over ears)

"La la laaaa, I can't hear you!"

you might quite possibly be the biggest fool ever born.

AKA, you're not the Pope.

The voters in Wisconsin "absolved" Obama of this bogus charge by a margin of 17%. The voters in Hawaii "absolved" Obama of this bogus charge by 52 percent.

Get off Salon and go check other news sources and you will see that the media has now officially adopted the "it's not plagiarism, even Hillary does it" line. We win, you lose.

I would consider a dictonary's definition of plagiarism more reliable than Wikipedia's, but if your point is that Obama did not use attribution, then you are logically required to admit that Hillary Clinton did not use attribution either.

And really, isn't this whole tactic of yours, where you are only accepting definitions that fit your argument and rejecting others, more than a little dishonest?

Here is the Wikipedia definition:

"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."

A few things to point out about the Wikipedia definition:

(1) It is primarily concerned with text.

(2) Nowhere does it suggest that plagiarism must be "word for word," as you have.

(3) Its main emphasis is attribution. Yet when questioned on the matter, Obama immediately provided full attribution, explained the scenario (which included the original author's permission), and admitted that it was perhaps a minor error in judgment on Obama's part.

But again, that's the Wikipedia definition. The dictionary definition allows an interpretation that makes Hillary Clinton's use just as bad as Obama's, and makes Obama's use a non-issue since the dictionary mentions the issue of permission. You might think attribution is more important than permission, but several dictionaries' definitions do not.

But really, aren't we quibbling over something incredibly trivial? I think you would have to agree that we are, and that's the problem: That Hillary Clinton has chosen to make something so trivial into a big attack on her opponent. She has made herself look foolish in doing so, especially now that people have discovered instances where Hillary Clinton has done much of the same thing.

Even if you argue that Hillary Clinton's use of the same rhetorical summation is not "plagiarism" of her husband, you have to admit that it's very, very unoriginal.