Hey look, our two resident English teachers agree with each other... You two aren't both English teachers at the same school, are you?

AKA Smith: "Face it, there are men in this thread who, should they have been on the Titanic, would have seized the lifeboats and paddled away leaving the women and children to weep on the tilting deck."

Really? Which posts did anybody say anything so hateful about women and children? Your comment actually sounds reverse-sexist to me.

ljwalker53: "I do agree with something you posted earlier on this article: sexism among men in the Democratic Party is as virulent as ever. And these "new progressive" men remind me a lot of anti-war males during the 60s and 70s, who were in favor of ending an unjust war and creating a new world...but women had to maintain their places at men's feet."

Look at you both go! It's a general ad-hominem attack, with no supporting evidence (such as WHO said WHAT that would indicate so much sexism), aimed only at people who support Obama instead of Clinton.

You both give English teachers, and feminists, a bad name. Last time I checked, feminism wasn't about being rude to men in general, or going around accusing people of sexism without restraint.

AKA Smith accused me of sexism earlier in this thread, then never bothered to explain why. The only thing I could think of was an argument we had earlier when I made the joke that "people who want to support a woman in this election should consider supporting Michelle Obama." AKA Smith went off the deep end accusing me of being a sexist for making this joke. Now here she is, weeks later, still calling me a sexist for that single joke. I asked her what's up with that, and she hasn't responded to my post. Instead, AKA Smith and now ljwalker53 are retreating to general accusations of sexism against unspecified men in this thread.

Here's a little reality check for you: Supporting Obama is not an anti-feminist thing to do, and supporting Clinton is not a feminist thing to do. You aren't any better or more "pure" of a feminist for supporting Clinton. Sorry.

While I don't think it was in the best interest of the Clinton Campaign, to point to the "plagarism" of Obama's speech, I do find there to be a big difference between "he said/she said:"

Barack used a speech, word for word, virtually cadence for cadence.

Ironically enough, that speech was about words, and how "words matter."

Yet using the exact same speech that one of his political friends used, illustrates just how much "words" can be said by anyone.

Even very specific words. Even, eloquent powerful words.

So who or what are truly more powerful? The words? Or the person speaking them?

Where does the meaning of the words begin and end if anyone can say them?

What does that mean about doing what the words say?

These are the real questions.

In politics, and especially during campaign seasons, it is not surprising if some individual words or catch phrases are repeated. It is no wonder that Hillary may have consciously or unconsciously, repeated some individual words or catch phrases of others, such as John Edwards or her husband. People commonly remember the familiar, especially under pressure, and I'm sure that using familiar words that men have used make her feel stronger and more equal among men as a woman in politics.

Obama has done this also, where he has repeated catch phrases others have used, including Hillary and Edwards.

pimpin' out the kind of politics people can trust.

Most of the money the Clintons have made, have been from Bill Clinton's speaking engagements around the world. He has been one of the most sought-out speakers now for many years.

Eventually Obama will probably end up doing the same.

And that's not public service work - that's after public service, private sector work. And it's highly respectable.

You have penned a mighty micro-epic in which the candidates star as impotent frauds and the winds of the past blow the electorate about like mindless leaves. And maybe you're right.

On the other hand, maybe identity politics will end up as so last century. Maybe Barack really doesn't want to be just the Black Candidate, but the people's candidate. The poll numbers show a big difference between the positions of the young and old.

And maybe Hillary's campaign isn't dying from sexism, but from a failed strategy. What if, instead of assuming it would be over after Feb 5, her campaign treated the smaller, flyover states seriously? Obama probably wouldn't have his 11 victories, and the lead in pledged delagates and total voters would be up for grabs. The entire tone of the campaigns would be different, including the amoral media coverage. Just a thought.

I am a big believer in the forces of the past shaping our society in unseen ways, but I also believe that actions now can change everything.

Hey everybody, go check out Deeper Truth's other comments! There are 60 of them, and every single comment is about the Clinton/Obama election.

What, Deeper Truth....no interest in Salon's other articles? No interest in movies, foreign relations, FISA legislation, etc.? Gosh, isn't that interesting....

Here, check this out:

http://wonkette.com/359517/hillary-plagiarizes-john-edwards-bill-clinton

What do you make of that? What do you make of Clinton using an almost identical closing statement that her husband used 15 years earlier? Coincidence?

It's also interesting that your description of Obama's similarity in speech describes it exactly as another does in this message thread: "cadence for cadence." So many similarities at work here.

At least Obama owned up to everything. The man whose lines he borrowed was his friend. Obama admitted that it was too similar and defused the charge. It's a petty and trivial issue.

But it does become strangely hypocritical for Clinton to bring it up when the link I provided shows her doing something that, if not exactly the same, is quite similar, every bit as unoriginal, and no much less questionable.