Letters to the Editor
-
I Think I Can Clear This Up Rather Quickly
Anything bad said about Obama is an outrageous falsehood. Anything bad about Hillary has substance.
-
Clinton: "I'm a facts person."
No, you're a fake person.
-
Hillary Clinton is covering herself in shame.
I guess this is what is meant when Sen. Clinton says she is prepared to go toe to toe with Sen McCain.
Sen. Clinton has been reduced to creating pitiful distractions to the obvoius reality that her campaign is stagnating.
Sometimes you just get passed by by someone with a little more flair. Its tough but that is the way it goes and the world doesn't owe anyone the presidency of the USA.
-
Speeches are not important, yet they are important ...
blah, blah, blah ... typical Clinton double-speak.
"If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words"
Notice the lovely inuendo there ... Issue is Hillary, that Obama's candidacy is not just "based on words". Problem is that Hill & Bill are used to campaigning in the early ninties where they could spread this kind of false innuendo and have it stick. I LOVE that they came up with this and it was immediately cleared up that Obama and Deval are great friends and often share 1 liners. Hillary clearly wishes we weren't in the information age yet.
Is anyone else just disgusted that Hillary tries to divert the campaign by bringing up these negative non-issues? Isn't it getting old? Desparate much? Hopefully a good thumping in Wisconsin will bring us closer to having such a sorry candidate off the national stage. This is not Hillary-hate ... just disgust at what this campaign has sunk to due to her campaign strategies.
-
That was a dumb thing to do.
I was taught in college that I couldn't use the same paper for two classes, or quote even myself without a citation; that was considered plagiarism. So even with Deval's permission, using exact wording from a speech is still a questionable practice.
On the other hand, I agree with Deval that there is a certain "transcendence" to the truth in the speech - and it sounded familiar to me as I watched the Deval clip, even though I had never heard him or Obama speak before. Personally, I would classify it more as a riff than a rip-off. A dumb thing to do, yes. But calling it plagiarism is a stretch. Kind of like trying somebody for perjury because he didn't own up to fellatio when asked if he'd had "sexual relations".... It disapoints me to see the Clintons pulling the same old Republican tricks out of their ... um, hats.
-
Plagiarism defined
Isn't it passing someone else's ideas off as your own?
Asking for complete attribution in speeches is absurd. Further, I don't think it was implied that Obama claimed ownership of that portion of the speech. Does anyone disagree?
And lastly, I see in this a parallel to the continuing discussion on theft by musicians and songwriters. It's a charge only ever leveled by people outside the creative sphere (or those who just are desperate for cash/control). Real creators know, and will admit in a whisper, that everyone steals from each other to some extent. We only consider it distasteful when the theft is significant or there is an implication of ownership by the thief. This is not the legal argument, of course, but this is the way things actually are among decent and principled writers.
Ask Jimmy Page. Or don't. Or do! I'm not sure.
-
This is such a non-issue
Apparently we are now in the "let's throw it up there and see what will stick" phase of the campaign.
If the Clinton campaign really thinks this thing has legs than they are either desperate or incompetent or both
-
Just Words
To put a Clintonian spin on it -- maybe it depends on what "just words" means. Does it mean "just words" as in "they're only words" -- or does it mean "just words" as in "virtuous words?" Kind of like saying "just desserts" -- "What's on the menu? Just desserts. What will Clinton get after today? Just desserts." ;)
Sure, Obama should have credited his friend with the words, if only to deprive the Clintons of this monumental campaign issue (koff). But seriously, HR Clinton has been ripping off everybody else the whole campaign -- you'd see it a week after either Edwards or Obama had scored rhetorical points with some speeches. Then suddenly Clinton would be throwing those words out, too, but only after Edwards or Obama had demonstrated their utility on the stump -- ever cautious, that one is.
-
It has already worked
The Clinton campaign has succeeded with this one: "Obama" and "Plagiarism" are now coupled in headlines across the country. Doesn't matter if it isn't true - it's what people will see and remember.
This is a sign of a desperate campaign. They're throwing sh!t against the wall hoping some will stick.
Rhetorical flourishes are used quite frequently in speeches. We ALL do it (not that there's anything wrong with that....).
-
Id Say Desperate And Incompetent
Better describes the dupes, mouths agape, listening to Obama deliver the verbal sugar. The they went home telling people about the great speaker they saw.
-
what's good for the goose...
It was a misstep on Obama's part. He should have referenced Patrick in the speech as he has done in the past.
BUT..Hillary Clinton picked up some of her husband's speech convention speech when she spoke at Corretta Scott King's service. She gave a speech that very nearly lifted a Jimmy Carter speech...and, John Edwards answered a question at one of the debates (his Blockbuster comment)and guess who lifted his answer almost word for word at the next debate? She really should back off this one.
-
hahahahahahhaha
Nice try clinton supporters. America is not a nation of old people and dittoheads. The word is what matters. Not the source. You are playing by old rules gop (clinton included). Plagiarism? Are you serious? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Last ditch effort of a dying campaign. It will al be over tomorrow. And clintons gop sabotage will be for the histroy books to decipher.
-
Why doesn't anyone..
Why doesn't anyone point out that the person allegedly being plagarized, Duval Patrick, DOES NOT CARE? He does not mind what Obama did, at least not publically, and that's all that really matters.
-
Maybe He doesn't reference where it came from
Because if he did half his speeches would be the words he says, and the other half credit for who said it all first.