Letters to the Editor
-
This is a rather ingenious jab at his lack of experience again
Notice how she claims that he is running (only) on the strength of his rhetoric. Although his rhetoric is a strength, he hasn't claimed to be running on rhetoric alone, nor have his supporters.
But if she can charge rhetoric as his "only" strength, and simultaneously attack it, then she has blown away his candidacy.
The Clintons are ingenious lawyers. But bottom line, whatever standard applies to other politicians regarding credit, the same and no stronger standard applies to Obama. And boo to cleverly continuing the Clintons' talking point that there is no other legitimate basis of Obama's candidacy but his rhetoric.
-
When was "fired up, ready to go"
copywrited by Obama? I'm not actually defending Clinton's attack here - I think it's pretty petty...typical minor campaign stuff. But "fired up, ready to go" is not exactly an original political phrase. I'm not sure who came up with the expression, but it was in use long before Obama started to use it. In other words, the counterattack that Obama's campaign is using is even more petty than the attack. I think they should fess up to a minor infraction and get back to important issues. By taking Clinton's criticism seriously enough to attack back, Obama is getting this way more coverage than it should have. He'd better get over the habit of letting his opponents minor attacks throw him off course. The right is going to really tear him apart before November, and he's going to need all of his defenses to fight the major attacks.
-
She's grasping for anything now
How many reasons does Hillary want to give me not to support her?
This is pathetic no matter how you want to spin it.
-
Slackie Onassis...don't forget the crying stunt
That's when it suddenly all became "personal" for her. Very convenient that just days before John Edwards made a big show at the debate claiming this was all...drumroll.."personal' to him. She really is like a leech. Obama's for change...then she's for change, changing for 35 years! Its personal for John Edwards...then its personal for her, with added tears.
-
the best she can do?
If this is the best she can come up with to criticize him then I would say she is toast.
-
Apparently, Obama Plagiarized Me Too
Because I wrote a blog post a few weeks ago about the power of words in political discourse in which I compared elements of Obama's speeches to famous speeches by JFK and Dr. King, and pointed out that, by communicating a vision that inspires people to action, certain words possess a kind of transcendent power that elevates them above everyday discourse.
He must have read my blog post, and stolen my idea! That must be it!
It couldn't possibly be that the idea I expressed is both obvious and common, and that the speeches I cited are widely known. No. Couldn't be.
Perish the thought.
-
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?
Well, yeah. I am an Obama voter and a college professor, and I see how I might get in a jam the next time I bust a kid for doing exactly what Obama did.
In speeches, of course you do not cite sources. But you can give a little shout-out: "As my friend Hillary Clinton once said, 'Bill, put down that cigar.'"
Anything not cited does, in fact, imply ownership.
The aforementioned does not change my voting preferences even a little (Would that Edwards was still around!), but, yes, there are academic standards at work here among this gaggle of law profs.
-
Is it plagarism?
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is...
drw
-
Permission changes everything
When Hilary Clinton delivers a speech written by a speechwriter, does that make her a plagiarist? She didn't write the speech herself, after all. So is she "ripping off" the writer with whom she had an explicit, open agreement that he would write her words for her? Of course not.
That Deval gave Obama explicit permission, even encouragement, to use his words changes entirely the ethical meaning of Obama's use of those words. Had Obama spoken Deval's words without permission, then Obama would indeed be a plagiarist. But since he got permission, then Deval is simply a contributing writer to Obama's speech.
Unless we demand that politicians stop using speechwriters altogether, on the ground that they should always speak only their own words, there is no reasonable sense in which Obama can be said to have plagiarized Deval.
-
seems silly
First, I think this is by far the most ridiculous "attack" yet, such a non-issue that it boggles the mind that we're discussing it (especially as someone earlier commented, Patrick DOESN'T CARE).
But it seems liked a flawed strategy regardless. It seems like all she's doing is confirming what her base already thinks, but I doubt that those who are voting in the upcoming primaries (people who are, by and large, more politically active than the general populous...after all they're VOTING!) probably won't be swayed to her side by this...I suspect primary voters are a bit more astute than that.
However, I think this WILL hurt Obama if he gets the nomination...then this kind of thing could find real traction with the non-politically active...which is a shame when you think about it.
-
pretty sad
that after "thirty-five years of experience" and being the candidate of ideas etc etc this is the best her campaign can do. Maybe Penn and Wolfson need to go on vacation till the primary is resolved one way or the other. They definitely need to be muzzled at the very least.
Sidebar: Was Jake Tapper a little weasel when he worked here? Or is he just trying to pre-negotiate a contract or something?
-
Running on empty
Good point, Saintzak (you're exactly right -- it was less than a week later that she did that -- I can just see her handlers saying "That Edwards Personal stuff KILLED! Can you do something like that?" and I imagine Clinton trying to choke herself up on cue, practicing in a mirror to get it right). And also, Glenn A. -- if "Wordgate" is the best her opposition research people could conjure up, wow, is she ever in trouble. It makes her look psychotically petty.
-
Plagerism.....part 2
From Salon yesterday "Today, reporters received an e-mail with a quote from Kevin Hassett, John McCain's economic advisor. Speaking about Barack Obama's economic plan, Hassett said, "The fact is that Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen. He basically took [Hillary] Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own. If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible." .
Last night Mr. Hassett added in an interview, "I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."
Elizabeth Edwards weighed in a few months ago on another topic.
In the Aug. issue of Progressive magazine Elizabeth Edwards goes so far as to call Obama an outright copycat, accusing him of "lifting her husband's best lines." E. Edwards: "You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it. They've moved from 'hope is on the way' to 'the audacity of hope.' I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone."