Letters to the Editor
-
@prytania
I am but a lowly English major, so I defer to you and citation guidelines, but I still see trouble here.
Citation just doesn't happen in lots of speeches. Lincoln doesn't get shout-out when we invoke the "better angels of our nature", and Shakespeare doesn't get a what-what when we use the words "bedroom" or "underwater", but both are their original creations. If one were to cite and attribute every allusion or reference in speechgiving, it would ruin the medium, and that would be contrary to why citation standards were created in the first place.
(And ditto on Edwards!)
-
Trying to come up with just the right metaphor
One involves deck chairs, one involves a fiddle, and one has a teapot in it.
If this is the best argument Clinton can find to make people vote for her, then she's definitely toast. There's a war on, last I checked; the economy is teetering over a cliff; the Senate is pondering a $1 billion patent bailout for banks and the Congress is pondering telecom amnesty for obvious lawbreaking; our rights are being flushed down the toilet while our borders leak like a sieve. But by all means, let's focus on a few words from a campaign speech. After all, that demonstrates true leadership and experience.
-
Sounding More Republican Every Day!!
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary... you accuse Obama of lack of substance yet here you are trying desperately to redefine what political speech is all about. Words do matter... especially when they resonate with the people that are listening!
-
Hillary does it too.
My favorite moment following this story came yesterday when I was reading Mark Halperin's Blog at Time and saw the Clinton campaign's response to evidence that they have used unattributed language in Hillary's speeches. They said that when Obama lifted other people's language it was worse than when Hillary did it because Hillary isn't running on the strength of her ability to speak well. My brain started to cramp. This is so depressing.
-
AND ANOTHER THING!
These tactics have the stench of Rove. THAT is a sad, sad thing.
-
@soopergrover
You wrote:
"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."
___________________________________________________________
ITA. A total non-issue. Especially when you have a situation where Patrick and Obama share speech ideas, campaign ideas and apparently an advisor.
-
@gabbyone
For the record, I'm not related to that Kevin Hassett guy. (I don't think.)
-
My Two Cents (I did not originate the phrase "My Two Cents")
Having taught college courses to undergrads and grad students, and having had the unfortunate responsibility to bust people for plagiarism, I will go on record as saying that this does NOT constitute plagiarism. If he was handing in a term paper in school, yes, but borrowing a snippet of rhetoric from his friend’s speech on the campaign trail with his permission, no.
That having been said, I think this is a useful media event for two reasons:
A. It shows how desperate the HRC campaign is getting, trying anything in their power to lower the margins of victory in the next primaries and slow Obama’s ascendency in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
B. It is good practice for Obama. The Republicans will be playing this very game and worse come November. Get ready to hear a whispering campaign about Obama being a secret Muslim and get ready to hear his middle name mentioned 700 times by the likes of Rush, Robertson and their ilk.
-
@ quietmind
You wrote:
"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.
-- quietmind "
___________________________________________________________
Patrick doesn't mind no doubt because he and Obama have discussed this response at length long before Obama gave the speech. Given that most of the passage contains famous quotes from others, I fail to see how that is plagiarizing the language. There's really only one way to reference "I hav a dream."
-
The more I think about it,
the more it reminds me of the flap about Gore being a liar. He said he invented the Internet! (He didn't.) He said his father sang him that union song as a lullaby! (There was a grain of truth on that one, but the line was clearly intended as a joke.) He said he was in Texas with the wrong FEMA guy! And we all still remember John Kerry saying, "Who among us does not love NASCAR" or whatever it was he said. (Except that he did not actually say it; Maureen Dowd did.) Meanwhile, Bush was getting away with lying because he told much, much bigger lies - not just getting the details of little throwaway lines wrong. The Clinton campaign is getting these pages out of the Republicans' filthy playbook, and it makes me sick. I hope they realize what a bad idea it is, and stop.
-
keep it up, Obama
I hope Obama continues to make this kind of good, legitimate use of language - legitimate from his working relationship with Patrick, and from everyday guidelines on copyright and attribution. Better for an increasingly broad audience to hear the message of these phrases, made memorable by them.
And wasn't Clinton's latest health care plan more or less copied from John Edwards's plan?
-
Hillary's Fake Emotion
Yeah, but Obama is totally sincere with each speech, repeating the same lines over and over, with the same pauses, emotion, and dramatics---whether he's repeating his own emotional words over and over again place after place, or someone elses.
Now Hillary is the scapegoat for political acting. Added to the pile of her other scapegoat roles, given to her by her opponents.
-
Jab at lack of experience
I think deloresFlower got it right. The plagiarism charge is just another facet of Clinton's -- and soon to be McCain's -- strategy to try to paint Obama as offering nothing but rhetoric. Unfortunately, this baseless and illogical charge (charisma equals no substance)can be effective. How many people just in this forum, for example, have repeated common attack refrains, such as "cult of personality" or "empty suit," to describe Obama and his supporters? Unfortunately, the Clinton's know that the manipulative press, which perpetuated the falsehoods that Gore was a liar and Bush was a good old boy in 2000, can further "validate" these charges through the now accepted journalistic practice of repeating what both sides say -- as opposed to the truth. Of course, supporters of Obama, who recognize that there's as much substance behind his charisma as there is behind the other candidates' lack of charisma, will simply dismiss these charges as baseless -- much the way I've learned to ignore the valueless posts of at least one frequent poster in this forum. Unfortunately, this kind of thing tends to eventually stick with the casual follower/voter, who is too lazy to do anything other than accept the perception that the national press has created.