Plagiarizing the Speechwriters, and Other Desperate Clintonian Maneuvers


Maha (aka Barbara O’Brien) has an excellent post up that addresses the major arguments being made by Clinton supporters against Barack Obama; to wit:

  1. Obama’s appeal is cult-like.
  2. Obama and his supporters are not prepared for Republican attacks in the general election.
  3. Clinton is the Democrats’ real choice, based on primary and caucus results.
  4. Obama plagiarized the language he used in a speech (this one came up just today).

One charge that Barbara does not mention here was made by Big Tent Democrat, who accused Obama of making a sexist remark about Clinton. BTD based this claim on a speech Obama gave on Feb. 15, in which he said, regarding attacks Clinton had made on him, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” The “sexism” in this remark was gleaned from the word “periodically,” which was taken to be an underhanded reference to Clinton having mood swings at “that time of the month.”

Obama would have to be utterly clueless about matters of female biology to have intended this meaning since Clinton, at age 60, certainly does not menstruate anymore, unless she is a medical miracle. Also, as Libby Spencer pointed out, BTD took Obama’s quote out of context:

If BTD had fairly represented this remark he would have transcribed the entire text of the clip in which Obama went on to point out that it is this sort of gamesmanship that disgusts the voters. He’s right. It is disgusting and any neutral observer will conclude that Obama is speaking about campaign styles and not Hillary’s state of mind. I have to wonder, if he had said it about McCain instead of Hillary whether the same people who are howling about sexism would be praising him instead.

John Cole noticed that, too:

I simply do not get it- how the hell is Big Tent Democrat claiming this is a sexist attack[.] …

He even truncates the remark to remove the second part of the quote, where Obama decries that “sort of gamesmanship.” Look, I believe there has been a good bit of sexism launched at Hillary this campaign, and have said as much. I haven’t seen any of it, however, from Obama and his campaign.

At this moment, Obama’s supposed “plagiarism” is the burning topic of discussion in the political blogosphere. And it seems to be backfiring on the Clinton zealots.

David Kurtz at TPM:

The Clinton campaign held a conference call this morning to continue pushing this line of attack. TPM Election Central asked campaign adviser Howard Wolfson about Patrick’s remarks:

Wolfson said the plagiarism charge still holds because listeners go in with the assumption that Obama’s speeches are original, unless credit is given. “So I think it’s fine that Deval Patrick said that,” Wolfson said. “But what I’m concerned about is that the public has an expectation that Sen. Obama’s words are his own.”

Wolfson’s concern for the public’s fragile expectations would be quaint if it wasn’t so transparently self-serving. Obviously, this isn’t plagiarism.

Joe Gandelman:

It turns out that, after raising the issue of Senator Barack Obama “borrowing” someone else’s campaign rhetoric, the Clinton campaign reportedly not only says it can’t guarantee that it never did the same thing — but it also now suggests that if even if it did, it would not be a big deal if it involved Hillary Clinton.

So we not only have two campaigns…apparently two sets of standards for campaigns. …

James Joyner:

As delightful as this catch would be, it strikes me as more than a bit of a stretch to call this plagiarism. Yes, both speeches contain the mantra “Just words” and quote the most famous phrases of the Declaration of Independence and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. But these words are iconic in American politics and, especially, for black candidates.

Many commentators have pointed out that Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, the supposed source of the language that Obama “plagiarized” and a close friend of Obama’s, told the New York Times that he doesn’t expect or want any credit. But even more to the point is the fact that the campaign speech in which Patrick used the language Obama is now being charged with stealing was itself written by others:

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

As Cernig notes, “… it’s a tad ridiculous to attack Obama for using words neither he nor Patrick, but rather speechwriters, came up with.”

Anonymous Liberal amplifies:

As I wrote many months ago, Deval Patrick’s 2006 gubenatorial campaign was in many ways a test run of Obama’s presidential campaign. Patrick and Obama are close friends, have very similar backgrounds and political styles, and share the same advisors. Obama and his team (most notably David Axelrod) played a major role in Patrick’s campaign. Patrick appeared alongside Obama in a number of his campaign commercials and borrowed heavily from the themes and rhetoric Obama used in his successful senatorial campaign two years earlier. Indeed, Patrick’s “Together We Can” theme was taken directly from Obama’s signature “Yes We Can.” And during the 2006 campaign, Patrick was attacked by his opponents in much the same way Obama is being attacked now.

It is not at all surprising, therefore, that Obama and his advisers are trying to apply the lessons they learned from Patrick’s campaign or that Patrick is trying to help them in doing so. Patrick has contributed to a number of Obama’s speeches. This is a collaborative process among close friends. …

The notion that this is some sort of big scoop or scandal is silly. Patrick is now one of Obama’s advisers, just as Obama was one of Patrick’s advisers in 2006. Patrick was attacked in 2006 in exactly the same way Obama is being attacked now, and Obama is responding with an argument that worked well for Patrick. It would be bizarre if that weren’t the case.

And that, as they say, is that.

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Tags:

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

One Comment on “Plagiarizing the Speechwriters, and Other Desperate Clintonian Maneuvers”

  1. Chief Says:

    From what I can determine, I prefer the Clinton health care plan because it includes everyone. I really want a single payer system. And because of her health care plan, I am leaning towards voting for Clinton in the Ohio primary, 4 Mar.

    But, it would appear that the Clinton campaign is working overtime to alienate the undecided Liberal. Get off the plagerism BS, Hillary, ‘cuz it is not going to help you.


Leave a comment