However, Nichols does produce an interesting comparison between Obama and Patrick.
I deal with plagiarism issues as a college professor who gives a lot of writing assignments. If a student had turned in something like this as a writing assignment, I would view them as doubly guilty of plagiarism. First, there is the use of Deval Patrick's formulations as though they were Obama's own thought or writing. This includes both the fragments from famous speeches like King's "I have a Dream" speech and the repetition of the phrase "just words" as a way to make Obama's main point about the importance of words. Obama is clearly using Patrick's words here. The second point of guilt is that Obama's speech adjusts Patrick's formulations in small ways that don't change the meaning of the words but make the speech appear to be his own.Here's Patrick in 2006 on the campaign trail in Massachusetts responding to a
foe's suggestion that he was long on rhetoric and short on substance:
"Her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is all I have to offer is words. Just words. 'We holds these truths to be self-evident -- that all men are created equal' -- just words. Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words.'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country -- just words. 'I have a dream' -- just words."Here's Obama speaking Saturday night to Wisconsin Democrats:
"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' - just words. Just speeches."
I'm not sure about the ethics of plagiarism in speech-making. I know Joe Biden got ripped for lifting stuff out of a Neil Kinnock speech during his previous try for the presidency in 1988. But the issue is complicated here by the fact that speeches by presidential candidates are often fully or partially written by speech-writers. If Obama plagiarized the formulations from Patrick's speech himself, there's a problem. If an Obama speech-writer or intern lifted the stuff from Patrick, the problem is with Obama's staff and not so much with the candidate himself.
It will be interesting to see if the story has legs.
Posts
7 comments:
There's no such thing as plagiarism in politics.
In fact political leaders usually follow the creed "Steal this idea". I know I'd be happy if everyone in government stole my brilliant solutions for the world's problems - my guess is most other people would as well.
It's why politicians steal from MLK, and Jefferson, Kennedy and Lincoln (and Reagan if you're a Republican). It's also why Hillary became "Ready for change" after Obama's "Change we can believe in" worked so well.
Good ideas should be stolen. Often.
Ahhh...don't ya just love the smell of desperation in the morning?
It smells like...victory.
Ridiculous. The criteria for measureing what is or is not plagerism in an academic setting is unrelated to speeches, op-ed pieces and the like. In academia, we must be original and learn to think. In campaign ads, speeches, even blog sites and so forth, the criteria are completley different and MUCH more relaxed. So I guess my point is, who cares, really? I'm a Hillary supporter saying this. It would be easy for me to take the low road of dumping on Obama for borrowing better words than he possesses to express his thoughts but it's cheap, like so many pseudo-scandals in campaigns. I consider myself and my party above such mundane concerns.
I bet it was just some incompetent staffer thinking he/she could cheat and not get caught. I doubt if Obama would be so unwise. Surely, he knows that all of his words are torn apart...
What do you think about the whole superdelegate situation? That's shaping up to be a mess.
I haven't heard one good defense for superdelegates. Some superdelegate interviewed on NPR said he won membership to the party by just showing up and shaking a lot of hands. And this person's vote counts more than yours or mine. Thoughts?
The ultimate problem is that the Democratic Party's rules for selecting delegates are screwed up in general.
The superdelegates have always been a bad idea. Democratic Party officials have demonstrated time and time again that they don't understand how elections work any better than you and me. So, I see no reason to give them the enhanced privilege entailed by "superdelegate" status.
Obama has a legitimate beef here. I also support the Obama idea that superdelegate votes should reflect the primary votes in their states. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Clinton campaign is trumpeting the super-delegate votes. It sounds like they've given up on the idea that they can make Hillary's case through the primaries. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat.
Nevertheless, it was an even more terrible idea to zero out Florida and Michigan on delegates.
Hillary has a legitimate beef here.
Both Michigan and Florida should have their delegates restored and Hillary should get the lion's share because she won the popular vote in both states.
With those two things in mind, I think the battle should continue.
On a more personal note. The Clinton campaign's trumpeting of super-delegate votes really bothers me and has very much shaken my confidence in their ability to manage a competitive campaign. I'm not ready to give up on Hillary Clinton yet, but I'm definitely not a happy camper.
The Massachusetts governor said in a statement: “Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did.”
Post a Comment