Yes, You Can Borrow My Speech: Why Obama's Lifted Words Matter

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the reaction to Barack Obama's lifted speech, a loaner from friend and supporter Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, has been mild. To my mind, it's not because it's not shocking that the candidate soaring to victory on the wave of his inspiring oratory and stirring message was found to have borrowed some of that stirring message wholesale from a speech delivered almost a year and a half ago — call me crazy, but that I found sorta shocking. No, to me it seems to fit with the general modus operandi of the media: If it's Hillary Clinton, the intent was probably nefarious, if it's Obama, it's no big deal, and why is Clinton's team blowing it so opportunistically out of proportion?

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am — because this one just seems so straightforward. Hillary needles, saying that "talk is cheap" and that words were nothing without action. Obama responds, like so:

"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?"

Inspiring, soaring, heartfelt — but not exactly original. I'm not talking about the references — those are obvious. We're meant to get them. I'm talking about their configuration, combined together to form a specific argument in response to the claim that talk is cheap.

Here is the problem: They weren't his words. Flashback to October 15, 2006, and Deval Patrick on the campaign trail to the Massachusetts governorship.

"'We hold 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?"

The Obama campaign has said that this is no big deal. With respect, I disagree. I think this is a big deal, particularly for Obama, whose stock in trade is soaring oratory and his inspirational message of hope. I know I keep using those words — and I'm not alone — but it's important here, because it goes, in effect, to Obama's core competency. Put bluntly, Obama was attacked for offering "just words," and he made his case for the value of words by using someone else's recycled speech from over a year ago. This is his argument for why talk isn't cheap?

There are two problems here. Let's first deal with the charge of so-called "plagiarism." This isn't plagiarism per se, since it was an authorized use and was not "stolen," which seems to be a necessary component of the act. But the other necessary component applies: The passing off of another's work as your own, the absence of attribution, the "presenting as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." There can be no question that that was done here.

The second problem is this: The so-called defense by Obama, cool as a cucumber, that he and Patrick often put their heads together and swap ideas and use each others' bits. (Well, evidence of that is cropping up but I'm focusing on this one example, since that's what's prompted the lack of outrage.) Obama and his supporters have said essentially that these quotes like those cited are fair game, and there's noting proprietary about them. Which is true — what is proprietary is how they were used. That is what is at issue — not the fact that Obama and Patrick quoted the same great statesmen, but that they used virtually the identical formulation and configuration. That's the issue. That's what makes this lift so egregious - it was wholesale.

(And, incidentally, it was clearly distinct from both John McCain and Clinton using the phrase "fired up and ready to go" — the former was clearly done tongue in cheek, and the latter, while very possibly an effort by Clinton to horn in on a rival's slogan, doesn't quite rise to the standard of "taking another's work and passing it off as your own." One phrase is one thing; the rhythmic, structured linking of three in an identical fashion to make an identical point of an associate is quite another. It was also clearly distinct from Clinton's use of the phrase "And we asked ourselves, will we say when the call comes 'send me'?" when her husband, President Clinton had said two years earlier: "Say to him what he has always said to America? Send me." NBC News offered that up as somehow analogous, even though both Clintons were referring to a freaking quote from the Bible (Isaiah 6:8) — and even though, in the Bill Clinton clip, the freaking crowd chanted "send me" right along with him. Sorry, but the two examples are completely different, and it was disingenuous for NBC News to have presented them as comparable.)

Whew! So much effort, parsing the differences, breaking down the episodes. And to what end, right? What's the big deal, really? It's a fair question. We know Obama has speechwriters, as does Clinton; we know they both have teams that work together (er, sorta) to put forth the message. I don't think Obama sat in the editing suite agonizing over the final cut of his Superbowl commercial.* Obviously. The issue is, he is presenting himself as a singular candidate at a singular time presenting a singular response, and oratory is his singular feature. The upshot of all that is that his moving, inspiring speeches hit the mark because they speak to the need now, the desire for change now, the hope for the future starting now. When the veracity and honesty and efficacy of that is called into question, you expect that Obama's response would therefore come from the now — or more precisely, "the fierce urgency of now" as he said in tonight's victory speech, quoting Martin Luther King. In what world does it make sense to meet the fierce urgency of now with a recycled speech from over a year ago? No matter how good the words are, they're from someone else's now — not only the now of another candidate, but the now of other voters.

The language of hope matters — its authenticity and its transparency. No matter how inspiring and sincere and genuine Obama may be, his words have to reflect that, end to end. He can't just go over and pull the lever on the Hope-o-Tron for the perfect pre-packaged soundbite — not if he wants his message to be credible. If he truly cares about the power of words, then they can't be ones he swapped in there out of convenience, because they sounded good. There's got to be a higher standard — because words matter. And that's a direct quote.

Related:
Nasty Clinton-Obama Fight Descends To "Plagiarism" Accusations [HuffPo]
HRC On The Offensive: "You Campaign With Poetry, But You Govern With Prose." [ETP]
Quote crisis hits Obama
Barack brushes off accusation he crossed line with lifted language [Chicago Sun-Times]
Patrick: Plagiarism Accusation Against Obama 'Extravagant' [ABC]

Related Video:
A Misstep for Obama? [NBC Nightly News] (see below)






*In the interests of scrupulous full disclosure, I said something similar yesterday on MSNBC. Whoa, I totally just plagiarized myself! Actually, in all seriousness, that was one of three such I did MSNBC over the past two days — and one of many across cable and network news, never mind every other type of media — so Beth Fouhy of the AP, saying that the story didn't have a life of its own other than being pushed by the Clinton campaign is pretty disingenuous. And also wrong.

Comments

[Barleymash]

Here's what I find so sad about this whole episode: It's making Hillary look pathetic. Obama is a better speaker than she is. He just is. But it's not only because he uses well-structured phases that he shares with his political friends. It's because when he says them, he sounds like he understands them (unlike Bush) and that he BELIEVES them (unlike Hillary Clinton.) I watched Hillary (who I like very much) deliver her post-Wisconsin speech last night. Every line was phrased as an applause line. There was no meaning or feeling in her speech. There was simply a verbal cadence toward a call for applause. She could have been reading the phone book for all the meaning she injected into her speech. If you want to talk about plagiarism, how about "attack your enemy's strength" — which Hillary's team has stolen directly from the Karl Rove playbook?

[Erik23]

You know this would be an issue if others actually wrote their own speeches, but they don't!

[Serfie]

It scares me how all the nasty Obama Thugocrats comes out of the woodwork anytime criticizes Obama, their new God, as if he is holy and infallible.

The fact is this: The only thing Obama is selling is sweet words to soothe and appease his flock. He isn't selling substance or experience.

Now, if Obama is only selling mantras to the sheep, and those mantras are actually somebody else's words and not his, then somebody has every right to point this out.

I think the Obama Thugocrats are disturbed by this submission because if you attack the lack of credibility in Obama's words, you attack the lack of substance in Obama's campaign, and no Obama Thugocrat wants to take his head out of the clouds and confront reality. They are content in their own delusions and meaningless propaganda.

[derekw007]

Thugocrats? That was a great show! I had a big crush on Cheetara - until Pumyra showed up. Hubba hubba, she was a hottie.
Thugo-thug­o-thugo-CR­ATS!
Great show - thanks for the trip down memory lane!

[Nofoolhere]

I strongly suggest that before you continue to further develop this line of inanity, you go to the Obama web site and find there his detailed plan that provides the SPECIFICS of his intentions in every major issue area. Of course that dose demand both intelligence and commitment to assess the complexity of abstract ideas. Obama's oratorical excellence is not defined by his use of less than a half dozen specific phrases, but from the total context of his speech. This effort to create a slime issue will not help Hillary one vote, and the public has been fully alerted to the presence of slimeology after the past seven year horror from the vicious right. Beating this dead dog won't make it hunt, and the stink is becoming annoying to most.

[Serfie]

I have yet meet a Obama supporter who knows what Obama stands for other than "he is not Hillary" and he is the "hope and change" candidate.

And if you dare to ask a member of the flock an Obama policy position, he or she sends you to the website. "I don't what Obama's positions are. Read the website." How lame can you get?

But hey, they sure know how to scream mantras out in sync and they know how to give him that Nancy Reagan stare. You'd think that Obama was running to be America's Guru in chief.

Maybe cult leader in chief, because if anybody dares to challenge the infallibility of Barack Obama, the cultists go on a vicious rampage, as if their leader was David Koresh out in Waco.

[Heartlander]

I am not interested in helping Hillary. However, it has been my experience that quite a few of the Obama voters that I know are not, in fact, familiar with his plans and positions. Actually, they do not care about the plans or postions of any candidate. They are supporting Obama because they think that his election will send a wonderful message to the rest of the world, or because their kids are excited by him and they don't want them to be disappointed, or because their friends are supporting him, or because they want a new voice in Washington and so on. They are not really interested in plans or information, they decided based on Obama's image and perceived popularity. Thus goes the electorate!

[xenofile]

"all the nasty Obama Thugocrats"

yeah, the Clinton people are SO nice...

[PinkRibbon]

Thank you so much Rachel for voicing this. One would think such an obvious point would have been made by the press however that would create a chink in the chain of Obama's free ride. Far better instead, to turn this back to another 'cheap shot' by the Clintons. I'm certain that if it were reversed we would be hearing about Hillary's 'lack of originality'. If the prophet cannot claim his speak as his own... what exactly is his offering? There has been very short discussion on this, perhaps because there's not a heck of a lot to say. Once he's in the oval office, I wonder how much time he will have on his agenda to 'inspire' the masses.

[CitizenE]

Neither Obama nor Clinton are pure as the driven snow. They are merely a whole lot better than the alternative. I don't expect a messiah, and what's more given the damage of the last 7 years, I have a hard time expecting that either a Dem Prez or Congress, especially given the track record of my lifetime concerning the works of the political class in America will do much more than get the brakes on as we go through the inevitable skid around the bend. My gut tells me that Obama will be better able to adjust, that he's a bit more flexible, and thus able to take the turns more smoothly, though Clinton is the more seasoned driver, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. We all get it by now: Obama is not Jesus; Clinton really pisses some people off. WE GET IT. Then, there's John Mc Cain. Let's take care of business, and get over the trivial bullshit.

[hank48188]

Please take a look at the Jimmy Carter years to see what happens when you select a President without the BALLS and knowledge to be the DECIDER. Hillary was in the bubble with Bill Clinton for 8 years, Bill was the ONLY successful DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT in the last 40 years. If Palm Beach County hadn't used that butterfly ballot the wooden Al Gore would be the PRESIDENT today!

[CitizenE]

And what was Bill Clinton, but an untested Governor of a small state, who caved on several issues, and compromised his stature for a softness for women that only a fool would think would not catch up to him and his ability to govern effectively. Al Gore lost for more reasons than you think; he could have easily convinced Ralph Nader that he had something different to offer, but used the Clinton machinery tactic of closing him out instead. He could have easily garnered more youth with a stronger emphasis on the environment but he got handled out of that for it's impolitic among the good old boys. He could have easily won Arkansas, if he'd sent Clinton there. He could have easily won the election if he had spoken as straight from the hip during his campaign as he has since. Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, he has Camp David, and the record of being the only American President in the twentieth century that did not lead an invasion on foreign soil. The economy resulting from the Viet Nam era and the sharp shift in the price of gas undid him; that and a typical for both parties ignorance of what was going on in Iran are why he's held in such disrespect.

I like Al Gore and wish he were running today; he's not. I thought the Clinton years, despite his shortcomings, were pleasant until the final two years, and would not rue a return to such a political ambiance. I think Hillary Clinton has many virtues--hard working, diligent, patriotic in the best sense of the word. I think Obama listens better. I think he would be better able to engage the populace of our nation in a swing back to sanity. But this petty bickering over phrasing, when one looks at the Republican out there, and when one thinks the number one project for all Democratic candidates should be the serious repudiation of conservative Republican politics that have plagued our nation and the world since Richard Nixon was in office, is bullshit.

[MajMike]

This is much ado about nothing, a desperate attempt by the Clinton campaign to strike a blow at their nemesis. Nitpickers of the world attack!

[HowardRoarke]

Do you really still think borrowing a speech IDEA is plagiarism?

Repeating an opponents attack "just words" (Hillary's words), adding a ? and interspersing famous quotes is considered plagiarism? Because anyone who views the recordings will see that is what happened, nothing more.

Deval did it. Barack did it. They used famous quotes -- not all the same, and in a different order.

THAT is the similiarity Rachel and the Clintons are blowing out of proportion.

Meanwhile there are real issues to discuss, while the American people yawn at these desperate character attacks.

[derekw007]

I don't think borrowing an idea is plagiarism. However, if I borrow a feeling, could you send me a jar of love? Because, of course, hurtin' hearts need some healin'. Please take my hand with your glove of love!

[hank48188]

He didn't borrow an IDEA, he copied the entire riff without giving credit to the author. I listened to a student that called in to the Ed Shultz Show yesterday, he said THIS IS A BIG DEAL, if he did this is his classes it wouldn't be accepted.

[HowardRoarke]

Compare the text for yourself. Its not the same text. Repeat baseless accusations all you want, but if you haven't personally seen both bits and judged for yourself, you're just a shill repeating what he's been told, because its what he wanted to hear.

[scruffyandspunky]

This idiotic thread of discussion, combined with the media's parsing of Michelle Obama's recent statement, just proves that our election process has become way too disconnected from what issues should really matter. Obviously, Barack was not trying to claim the words he used as "his" or "original.­" The entire point was to illustrate the fact that great leaders throughout history have used stirring oratory to convey important ideas and engage the populace in times of crisis. And, I'M sort of "outraged" that someone who supposedly represents professional media would even pretend not to know that Governor Patrick's campaign speeches would be so widely available that there could be no thought of inappropriately attribution with respect to Mr. Obama. Sigh. BTW, I know exactly what Michelle Obama meant, and I feel the same way.

[HowardRoarke]

Rachel, we get it. You're just out of j-school, and they teach you that plagiarism is wrong, wrong, wrong. (not that I agree this was)

So what was that lesson on reporters making themselves the story? I think you should ponder that as you gleefully report on how much cable air time you received from this event.

[Rachel Sklar - Huffpost Blogger]

Never went to j-school; trained as a lawyer, actually. Definition of plagiarism is referenced/linked above. Query how "gleeful" one can be in a smallprint footnote at the very bottom of a long piece...th­ough occasionally they do have muffins at 30 Rock.

[HowardRoarke]

Then that explains it. You're screaming your head off on a technicality, and enjoying the circus you create while doing it. Lawyer. Self-promotion. Makes sense.

[JCP]

Rachel, you're as wrong as you are pretty, and YOU ARE GORGEOUS! Yowzer!

[Rachel Sklar - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh my, JCP. Thank you, I think...? Hm.

[Myrrhis]

Wow, is it possible for you to lose even MORE credibility?

After all the comments that have been posted to this thread and only 2 responses from you (that I have seen) one of them is to THIS comment? Way to take yer eye off the ball. But thanks to YOU for demonstrating the shallowness of your commitment to this question . . .

[RusStyles]

JCP: I agree...I agree...

[Nonamnesiac]

This was really a stupid, desperate attack by Hillary and her allies. This was not as if Obama "plagarized" someone's private work. He "plagarized" statements like "I have a dream", "All we have to fear is fear itself" and other similar public, non-copyrighted statements that the MA governor used and that many other Dems have used.



What a bunch of desperate morons to assert a "plagarism" attack based upon that. It's like saying when someone says the Pledge to the Flag, they are plagarizing.

[hank48188]

When Joe Biden did this in 1988 the MSM nailed him to the cross and it took him 10 years to get his credibility back. But with Obama the press gives him a pass as usual. Obama is as empty as his speeches, listen to him, he is quite good at saying nothing.

[RusStyles]

"he is quite good at saying nothing."

He's got nothing on you...

[realistxxx]

How's that "Gotcha" politics of the past working for you?

LOL!

[vsign]

Words are important! Obama is so weak, his followers have to carry him. He's their savior, so they don't mind.

Well - The Democratic Party can't afford "to carry" Obama. He can never beat McCain, not even as a democrat. We've got to drop him FAST!

Stand on your own feet Obama. Speak your own words.

[vsign]

I did not start out thinking about Obama in a negative way. A number of months ago I was awed with the possibility that Obama "might be the one". I asked myself where that feeling came from. I desired hope and optimism. I desired a leader that would make me feel those emotions. Obama said he would and he did. It was when he announced his candidancy for president that I attached those emotions to Obama. I called it "the voice of authority" and I believed he had superior judgement like he said he did.

Then when he got Imus ( a radio personality) fired (I believe), I realized how much power he already had. I began to ask myself questions about his judgement. Did he really want partnerships or like he said, he "would not go on Imus' program again". Imus was fired because of Obama's words. It worried me. The power of it worried me. Everyone's acceptance of it worried me. Imus was powerful but not equal to Obama's power. Many were giddy with how powerful Obama was (because he got Imus fired). The giddiness worried me and subsequent racial divide blogs worried me.

When I was in NYCity going to school in the 80's, I was thinking that future radical change would happen by a "voice of authority" and that the voice would be a black american male voice. And that it would be so powerful as to influence masses because of a new technology. I wanted to research why this "voice" could influence masses by comparing it to the way Hitler had used the new technologies of his time - the microphone, the radio, and film. People had little experience before Hitler, of a leader using these technologies. The new technology increased by 10/100/1000? Hitler's influence or power. In my thinkiing, I imagined this voice to influence radical change. The 60's were a time of radical change. I felt good about the changes in civil rights, womens rights, human rights.

I no longer trust radical change Obama style.

[Heidfeld]

Wow. All I can say is wow. Someone points out the obvious, and people start attacking her? Does the truth scare people so much?

The point she is making is clear and obvious to any intelligent person. It isn't about Obama stealing specific words or phrases, it is about him being a complete fraud. He has no ideas of his own.

His response about quotes from JFK and MLK... just being words is laughable. Not because he stole it, but because he has NO WORDS of his own. Will someone quote something Obama has said in the future? I don't think so.

If Obama was who he says he is, then this would be a non issue. But he isn't. He can't come up with words of his own in response. He isn't new, orginal or different.

I'm sorry for you Obama people. I know it is hard for some of you to deal with. You have probably voted for him already (a sacred trust), and now you are realizing that you have been totally fooled. You were sold something by a salesman.

Don't worry. You aren't the first people to get hustled and you wont be the last. But you need to accept it and start to move on. For the good of everyone, just acccept the truth.

Yes SHE Can, and Yes SHE will... help all of you.

[mrcontinental]

Have you read any of his books or articles? I didn't think so. And quick name the last POTUS who wrote his own speeches. You probably think that Reagan came up with his own material as well.

You're just shilling, and it's disgusting.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

didn't see an attribution on that last line