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

[suntzu]

OK, Rachel, a very long post, but point granted. Obama's borrowing words without attribution does matter.
Now, can you write us an equally insightful post why Hillary's vote for war in Iraq does matter?
I mean on the scale of relevance how can we waste so much time on this issue?

[uffa]

Touché!

[YankeeCanuck]

Charges of plagiarism, trumped up and circulated by a competing campaign's aide, sunk Biden's bid early in '88. They swiftboated him before the electorate got a chance to know him.

It's too late for that now in this campaign.V­oters have had time to see for themselves.
What a pathetic attempt.

[antiparanoid]

I suggest we all refrain from using words we've heard before... wait.
Scratch that.

[skycontrol]

The Hillary & “Bill in a China Shop” show is in freefall.
There are two stages before political irrelevancy.
First the politician becomes the object of derision and then they become the object of pity. That is where HRC finds herself.
Hey, call me silly, but doesn’t her campaign remind you of the war in Iraq.
Bush was fixated on winning Baghdad, thinking that constituted victory and gave little thought to the aftermath.
HRC was fixated on winning Super Tuesday, feeling confident that she would have it wrapped up by then, so why bother with the caucus states.
Bush thought that the Iraqi people wanted democracy but what they really wanted was security.
HRC thought the American people wanted experience, but what they really wanted was change.
Bush thought that since he had the support of the Chalabis the support of the Iraqi people would follow.
HRC thought that if she had the support of the Rangels and Youngs, she would have the support of a core constituency.
Both Bush and HRC can be faulted for hiring people based on loyalty and a distant, secondarily, competence.
Neither Bush nor HRC can be accused of admitting to error.
Neither can be accused of humility.
Both feel that if you are not with them, you are against them.
Bush calls his enemies evil.
HRC threatens to “demonize” those who question her wisdom.
All of this is so old school!
Well a political Tsunami is sweeping across this land and I am reminded of a Dylan line, “Something is happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones!”

Skycontrol 02/20/08

[AurigaRa]

Jeebus
let's go on and on about this...

Ever notice that writers are sometimes desperate for things to write about?

How about 1,000,000 dead in Iraq?

[Kundera]

Those are just lies and fake stats.

[YankeeCanuck]

Here is a link that reports on the discussion of casualties and displaced people:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003711142
Whether there are 600,000+ casualties or a million is a moot point. There were 4.5 million displaced. That makes gathering statistics on family members nearly impossible.
The country is destroyed, multitudes are dead,the population is massively displaced.

And that's the truth.

[Groobiecat]

Thanks AurigaRa and Kundera for posting that. As for Kundera, you know how we know that these are not "lies and fake stats"? Because the Bush administration didn't generate them.

Christ, wake up. Okay, let's say that the stats are, oh, *half* wrong. What's 500,000 dead? A drop in the bucket, right? Plus? Who cares, since they're not Americans, right?

Ugh, Barack better win, or it's going to get even worse in this place with people like you burying their heads in the sand. Is it any wonder that we're reviled around the world?

[Groobiecat]

IT TAKES A GHOSTWRITER

This was taken from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//It_Takes_a_Village)

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman. When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying "The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text."

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work. Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book. Clinton's acknowledgment section began: "It takes a village to bring a book into the world, as everyone who has written one knows. Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out." During her promotional tour for the book, Clinton said, "I actually wrote the book ... I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word." Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of "connecting paragraphs", while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.

[doug108]

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.

I don't think words are dated that way. If they resonate, they resonate, whether they were dreamed up on the spot or taken from a speech a year ago. As long as the thought expressed is genuine, I don't care where the lines come from.

Hillary tried to hit a prize fighter at his strongest spot and got punched hard in return. Who cares where the fighter learned the punch?

[knerd]

Shame on hope because Obama is human....

[Cay]

Come on, Clinton supporters suffer from confirmation bias as much as Obama supporters and every other human on the dace of the earth.

[Groobiecat]

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."

Okay, you're crazy. Or, at least, myopic. Although she didn't lift it word for word, Hillary made her campaign (for a while, at least) about CHANGE. Remember that? No? Whose campaign started the theme of change? Was that Edwards? Mmmm, no. McCain? Not likely. Let's see, who, I can't remember? Can you remember, Rachel? Apparently not.

Barack explained that his campaign wasn't about him, it was about the American people getting involved, and that he couldn't do it alone. Someone else started to incorporate that theme, as well. Who *was* that candidate? Who? Man, I gotta drink less wine, because I'm stumped. Maybe you remember who started lifting his theme of "I can't do it alone." No? Again, apparently you have a short memory as well...

The good news is that this non-issue has no traction -- the good people of Wisconsin proved that yesterday. Maybe it's more than the the media, maybe people see this for what it is: A RED HERRING. The bad news is that people like you, and the underhanded, downright ugly Rovian tactics of the desperate Clinton campaign are ALIENATING huge segments of the Democratic party from one another.

Hold your same scrutiny up to Hillary, and then you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, take your misguided umbrage elsewhere. The rest of us have real issues to consider and an election to win.

Oh, and one last thing: Hillary said the other day, during a rant that impugned speeches, saying "Speeches don't put food on the table!" 1) Who does? Hillary? 2) She GIVES speeches, and therefore, by the transitive properties of syllogistic reasoning, SHE is part of the problem. Anyone care to acknowledge *that* irony?

[alan2a]

Obama could come out and champion compromising with Republicans and say, having SS have private accounts, and he could laud the Patriot Act and say there was a need to continue wiretapping, and the FISA court was a hindrance, etc., ad infinitum, and all you CULTISTS would find a way to find that acceptable because it was OBAMA and anything he does or says, regardless of how scummy or wrong is OK. Kneel down and pray to God Obama.

[Mark701]

You know alan2a, that comment was just plain weird. After 7 years of the Bush Crime Family people are clinging to Obama's message of hope and particularly, change. However, that doesn't make them cultists. I like what Obama says and will probably end up voting for him however, that doesn't mean I won't be watching him like a hawk. If the BushCo years have taught us anything it's that politicians are terribly corrupt or can become corrupted. If Obama screws up, I suspect the people who voted for him will be all over him.

[hank48188]

We have had TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS in the last 40 years, Bill Clinton was a success, 2 terms, best economy I had ever seen at the end, and without a butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County that gave Pat Buchannan 4,000 Gore votes, Al Gore would be the PRESIDENT TODAY. The other is Jimmy Carter, weak and indecisive but people really liked him and he was elected. Carter was a total disaster, ineffective and the way Jimmy Carter/ Ziggy Brzezinski dealt with the Iranian Hostage situation was weak, the Hostages were held 444 days until an angry American public drove them from power. This failed leadership was the cause of the REAGAN REVOLUTION and the DEMS out of power for the next 12 years. Ziggy Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for Carter, is an Obama advisor and brings the support of the ultra-rich eastern liberal Internationalists. All I can say is I voted for Jimmy Carter once but I won't be repeating that mistake this coming election.

[wesinohio]

You're only good at bad sense, since your invented premises are contrary to fact.

[Groobiecat]

Whoa, I thought *I* was the one drinking hallucinogenic koolaid! Sheesh, this is getting tiresome.

Okay, I'll bite: First, you didn't address any of my points, and I'm guessing it's because you don't have the tools or are lazy, I don't care which, and it certainly doesn't matter. Second, I'm not a zombie. I have a Master's Degree in International Security Policy from the George Washington University. I worked as a Legislative Aide on Capitol Hill for over 10 years. I read. A lot. And I'm familiar with both candidates, their positions, and their tactics. I have friends who are close friends of the Clintons. Not that it's your business, but I supported Bill Clinton in 1992, and held a fundraiser in his honor. But Hillary isn't Bill, and this isn't 1992. You know how I can tell? Because the level of discourse in this country has gone downhill and has devolved into simple minded name-calling since then.

"Scummy"? "Wrong"? You use ad hominem invective to attack your enemies rather than facts and well reasoned arguments. You refuse to address the issues I raise, which isn't surprising, sadly.

The discussion, you may or may not recall, was about Rachel Sklar's attack on Barack for plagiarism. My response, which you apparently didn't read, addressed these attacks as a red herring, and I used examples to support my argument. In fact, I explained how it was Hillary who stole from Barack. Instead of addressing my points, you attack me with unfounded puerile playground ranting about issues that are not being discussed in this thread.

I suggest that you learn to write and reason, then come back and play nice, like an adult. Otherwise, to quote WC Fields, "Go away, kid, ya bother me..."

For others of you still not convinced, please take a look at Hillary's own (much more egregious) journey on the non-attribution trail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

Have a nice day! :D

[donovong]

IT'S THE WAR, STUPID!!

All this penny-ante silliness about a few chosen words in a speech distracts from the most critical issue facing this country - THE IRAQ WAR.

Well over 100,000 people have died as the result of the idiocy perpetrated by the current administration and facilitated by Hillary Clinton, and you can't find anything more important to criticize than the content of one speech? We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the injury perpetrated against innocent people in multiple countries, further damaging our economy, and you are splitting hairs over A SPEECH?!?

Give me a break! (Used without permission from Bill).

[ACunningham]

Rachel, since you are trying to make a name for yourself in the cable news network circles... you really REALLY need to keep ahead of what the majority of viewer/voters are concerned with.

So, you really ought to stop falling for the Clintons' Sleazy games. You can have a bright future ahead of you. Why back a LOSER?!

[wagonjak]

I agree with ACunningham here...I'v­e seen Rachel out selling this attack on Obama a couple of times on MSM cable....

I suspect she's trying to establish her creds with the Bobbing Heads...by showing that someone from a progressive blog can be fair and attack a Dem candidate.­..

I think she's making a big mistake by supplying any ammunition to the Republicans, who are already sharpening their knives for Obama.

I could spend 3 or 4 hours Googling speeches by candidates and could probably find recycling of speech lines by every living and dead candidate.­..

Rachael should have better things to spend her time on then this...pat­hetic!

[emj2740]

It is VERY obvious you are a Clinton supporter. Let me guess, you support her simply because she is a woman right? I am a middle aged Republican white man who voted for Obama in the primary and will vote for him in the general election as well. In my case I would gladly vote for a women president but absolutely never ever would I vote for Hillary Clinton. It cracks me up your going off on Obama for using some lines from a very close friend which that friend encouraged him to use to respond to a Hillary Attack. Well how about an article FROM YOU if you really are a fair and balanced journalist that details exactly the 35 years of experience Hillary like to quote she has and why she is this week the 'solutions candidate'. What solutions is she talking about? She has plans and Obama has plans so why is it his plans are just words but hers are actions. Total BS. Certainly, if you look at a high level regarding this primary contest you can plainly see the Clinton strategy is to DIVIDE and conquer while Obama speaks about bring people together and changing our country. When Obama won Iowa, Clinton immediately changed herself from Ms. Experience to Ms. Change. People did not buy that so she is back to claiming 35 years of experience. People who support Obama are in som etype of cult? Sorry, excuse me but this 'cult' is just a wide range of different people across ths country who have had enough of the dirty Clintons and want them to go away.

[veracal]

The plagiarism charge is dead!!! The voters don't care and they don't see it is plagiarism. Any fool can go to YouTube and see that Obama's themes from his 2004 race were shared with Patrick for his 2006 run and now Obama is using SHARED material in the 2008 contest. This indicates that both men are telling the truth.

This reminds me of Bob Dole in 1996 pitifully repeating "where's the outrage?" in an attempt to make Gore's Buddhist temple visit a crime. It also reminds me of the republicans demanding that we should all have lost our minds about Monicagate, when the majority of Americans simply didn't care.

Clinton/Wolfson gave it their best shot, it didn't work. Can we please move on?

[JesusHChrist]

Verily, the Clinton campaign is already moving on to its next attempt at vilifying Obama. The Clinton press release reads: "It has been reported by several 7-11 shopkeepers that Obama often 'takes a penny' but has never been seen leaving one. Is this a man we want to run our economy?"

Your Savior (presently saving you from slanderous Clinton crap)

Jesus H Christ

[veracal]

BTW Jesus, what would you do?

LOL

[jojojo]

Racist attacks by HRC campaign didn't work-- and she either endorsed that racism or was unable to control her own campaign--so they keep trying to find a way to tear him down.

This one won't work, either.

I voted for Hillary twice in NY and Bill twice for Prez, but since she voted to allow Bush to start the war ( a purely political move, i believe ), and has supported that war ever since, I can't vote for her.

[bauersox]

"The plagiarism charge is dead!!! The voters don't care and they don't see it is plagiarism­."

Maybe *you* don't care, but some of the voters do.

[Thad]

Yeah -- the ones who were already supporting Clinton.

[veracal]

Not the ones who voted yesterday.

[LDW]

Yes, the plagiarism charge is dead in the minds of Obama supporters.

It's easy for them, because they turned their brains to the 'Off' position, and prostrated themselves before their Messiah of the All Powerful 'Feeling'.

Martin Luther King led his movement with, "I have a dream!"

Obama, instead, has sleepwalkers who dream, "I have a Feeling!"

[ProFromOre]

"it's not because it's not shocking" ----

Well, actually, to the majority of people, it's not shocking that HRC's campaign would try to impugn Obama with some some desperate, half-baked slime. Most people know what she is like and it's looking like a majority of the voters in the primary do as well.

The fault in your entire argument is that this phrase previously used by the Gov was not a main part of the message in Obama's speech, it wasn't even part of the message, at all.

It was Obama doing what he has done this entire campaign: responding to a personal attack from HRC. RESPOND, mind you. In a normal voice, and without a responding personal attack. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that Obama has done that every time HRC or her campaign has taken a shot at him.

But because 'fighting' politicians make higher ratings, or so the brilliant minds at the networks think. But these are the same morally bankrupt people who have not had the guts to speak the truth about the criminal conspiracy operating in the White House as an administration. So who cares what they think.

Bill Clinton was overall a good president, but because of the times, he was forced to out-Repug the Repubs to get elected for two terms.

As the finals days of the Bush nightmare are finally coming to an end, the citizens are tired of the constant stream of BS coming out of the corrupt Republican party's collective orifi. They want to leave it behind with Bush and again be proud of the President.

2008 was just not HRC's time..... she should have run in 2004 instead of for the Senate - that would have been the best thing to do for the country.

Hopefully she will realize that she is starting to look like the stereotypical veteran player that should have 'hung 'em' last year.... in another few weeks, it will be sad to watch if she doesn't.