"Fine" You Can Xerox

Last night, a bit of oppo research from Team Obama passed through my inbox, making the the point that Hillary Clinton's winning final moment of last night's debate — which culminated in a warm handshake with rival Barack Obama and closed out the night with thunderous applause and a standing O — was actually crafted from a phrase used by John Edwards. The pertinent part of the email, with subject line "Clinton's 'best moment' someone else's line?" below:

Clinton Tonight: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about." [Democratic Debate, 2/21/07]

John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." [Democratic Debate, 12/13/07]

John Edwards: "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." [Edwards Speech, 1/30/08]

Nice catch from Team Obama, though as I have resolutely (and unpopularly) argued, the specific issue here was the lift of a specific, identifiable chunk of speech as opposed to a general theme. On a lark, I typed in "Clinton" and various permutations of "going to be fine," and found this:

Bill Clinton: "You know she's not -- some people who run for president can't wait to get out of the Senate, or out of whatever other job she's got. She loves it. She's still doing it. She's still going to her committee meetings, going to upstate New York and trying to run for president as well... So, for her personally she's going to be fine regardless. I think it'd be best for the country if she were elected president, but if voters make another choice, she's a great senator, and she loves her job, and we'll have a great life." [Larry King Live, 4/13/07]

Which Edwards cleary ripped off, after Clinton had ripped him off, and he'd ripped himself off from 2005:

John Edwards: "Bad things happen to everybody... The difference is if happens to me, I'll be fine." [Speech against poverty, 11/30/05]

I don't know about you, but that totally reminded me of this iconic exchange:

Captain: It's no use, you and I. I'm being dishonest to both of us and utterly unfair to you. When two people talk of marriage...

Elsa: No, don't, don't say another word, Georg, please? You see, uh, there are other things I've been thinking of. Fond as I am of you, I really don't think you're the right man for me. You're much too independent and I need someone who needs me desperately, or at least needs my money desperately. I've enjoyed every moment we've had together. I do thank you for that. Now, if you'll forgive me, I'll go inside, pack my little bags, and return to Vienna where I belong. And somewhere out there is a young lady who I think will never be a nun. ["The Sound of Music," Best Picture 1965 (and ever)]

Translation: The Baroness is gonna be fine!

Upshot: All of political speech can be traced to "The Sound of Music" — I'm pretty sure David Axelrod's got "Climb Ev'ry Mountain" on repeat in his office.* Also, I think we can all agree that Captain Von Trapp is damned sexy. Between the whistle-blowing and the nun-deflowering, you know you think so, too (the New York Times is currently working on a story linking that to John McCain). Rolf, please! Okay we're done, sorta like a bunch of Von Trapp-chasing Nazis without vital automobile parts.

P.S. Today's headline was Deval Patricked from a co-worker at HuffPo who wishes to remain anonymous.
P.P.S. Rorschach: Which candidate does the above photo of Maria Von Trapp remind you of more, Obama or Hillary?

Related:
It's Only Words, And Words Are All I Have To Take Your Heart Away [BeeGees]
It's Only Words, And Words Are All I Have To Take Your Heart Away [Bo Bice]

*A dream that will need all the love you can give
Everyday of your life for as long as you live!
Climb ev'ry mountain, ford ev'ry stream
Follow ev'ry rainbow — 'till you find your dream!

Comments

[Computer Geek]

01:52 PM on 02/24/2008

Interestingly, on Meet the Press this morning speaking about the this same topic with presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin:

MR. RUSSERT: You know, in history--on Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton gave a speech: "I see an America where our economy works for everyone." Jimmy Carter, 32 years ago, "I see an America with a job for every man, woman and child." Bill Safire wrote about this in 1987, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon. He said, "I always admired Franklin Roosevelt's use of the repeated `I see' construction. Working with writers Samuel Rosenman and Robert Sherwood in 1940, F.D.R. collaborated on a speech that used `I see' to frame an inspiring vision: `I see an America where factory workers are not discarded after they reach their prime. ... I see an America whose rivers and valleys and lakes ... are protected as the rightful heritage of all the people. ... I see an America devoted to our freedom.' Working as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon," "I thought: Why not lift it?" Sure enough, Nixon gave a speech saying, `I see a day when Americans,' just like Carter, just like Clinton. So then, Safire acknowledges this: "After that speech, I felt a little pang of guilt..." " I called Sam Rosenman to fess up to using the `I see' construction he and Bobby Sherwood had written for Roosevelt." And this is what Rosenman said, "`Check Robert Ingersoll'" "`10 years after the Civil War.'" "I tracked down the speech. ...There was the source of F.D.R.'s `I see' in an Ingersoll speech in" '76. "`I see our country filled with happy homes. ... I see a world where thrones have crumbled. ... I see a world where labor reaps its full reward.'" This is Ingersoll who nominated Samuel Blaine for president in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes won the nomination. Doris Kearns Goodwin, I see that politicians have a way of borrowing from one another.

MS. GOODWIN: Well, look, just as these politicians on the campaign trail are borrowing and absorbing patterns and evolving, so too speechwriters. They look at the best speeches in history. It's inevitable that those patterns are going to be get in their heads. And you know, we can't make too much of this. This is the spoken word. It's different from the written word, and it becomes part of what's in there. As you said, there's not that much in their heads anymore that's coming in that's new. So all that's in there is what was there before.


Speechwriters for politicians go back as far as 1876 in this example borrowing phrases and ideas on framing. Not to mention Ms. Goodwin's observation that the written word and the spoken word are 'different' in regards to the concept of plagiarism.
Lets have a discussion that actually has some merits, please?

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

02:05 PM on 02/24/2008

The point is not that Politicians borrow from one another. There are very few original phrases in the English language. The "I see..." prefix is a tool so voters can visualize a concept with the candidate. Since most people (especially men) are visual rather than audio or feelings oriented, this is an effective phrase.

The point is that Clinton has been first saying that Obama's campaign is built entirely on words, and that his words should be his own. Let's discuss the words. Without words there is no communication. Both campaigns are using words in speeches, interviews and the written word to get their message across, as well as word of mouth and blogs like this. So therefore claiming that words are meaningless is a stupid ploy of hers. Isn't she using words to try and make pathetic attacks? Next, it speaks to her hypocrisy, criticizing Obama for repeating a few phrases that a friend of his had used previously, when she has repeatedly lifted Obama's slogans, his rhetoric, that of John Edwards', Bill Clinton and others. If HRC is going to try and discredit or criticize Obama for something she does more than anyone, she must risk being accused of not only being a hypocrite but also a liar and a desperate phony.

[escapee]

12:28 PM on 02/24/2008

Rachel: We know, whatever happens, you're going to be fine. We know, you have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the Huffpo people.

[FreedomLoverX]

07:08 AM on 02/24/2008

Thought I'd come here, expecting to find a point!. Don't worry though - I'll be fine.

[strifeknot]

05:33 AM on 02/24/2008

Is there are more feeble, witless blogger on this site?

[truthyguy]

03:20 AM on 02/24/2008

Huh?

[kroses98]

03:36 AM on 02/24/2008

It was caught by Keith Olbermann, Rachel, a few minutes after her unfortunate lines were spit out! You are a little late in your post! But we are so tired of your shilling for her, and you do such a very poor job of it! You are way behind in your work, but then it must be very depressing work for you! Sorry about that!!! (Not really.)

[Thad]

11:45 PM on 02/23/2008

Rachel,

I suggested, in another thread, that both Barack Obama and Deval Patrick had plagiarized the "Just words?" speech from Homer Simpson's "Is the Statue of Liberty just a statue? Is the Leaning Tower of Pizza just a statue?" line from back in 1990.

You just plagiarized my joke.

[seepee]

10:09 PM on 02/23/2008

Your Words – his words- PLAGIARISM: be honest (check out the words)
http://www.youtube.com/user/wtmv

[AuntSally]

07:44 PM on 02/23/2008

Oh. My. God.

Are we still. Writing. About this?

Sigh.

Rachel, you used to have things to say. No more?

[strifeknot]

05:32 AM on 02/24/2008

Yeah, she's typically witless and useless on a whole range of other subjects.

[veracal]

07:43 PM on 02/23/2008

Maybe this is the type of post that causes Christopher Hitchens to WRONGLY assert that women just aren't funny.

[Merin]

06:48 PM on 02/23/2008

I think the point isn't to say "See, Senator Clinton is a plagiarist too!" or "See, Senator Clinton doesn't use her own original words, either!"

but

to simply point out that in giving political speeches, one borrows and adjusts and quotes. There are only so many ways you can say something. If you use someone else's "lines" and you either attribute the line or are given permission or are quoting something so famous that everyone knows you are quoting, then I think you have to just accept it.

Time to move on to something real. Something important. Not misspoken words, not poorly thought out statements, not emotions and crying and who's looking at who. (Or is that WHOM? I'm not very good with WHOM.)

Let's focus on ISSUES, CHARACTER, and who best will REACH ACROSS the divisions to BUILD A WORKING COALITION.

If you think that's Senator Clinton, that's your call.

[SteveCox]

05:48 PM on 02/23/2008

Rachel you are one gorgeous Canadian lady. I love your accent and enjoy seeing you on MSNBC. Too bad you have to stump so hard for Obama. Can you even vote in this? It's kind of like Christopher Hitchins, he said he was going to become a citizen, but I bet her never did.

The point is, as Hillary said, Obama says it's his word's and ability to inspire through authenticity that is going to enable him to make this "change" happen. I'm not sure anyone has ever asked what it is we're changing to.

I fear it may be more cultural than political and very possibly not for the better.

There is an Orwellian vibe to this whole movement. I have to wonder why nobody seems to question anything about what is going on, where we are going and how we are going to get there.

Nobody has ever answered the question I've asked 50 times on here. How is Obama going to "enlist the people in the process to make the change happen."

I have a degree in polisci and I am not as educated as many of the people like you and Arianna who are stumping for this guy. However, what I have studied about how change actually happens, the Madison Federalist Papers, the Iron Triangle/Rusty Hexagon, freedom to petition our government etc. I really would like some realistic answers on how that is supposed to happen.

The Congressional Districts in ths country have been drawn up so they are all safe. It is not plausible to think Obama and his movement can sweep may Republicans out of office.

What is the plan, bring the mobs out of the arenas to march on Capitol Hill and chant yes we can when his agenda come's up to be voted on?

Please someone help me out on this.

[Brix]

03:36 PM on 02/23/2008

The point was not to paint Hillary as a plagiarist, the point was to just to show how silly that whole episode of manufactured offense was.

Hopefully it's past. It wasn't doing either of them any good.

[DemandTruth]

01:39 PM on 02/23/2008

Okay, so it's a BIG DEAL when Obama "does" it.

But when Hillary (the original one who cried foul and started all this hoopla in the first place) "does" it, it's not the same thing, it's not a direct quote, it's not easily identifiable (I identified it immediately after it came out of her mouth). You fall all over yourselves to find other examples and excuse it away.

And yet we STILL should believe that Obama's transgression was worse than hers.

Gimme a break. And didn't you live blog the debate? Comments about this "plagiarized" line from Edwards were all over the place! And you just heard about this in your inbox Friday?

[Ides]

01:29 PM on 02/23/2008

Cute article.


Then there's this...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U


And you don't think that Hillary took that quote from John Edwards? Let's try it again, this time with the actual audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


And that was the same damn debate!

[CanadianinNY]

01:12 PM on 02/23/2008

Rachel, as a fellow Canadian, I feel I should feebly defend you but you are making my job very hard. You need to get off this lame horse. It is a non-issue my fellow citizen (although as a Torontonian, I am not sure if I should even bother acknowledging anyone from other parts of Canada). This plagiarism thing you and the hapless Clinton campaign were pushing is ludicrous and when you were caught by following the same “silly season” formula you are making absurd arguments.

Please stop for the sake of our un-cool nation (some might argue (the Economist) that we are cool because of our laws about pot and gay marriage.