Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
The Chink In Obama's Armor
If the Clinton campaign's accusation that Obama 'plagiarized' Deval Patrick demonstrates anything, it is the first law of presidential election thermodynamics: Every candidate who rises to 'extraordinary,' will eventually be brought down to 'normal.'
For certain, very few people will ever be convinced that Barack Obama stole Patrick's words and tried to pass them off as his own. Taken at face value it is a laughable accusation that will be seen by most for exactly what it is: a preemptive distraction by the Clinton communications team from what appears to be yet another primary loss to Obama, this time in Wisconsin. Beyond face value, however, the accusation is not so easy to swat away. Accusing Obama of plagiarism did not brand him a plagiarist, but demonstrated exactly what happened has had another, unexpected and most definitely unwelcome effect on his campaign.
What was the chink the Clinton comment revealed? Simply put, it showed that Obama is not quite as unique, not quite as historic, and--most importantly--not nearly as anti-politics-as-usual as his campaign rhetoric claims him to be.
Of course he's not. Who could possibly be?
But for months, the central claim of the Obama camp has been precisely that their candidate is not like the others, that he is not a politician's politician like all the other politician's politicians in Washington, DC, or anywhere else.
In this narrative that defines and propels the Obama campaign, a vote for Barack Obama is not just a vote for a gifted orator and a deft campaigner, but a vote to end "politics as usual" in America--a vote to usher in a new era.
The flip side of this framing, of course, is Obama's claim that Hillary Clinton is "politics as usual," that when we look at or listen to Hillary Clinton what we see is a politician like all other politicians. And to change this country, so the Obama message goes, we must reject politicians who look and sound like all other politicians. That, in a nutshell, is the kernel of Obama's message of 'change.' And it has proven successful for him beyond anyone's wildest imagination.
The only thing that could bring it down, of course, would be some kind of event--some campaign moment--that revealed to the voters, quickly and easily, that Obama was not only similar to all other politicians, but that he was exactly like them.
Enter Deval Patrick, the young and charismatic first-term governor of Massachusetts.
As Americans would find out with the help of the Clinton campaign's Howard Wolfson, one of Obama's recent counter-critiques of the Hillary was not only similar to one used by Patrick in his 2006 run for Governor--it was virtually identical. The observation gave rise to a video demonstrating the similarities between Patrick's words and Obama's.
Not 'plagiarism'--but still trouble for Obama.
Say what one may about the politics of accusing one's opponent of 'plagiarism,' the video of Patrick and Obama saying virtually the exact same words in two different campaign speeches has the effect of instantly dulling Obama's golden patina.
How could it be, voters will likely ask, that a candidate who claims to be unique--a singular figure who so many people refer to as a once-in-a-lifetime politician--is using the exact same words as another politician that most people outside of Massachusetts have never even heard of?
The answer is not 'plagiarism,' but something much more mundane and--in stark contrast to Obama campaign message--something 100% "politics as usual."
Obama's speeches, it turns out, are similar and even identical to Patrick's in places because they both hired the same political consultant to head their campaigns: David Axelrod.
Therein lies the answer to the 'plagiarism' charge. Obama did not say the same phrase as Patrick because Obama plagiarized Patrick's speeches, but because both candidates hired the same political consultant to manage the message of their campaigns. When Patrick was accused of being all-words-and-no-action by his opponent in the 2006 gubernatorial election, Axelrod devised a response for him that involved poking fun of the charge by referencing great speeches of iconic American leaders--JFK, FDR, MLK. And it worked.
When Clinton used the same critique to go after Obama, Axelrod simply reached for the same solution that had worked for Patrick and gave it to Obama.
Why not? What is wrong with doing this?
Absolutely nothing is wrong from a legal or even a political perspective. Candidates often draw on the successful messages of other politicians, both those that came before them and those against whom they are currently competing.
The problem is one of perception and image.
More than anything else, the 'plagiarism' incident has the potential to transform Obama's image from that of a singular historic figure who soars above "politics as usual," to that of a gifted, but ordinary politician--just another client of the handful of media Svengalis who pull the strings of candidates and manipulate public opinion to win elections. The curtain has suddenly dropped, and behind it we see: the political consultant.
Because Obama's supporters have responded with such passion to his claim that he can move politics to a new place (real passion, not 'cult' following, as some have arrogantly suggested), any viable evidence that Obama is a normal politician will inevitably erode some of his support. How much it will erode is unclear.
One thing is perfectly clear, however. Republicans always seek to turn the Democratic candidate's strength into his/her weakness. That means that if Obama were to win the nomination--as it seems likely that he will--the Republicans will strive to transform his rhetorical skill into his greatest political liability.
For many in the Obama camp, it is not even possible to imagine Obama's rhetoric being turned against him--his speaking skill becoming the very thing that turns people away from him. This is because for so many, Obama's speaking style has been the source of ardor, the sine qua non of their support for him as president. And for good reason. Obama is a great speaker. Listening to him is not only exciting, it is energizing and at times thrilling.
But this is an election, and laws of politics--like physics--still apply: What goes up, will inevitably come down.
Now we see how the Republicans will turn that against him--ironically, as a result of a stone thrown at the Obama camp by his Democratic rival for the nomination. The Republicans seeking to turn his rhetorical strength into his weakness will argue over and over that Obama's fancy words are evidence of his that he is a political huckster like all the rest. In this new frame, authenticity will trump inspiration. The candidate with the thickest tongue will be the candidate who is really real. John McCain's soporific, halting speeches will become the new gold standard of presidential trustworthiness.
The Deval Patrick moment reveals the direction that the inevitable 'swift-boating' of Barack Obama will take. He will be recast by the Republican machine as a duplicitous establishment politician gifted not at telling the truth, but at finding the right words to convince people of anything.
In that logic, the narrative will become 'the maverick versus the salesman.' And the speeches that once gave so many people hope, will suddenly make people wonder what this new man in town is selling and to what end.
If Democrats cannot imagine a November where 45% of the country equates Barack Obama with doublespeak instead of hope, with politics-as-usual instead of change--then they better try much harder.
Does this mean that the Democrats would do better to nominate Hillary Clinton to run against John McCain in the general election? Not especially. Hillary Clinton is the cosmic 'big bang' of right-wing attack politics. Whatever the Republicans have already brought out against her in past campaigns will pale in comparison to what they hit her with were she to win the nomination and head to the general election against McCain.
It simply means that Democrats should not delude themselves into thinking that one candidate has baggage and the other does not, that one candidate at the top of the ticket will bring easy landslide, while the other will bring certain failure.
This week's events revealed that there is indeed a chink in Obama's armor, and exploiting that weakness could well have a devastating impact on the passionate support his campaign has enjoyed, not to mention the outcome of the general election.
Read more news and blog posts on accusations of plagiarism against Obama
(cross posted from Frameshop)
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Too many Obama supporters actually DO deify him, believe he's not a Corporate politician, and have 'bought' his marketed brand of populism completely. More egregiously, however, is their hatred towards Hillary (a member of their same party, they might consider). Clearly, with that kind of negative projection they truly DO need some 'hope' in their life. Bumper sticker sloganeering is easy for an essentially lazy & distracted electorate. How long a Washington politician can sustain 'hope' in people's everyday lives remains to be seen. Let's now all hold hands and chant "Yes, we can". Very sweet.
Hillary, the member of "our" party, Votes with Lieberman (not a memeber any more) and the Neocons on Kyl Lieberman.
She Votes for the War. Enjoins Bush in his saber rattling against Iran. Campaigns for the war in Lebanon. Enjoins the republicans jeerig at Obama for suggesting that He would send in troops or Missiles after Bin Laden in the uncontroled border regions of Pakistan with or with out their consent, although she got REALLY burned on this one, because as it turns out, After Obama had said this, and after Bush and Hillary and McCain had raised hell about it, Special forces were sent into paksistan without pakistani consent to Kill Al queada leaders.
Poor Hill. She keeps sucking up to the Republicans, and she keeps getting burned (iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan). the fact that she is NEVER going to learn her lesson here is all it takes for most people to know that she should not be allowed anywhere NEAR the white house in anything but a visiting capacity.
Pray God Obama can win in November. I was for Edwards (he lost) and then Hilary (now she's losing). I'm afraid to come out for Obama when he wins the nomination. I think with my track record I'll come out for McCain. If that would make him lose I'd do it in a minute.
If anyone believes that McCain is a real threat then please study the footage a bit more closely. Can we not all see the clown behind that ever-present wink?
All we have to do is keep showing that picture of Mac hugging Shrubly with that ecstatic look on his face.
Or
If you think Kerry caught hell for his single flip-flop, what do you think Mayor McMuffin will have to deal with with his flops-o-plenty? I, for one, can hardly wait.
My God, don't you think that McCains BOMB BOMB BOMB Iran and 10000 years in Iraq is enough to keep people laughing (or Crying) all the way to the voting booth to vote for Obama?
Clinton is desperate. There are REAL issues at stake for this country and her campaign is talking about non-issues. Why are they stooping to trivia?
Clinton had a chance to be a leader when the 2006 election proved that the public was finally onto Bu$h. She didn't take that opportunity to lead. In fact, she did the opposite of leadership by giving Bu$h everything he asked for.
Obama has capitalized on Clinton's lack of leadership by leading huge numbers of her base away from her.
By the contrast alone, Obama as proved greater leadeship.
Clijnton may be an executive. Who knows? BUT, Clinton is not a leader.
If this is the best "swiftboat" attack that the Republicans & The Clintons can come up with, who do I see to purchase my tickets for the Obama Inaugural?
Obama employs a speech writer like every other candidate & often times seeks help from his friends like every other human being.
Like millions of people I listen to Sen. Obama's speeches & am inspired & never once think:"did he write that?" "Who wrote that?" "What is the source?" "are there footnotes?" If he PUBLISHES a book of his speeches then Gov.Patrick can take credit otherwise....
This is a non-starter & the last desperate gasp from the Clinton Machine.
What a great day it will be in this country when we are finished forever with the Bush/Clinton families
Oh stop your bickering and be done with it. Cast your vote for this empty suit. In the evenings, over his four year term, you can console yourselves by listening to recordings of his speeches. You can look forward to the State of the Union speech without thinking about the actual state of the union. Be of good cheer. An empty suit has just won 9 primaries in a row. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, the land of magical messiahs.
Very good. I'm dreading 4 years of an Obama presidency where no matter what goes wrong his followers will blindly defend and rationalize his actions. We already have that with Bush and his followers, so we know what it looks like.
If he had used a line from the Gettysburg address would anyone scream plagiarism?
No.
So it's only plagiarism if the words come from a less well known source? How about a book someone likes and assumes many folks are familiar with but apparently are not, or a throw away line from the Simpsons? Or an uncredited source who works for them?
Anybody ever hear of speech writers? Every politician has them. When a candidate uses their words is it plagiarism if credit is not given, like--Hey, glad you all liked my speech, I didn't write it, by the way, just thought you should know.
No, this is about desperation and distraction. It's verbal swiftboating.
This is my biggest problem with him - this claim that somehow he isn't like those other "bad" politicians in Washington, but somehow above it all. Well, I'm sorry, but he IS a politician in Washington. Get over it. I hate to say this about anyone, but all I can think of is George W. Bush, talking about how he, the Decider, will decide (along with the generals, to whom, of course he never listens unless they tell him what he wants to hear) what happens in Iraq, NOT those "politicians in Washington."
It's like the Republicans and "family values" - claim to be better than others, and you will fall twice as hard when you turn out to be just the same.
I don't think any intelligent person voting for Obama believes that he is a deity. Of course he is a politician, but he is not like "all" politicians by any means:
- Obama has not accepted big lobby money in his campaign.
- Obama released his tax returns to show his income sources, and pledged to make his presidency more transparent through methods like CSPAN.
- During a former debate, when asked what their strongest weakness was, Obama (who answered first) said that he was a little messy and would need someone to help him keep his desk in order. Hillary answered that her biggest weakness was that she's "too impatient" when it comes to helping people and bringing change. Edwards gave a similarly bunk answer - and, on another note, why is being pro-active when helping people a "weakness", Hillary??
- Obama has stated that he would take the high road in the nomination race by debating policy and not character or personal differences. He has followed this pledge and has benefited from it, while the Clintons have stooped to GOP-esque, shameless attacks that have only made him stronger.
Obama may share his inspirational words with others, but his uniqueness as a politician lies not exclusively in his oratory skills. We ought to take a broader perspective on such a matter.
Nice looking Rose Glasses you are wearing
Trivia: which Presidential candidate had this resume?:
(a) 8 years in Illinois legislature
(b) 1 failed attempt for Congressional seat
(c) Represented Illinois in Congress for 2 years
(d) Ran for President
(e) Was very popular, especially among African-Americans
Answer: Obama,...
and Abraham Lincoln.
That' spectacular. Seriously.
Peace.
You can spell it out for them. You can try to explain, but it won't matter. The hype is in play. In August or September, the hotness will cool off and the Democrats will have selected themselves another in a line of losers. I'll vote for him if he gets the nom, but I'm getting tired of this.
The Obama campaign offers a fresh change from nearly twenty years of neocon power -- including the liberal flavor of Slick Willie's reign. I'm sure there is a core of supporters who think he is a savior on a white horse. Most of us don't. We aren't looking for a new "savior," we are looking for someone who will encourage and inspire the nation to act on the values that matter to us. Of the three candidates we have to choose from, only Obama even attempts to do that.
Not to worry, Jake. McCain = Dole.
We aren't the only ones who pick losers.
So I was walking down my street and saw in one of my neighbors homes (through the front window) a ten year old kid dancing around with what looked like a couple of strippers.
So I walk to the door and knocked. A few seconds later the door opened and there was the 10 year old kid - scotch in one hand, cigar in the other - a little white powder under one nostril.
Behind him were the strippers, all oiled up and griding each other on a Twister mat!
So I says to the kid, "Hey kid, are your parents home?"
The kid looked behind himself and then looked at me, locking his eyes to mine and said:
"What the f**k do you think?"
So much for a different kind of politics! I always knew this was true!
Wow what ever you don't let two very sharp black men get together and come up some good stuff to use in a very moving speech. In particular when it is used on the white political dynasty called Clinton.
This is bad shit black people putting there heads together and out flanking Slick Willies candidate. I mean this must stop, what the hell next thing they may want to run the damn country.
How about no news here, ranks right up there with Wolfson early on bull shit statement telling us that Obama wanted to be president when he was a kinder gardener smoking crack and doing dope, give me a break Sam Fieldman......
What this episode demonstrated is that Hillary Clinton's campaign is "politics as usual." Everyone uses ideas and words that have been used by others before them! Have you never spoken the words "where's the beef?" or "shut-up or put-up" or "this one goes to eleven?" But what you haven't done is attacked your eight-year-old for plagiarism when he says "you're not the boss of me." That's what bizarre and out of step here.
WHo TF said he was entirely unique? It has been obvious from the get-go that his stylists were packaging him in various pieces out of the wardrobes of both JFK and MLK. And strong messages, like good clothes, never go out of date.
Unfortunately, we've been letting these issues hang in the closet for a little too long. You want to see some sort of chink or moth-hole. It's only there in your imagination. What Obama does is take these classic themes and state and shape them for a 21st century audience who is hungry for a leader with vision (For all you empty suit-ers - Blueprint for Change, nuff said.)
Patrick has voice not the slightest PEEP of displeasure over this, in fact, he describes a conversation he and Obama had this summer where they discussed how to address the "empty rhetoric" attacks that they KNEW would be coming from the Clinton camp. Credit to her for living DOWN to their expectations. And down for so many of us. You Clinton people are not learning: attempts to bash Obama, especially such feeble ones, are not moving any voters into your base. And good luck to you, should your girl get the nod. She's going to have a hell of a lot of fence to mend.
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
Don't write off Saint Sarah all you political pundits,...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted February 19, 2008 | 12:24 PM (EST)