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)
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Loading comments…
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
Obama's already said he trades lines for speeches with Deval Patrick. What exactly is the story here?
From the New Republic:
http://blo
Mike and Noam have already done a great job explaining the ridiculousness of the Clinton campaign's charge that Obama plagiarized from Deval Patrick, but I thought I'd add one more point. Obama's already on record as admitting he borrows lines from Patrick (and vice versa). Stumping in New Hampshire last December, Obama said:
"But you know in the end, don't vote your fears. I'm stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it's the right one, don't vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe."
I look forward to the Clintons' next desperate gambit.
--Jason Zengerle
Does anyone really think using other people's words is going to be an issue in the general election? When you get down to it it's doubtful any politicians (or celebrities) really write their own speeches or books. With a recession, never ending war, spiraling real estate market and international unrest this is the most ridiculous issue to come along yet -- and if Clinton and McCain want to make it one then they are supporting OBama's theory that the only way to change things is to replace all of the old time status quo politicians who are more interested in "winning" than what is best for their constituents. At least Obama taught Constitutional law so he might actually be a President who understands how things are actually supposed to work.
Yes this is a pattern and these little things add up. His memoir is fictionalized but he doesn't say which parts are fictionalized. Then he said his parents met in Selma and the timeline didn't add up.
Just more of the same Clinton desperation. If she had any sense she would find a way to reach voters...o
My wife and I have plagiarized each other for so many years that I don't have a clue who stole what from whom.
So, go vote Hillary and be safe in the delusion that "your" candidate would never plagiarize. It might be advisable to stay away from Google though, you might be shocked to find that all politicians, including Hillary, plagiarize. As do most poets and songwriters.
Of course, Hillary was just borrowing without attribution. Obama on the other hand, is a dirty rotten liar and deserves to run out of the party in total disgrace. Sniff, sniff.
The real fact be told when deciphering Senator Obama's rhetoric, especially when reciting other political giants words (Only words, IS the belief the orator has in the concept, the clear ideology behind the words being repeated.
Is it any ones claim, that Senator Obama does not believe in these ideals?
I THINK NOT!
To the contrary, Senator Obama is eloquently expressing his heart felt relationship to our basic American ideals.
I personal share his feelings, as do many other Americans, We, the People... Hold this *truth* to be self-evident.
Jeffrey> if the problem is the perception and image of Barack then I suggest you go check him out. Here this will help you http://www
The link I gave u, is an example of how Barack walks the talk.
George Bush: Iran is the greatest threat that the United states and Israel face today.
Hillary Clinton: Iran is the greatest threat that the United States and Israel Face today.
George Bush, after the entire US intelligence community said in unison that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iraq: See, our policies worked." (they were implemented LONG after Iran abandoned their program)
Hillary Clinton (same scenario as above) "see, Our policies worked". (same RIDICULOUS conclusion)
She also sided with George and the Neocons on Iraq, Lebanon, and the Isreali Palestinian conflict.
It's one thing to use other peoples words and ideas in your oratory. It's done all the time and is CHARACTORISTIC of great public speakers.
Borrowing all of your foreign policy Ideas from a PROVEN IDIOT is another matter entirely.
You forgot one:
"Iran continues to be a major threat to the U.S. and its allies," said the Illinois senator Barack Obama.
One whom he counsels diplomacy with. Not the "greatest" threat, not one whom "nothing should be off the table with" not one whom should be attacked without sufficient provocation on their part (and they have not attacked another country for about 250 years). Thats why he did not sign Kyl Lieberman.
That is a HUGE difference between Him and the Neocons (BUSH and HILLARY et al)
"The curtain has suddenly dropped, and behind it we see: the political consultant
Excellent!
Jn McCain plagiarised Rudy when he got divorced.
Michelle's going to a HUGE problem.No
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Barack Obama has picked up a third endorsement from Pennsylvania's Democratic superdelegates.
Former Philadelphia city councilwoman Carol Ann Campbell says she made up her mind Saturday after a telephone call from the Illinois senator's wife, Michelle.
Campbell says they talked for nearly 90 minutes , about the problems of the handicapped, children being raised by their parents and the importance of religion in their lives.
Campbell, who's previously said she was undecided, says she's comfortable with what she heard and decided on the spot to support Obama over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
With Campbell's endorsement, Obama is backed by three of the 26 superdelegates selected so far. Clinton has been endorsed by 13 and the rest remain undecided.
They better dig a lot harder and deeper if they expect to stop this wave!
Original today is often borrowed from yesterday. There is little new under the sun.
The quality to inspire is not defined by ones ability to create new word groups, but to know which word groups lift, regardless of where the words come from.
Too much ado about nothing.
Obama is vying for the presidency of the United States which makes him a politician and as a politician he used words written by a de facto speech writer. Wow, what a news flash!
He is not interviewing for the presidency of Yale or Harvard or some other academic position (insert your college here) where plagiarism is a serious academic issue.
So who cares if he borrowed words from someone else's speech especially if that person is acting as an advisor to his campaign? Find me a real issue that will cause me to not support him at every turn because these attack dog tactics from the Clinton camp are really turning me off. These types of articles are also a preview of the next 4-8 years if Hillary is elected when Hillary or Bill don't agree with either a Repub or a Dem politician they are trying to swing to their side.
We are almost at the end of 7 years of smear campaigns from Rove and company so why are the Clintonites doing the same thing?
"He is not interviewing for the presidency of Yale or Harvard or some other academic position where plagiarism is a serious academic issue."
No, he is only interviewing for the highest position in the country, possibly the world. He is appealing to his *employers* using rhetoric. And we are finding out that rhetoric is not even his. That is something I certainly want to know as an *employer*.
Nicely nuanced argument, Jeffrey! Makes me proud to have once followed you as a DJ on KRLX.
Well said. Very well analyzed.
I don't believe in God I don't beliveve in the Media Created Obama. If the media, HuffPost and the thousand of other HillaryHating "reporters, bloggers and progressives" would not have tried to destroy her Obama would have had my vote. They are very close in their political outlook. I have spent my life fighting for civil rights and that fact that you all engaged in the process of personal destruction you lost my ( and many I know) votes. You can not call yourself the party of change and open your mouth and have the words of every soul hating republican I have heard for the past 20 years. Party of change my ass.
Um, huh?
Gimme a freaking break...Bi
A more objective view might be that Hillary is destroying herself by supporting policies and tactics no longer desired by a large percentage of the electorate. That she is not perceived as an agent of change is her problem.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
