Barack and Deval's Plagiarism Seesaw

It isn't news until it hits the New York Times. This morning, I read Barack Obama is a plagiarist -- ripping off Deval Patrick, of all people!

I found it amusing: not because of the accusation, but because of a role reversal in who was plagiarizing who.

My perspective on this is a little different.

You see, I was among the first batch of interns for Gov. Patrick back in spring of 2005, when his campaign was just getting on its feet in an abandoned refugees museum converted into a campaign office on Boston's Milk Street. Incredibly little was known about Patrick, who had never run for elected office, and even less was expected of his campaign, but I had friends there and they believed in him, so I gave it a go.

He was going up against Tom Reilly, then a successful two-term state attorney general, who had spent years building up his political chits in Massachusetts Democratic politics, along with a formidable campaign warchest. His headquarters sat in a suite with floor-to-ceiling windows across the street from Government Center: Boston City Hall, the seat of power and all that jazz.

It was absolutely clear that it was Reilly's time to go for "the gold," to pilfer from Gov. Romney, who was having one of his famous debates with himself over whether he'd run again in 2006. I liked it when Patrick would say on the stump, "I'm not running because it's my turn." It was a clear dig at Reilly and the regular Democratic organization that hadn't elected a Democrat since Dukakis.

The thing is, Patrick's words started to get notice -- especially when he backed them up with an impressive fundraising haul at the end of his first quarter as a candidate. The more he inspired people to join his campaign, the more his opponents knew they had to stop him.

So what did they go after first? Naturally, his words.

A prominent local columnist hit Deval in the Boston Globe for calling out "Yes We Can" in his speech to the 2005 Massachusetts Democratic Convention, dubbing it "a theme lifted straight from Barack Obama" and needled him for "borrowed rhetoric." This was either before or after the Herald mocked him for the same thing.

'This guy's no Barack Obama,' people were supposed to think.

It was all ridiculous and trivial, and it never really stuck. But what really makes me scoff is that the Clinton campaign is trying to assert that it is Obama who is now the pretender.

This wasn't their first opportunity. I noted a couple of coincidences in an oh-how-the-tables-have-turned post at Political Insider (another place where I interned) a while back.

But the point of my item wasn't that of an accusing finger at Obama the Plagiarist. It was merely for political junkies who pay inordinately close attention to who advises which candidate and the language and framing that comes out of their mouth. And we are the geeks with whom this kind of manufactured scandal should die.

If you want to be high-minded about it, you could say looking at what survives one campaign to go on to the next is a study of what rhetoric works and what rhetoric doesn't.

Clearly, Patrick's worked, and Obama's seems to be doing the same. Otherwise they wouldn't be going after it in so many different ways.

In fact, I'd like to put Hillary Clinton's 2008 attacks on Obama's rhetoric next to that of Patrick's 2006 Republican opponent, Kerry Healey.

Might find some "plagiarism" there, too.

Read more news and blog posts on accusations of plagiarism against Obama

Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites

Comments

[SEQUOIABISON]

Thank you John for adroitly exposing these people for what they are, desperate, despicable, divisive, loathsome, contemptible characters.

These never ending underhanded tactics are beginning to make all fair minded loyal democrats mortified.

We progressive anti-war liberals can only hope the Clinton team can go back to their normal jobs at the slaughterhouse after Ohio and Texas?

[darylfrancis]

I am amazed at how Obama-worshipping friends of mine dismiss the plagiarism issue. The man’s inspirational rhetoric is at the very soul of his campaign. He is supposedly telling us the kind of man he is inside. To parrot back someone else’s words, such personal words, and not give him credit, is troubling in the extreme. How can this not matter?

[johnhummel]

I don't think they'd mind as much - if it was actually plagiarism.

Plagiarism is, by definition, *unauthorized* use of someone else's writings as your own. As Deval gave approval (evidently before and after), there can not be plagiarism. Unoriginal? Sure - make that claim.

But plagiarism? By Deval's own testimony, it's allowed, and therefore not plagiarism.

[raker]

Obama plagiarized. He used someone else's speech, deceiving the audience who thought the ideas and words were his. Put quotes around it, say everybody does it, tell us that Patrick wanted Obama to use it, tell us Hillary once told a riddle without attribution, whatever tap dance you care to do, what Obama did was still dishonest.

[Triangulate]

"Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in a desert."

Kahlil Gibran, The New Frontier (1925)

[raker]

There's deception, and then there's homage, and satire, and parody, and artful reinterpretation of a famous quote by a famous person. For example, the Bible says that a man who lusts in his heart is guilty of adultery. Plagiarism in Playboy Magazine? No. Plagiarism at Kennedy's innauguration? No.

The zealous defense of the plagiarism, the ecstatic devotion to a politician we know hardly anything about, is more unsettling than the plagiarism itself. You can quote me.

[johnhummel]

From Dictionary.com:

pla·gia·rism /ˈpleɪdʒəˌrɪzəm, -dʒiəˌrɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciat­ion[pley-j­uh-riz-uhm­, -jee-uh-riz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

If Deval's words were used without authorization, then you could have a claim of plagiarism. But since Deval gave authorization before and after, by definition, it can not be plagiarism.

[Tilling]

The link to Deval Patrick is not a good one, as the similarities could be dismaying. Patrick came in on a landslide and has fumbled since. He seems to have been all noise and no substance. I see the same with Obama.

[Norm]

Oh no, please, no! I got a queasy feeling on hearing that Obama used Patrick lines. After being mercilessly ragged on by friends for single-handedly losing the state of Massachusetts for Obama, I did a mass mailing reply in which I attributed Obama's loss in this state to Deval Patrick and suggested Obama best not show up with him. Patrick absolutely embodies voter fears about Obama. Now this. Oy vey.

[homovivens]

Obama's intelligent use of well known "purple passages" from our national, politico-historical oratory and the subsequent desperate attempt to make plagiarism out of two words adjoining them is at best ludicrous.

It is ridiculous and insincere to argue that a prima facie case of plagiarism could be made out of two words, literally, "just words," interspersed between quotes whose sources are well known because these quotes are emblazoned in the memories of every conscious American.

Plagiarism comes from the Greek "to kidnap." Ironically, a desperate Clinton machine, feeling Hillary's candidacy slipping away, has attempted a "coup de vocable" -- a kidnapping of Obama's golden tongue.

Dream on.

[VSamuels]

What is more remarkable for the latest round of attacks from the Clintons is their ever-ending assaults to bring Obama down in the gutter and the muck. It is almost as though they aren't running a campaign as much as they are trying to discredit a defense witness in the courtroom of public opinion.

Since Hillary can not compete with Obama's message, she chooses to dispirit it and cast doubt on it as being IL-relevant and dirty. I see no way, I could commit either my money, time or effort and money towards wanting such a person to lead the Democrat ticket. But, what is even more remarkable are those elected officials who silently enable the tactics, which are now ensuring the better candidate to lead the country, but the one most willing to do anything to win.

Watching the Clintons constant grind and misinformation campaign is surely as good of an indication about how she would deal with the facts and truth; choosing to attack those who choose to present the truth about her motives. We have a chance to end the Clinton drama, once and for all and here's hoping that the voters are intelligent enough to make the right and clear choice for change.

[ambro23]

Hillary Clinton said "If your whole candidacy is about words, they should be your own words"

Let me say this if Hillary's candidacy is all about experience, it should be based her OWN experience not her husband's record...

[KSH]

If they can make the case that the points are not valid then I will swim naked in the Chattahooc­hee...NOT HAPPENING!

The Clinton Campaign is just making it worse for themselves if she makes it to the general election - the ONLY way she will win IF she gets there is through the tearing down of Obama and the will not sit well with the DNC.

[ncvoter]

The Clintons are slinging mud in hopes of distracting from things like this:

Clinton Used Giustra's Plane, Opened Doors for Mineral Deals

By Elliot Blair Smith

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- On June 21, 2005, Bill Clinton flew to Mexico City aboard a private jet that belonged to a Canadian investment banker he was meeting for the first time.

The introduction paid off for both men.
Clinton was borrowing the jetliner to begin a four-day speaking tour of Latin America that would pay him $800,000.
Frank Giustra of Vancouver was forming a friendship that would make him part of the former president's inner circle and
gain him introductions to presidents of Kazakhstan and Colombia, where he bought mineral rights.

Giustra, 50, has since put his plane at Clinton's disposal at least a dozen times to raise money for charity, his wife's presidential campaign or himself, according to U.S. flight records and spokesmen for Clinton and Giustra. The Canadian businessman has become one of the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation, pledging half his future minerals earnings in a way that ties the foundation's success to his own.

``If former President Clinton is making decisions about where to put the charitable efforts of the Clinton Foundation based even partly on where he's likely to benefit personally, or see his friends benefit, then that clearly is a classic conflict of interest,'' says Aaron Dorfman, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy in Washington.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aKD3K5Dmu3sYbr /

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Giving a speech that is word for word the same as one given by Gov Patrick without acknowledging it is plagiarism whether you like it or not. Even if Gov Patrick has given you permission to use it, it still needs to be acknowledged to the audience.

When a major selling point in your campaign is that you and your words are inspirational, it is disingenuous to lead your audience to believe that that words you are speaking are your own when they are not.

Obama could have prefaced his speech with something like this....

My opponent has accused me of being all speech and no substance. My friend Gov Patrick was attacked in the same manner in his successful run for office in Mass. And, this is how he responded.­....

Then give the "just words?" speech. This way you make your point and don't mislead your audience.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

It wasn't word for word. You just prefaced your argument by showing how little you actually know about what was said.

Hillary Clinton lied about Obama's record now so often, how can anybody still trust her? Her Campaign is to attack words, well Obama's words are calling for Cuba's political prisoners to be released. What is Hillary doing? Making speeches attacking someone else for making better speeches.

My God, who could vote for this woman without holding their noses?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

it was word for word, or as close to it as possible. Obama has admitted he should have credited Patrick.

Patrick's speech consisted of using a famous line from a famous speech and then repeating the refrain, 'just words?'. If you listened to both speeches, you will see they are the same, they both used the same famous lines from famous speeches and then repeated the same refrain of 'just words?'.

Again, Obama has already admitted it, why can't you?

[LDW]

Mr. Bohrer’s argument in favour of Obama avoids dealing with the central issue at hand.
Yes, it's very true that speechwriters borrow from their own work and other famous speeches all the time, and themes that are central to the political stage will be re-stated with varying degrees of originality.
But Obama supporters proclaimed that he was something New and Different, unlike all the old-style establishment candidates. Obama was held up as fresh and unique. It's a big deal that the speeches central to his campaign message are not just adorned with borrowed finery, they are made up of the whole cloth of borrowed finery.
Obama’s speeches are not full of detail about issues and policies, and a short sound-bite from anywhere in his speech would be enough to fully represent the whole. So, for example, when Obama starts the crowd chanting, ‘Yes We Can!’ and makes this chant central to his campaign, it’s important to note that he didn’t think it up himself, and that Deval Patrick, with the same speechwriter as Obama, had used the same theme for his 2006 campaign for governor. Likewise the ‘Just words...’ tirade.
Is Obama something new and different or does he just very good at speaking lines ‘in character’? This is an important point. The actor portraying a surgeon in a TV drama may inspire his audience with his competence, but only a fool would ask him for medical advice, and only a worse fool would trust him with a scalpel.
Obama has studied constitutional law, and worked for voting rights , but has had no notable forays into economics, healthcare or foreign policy (and, no, taking a partisan stance for a Kenyan relative running for office is not an item in the ‘plus’ column of foreign policy), and when he opens his mouth in debate on these topics, he stumbles.
Obama has had notable experience in running a backroom old style political campaign, however, and that is exactly what he is doing now. New man for a new age?...Not so much.

[altohone]

Nobody proclaimed anything of the sort and you know it.

Obama's skills at oration attracted supporters and helped get him into the lead for the nomination.

One line from one speech last week won't undo that attraction or diminish the substance of ALL THE OTHER WORDS you seek to ignore for political gain.

"Whole cloth"... one line from a speech has you condemning every word from every speech as plagiarized.

Your glaring exaggeration severely diminishes every word you have written.

[ACunningham]

If Obama is a plagiarist then Hillary is a VENTRILOQUIST for her husband's Un-Constitutional THIRD term presidency.

[bdul26]

I love the timing of this (non-information) in the MSM-- day before two primaries?? Isn't that a coincidence?

Or not.

I'm so tired of the nitpicking and finger-pointing. Don't the candidates have better things to talk about? (Senator Clinton, I'm talking to you and your team!)

[altohone]

Only a fool would fail to adopt a good idea just because it's not his own.


I got it from a fortune cookie, they probably stole it from something written before the pyramids were built. Everyone still uses the wheel and iPods, even though they didn't come up with it.

I almost get the feeling someone is bitter their words weren't quoted as "just words".

Was "I did not have sexual relations" just words? (sorry to go there, but I couldn't think of a single Bill quote worthy to hang with the Founders or MLK)

Deval's and Obama's point remains valid, as it would if anybody else uses the line.

[gba]

Their points may be valid, but copying a key part of another person's speech without reference that's simply not reliable

[jade7243]

Please do bring us Kerry Healy, as I find it very odd, that Clinton would almost word for word echo her. Ms. Clinton is not known for her originality.

[diesel100]

What a joke and a ridiculous attempt to spin Obama's lack of integrity manifested as plagiarism.

Obama should have ATTRIBUTED the stolen portion of the speech to Patrick. By not doing so he is guilty of the most dishonest of rhetoric - plagiarism.

Defined - Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship.

Obama clearly implied this was his speech since he failed attribute it to Gov. Patrick. For someone who has a BA and a law degree, he sure as heck knows what plagiarism is. It was in the honor code he signed at Harvard Law.

Obama clearly lacks integrity and this episode is a perfect example.

[KSH]

Oh please! The economy is in shambles, tuition is ridiculous, healthcare prices are OUTRAGEOUS and the Clintonians are worried about this? Seems like somebody has been drinking the Clinton Kool-aid and it't not just Ms Lewinsky.

[MariaHopeful]

Again, when I first heard Hillary Clinton new and latest negative attack on Barack, that of solution not words implying that words were unimportant and an indication of lack of substance, I immediately thought of saying: Then were Martin Luther King's words not important? Were John F Kennedy's words unimportant? I knew that if I could come with that response, then Obama would be able to as well and I was waiting with bated breath for him to hit it out of the ballpark. Any thinking person would have had the same response to such a specious attack. If Patrick hadn't said it, Obama would still have said it and after all there is just so many different ways of saying the same thing. As some-one pointed out, how about Mrs. Clinton running on her own dubious "record" rather than that of her husband? We all know that the ONLY reason she has even gotten this far is because of her husband's name. Far more damning than Barack borrowing a friends words is Mrs Clinton borrowing Republicans/Rovian playbook. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[leonidasofsparta]

Obama did not commit plagiarism. End of story. It is perfectly reasonable to incorporate words and phrases into speeches, thats what speeches are. Every orator since cicero has done so, even Miss Clinton. Books however are covered by copyrite law . Speech is free.

[savertime]

The irony and hypocrisy behind the plagiarism attacks by the HRC is what has me astonished.

Hillary's attack on Barack's speeches was "lifted" from a Republican playbook, a tactic used by the Republican candidate for the MA governors' race. Words taken from that attack on Patrick's speeches, used by Clinton to attack Obama's speeches. She did not say "I'm quoting Healy," she just used his words. How does the campaign get to charge "plagiarism" for the response and not acknowlege "plagiarism" for the attack?

[Herrington]

LOL. Clinton had to know about a campaign in a neighboring state and yet tried the same thing, even knowing the outcome. Unless of course he whole thing was a setup for the plagiarism accusation. Still brain dead.