Barack Obama: Will the Wound Heal?

It began as the non-troversy of the holiday shortened week: the accusation that Barack Obama had plagiarized part of a stump speech from Mass. Governor Deval Patrick

He hadn't. And even if he had lifted or borrowed or co-opted a couple of lines, does anybody really think the post-modern politician expresses a single word that isn't team scripted and focus group tested before it's uttered in the public square?

The plagiarism jab left barely a scratch on Obama. But sometimes even the slightest wounds can fail to heal.

As I was making the rounds with the cable newsers this past Tuesday before the primary, I witnessed first-hand a theme develop. Almost to a person the newers I spoke with dismissed the plagiarism rap, but wondered aloud about Obama's rhetoric. The word rhetoric being flipped from asset to pejorative. Was there, they wondered, more to Obama than his rhetoric? How far, they asked, would his rhetoric take him? When would his rhetoric be replaced by specifics?

The Obama/rhetoric question is not new.

And some of the hectoring over Obama-mania is coming from the usual suspects. But the Chris Matthews/Kirk Watson interview was fuel on the fire, and in the days since the chorus of "give us more" seems to have increased rather than diminished.

Certainly some of this hectoring can be attributed to the media news cycle looking for a new drum to beat, if not some old fashioned player hating for the new Democratic front runner. But for those who think the questions of rhetoric are limited to MSM hacks with sharp knives, it is not. The BBC World Service ran a piece on Obama openly wondering if his rhetoric is becoming a liability. I can't say as the BBC would be particularly partisan in this instance.

Ultimately, if there is this sense that Obama is all sizzle and no steak, it is certainly not the fault of the man himself. At this late stage of the primaries, the media has had every opportunity to give the guy a good shaking out. If the newsers feel Obama isn't forthright with specifics, it's their responsibility to ask the questions they'd like answered. There is little doubt Obama could answer them. He may be relatively new to the national political scene, but he is hardly a neophyte. More importantly, we all benefit when the candidates have their mettle fairly tested in the media glare.

The larger question going forward is: do specifics really matter? To quote Mike Tyson: the best fight plan in the world only lasts until you take the first punch in the face. Similarly, the best political ideas only last until you get them before a divided and ineffectual Congress.

Perhaps, more than specifics, we need a leader who can inspire people to pressure their reps to bend to the will of the new. What is rhetoric if not a call to action?

Perhaps that's a question someone would care to ask of Barack Obama.

Comments

[trbone]

Anderson Cooper dropped the ball last night . His question about earmarks should have been "Why haven't you released the earmarks from 2005 and 2006. Perhaps one of the Koolaid drinkers can explain that away.

[escobar]

It will go without notice.
Obama has the ability to inspire.

[mig991]

Here is a list of all of Obama's requested earmarks for 2008.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

[tritt]

For all the people who keep belittling Obama's legislative record and asking us to list accomplishments, can you first, please start rattling off Hillary's?

Health Care reform attempts are not accomplishments. I was highly disappointed that Obama said nothing in response to her talking about how shes been at it since 1994. Thats the problem, shes been trying at this for 14 years and hasnt gotten anywhere. How many coaches get to keep running a team when it hasnt won a game in 15 years? I think its high time we let somebody else have a shot...

Second, Hillary has been all about her "experience" advantage over Obama. In reality, Barack has served in public office longer than her if you include his time in Illinois. Shes only been a senator for a few more years than Obama. Being married to the president does not qualify somebody to be one themselves. How many businesses replace the CEO with her/his spouse? I mean, they have to know alot about the business and the job if they were married to the CEO, right? Would Laura Bush make a good candidate in 2012? Nancy Reagan?

Hilary needs to accept this loss and start looking to position herself to run the next time. If Hilary had won 10 straight contests Obama would be getting the Huckabee treatment right now. The only reason the media isnt writing her off is that she still sells papers and she stirs it up with nonsense like this plagiarism thing.

Its time to recognize that in the current moment, Barack has the best chance to make a difference. Nobody can step into the presidency and start just making policy decisions, the best we can hope for is someone with clear judgment and a sound intellect to make good on the choices they do have in that office. Its time for everyone to quit "hatin" on him and get on board!!

[trbone]

Anderson Cooper dropped the ball last night . His question about earmarks should have been "Why haven't you released the earmarks from 2005 and 2006. Perhaps one of the Koolaid drinkers can explain that away.

[clemo]

Clinton's aim (and it came from her camp) with this was to place doubt, that he may not be authentic, to make us question. She is not aiming at me because I have already voted and I think he is a good, honest person with a lot of integrity. She's aiming at those who don't bother to ever read up on the issues or where the candidates stand. That's why it's important to volunteer, make calls and talk with people and answer their questions, and ask them for their vote. Amazing to me, but it is really important for a lot of people to be asked for their vote, which is why the phone calling is needed.

[gennifer6]

yes, specifics do matter, which is why the candidates write books the year before the election and have websites that lay out the specifics on their issues. The TV time is the marketing gig that gets people interested in looking at the specifics.

[kempis]

How can anyone who has even a basic grasp of the definition of plagiarism see this

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/sweet_barack_obama_lifts_some.html

and argue that Obama is not plagiarizing from a Deval Patrick speech--and furthermore not see that Patrick did a better job of delivering it?

It does not matter if Patrick gave Obama permission to copy him. It does not matter that the plagiarized passage includes quotes so famous that they *don't* require attribution. What matters is that Obama presented to his audience this "just words" rebuttal, which he borrowed from Patrick, as his own.

That's plagiarism.

[Petey]

Read speech writer James Fallows' take on this.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/on_plagiarism.php

It's all about the nature of politics and campaigning -- not how Kempis or Clinton chooses to define "plagiarism" for a pathetic attempt at political gain.

[democraticjack]

The problem lies in the fact that the listener trusts the speaker stressing that words matter is not using words he co-opted from someone else.
Calling attention to that incongruity may make some take a second look at other aspects which may not quite ring true either.

[evekendall]

If you could open your eyes, you would not be such a kool-aid drinker for Clinton. She is OLD politics. We need a change and Obama is going to help US make it happen.

[kempis]

Well, thank you. You certainly have persuaded me....

[OneLiberalLady]

It doesn't seem to matter to you what the definition of plagiarism is? Here is a definition from dictionary.com:
pla·gia·rism 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. 2. something used and represented in this manner.
The key is whether it is authorized, and it clearly was. The fact that you do not care to accept the commonly understood definition does not make you correct. I have a feeling that you just don't like Obama and are seizing on a slender reed.

[kempis]

"The key is whether it is authorized, and it clearly was. The fact that you do not care to accept the commonly understood definition does not make you correct."

***************

I've been an English teacher for 30 years. I know what plagiarism is. I know that an alarming number of people accept the "commonly understood definition­"--whateve­r it might be so long as it gives them an out when caught plagiarizing.

I've heard, "But I thought if I cited the source, I didn't have to use quotation marks."

I've heard, "But I *knew* these were someone else's words; I just forgot to quote and attribute them."

And most commonly, I've heard the flat-out denial: "No, I didn't plagiarize­." It's amazing how many people, no matter how kind you are when confronting them, will simply panic like a five year old with his hand in the cookie jar and say "what cookie jar?"

It's human nature.

Look, Obama is a Harvard graduate and a professor and he *himself* said he should have cited Patrick. He has in the past. He was probably dog-tired and it was a slip more than a deliberate effort to pass off Patrick's words as his own. My beef isn't so much with him as it is those who are arguing that plagiarism isn't plagiarism. It is.

[brenner21]

"the media has had every opportunity to give the guy a good shaking out."

Which media? The one that breathlessly tries to bring down the frontrunner as if this were simply a horse race? The one that endlessly debates stupid minutiae because issues are too "boring"? What planet do you live on?

[Gerry222]

Senator Obama has an excellent legislative record since joining the Senate in 2005.
I thought you might like to know of some of it.
Check out the following statement by Helenam on the Daily Kos:
“It has really been bothering me - the charges that Obama is all talk and no action. Those of us who support him and have reviewed his record know there is no basis to this charge, but just to make sure, I went to the Congressional Record www.thomas.govv) and did a search for bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Senator Obama in his three short years in the US Senate. I searched the 109th and 110th Congresses which cover the years 2005-2007.
In a nut shell I found:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Details below the fold. “

You can see more of the article entitled “I FOUND THE BEEF!” at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true

You can also see an excellent comparison of the legislative records of
Senators Clinton and Obama entitled “I REFUSE TO BUY INTO THE
OBAMA HYPE (now I am a supporter!) written by Grassroots Mom at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Peace...

Gerry

[dyspeptic]

Urge all to see those posts Gerry cites.

The Xerox smear is 100% BS. Hillary and her team are running a stinker of a campaign, and sinking to the "politics of personal destruction" when they can't get traction on real issues. Then they demand more debates when they can't get traction with their smears, either. Stinkeroo!

The harsher she goes on Barak, the more I think she'd make a great senator from NY.

[realpolitic]

As usual with John Ridley, this article does not go much beyond the surface. It is standard criticism of Barack Obama from those on the right who are flustered by the few rhetorical shells they have to throw at him. He speaks too well. Any politician would like to have this deficit. Barack, you just make people feel too good. You inspire them too much. You should plot out the dull realities. People can not feel so good again this soon after the calamity that was George Bush. Should not our misery last a little longer?

Obama has been specific. He has laid out a plan telling how he would insure the uninsured. He has spoken on foreign policy on how he would open a dialogue, at a lower level than the presidency, with our foes. He would make targeted incursions on actionable intellignce within Pakistan to kill terrorists, if the Pakistani leader did not act. These options are sensible and realistic. Let's get away from the ideology which is George Bush and have applied, specific thinking based on evidence.

How specific was Bush before he was elected. He said he was a conpassionate conservative. He said he was a uniter and not a divider. (That was a doozy!) He said he did not belief in nation builder. All lies! Or at most aspirations cast aside by the neocons who wanted world change at the barrel of a gun.

Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air. He is honest, which in itself will take time to adjust to again. He is inspiring and has bold ideas. Mr. Ridley, having conservative leanings, can not believe the good luck of the Democrats to have a candidate like Obama, at this time when Bush has squeezed out of us all our hope and all our faith in government. Well, Ridley get used to it. Obama is the real thing.

[presto]

Even when he is asked a specific question, he veers off into generalities and inspirational (?) sermons. The media does let him off practically scot-free but he completely plays them.

[realpolitic]

Yes, a politician is not a real man unless he can not put a sentence together, like George Bush.

[chin075]

Ah yes, the same "liberal-c­ontrolled" media that gave us "forgone conclusion-nominee Hillary" and G.W. "this guy is alright!" Bush. Do yourself a favor: don't pay attention to the media...

[zull2]

The reason that the "plagiarism" issue left barely a scratch is pretty obviously simple: It was a manufactured attack. The Clinton campaign has run out of things to attack him with, so they delved yet again into the realm of hypocrisy by trying to say that Obama did what every other politician in the country has done, and that's to use lines that sound similar to what other politicians have said.

Most intelligent folks figured that out already. Wonder why Hillary got booed when she brought it up at the debate? It's because INTELLIGENT people know that it's a bogus attack. Obama could attack Hillary on so many personal issues, on so many skeletons in the Clinton closet, that he could go on for weeks on end about it...but he doesn't. By and large, in comparison, he hasn't made personal attacks the central focus of his campaign. By making all these attacks, it makes Hillary look desperate and unpresidential. It certainly makes it look like she puts herself over the party and especially over the nation and its people when she's willing to point her guns at another Democrat so willingly and easily.

[ParadiseDiva]

Actually, she did not get booed at the mention of it. To the contrary. She received applause. It was the Xerox line itself which fell flat.

[browndoe]

If Hillary had no concern for the fortunes of the party she would have answered the question as to whether she considered Obama prepared to be Commnader-in-Chief. She avoided a direct answer so as not to leave a sound byte for the repugs to use in an ad against him in the general.

So those of us who look beyond the lifting of Duvall's words to the question of Obama's authenticity are not intelligent? That sounds like a personal attack to me. I thought Obama urged against such base human behavior.

[SARGE1]

This Entire Issue Is BS, He Used 2 Quotes 1. FDR's 2. Lincolns !! That Has Been Used By Patrick And 100s Of Other Politicians !! This Was A Total Grasp As EVERYONE Knows, So Drop It The TRUE Issue Is Hillary Losing 11 Straight Primaries Coast To Coast And Overseas.
So Talk The 0-11 Record Will That Go Away ?

Stop Being A Tool, Hillary Used Obama's "Change" Phrase When It Was Going Good For Him, But She Is The Past BS Artist Politician Profile !

-Sarge1

[chin075]

Sarge, thanks for reminding me: the REAL issue is Hillary's eroding support, and yet "they" try hard to turn it on somebody else. Classic neocon trick, distraction. I'm sure Hillary isn't REALLY losing though... it's the MSM that have "created the impression" she is losing to trick us into voting for someone else. LoL...

P.S. Don't Capitalize Every Word... =)

[decibelJONES]

MMMMMMMM!!!
My Man Barry is HOT! HOT! HOT!
Hell Yeah, He's got the Rhetoric!
He's Earned it, and uses it well,
and what a Waste if he didn't.
If we were talking about a Liar or a man with a bad record I would be more concerned about his rhetoric
and from which specific array of the collective unconscious they sprang.
But Long Before entering the U.S. Senate
(no small feat in itself)
Senator Obama was able to get good people
to do good things for themselves.
He boiled down THE PEOPLEs' complex issues,
showed them how to achieve their goals
by uniting great people with great ideas
from all over the map (in a good way),
and inspired THE PEOPLE to believe
that they could do what they wanted
and be who they wanted to be in America.
NOW THAT'S DEMOCRACY!
- And the Senate?
Over One Thousand Bills with his name on them
Many of them authored by Senator Obama himself.
(Mostly good ones IMHO)
FIFTEEN LAWS PASSED IN HIS FIRST TWO YEARS!
-not including the renaming of post offices-
WOW!
He's a Junior Senator?
GOOD WORK SIR!
This Man Gets Things Done. Period.
His Rhetoric is a Blessing.

[OneAmerica]

As Barack said last night, the voters can see the reality of what's going on in Washington. We know the game. Everyone knows specifics are never discussed in the primary. It's discussed in the general once the party's platform is developed.

Republicans need to be careful what they prayer for. Let's start talking about the specifics of record deficits and corruption.

Don't worry, Dems will prevail.