Obama's Secret Speechwriter

If politics is sports, then Obama's rhetoric is like a filthy fastball that opposing hitters haven't managed to hit yet. (Jobarack Ochamberlain?) He keeps running it out there until someone connects off of him. Hittin' Hillary Clinton has choked up and grabbed a trusty bat off the rack: Words are cheap, actions speak louder than etc. etc.

And according to today's New York Times, the new spin in Barack's pitches ("Don't tell me words don't matter.") was borrowed from a -- I'm going to stretch this metaphor til it snaps -- secret pitching coach: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts.

From the Times:

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama's experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama's rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

Should Obama give Patrick credit? Hell no. Putting aside practical questions of flow in a speech -- imagine getting to the rousing climax of the rebuttal and having to pause to explain who Deval Patrick is, etc. etc. -- there are larger issues at play having to do with ownership of a speech. Speechwriters have become ubiquitous at the highest levels of contemporary politics, but while it's interesting to piece together how famous phrases or speeches developed a politician -- and certainly a president -- takes ownership of words no later than the instant when they pass his (or her) lips. (And well before that, in optimal circumstances.) Patrick is not an Obama speechwriter as such, but happily and willingly lent the words (which distinguishes him from, say, a pol lifting phrases with neither permission nor attribution -- more on that in a second).

The history and the debate is fascinating, and is covered in my forthcoming White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.

There is another aspect to the Obama-Patrick story. As Politico's Mike Allen notes:

A rival campaign circulated a pair of YouTube links on Sunday that make the point [of similarity] vividly.

This anonymous "rival campaign" (I wonder whose it was -- Gravel maybe?), seeking to jolt the race and change its momentum, is less interested in connecting Obama with Patrick, I argue over at RobertEmmet, than with Joe Biden, circa 1988.

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

Comments

[sej100]

No the issue is a double standard. Had that been Hillary she would have been slammed by the media. With Obama its always poor Obama the victim of trashing. Its unfair. The media annointed Obama without Asking that he prove himself. He still has not. He never has to answer tough questions for no one asks him any. He can lash out accusations and no one blames him. If anyone asks him the same questions they are accused. Sorry, but I think words do have meaning for a man who offers few things other than rhetoric. His plans so far are copies of others but weakened. His health care plan has more holes than not and no one asks why? He voted with lobby groups in Illinois and no one questions why he can accuse others but answers not himself. His responses in the debates were less than strong and some were just lies and no one asks a followup. I think the man needs to answer questions and if not given tough ones he doesnt deserve the job. One has to prove more than offering rhetoric for this all important task and if he passes fine, but if no scrutiny is given and he has not answered tough questions well we don't need another King who has not to answer to the people.Its simple, I want the same rules for Obama that other candidates have had to live by. So far Obama was given a complete pass with little scrutiny. For that he has yet to earn my support and until he does, he doesnt get it.

[rogerskulnik]

Obama also uses the most tired cliche' of politics, some version of *moving forward into the future.* I don't think he stole it, however; most candidates seem to come upon it naturally, and to imagine they are the first to say it, or that it has any meaning whatever.

(Bill Clinton's phrasing was "build bridges to the future"... & Obama uses that metaphor, perhaps deliberately, to show that his connection to the future is truer than any Clinton's.)

Jeremy Larner

[Nommo]

"filthy fastball"? I have been following baseball as long as I can remember, I have never heard that term for a fastball. But if you can't hit it, doesn't matter much what you call it.

[Tankan]

Just words!

Just childish nit picking!

America has more pressing issues than who said what first!

Absolutely pathetic!

[moevaughn]

Obama's actual speechwriter is a VP at Fox News. How many of Obama's progressive groupies know this?!

[Cinnamonape]

"Just words?"

Apparently no one before Deval Patrick used those two words together before?

Ironic that Hillary (whose own name was purloined from a world-famous mountain climber without his permission) is attacking someone for plagiarism for two very common words. "Just words"

...or is she saying that he should have specifically stated what were the sources for "All men were created equal", "the only thing we need fear is fear itself", and "I have a dream"?

That's the point, isn't it. That words have power and that those words also convey important ideas..so much so that one doesn't need to tell people the sources.

"Just words" really.

But Hillary's speechwriters can't come up with something so powerful, I guess. Wait! Hillary doesn't use speechwriters (at least she never credits them if she does, but then neither did Bill).

I guess her turgid prose is apparently of her own creation.

[ozamerican]

It's funny, because the first time I heard Hillary say "speeches don't matter," I said to a friend, "That's right. 'I have a dream'--just words. "Ask not what your country can do for you--just a speech." And then Obama used those same almost those very same words! Maybe I should sue him for plagiarism! Or maybe that's exactly what millions of other people thought when they heard Hillary dismissing Obama with her "words don't mean anything" line.

[dijo]

I think you are absolutely correct ozamerican. I had the exact same thoughts as did several friends and we were discussing what a ineffective argument "speeches don't matter" was for Hillary to use. When you think of the great leaders in our country's history, they are remembered for their "words." Words that inspired.

[antaeus]

But now your point is moot, because Deval Patrick has confirmed the history of the text in question.

[mslindab]

Ditto for my husband and me. We added the Magna Carta to our list of words that didn't matter. Plus we saw a video on youtube that did the same thing.

[SEQUOIABISON]

My Hillary supporting friends, Obama is not plagiarizing the governor from MA, he is quoting from the Declaration of Independence and Martin Luther King Jr.

I realize that desperation is oozing from the lips of your candidate and these type of quotes are foreign to her, but I think she should familiarize herself with the profound words of Thomas Jefferson and MLK Jr. they are available to all who wish to use them.

[jrterrier]

The challenge is not the famous quotes of MLK or the Declaration. The challenge is to the oratorical flourish "just words" in the particular sequence.

[colette]

This is nuts. Has anyone read Taylor Branch's books about Martin Luther King? He freely borrowed in his speeches from many sources, sometimes verbatim. He borrowed great ideas, great phrases, the way that many orators do.

But it's not just the words that make for stirring oratory. It's the passion, the delivery, the sense the person talking the talk believes in it deeply.

So Patrick and Obama both share the Vision Thing. so both have to adjust to the muck of realpolitik, which ain't easy.

so what does this mean? Vote only for the politician who promises a long laundry list of programs, which are also unlikely to plop into place smoothly? Or go with someone who at least acknowledges, and longs to change, how bruised and broken our political system is? Who wants to snatch hope from the jaws of decades of lies, broken promises, greed and shallow charisma?

Bottom line: Obama should have credited Duval Patrick. But is he a rank plagarist who should lose votes over this? Puh-leeze.....

[lizardbox]

Senator Clinton can lift lines without consequence because she's not running on speeches

Senator Clinton does not have to take public financing because she never herself pledged to do so

Senator Clinton cannot be questioned about funding the war because she wasn't opposed to the war from the beginning

Senator Clinton can take money from lobbyists because she never claimed she wouldn't

etc... etc.. etc...

There's a new logic that we all must subscribe to. Please. Moving forward, only Barack Obama can be questioned, criticized, and "vetted". He's running on Change. People running on Change must be held to a higher standard. Those who are not, can do as they please.

Now, everybody: Clap. Clap. Point! Point!

[mslindab]

Add this: She can't be challenged about NAFTA because she wasn't in the Senate when it passed. (She was in the White House gaining some of her 35 years of experience).

[SeanGardner]

TIME Magazine's Mark Halperin has a document that the Obama campaign put out, that shows the speech lines that Clinton has repeatedly borrowered from Obama.

Check it out here: http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-clintons-languge/

So the Clintonites on this thread have no argument after this. Like I wrote earlier, this is a non-story.

Whenever Hillary attacks Obama on something, it comes out that the Clintons have no credibility on the very thing they're kneecapping him with.

And as the link above shows, CAMP CLINTON has no credibility on the charge of "plagiarism". Let's see them worm their way out of this one.

Obama used the owrds of a friend, Deval Patrick, who has even used some of Obama's lines in his speeches. But the TIME Magazine link above shows that Hillary went farther than Barack, and actually ripped off the lines of her competitor.

[LeeFromVA]

This primary election should answer once and for all whether negative attacks work. It's Hillary's last hope, and she won't hold back. I hope the people don't fall for it. I am sick to death of the Clintons. I hope after she loses the primary, she loses re-election in NY. Then maybe they will finally go away.

[BurberryGirl]

Obama has to rely on words once spoken because he doesn't have the experience to do differently. Personally, I think his "cover" of Deval Patrick was much too copy cat. There are very few instances when the cover is better than the original. So far, Obama has done pretty good covers of MLKjr, JFK, and John Edwards, but I wonder, even in light of his Grammy, if he has what it takes to be an original artist. He's kind of like Elvis, doesn't write his own music, but is great at picking out songs to suit his tone of voice or even sampling the speeches of other leaders. I know it's a strech of a metaphor, but think about it. He's gearing up to be an American Idol not Bob Dylan or Jagger/Richards. I wonder if he is going to pay the ASCAP fees or if those are special interest groups that he wants to eliminate in the future of the politics of CHANGE!

[Zipperupus]

Burberry,

Last time I checked, hipster, very few public speakers wrote their own speeches. Even so, very few can claim to have crafted and delivered the kinds of lines that resound through history... this "eternal sound bites of History." This pose that you are striking is a low form of poseur criticism. MLK Jr., for instance was a preacher, whose profession gave him one of the most "plagiarised" texts in world history: The Holy Bible. Even now, I can bet that most of you who are utilizing his "I have a dream" speech to attack Obama can not actually tell me what he said outside of "I have a dream." But you can hear his practiced oratory, the modulation of his speech, the timing, the majesty of an art that was once a REQUIREMENT to run for public office.

One of the deepest flaws in our modern culture is this two-faced demand for novelty, yet overwhelmingly chooses the safe and derivative. Obama is a man that practicing the endangered art of oratory and all you can say is, "try harder, tell me something I've never heard before." Last I heard, he wasn't offering change in that the world is going to be radically different so much as changed for the BETTER.

By the way, think of Bob Dylan aping Woody Guthrie on his early records or Keith Richard borrowing licks from Nuddy Warers and tell me that they are plagiarists. THat is all.

[certainot]

jesus wept. much of this bush disaster is the result of the effectiveness of the talk radio monopoly to repeat the exact same talking points over and over all over the country until they became true and acceptable in the rest of the media and could even be repeated in congress by GOP sycophants.

[Roshi98]

I voted for the "Change" candidate fairly recently. His stirring words that "We are the change," brought many people to their feet, spurred the passions of disenchanted young people to volunteer and push the message through the internet, and created a movement based on a simple message - we want change in government.

This candidate's background was inspiring. Growing up with a single mom, he lived in the rough part of town where not much was expected of poor black kids. But he found his way, got accepted into top-notch schools, got a law degree from Harvard, and devoted a great deal of time to charitable work.

His name is Deval Patrick, our state's first African American governor. He rode the wave of change to Beacon Hill in 2006, to much fanfare and adulation. But now he faces a stubborn state legislature, lack of consensus on his agenda, and was plagued early on by a series of scandals. If ever there was a parallel between what Obama will face when he becomes president, this is it. Read this article in today's Boston Globe to get some idea of his first full year in office:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/31/after_soaring_entry_a_mixed_first_year_for_patrick/?page=1

Quote:

"It has been a huge learning curve for everyone," said State Representative Corey Atkins, a Concord Democrat and one of the first lawmakers to endorse Patrick's candidacy. She remains optimistic about his potential. "He came from a rational world into an irrational world and he has to figure that out. He still has to learn to get along with the Legislature and the Legislature has to work with him."

Obama may go into the White House on the wings of angels, but he will be pulled quickly back to earth. Sorry, folks, but we don't have time for rookie mistakes - there's too much at stake this time around.

[JimR]

The problem with your analogy is that Patrick had no experience in elected office prior to becoming governor. No experience in sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation, no experience in working with other lawmakers on making changes to bills. Obama has 11 years of such experience.