Doesn't Hillary Clinton Use Words Written By Others?
CNN.com, where I watched Obama and Clinton square off last night, ran interstitial news pieces instead of commercials. One of the features was graphic results from "people meters" operated by a small group of Democrats watching the debate on the SMU campus in Dallas.
These are the handheld devices through which viewers can react positively or negatively to what they are viewing. A consensus score was superimposed on clips of the highlights of each candidates presentation.
All but one received positive reactions with the meters heading into the 70s and 80s. All except Clinton's attempt to use the plagiarism point that her surrogates have been spewing forth this week. When Clinton spoke ignobly of "change you can Xerox," she smiled smugly, but the consensus meters dove toward the 30s.
So, not only is the charge nonsense, but it also repels voters. At least Clinton effectively refuted the accusation that all her ideas are focus group tested to excess.
So, let me ask you this: did Hillary Clinton make up "change you can Xerox" or did someone else write that? While we are at it, did she make up "ready on day one" or "solutions not speeches?
I am guessing no. She has a staff to write these pearls.
So what is worse, paying for words or borrowing them from a friend?
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
Doesn't Hillary Clinton Use Words Written By Others?
No. Any words, tropes, memes, and other sentences used by Hillary Clinton are ipso facto and retroactively her own, exclusively and for the rest of all time. This is why it's good to be the Queen.
There is one exception, however... When those same words are repeated in mailers, flyers, and other material that might cause her embarrassment with regard to her plans and or "policies" for the future, or her past utterances on now very much discredited treaties, then those words are not her own, and are in fact complete falsehoods.
Anyone disagreeing with this new law is an obvious misogynist and guilty of lese-majeste into the bargain.
Thanks for the laugh! great post.
The choice of words reveals some insight of the leadership style you can expect to see from the future president. Will this be an "oh yeah, glad you said that, me too" kind of a president or will this president be bringing new ideas of their own to the table? Which type of leader would you rather have standing next to you in a problem solving situation? a national crisis?
You decide.
All this energy around words! Listen, this is about Obama not Clinton. We can all get to the bottom of the by asking one question and getting a genuine answer.
The real question is that we do not know who the real Barack Obama is. Reading one of his books, and it was a good biography makes you feel good. His speeches make you feel good. Both contain many good words, but do not get into real detail how some of the major struggles have affecting his thinking. What are his current instincts and motivation given a certain situation? This would allow us to know how he will make decisions and set priorities. This will help us trust the new kid on the block, those who need more than words, and those who need at least a little proof.
How many bills have passed with soaring words and rhetoric, and contain loopholes, no Change and dashed Hope? Look at the change that Bush’s Clear Skies Bill really enacts. Not to pick on it much, an example is Obama’s health care plan. His words may help a bill pass but may not really change much in the lives of everyday people. Hillary’s has substantial change and is the right plan. It affects everyone so yes that is the kind of change we need.
For example, we should ask that Michelle Obama’s Princeton Thesis be released immediately. Why was her thesis, developed during her formidable years, removed from access until after the election? Is this the type of transparency Barack campaigns on? These words may likely contain real positions on her thinking and reactions to certain situations. What she really feels about a situation and what her instincts will be regarding action. They will tell us about the woman Barack married, and we know he knows her best.
These words give authentic insight how the behaviors of the Obama’s once in office how they will react, meaning what decisions they will make to certain situations.
The words so far do not get into any of what the Obama’s are really about.
"The real question is that we do not know who the real Barack Obama is. Reading one of his books, and it was a good biography makes you feel good. His speeches make you feel good. Both contain many good words, but do not get into real detail how some of the major struggles have affecting his thinking. What are his current instincts and motivation given a certain situation?"
I would think that the information gleaned from all this material you so blithely dismiss, would actually go a long way towards "knowing who the real Obama is". But quite apart from your "healthy" (or partisan) skepticism, I would point out that - on the other hand - we unfortunately know quite well who the real Hillary is, and that it's enormously unlikely that we wouldn't be doing better in picking Obama.
All this energy around words! Listen, this is about Obama not Clinton. We can all get to the bottom of the by asking one question and getting a genuine answer.
The real question is that we do not know who the real Barack Obama is. Reading one of his books, and it was a good biography makes you feel good. His speeches make you feel good. Both contain many good words, but do not get into real detail how some of the major struggles have affecting his thinking. What are his current instincts and motivation given a certain situation? This would allow us to know how he will make decisions and set priorities. This will help us trust the new kid on the block, those who need more than words, and those who need at least a little proof.
How many bills have passed with soaring words and rhetoric, and contain loopholes, no Change and dashed Hope? Bush’s Clear Skys Bill? Not to pick on it much, an example is Obama’s health care plan. His words may help a bill pass but may not really change much in the lives of everyday people. Hillary’s has substantial change and is the right plan. It will affect everyone, yes that is the kind of change we need.
The real question here is what is rhetoric if not a call to action? We need to know more about Obama to understand what actions will be his priorities beyond winning the election. What are the results to the call to action to get Barack elected? How will he react to the challenges of the Presidency? We can then decide how an Obama Administration will really the change the country for us, individually. What are the tangible expectations? Right now, the rhetoric directs us to fill in the blanks on what Hope and Change mean for each of us. This is clever and perfect for campaigns, on getting elected. No doubt, some will be disappointed if we did not get the real answers in advance. What Hope and Change mean in actions, reactions and behavior once Barack is elected. It cannot be said that we simply did not ask the questions and thus it is our fault if we did not.
For example, let us ask that Michelle Obama’s Princeton Thesis be released immediately. Why was her thesis, developed during her formidable years, removed from access until after the election? Is this the type of transparency Barack campaigns on? These words may likely contain real positions on her thinking and reactions to certain situations. What she really feels about a situation and what her instincts will be regarding action. They will tell us about the woman Barack married, and we know he knows her best.
These words contain the answers reporters and the country needs to know. They may give insight into how the behaviors of the Obama’s once in office and give us insight on how Barack and Michelle will react, meaning what decisions they will make to certain situations.
The words so far do not get into any of what the Obama’s are really about.
Hillary's, "Change you can xerox," line is a metaphor for what's wrong with the Clintons' whole campaign: outdated (as in fighting the last war) and unimaginative.
Can we please move on now, and leave the Clintons and their 20th century politics behind?
She doesn't wirite her own speeches, but she doesn't do much else either! Here is the proof:
http://www
Of course Hillary uses words written by others -- both those written expressly for her, as well as those spoken by others (e.g., John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama).
All I can say regarding this whole religious plagiarism issue that Penn & Wolfson cooked up in their dungeon is: "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Attibution: some guy on MSNBC tonight, oh, and some guy in the bible.
I fail to see the problem with Obama using a part of Patrick Deval speech. When you listen to a speech you expect two things, one that the author is expressing an authentic point of view. This is why we have no problem with speech writers, while we know the specific words might not be the speakers, we believe that the sentiment behind the words is. Because of this charges that Obama is a fraud make no sense, as there's been no proof that he doesn't mean what he says. And second, if a speaker is using words that are not his, you expect that he is not stealing from anybody. By definition, you cannot steal something that you have permission to take. I would have a problem if Obama was using direct quotes from speeches with out permission and without credit to the source, that would be stealing. But using lines that were okayed by the writer (or at least the person who 'owned' the original speech) is not. To expect him to credit the person who specifically gave him the lines, would be to expect him to credit everyone who gives him lines, which would include speech writers. The moment that Patrick Deval comes out and criticizes Obama for using part of his speech, I'll join in on the criticism, until then it's a non-issue.
EXACTLY!
When someone does tell you to use their words, and basically has acted with you as a sort of brainstorming partner for good prose, using those words is not plagarism. And the people who are clinging to this as an actual issue, let alone a reason not to vote for the man, are showing foolish desperation.
At best, they can claim that Obama does rarely what Hillary seems to do constantly. At worst they can say that some of his words aren't quite his. This is grasping at straws in a very real sense, and only makes Hillary and her defenders look less credible by having to make it. This isn't a lifted speech--it's an inspired section of a speech from friends who've traded good lines freely in the past.
Go find more examples of this, or admit that you're just twisting to find a single chink in the armor.
Kaus needs to understand the difference between someone using words specifically written for her and someone using words that may have or have not been written for someone else but used by someone else in another forum and then not attributing those words to that other person, as Obama did. In short, there's a difference between plagerism and hiring someone to to write words for you. JFK's speeches weren't mainly written by him; they were written by Theodore Sorensen. JFK wasn't a plagerist however. Obama used another man's words and didn't say, "As so-and-so said, ...", and because he didn't, he plagerized.
Another "truism" from the Obama camp. This is a statement from his own website about his so-called opposition to the war. "As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequenc
He was exploring his potential run the Senate in early 2002. He was looking into how to mount his run for the Senate primary. We knew this in Chicago at the time, and many of us wondered if this speech would derail his political career. He was dealing with a Republican-led state Senate. Even though he represented a liberal area of Chicago, Bush's poll numbers were through the roof at that time, and fear was rampant. It was political suicide, or at the very least a great risk, to speak out against this war. No one in their right mind thought this was a great career move for any politician with national aspirations. You made a speech like this only if you believed it was the honorable, necessary thing to do regardless of consequences. There were very few politicans who did. It was brave.
Let's not forget that speech (Google it, please). Everything Obama said would happen, did happen. He was profoundly correct about everything concerning this war. To trivialize that is the lie.
Are you also willing to concede that Hillary, until she became a U.S. Senator, had no independent "experience" during the Clinton years for which she was held accountable, except the failed health care plan? A Senate seat she never could have won without the Clinton name? No paid job, no accountability, no votes. Nothing.
What if you talk to a friend who encourages and gives you permission to use his/her words? I think you are all grasping for some straws to derail Obama. I don't know about other people, but you clever distinction about words written for you by your paid speech writers and words shared with by your friends and supporters, does not wash with me. This is really a manufactured non-issue by a desperate campaign that has suffered humiliating defeats,
You don't see a difference between giving a speech written by a speechwriter (as almost all are) or passing off a friend's words as your own? Even if the friend says, hey, no biggie? It's like paying for an item, on one hand, and helping yourself to the same item, on the other. I guess I am sensitive to this because I make a living writing. Hillary probably bought "change you can xerox." I didn't think she really got her money's worth, by the way. There are plenty of people in DC who write upfronts and quips for these people.
Bill Clinton 1992: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."
Hillary Clinton 2/21/08: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
Edwards the December 13 debate:
"What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine."
Hillary Clinton 2/21/08:
"You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."
The actual Clinton and Edwards speeches are on Youtube. Words uttered by Hillary less than an hour after accusing Obama of plagiarism.
"Fired up and ready to go." "Yes we will." All words, phrases and themes Obama used first. The audacity of HIllary is breathtaking.
Don't need an inspirational, "make nice with Republicans" appeasemen
Hillary's tone-deaf to keep hammering Obama on this, but the undeniable truth is that he used another person's speech as though it were his own. Split every hair you have but you can't make using advisors plagiarism, and you can't make plagiarism the moral equivalent oof borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor. Suck it up. Hillary's not pure evil and Obama's not pure light.
Then why didn't Hillary credit Bill on Tuesday night? Or John Edwards? On a night where she made a big deal about "plagiarism". Because in order to win, she tears down the effectiveness of words in a democracy, and demeans anyone who is inspired by them. Replaces words' great power to move national discourse and repair our standing in the world with cynicism. She tears down in order to feel superior. She destroys instead of builds. Does she think she won't need the power of words as a president? She is incapable -- she's had 35 years of "experience" to develop those skills and she doesn't have them. She has cheapened this race.
The entire discussion is ridiculous. No one owns every phrase uttered. If you tried to copyright phrases like this, you'd be laughed out of the copyright office.
Hillary can barely communicate. She can't convince, she can't inspire, she can't transcend. I don't need a bean counter president (Frankly, Obama's campaign has even been superior on that front). You want another Mondale/Du
I agree that Hillary's not pure evil and Obama's not pure light. I like both of them, and I recognize that they are both human, and therefore both flawed. However, it isn't plagiarism if you have permission to use the speech by the person who you took the ideas from. Further, while in a scholarly paper you CAN plagiarize even if you have permission, in the real world there is no such thing, since the person who originally spoke the speech has said you ARE allowed to use it.
Is Xerox even in business anymore?
Talk about a dated expression
Loading comments…
Posted February 22, 2008 | 02:10 AM (EST)