Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)
As a child psychologist and psychoanalyst, I have worked with children and adolescents of all ages who come to me with every imaginable kind of problem (and some that are, quite frankly, unimaginable). Usually, the teenagers I see are there because they've gotten themselves into trouble, both at home and at school. The trouble could be drugs, it could be overly aggressive behavior, it could be truancy, it could be lack of respect shown to authority figures and, not uncommonly, it could be because he or she has gotten thrown out of school for plagiarism.
Any child over the age of, say, 8, knows it is not only morally wrong to sign your name to something you did not write but that it is a punishable act. Such punishment, when the child who commits the plagiarism is in high school or college, often includes expulsion from school. With kids ever more internet savvy (i.e., having access to the myriads of articles and papers written on any given subject by some supposedly obscure author) and school administrators and teachers trying to ensure that the teen does not "slip one past them," schools are increasingly using programs designed to detect whether, in fact, a piece of written work handed in by a student was actually written by that student and does not match, in phraseology or any other patterns that such programs detect, written work by someone other than the student. We, as a society, value honesty and integrity and one of the surest mark of a lack of both is a person's willingness to claim someone else's words (or work) as their own.
And this is why it matters that Barack Obama is now furiously trying to suggest that it's "no big deal" that he plagiarized his friend's, Deval Patrick's, speech. He's even claiming that Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech. Perhaps Mr. Patrick did. Perhaps Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech and never told him to say it was written by Mr. Patrick and not by Mr. Obama. It doesn't matter, actually, what Mr. Patrick said or did not say to Mr. Obama. What matters is that Mr. Obama passed this speech off as his own, adding only his by now customary flourishes of tone and inflection. That the man who has presented himself to this country as the man of integrity and change turns out to be a fraud — and that is what we call people who pretend that someone else's words are their own — must be a profound disappointment for his supporters, if they can be honest enough with themselves to admit it.
However, what's even more disheartening and heartbreaking is this: Mr. Obama, in his historic bid for the Presidency, represented an ideal with whom children from broken homes, of mixed racial origins, of no great means, of inner turmoil who seek refuge in drugs, could all look up to and strive to be. In one fell swoop of his unwritten-with pen, he has dashed the hope that here stood a man who pulled himself together and got it together.
Here stood a man who towered above others in his quest for decency and integrity. Here stood a man who played it straight and said it as he saw it. But Mr. Obama is not that man. This man, as it turns out, is just another guy who seems to have bought into his own hype about how wonderful he is even as he tries to convince us he is not simply a liar. Worse still, he has been shown to be a liar while he has paradoxically been running his entire campaign based virtually exclusively on his stellar character, a character he has claimed that is so different from all those Washington insiders he has sought to set himself apart from.
Listening to the pundits of Slate Magazine claim that this charge of plagiarism "won't stick" with the voters because "with Obama, there's no pattern of lying," only adds insult to injury. I'm sure that even Slate Magazine remembers that Mr. Obama's so-called autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was discovered not to be entirely factual, as well. It took Mr. Obama some time, as I recall, to finally admit that, yes, some of the characters were not real but were, rather, "composite" characters. In other words, they were fiction. Which means that, in other words, he lied about it and never told anyone that his autobiography was not only not entirely written by him (check with his ghost writer), but that his so-called life was not exactly what he claimed it was.
Children know that not telling the truth, either by omission or commission, is the definition of a lie. Perhaps there is more of a pattern to Mr. Obama's distortions and omissions than even these two rather egregious examples point to. As a clinician, I have found that if one lies about one or two things here or there and then makes light of those lies, and acts as if the ones who find this offensive are the ones making mountains out of molehills, you can almost take it to the bank that a deeper pattern of not telling it like it is exists. It's only a matter of time before it becomes more fully exposed. So, it's suffer the children yet again. Yet again, a grownup who might actually have served as the inspiration he so adamantly claims he is, turns out to be another scammer who, when caught in the scam, does what every child does: he says, "it's no big deal." And then he has the audacity to cast aspersions on the ones who caught him. Even the children I see don't do that.
So, here's the lesson these kids will learn if the media, as they seem likely to do, go too easy on Mr. Obama for this crime: The trick is in getting away with it. That's the lesson they will learn, when the sad thing is they could have learned so much more from him. Mr. Obama's dismissal of this fraudulent act and his other as "no big deals" undermines what parents and teachers have been trying to teach their kids about honesty and integrity, sometimes against very strong odds. They thought maybe in Mr. Obama they had a helping hand. They were wrong.
What they have instead is a man who, while seeking the highest office in the land, shrugs off a "crime" as no big deal, seeks to blame those who uncovered it, and arrogantly thinks he should not be held to the same standard to which we hold school children. I only hope for the sake of the children watching, that he is wrong.
As Mr. Obama using Mr. Patrick's speech says, "it's only words." Yes, Mr. Obama, words do matter, especially when they're lies.
Dr. Sylvia Welsh is a Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalyst. She is on the faculty of the NYU Psychoanalytic Institute and the faculty of the NYU School Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Welsh treats children, adolescents and adults, families and couples.
Read more news and blog posts on accusations of plagiarism against Obama
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
I'm really surprised that Ms. Clinton and her surrogates should make such a big deal of this matter -- "just words". Ms. Clinton is a known and habitual lier. She even lied about her name, for heaven's sake! -- and there is this book she supposedly 'wrote'... The more she and her surrogates harp on this non-issue, and lecture us on ethics and truth, the more I am repulsed by Ms. Clinton and her twisted mind and Billaryland.
Okay, then let's skip the Clintons' untruths and negativity that are obviously merely signs of desperation. Welsh's tirade is so clearly flawed it would be silly if it weren't so hypocritical and vicious. Anyone with half a brain and no particular axe to grind can see that what Obama did was not plagiarism, that he committed no "crimes", and that he did not "lie". Period.
Conversely, there were also no crimes committed when Obama's use of the word "change" (a word not invented by him--something I have a sneaking suspicion he would freely admit) was deemed effective and then recycled incessantly by every single candidate of both parties like a bunch of zombie parrots (including Clinton). Funny? Yes. Kind of pathetic? Certainly. But a crime? Don't think so.
"That the man who has presented himself to this country as the man of integrity and change turns out to be a fraud — and that is what we call people who pretend that someone else's words are their own — must be a profound disappointment for his supporters, if they can be honest enough with themselves to admit it."
I thought the reason I didn't feel that disappointment was because I understood that it's petty and frivolous to call the use of an oratorical device of a friend and colleague plagiarism. So thank you Ms. Welsh for pointing out that I'm just like a delinquent 8 year old being dishonest with myself. Your article makes it so clear that many of us Obama supporters have a long long way to go before we can reach the ideals of fairness and integrity and honesty held up by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Howard Wolfson, and others such as yourself who have the rare and enviable gift of complete self-honesty.
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. If that is all they can get on Obama I think he should be acclaimed the Democratic nominee right here and now. Because this whole line of attack is asinine. P.S. I thought Hillary's real first name was Tenzig?
What is Sylvia Welsh's take on the well known incident in Nepal where First Lady Hillary Clinton met the late Sir Edmund Hillary and told him that her mother so admired the man who climbed to the summit of Mount Everest, that she named her new born daughter, Hillary? So pleased was Hillary with the polite amusement evoked by her cleaver story. she repeated the confabulation several more times while touring Nepal. Sometime later someone brought to Hillary's attention the fact that she was born in 1947 and Sir Edmond did not conquer Mt. Everest until 1953. Caught in the fib, Hillary's spokeswomen, Jennifer Hanley dismissed any moral significance to the fairy tale with this statement: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."
Yes Ms. Hanley, and little Hillary's been clawing her way to the top ever since.
Clinton is acting like a spoiled child. She is avoiding REAL issues by stooping to trivia and as you well know, she can't help herself. Like Bu$h, she no longer knows what the truth is.
She has had 35 years of experience. NOT! She will be able to "Lead" on day one NOT! She can't even lead her own troops whom she has been gathering for over a year. This comes from the self-annointment of which she is guilty and which she has come to bellieve.
The sad thing is that nobody else sees her presidency as inevitable.
Although I am supporting Clinton, I actually like Obama. I do have a problem with his use of someone else's passion (not just words -- whether his or a speech writer's) and passing it off as his own fervent storm. But Obama supporters don't seem to be able to grasp that. They also don't seem to be able to grasp that this Blog has nothing to do with Clinton, but like the Republicans, they can't seem to support their own without blaming their opponent. Like little children, they scream, "But she did" this and that. As if another's wrong (if even true) erases their own.
Clinton has faults. I think her supporters realize that. But I'm not so sure that Obama's supporters are as willing to even look beyond his veil.
What I'm most surprised at is how vicious and blindly vindictive, Obama's supporters seem to be toward Clinton. As I said, I like Obama, but if the tone of the dialog on his supporter's blogs is any indication of the thought behind our country's possible next President, I think we're no better off than when we seemed overrun by Bush's lemmings.
Stubborn, blind support in a person or a belief is just as potentially damaging whether it's for "their" side or "ours".
Care to explain how one can "use someone else's passion?" You cannot, can you? Because saying such a thing is too silly for words.
Obviously, not to you. Either you really can't or you adamantly refuse to understand. Either way, you appear rigidly entrenched, unable to even contemplate anything other than "your" passion, which (as example) I suggest might not even be yours at all, but simply a flailing passionate-element, caught up in the whirlwind of excitement for a new generation's candidate. It can happen to anyone. It's happened to me. But if you don't get what I'm saying, that's fine. Just please don't bother to reply with another, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!" It's kind of childish (proves my generalized point about Obama supporter's blogs here) and I won't respond to that, because it's a further waste of time.
Ms. Welsh,
Your moral perspicacity is quite impressive.
More so is your signal decision or inability to apply it to the Tsunami of lying and other misrepresentation that has characterized the Clinton campaign almost from its beginning.
Or perhaps I missed your similarly lengthy posts on their explicit lies about Obama's words regarding Reagan.
To give only one instance of this series, Obama NEVER said, as Hillary loudly stated, that Reagan's ideas were "good."
Similarly, I must have had an Internet server problem the day you held forth on Hillary's patent and explicit lie (on national television, during a debate) about her surrogate Robert Johnson's comments during an in-person introduction of Senator Clinton at a speaking event.
She clearly stated to NBC reporter Tim Russert that she took Robert Johnson at this word that he had not meant to imply Obama's youthful drug use.
She then - literally in the next breath - affirmatively responded to Russert's statement/question: "But... you agree that it was out of line?"
"Yes."
What, pray tell, did she believe was "out of line"?
Johnson's patent lie that he had been referring to Obama's community organizing? Or his actual implication (to which he later confessed) about drugs?
So, she said "no" ["I take him at his word"] before she said "yes" [clearly implying "I don't take him at his word"], to the same issue, in the same exchange, in front of millions of people.
How do you imagine that the youth of America were ravaged by that display?
I am limited in my recitations of The Clinton's outright lies only by the word limit of this response mechanism.
You are not similarly limited.
We are waiting.
Let's talk about REAL Issues & stop falling for the Clintons' DESPERATE & PETTY tactics, shall we?
"During the first - 8 - eight years of his electedservice Barack OBAMA sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform,125 on poverty and public assistance,112 crime fighting bills,97 economic bills,60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,21 ethics reform bills,15 gun control,6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama NuclearNon
I am so sick and tired of hearing this nonsensical debate. If the topic were a lifted phrase from a book, op-ed piece, or other scholarly work, I would understand it. The fact that this "plagiarism" charge is about a phrase in a SPEECH is beyond me! When was the last time anyone had a candidate whip out footnotes during a speech. The fact that Obama says he writes most of his speeches is impressive in itself when the vast majority of politicians, including Hillary Clinton, have an entire staff of speechwriters!!! Are we stupid to assume that a speechwriter's job is to --- gasp--- write speeches!?!?!?!?!? The horror!!! The hypocrisy actually!!!! This is a non-story of the highest order. And I for one am thankful that we didn't have to listen to speeches actually written by "W" the last 7 years!!! Or are we supposed to check our brains at the door and assume that he really DID write those speeches, even the word "nucular"!!! Gimme a break!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ummm....no
Hillary and Plagiarism:
1. Hillary the Thief part une - steals from Edwards & McCain:
http://blo
2. Hillary the Thief part deux - steals from Obama:
http://www
3. Hillary the Thief part trois - steals from Mario Cuomo -
'...you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.'
We all remember this debate!
http://www
Trying to psychoanalyze Obama through the print media is as irresponsible as Bill Frist trying to diagnose Terry Schiavo through the telly.....
This guy's just a politician, just like Huckabee, Clinton, McCain and all the rest, he's not a saint.
You'll see his supporters form a human shield around him no matter what he says or does, offering up their lives and reputations to protect him from the big, bad critics.
Reminds me of the parents that allowed their kids to "sleep over" at Michael Jackson's house.
It wasn't all that "big of a deal" anyway.
I am disturbed about the fabrications in his book, however, because I will be voting for him in November should he finish off Hillary. And I don't generally paronize writers who obfuscate the truth.
I remember what Oprah did publicly to James Frey for his "Million Little Pieces."
And I wonder what her reaction to "Dreams From My Father" will be.
I know she's not recommending the book, but she's definitely recommending the candidate.
Finally a blog that gets the point and the issue dominated by spinless media and other posts trying to change the subject.
There are no excuses for this and Obama needs to apologize. I want a president that is genuine. Remember this is about Obama.
Right On!
Hey Bill!
It can only be the one and only ORILY? if you think this issue is touted in anything resembling "spinless" media.
This is idiotic. Ted Sorensen wrote Kennedy's "Ask Not" speech and Kennedy copied it by hand so there would be a copy for posterity. So Obama rehashes a speech while Hillary rehashes and confabulates a "35 year career." Sylvia, which is the worse lesson for children to learn; plagiarism is 'ok' or unprotected oral sex isn't sex? Hmmmmmm?
Hillary's plagiarism:
http://the
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
