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

Comments

[RichLiberal]

This is just the first of many criticisms of Obama that are finally starting to stick. His arrogance of being judge and jury of anything about him is becoming readily apparent, as he says "it's no big deal", "voters don't care", and of course "Hillary did it, too".

You are correct in calling his campaign a fraud. Words matter and this is a correct word to describe Obama's campaign.

We are soon going to see profiles of how his campaign has played the race card and used it to bully Afro-American delegates to switch to vote for him. Why? For "race solidarity". More great concepts from the uniter who kicked off his campaign by telling the Baby Boomers to drop dead, because "we" don't care about your tired old problems anymore.

"Fraud" is exactly the correct word to describe someone who claims to be a uniter, while at the same time has divided the Democratic Party in a way that has never been seen before.

As far as "change" is concerned, when the dust settles, if Obama is successful in his quest for the nomination, he will become known as the Democrat who used the Republicans to destroy the candidacy of the top candidate in the Democratic Party.

Most troubling about his campaign are the Republican tactics of triumphalism and the attacking the personality of one's opponent and not addressing issues directly.

In addition, one day the media is going to start asking why the Afro-American community is voting in lockstep for Obama - it is clearly based on race. There is no rational basis for any other interpretation. I give this community more credit than to expect them to hand their votes over to Obama based on the color of his skin. There is something wrong here, and when it comes out it will be one more thing that exposes the fraud.

[moxymama]

Amen!

[NYC07]

Yes we can see by the resounding defeat he suffered in Wisconsin tonight losing by about 15% in a state he should have been real strong in, that his campaign is all but over. You would have thought all those African -Americans in Wisconsin would have at least come out to vote for him. LOL, LOL, LOL,

[Citizenofreality]

Wow! I was intelligent enough to run a local office for the Democratic party, intelligent enough to run phone banks, intelligent enough to decipher their complicated precinct maps and set up their poll watchers last election and now you're telling me that I'm not intelligent enough to pick a candidate who is not a fraud? In this instance words DO matter, I don't support Senator Clinton but I would never call her a fraud, I stand back in wonder and awe at the venom in your remarks.

[zull2]

This isn't grade school we're talking about. This is Washington politics. Speechwriters work for more than one campaign during the course of their careers. Speeches are reused, rehashed, regurgitated, and that is just how it is.

If you want to be mad at someone for making this whole episode into a "bad role model for the schoolkids", point your finger at Hillary Clinton's campaign for attaching the term "plagiarism" to this otherwise commonplace act in order to manufacture a negative attack. By branding the speechwriting issue as "plagiarism", Clinton has essentially also exposed her own speeches to this sort of scrutiny...and it's entirely bogus as well. Political speechwriting isn't a matter of learning to improve oneself, it's a career. The "danger" of plagiarism when you're in school is that you don't learn in order to better yourself. This isn't school we're talking about. No one is bettering themselves personally by inventing new speeches. And with this sort of insane scrutiny, is it any wonder why politicians don't deliver things off the cuff anymore?

[pizzmoe]

Simply put, you're wrong, Sylvia

[TerminatorX]

Ms. Welsh:

First, it's OK, you can call him "Senator" Obama. He's earned as much.

Second, Sen. Obama says it's no big deal because it's no big deal. And indeed it does matter what Gov. Patrick says, since you weren't a party to their conversations, you know nothing about their friendship, and Gov. Patrick has no problems with what Sen. Obama has done. The voters of Wisconsin agree.

Lastly, I'm sorry that your candidate of choice is likely to lose the election. Could the Clinton campaign and supporters such as yourself at least go down without seeming desperate? If you recall the 1990's, the GOP constantly flung mud at President Clinton to see what would stick; this plagiarism nonsense brings back memories.

[TerminatorX]

Ms. Welsh:

First, it's OK, you can call him "Senator" Obama. He's earned as much.

Second, Sen. Obama says it's no big deal because it's no big deal. And indeed it does matter what Gov. Patrick says, since you weren't a party to their conversations, you know nothing about their friendship, and Gov. Patrick has no problems with what Sen. Obama has done. The voters of Wisconsin agree.

Lastly, I'm sorry that your candidate of choice is likely to lose the election. Could the Clinton campaign and supporters such as yourself at least go down without seeming desperate? If you recall the 1990's, the GOP constantly flung mud at President Clinton to see what would stick; this plagiarism nonsense brings back memories.

[TerminatorX]

Ms. Welsh:

First, it's OK, you can call him "Senator" Obama. He's earned as much.

Second, Sen. Obama says it's no big deal because it's no big deal. And indeed it does matter what Gov. Patrick says, since you weren't a party to their conversations, you know nothing about their friendship, and Gov. Patrick has no problems with what Sen. Obama has done. The voters of Wisconsin agree.

Lastly, I'm sorry that your candidate of choice is likely to lose the election. Could the Clinton campaign and supporters such as yourself at least go down without seeming desperate? If you recall the 1990's, the GOP constantly flung mud at President Clinton to see what would stick; this plagiarism nonsense brings back memories.

[itmaybetoolate]

Thank you Dr. Welsh. You are spot on! But, unfortunately, only those of us who have fought the battle against plagiarism will understand your concern. Of the responses that I have read, no one who disagrees seems willing to directly address your contention, nor do they recognize the earlier example to which you refer. They primarily write it off as "no big deal," or they claim that Hillary does even worse which, I guess, voids his action (?) Obama is a rhetor - speaker, writer doesn't matter. He presented a speech as his own when it was not (those listening would normally assume it was his speech unless told otherwise). His lack of remorse is sad - and worrisome. I WANT my president to be able to say "I was wrong and I am sorry" (I KNOW Hillary doesn't do this either Obama supporters). That is one reason I supported Edwards. He actually admitted a mistake and accepted responsibility for it!!

[TonalCrow]

Don't misrepresent this blog. Many people have pointed out the critical difference between plagiarism and a politician reading a speechwriter's text (or a few of a fellow strategist's lines). Maybe you should think about that difference, and why it exists. Then maybe you'll see (and even admit) your mistake.

[itmaybetoolate]

I did say "of the responses that I have read." I was not claiming to have read all responses. But, you cannot deny a pattern of responses with the content I mentioned. In fact, your attempt to make a distinction based on how much of something was borrowed is a non-starter and illustrates my point well. You cannot get around the fact that he used (more than a few lines)exact phrasing from another's speech without giving credit. That is, by definition, plagiarism. And, in fact, intention, doesn't matter.

[Diogod]

If that is so, you really haven't read many responses.

[jungpatawan]

And as we all know...

Clintons NEVER lie.

[Crozier]

I agree that plagiarism is a negative act. This however, is not plagiarism in its cleanest definition.

First of all, he recited words of his friend and campaign supporter, Governor Patrick. Governor Patrick did not attribute the words to Thomas Jefferson, MLK or JFK.

Interestingly, Ted Sorenson wrote the JFK inaugural speech and the ask not what you can do for your country was first uttered by Warren Harding . No attribution there.

I know that you support Senator Clinton and that his nomination urks those wanting a coronation.

[MrJoyboy]

Throughout history, there have been many great orators who turned out to be charlatans or worse. All you have to do today is look at some of these TV preachers who have the ability to inspire and bring people to tears with their words. What we need in a president is a great leader, not a great orator.

[thegaygardener]

Let's get a grip. Does anyone here think that any candidate is actually writing every word of every speech they're delivering? Ever hear of a speech writer?
Ideally Sen. Obama would have stated:"As my friend, Deval Patrick so brilliantly said..."
The nature of this speech was very specific as well.
He did not say: "As it says in the Declaration of Independence" or "As FDR said..."
This is about tearing down one of the most brilliant orators of a generation & one of the most inspiring figures on the national scene.
And your "(at least one that we know of)" is a cheap shot right out of the Clinton/Rove Playbook. Are these the lessons you want to teach your children?

[democraticjack]

When the gist of your speech is to say words do matter, then the words you choose to relay that message better be carefully chosen and not just a mantra stolen from your bff.

[sky2evan]

You mean, like how Hillary Clinton stole Obama's slogan in Iowa?

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clinton-copies-barack-obamas.html

[BigBen]

As a person with a graduate degree from a prestigious University like he has, Mr.Obama should realize that what one claims as one's own work is either an honest claim or not. Maybe Oprah, who was so shocked once upon a time, to find that her "Book of the Month " was plagiarized will have something to say about this effort by her candidate.Now is your chance Oprah to speak truth to power.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Oprah's embarassment over her book club had nothing to do with plagiarism. It was the fact that a book of FICTION was MARKETED as NON-FICTION.

[Jazz42]

What does Oprah has to do the discussion. The Queen got her clock cleaned tonight in Wisconsin, don't be such a sore loser.
(BigBen)

[clevelandchick]

HILLARY CLINTON: AND WHY IT MATTERS THAT SHE HAS USED THE SAME ATTACK AGAINST OBAMA THE REPUBLICANS USED AGAINST DEVAL PATRICK:

Hillary's camp has decided to minimize the value of words and their ability to move people to action because while she is a former first lady and has spent some time in Congress, words that motivate people seem to fail her. So what to do?

Oh, yeah copy the Republican strategy that was used against Barack Obama's friend and colleague which was to denigrate the power of great oratory to move people to action and use it against Obama.

In other words Hillary Clinton and her campaign plagiarized the strategy of Republicans against her Democratic opponent. Why is that important?

It speaks to character and it dove-tails into some very important facts about the Hillary campaign: she took money from Rupert Murdoch, she defended the fact she takes money from big industry lobbyists to fund her campaign, and her camp has the balls to accuse Obama of plagiarism when Hillary has plagiarized Edwards, Obama and her husband Bill in all of her speeches.

And what it speaks to the most is that it is evidend Hillary does not want to involve the people in her cause, she has no desire to build a movement against the Republican machine. She just wants to be the next Decider. Well she isn't going to get any of the change she'd like to see without the people getting behind it. And you need 'pretty words' to do that. Sorry Hillary.

[jcharliemiller]

If what he did was so wrong what about all the lines that she is reusing from the earlier Clinton campaigns? What her wholesale attempts to steal his message? What about her 1,000 of known lies?
Under your logic MLK Jr. was a plagiarist when he said, “we shall overcome”, as that was a song of slaves and abolitionists. Or Perhaps, Abraham Lincoln was one also when he said a “house divided against itself cannot stand”, because that’s from the Bible.
Two people having a similar message, being friends, talking about the issues and then in one speech having some similarities make him dirty?
No, you are part of the Hillary Clinton attack machine, you don’t make this country any better ever!
Your part of a large group of people in this country who think that everything is bad, and will always be bad. No politician is good. No promise is ever kept. You’ll drown in your cynicism before you realize that this country has already changed after these eight years in the dark times.
(Also to note: What does it say about you that your intending to vote for cynicism and attacks, while the Obama camp wants to vote to bring people together. What does that say about you as people: You want a candidate that thinks attacking her rivals is the only way towards progress. Reminds me of Bush the younger.)
You and your ilk will soon by down the road and my generation will laugh at your 2 decades of partisan fighting with no side making any great progress whatsoever. You may struggle, lie, cheat, manipulate, and you’ll find that in this election years you will not prevail. The people are angry over the same Washington games.
Good bye Hillary! Obama will win tonight, and keep winning all the way. I knew it in 2004, don’t worry though, the Obama campaign I have found is welcoming to all Americans. Not the few that like to dictate what we should think like the Clinton campaign.

[TerryFL]

.

How did the children feel about, "I did not have sex with that women, Miss Lewinsky"?

.

[shangti]

The gist of this blog was that if the media allowed Saint Obama to get away with this, then the children feel that they can get away wtih plagiarizing. As for your republican comments, I really don't think Clinton got away with that lie, he was excoriated for it. But from your post, I don't think it is worth even arguing with you. It is like arguing with a conservative republican.

[getitrighthistime]

Wow,
HRC has been taking ideas from any and everyone. What is her campaign going to do when we find out what she's cribbed?

The train has left the station and I believe HRC is under it. Instead of attacking Obama she should be convincing us why she is the best pick for president.

Clinton dirty tricks are not working in this election. They need to get another, better playbook.