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
No this is not an example of plagiarism, omission or lies.
What we have here is a perfect educational tool for my kids and I to talk over about what it means to become President. About how one person who is running for President does not have the time to write every word of every speech plus have strategy meetings, etc, etc. About the effort it takes in today’s world to get up on a stage day after day and talk with people across this country.
We also have a perfect educational tool to discuss about the differences between telling lies, telling white lies, telling little lies or not to telling lies at all. This is not a lie of omission in my book. This is a failed attempt at smear which is another good educational tool for my kids and I about politics.
Additionally, this is not even a good example of is true plagiarism. Anyone who uses this as an example of what plagiarism or lies or lie by omissions, etc. look like will be teaching in the margins not teaching the large concepts that our kids need to learn. This is a good example though of how to teach our kids to think critically and analytically.
Give me a real reason to not vote for Obama otherwise stop the attacks by proxy because they are just turning me off to the Clinton campaign
I think if you re-read your post a year from now when the rush of your euphoria has passed and you can see the self-delusion and denial here, you will discover the reason you should not have voted for Obama. It's clear no one can reach you now.
I also expect you will see then that Obama's back-pedaling and excuse and counter-attacks on this issue are no more than the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
RichLiberal: Your condescending accusations of 'childishness' and 'euphoria' against Obama and supporters is shallow and misplaced: underneath the 'euphoria' of the speeches is the rational choice for Democrats -- strength and depth of character, lack of historical baggage, frankness and authenticity, sharp intellect, hearing and earning respect from those who sit across the table, someone who actually has a chance to end the political stalemate of the 'Blue v. Red' paradigm (e.g. not Hillary).
I wonder if the author of this blog has ever given a public talk. It's not a footnoted academic journal. You tell stories, you offer ideas. You reflect.
And yes, you try and credit people, but if you stopped to credit every phrase no one would ilsten. It's very different from lifting huge sections of text, which really would be problematic.
This is a total molehill.
Bless you, bless you, bless you. Everytime he denies voting a particular way because he pushed the wrong button, or "present" meant he just wanted to work on the bill some more, or any of the many twisting of the truths you see in debates, I get a little sick inside. People follow him like he's a messiah. Yet, a lie is a lie. He claims to have found religion, yet he lies. Those two things don't mesh.
Wow, if that is true, you must really feel sick everytime you hear Hillary and Bill speak.
You seem to be implying that the Clintons have never done anything to undermine honesty and integrity.
But your Saint Obama is the one who is running on the message that he will bring a new "convenant" to Washington. That he will change the tone and the way Politics are run. He said it, so now he is backing out of that promise, like the promise to run on public finance in the general election, Or is that a staff member who said that???
In a few weeks, the Clintons will not be running, but Obama will and the comparisons to them will be moot.
It's sad that so many people let a political machine put words in their mouths. Obama's few sentences were not plagiarism, give me a break. Half of these politicians don't even write their own speeches, so who gives a care if he reiterated a good concept argued by a friend and supporter? Politicians aren't up there to win Pulitzer prize, they are there to make a good argument. This whole attack is so disingenuous it makes me sick. Can't wait for the Clinton's to become irrelevant.
And it's really tough to hear Clinton supporters start complaining now about biased media. As someone who supported several candidates who have dropped out, I've seen Hillary own the media for about 2 years. Remember when John Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa and his coverage suddenly went DOWN and hers went up? Why weren't you crying about biased media then? The only reason she's still in the race is because of the media.
First of all, it wasn't a speech, it was a few lines about words mattering and some historical examples of great words from great speeches. Maybe Obama shouldn't have used those lines since his friend the Governor already used them (but only because it makes him a target for Hillary). But borrowing some inspirational lines from a friend is hardly plagiarising an entire speech, as the desperate Hillary supporters would like you to believe.
Secondly, on the eve of the make-or-break Wisconsin primary, doesn't Hillary have anything more substantive to attack Obama on, besides the fact he borrowed some inspirational lines from a friend? THAT'S her big salvo to convince us SHE's the one to inspire and lead the nation at this crucial time? THAT'S IT?? Does she really think she can sway people to believe Obama can't WRITE A SPEECH? HELLO? HAVE YOU SEEN THIS GUY SPEAK?
I think we can agree JFK and Ronald Regan were inspirational leaders, whether you were personally inspired by them or not -- they struck a chord. Obama is doing the same thing with his campaign, and Hillary, who is good on policy but light on inspiration, is rightfully concerned. But, come on, she can do better than this, can't she?
I am an English professor and I do think plagiarism is an important issue. I don't support either candidate, and I think both have been using material from other candidates quite a bit. If one of my students submitted another student's writing as his own, even if that student agreed, it would still be wrong because the student didn't turn in original work. In saying it is no big deal, Obama implies that copying words without attribution is okay. I think that is worse than the actual use of the words. The fact that so many defend anything Obama does (and attack everything Clinton does)is troubling and shows a lack of discernment. No candidate is perfect--even Obama. Let's take off the rose-colored glasses and look at him realistically.
He wasn't writing a paper. He was esponding to Hillary's incessant attacks that words are cheap...He wasn't even reading off a teleprompter; he was freelancing.
So it's really Senator Clinton's fault? You Obama supporters are really incredible. Tell me, what's the flavor of that kool-aid that you all can't stop drinking. It must be pretty yummy.
Context and discernment, as always, are critical. We expect a student writing a paper to attempt an original argument and to cite her sources, so that she learns the processes of critical thought and analysis, and the norms of academia. On the other hand, we do not expect a politician making a speech to have written the speech herself. We know that speakers of all kinds have always employed "speechwriters", and that the speech, as a form, does not lend itself to footnoting.
Thus, Obama does not, as you assert, "impl[y] that copying words without attribution is [generally] okay". Instead, he implies that a speaker complies with applicable norms when she recites without attribution a speech or portion thereof written by a speechwriter or a person in a similar position, such as Mr. Obama's friend and co-strategist Mr. Patrick.
I just want to get this straight...you hold students to a higher standard than a presidential candidate. Obama claims to have written the speech. Gov. Patrick told him (Obama) that it was ok to use the lines, not some speechwriter. Stop drinking the kool-aide. It's bad for you and more importantly, your drinking habits are bad for the rest of us.
Hillary has done it again--sleek as an eel, sleek as sleek willy. They are a match made in heaven.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080219/cm_thenation/45287479
I so very glad that someone not directly aligned with Hillary Clinton's campaign had the courage amidst a sea of naysayers to speak her mind about this issue of plagiarism. Anyone here who's ever had to write a term paper or essay or dissertation knows the seriousness of unoriginal statements and the severity of the punishment if caught. What kind of message does it send to today's youth to say, "No big deal. Get your papers off the net and pretend you wrote it. Get that A that'll get you into a good school."? The irony with that is The Boston Globe recently covered this very issue with interviews with some of the admission officers at the nation's best universities. When these administrators come across an essay that smacks or even hints of not being an original creation of the student applying for admission, that application is automatically flagged.
Thank you Sylvia Welsh. I was sad yesterday - a presidential candidate blows off plagiarism and fraud as no big deal. This was blatant copying.
My six-year-old niece was running around the house saying Obama Obama. Ugh. I am sad for this world if this guy is our president.
It will shock every politician who's ever read a speechwriter's speech -- which is all of them -- to learn that doing so constitutes "plagiarism and fraud".
AF:
I guess you should have also cried for Ms Clinton, then, 2 months ago:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clinton-copies-barack-obamas.html
Trivia: which Presidential candidate had this resume?:
(a) 8 years in Illinois legislature
(b) 1 failed attempt for Congressional seat
(c) Represented Illinois in Congress for 2 years
(d) Then ran for President
(e) Was very popular, especially among African-Americans
Answer: Obama,...
and Abraham Lincoln.
Sylvia, you're kidding, right?
"He's even claiming that Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech. Perhaps Mr. Patrick did."
Not "perhaps". He did.
In this link http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/19/america/camp.phpp), Patrick defends Obama from many of the hysterical, over the top assertions from people like you. In fact, here are the first two pargraphs:
"A top ally of Senator Barack Obama, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, defended the Illinois senator Tuesday against charges that he had plagiarized a speech from Patrick himself.
"Asked on ABC about Obama's use of phrases almost identical to those Patrick used during his 2006 campaign, in a speech championing the power of inspirational words, Patrick laughed. "It's an elaborate charge and kind of an extravagant one," he said. "It's not like he's writing a law review article or a book or something like that."
So Ms. Welsh, this is not the big deal you're making it out to be.
I would love to know your thoughts on phrases Hillary "plagiarized" from Barack Obama http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-clintons-languge//), and ones she "plagiarized from Jimmy Carter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-wolfson-plagiarism-at_b_87209.htmll), and stuff she "plagiarized from her husband http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/plagiarism-clinton-bor_n_87361.htmll).
And guess what? A former Clinton speechwriter smacks down Hillary (and surrogates like you) in a blog post http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/18/former-clinton-speechwriter-weighs-in-on-plagiarism-gate-08.aspxx) for trying to say this is plagiarism.
Hillary is desperate and there isn't any bit of blogging you can do to delay the inevitable: the impending presidency of Barack Obama.
After the fact that he got caught. So if no one caught Saint Obama Plagiarism, then I doubt they will admit it. Oh well politics as usual.
Well done, SeanGardner.
Indeed, well done. It is amazing to me that the Clintonites are so desperate to say her failing and flawed candidacy that they are willing to grab onto anything, no matter how thin, to try to keep Obama from stealing away their inevitability, it really I'd getting sad and ugly.
Come on. It's just a few words. No one will miss them. Come on. It was just a few votes. Who cares? Come on. You didn't really believe I write what I say? So it was someone else's lines. I wanted them so I took them. But didn't I say them real nice.
Oh Please. Aren't there more important things to discuss than something this trivial? This is really stretching it to find something negative about Obama. It makes Hillery look ridiculous and petty. Stop it now and get on with more relevant discussions please.
Yes, we should get back to important things like Hope and change.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
