Don't know.

But is it "plagiarism?"

How did kid oakland's diary disappear from the tip-top of the rec list when it had 60+ fresh recs?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/02/the-clinton-cam.html

Tapper asked the Clinton campaign about the same issue:

In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.

"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

Could explain why Massachusetts didn't swoon for Obama-they've heard it all before.

Yes.

As we have hashed out in my diary, this is plagiarism.

And, rather than making it "ok" because Axelrod is so close to both Obama and Patrick, I think it makes it worse since Obama is supposed to be above all those horrible consultants and old-style poll-tested, pre-packaged politicians.

Has it come to this?  Sheesh.  Things are getting pretty desperate in a certain campaign strategy room, methinks.

From Governor Patrick:

"Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before."

Who hasn't used the same phrasing or terminology as the people you surround yourself with?  Friends and colleagues do this all the time.  I've certainly seen more than one progressive blogger do it over the years...

Well, it's all over the news tonight. My husband started laughing at Obama.

No it isn't

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/02/18/former-clinton-speec hwriter-weighs-in-on-plagiarism-gate-08. aspx

you mean to tell me that Obama is like Munudo? (sp?)  :)

No wonder he sucks in debates. He is a great speech giver but if all he is doing is spitting up what others wrote with no real conviction to those words, then... oh man... oh god... what do we do now.

You know so much more about Deval's inner thoughts than he does, after all.

Anything you can do to stop the parade of people saying - and repeating - OBAMA'S A PLAGIARIZING PHONY!

"End of discussion" - OMG - TOO FUNNY!

Well, I think that's pretty much the point. Obama's really not an original or "transformational" candidate after all. If he was, he wouldn't need to "borrow" the lines from someone else.

Nice improvement on the original model, Axelrod. The guy sure can make a business out of producing these Change/Hope drones by the looks of it. I'd love to see how much of that Inspiration Money is finding its way into Axelrod's personal coffers.

Is it plagiarism? I don't know if I'd go that far. What it is is evidence of what many Dems like myself who haven't joined the cult have been saying: can anyone say phony?

So...the fact that sometimes Obama doesn't plagiarize Patrick but quotes him correctly is somehow proof that he didn't plagiarize him here, when he didn't acknowledge he was taking his words?

Sorry, but that doesn't track at all...

It's a pattern with Obama. A line or two from Alice Walker's writings, a chunk of inspirational talk (invoking MLK and JFK in one swoop!), bits and specifics from other candidate's policy statements.  

If you're selling yourself as an inspirational figure, it's really bad to let your followers see behind that curtain. Your rhetoric had better be authentic. I wonder why people don't just write in Axelrod's name on the ballot, or any speechwriter for that matter.

showing that Patrick and Obama were always trading speech material. This is an article from APRIL of 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/18 /obama-patrick-collaborat_n_87236.html

...I've got to admit, Hillary Clinton deserves better supporters.

"Sounds like a marketing scheme"

Sounds like desperate flailing from incompetent hacks, whose daydream of supporting a candidate who was supposed to be a slam dunk is in danger of being run off the court by a smarter, more enthusiastic, better organized team. And the sales point was supposed to be "experience," which now appears to mean "stuck in ruts so deep, you can't see over the edges."

Obama told CNN that this is "no big deal", so it must be No Big Deal. End of Story. HE has spoken.

You expect the media to run with this?
I don't.

I cannot believe how lame this is!!!

Hillary R. Clinton is in the shark tank, she can't jump it. This is the most lame and embarrassing thing a major democratic party  candidate has said, ever.

Shockingly lame and asinine.

I was appalled when I saw HRC had said it, but to repeat it, making yourself look ....

This is sad.

For god's sake Jerome have you no shame at all?

Plagiarism!!!! WTF

Wow, Jerome, this is truly desperate and pathetic.  Almost as pathetic as censoring a diary because it directly rebutted your silly claims about Obama campaigning in Florida.  over 60 recommends and you remove it altogether?   Some have suggested that you are losing credibility.  I contend it is already lost.

I heard Hillary say in a speech the other day  that she was fired up and ready to go......seems as if I have heard that slogan before......

The New Republic blog provides a link from December when Obama said this in New Hampshire:

"But you know in the end, don't vote your fears. I'm stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it's the right one, don't vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/12/obama-scoffs-th.html

Pretty clear that the two trade lines all the time.  Is that plagiarism?  Maybe if you're Hillary, down in the polls, and your back is against the wall.

As usual, CNN is all over a non story.  Bring back the missing white girl stories.  They at least made CNN look current if not at least a little legitimate.

Edwards: "Real Solutions For America"
Clinton: "Solutions For America"

Obama: "Yes We Can"
Clinton: "Yes We Will"
Italian Mayor running for PM: "Yes We Can"

As for that segment of the speech, it's a nice riff he borrowed from Patrick, which came to him mid-speech (as it wasn't in his notes.)   He's credited other lines shared with Patrick and simply failed to do so this time.  There's just very little of concern here.

Obviously not plagiarism.

Yes, it's Axelrod.  Worse than plagiarism.  Cause this proves, nothing is authentic about Obama.  Cut and paste candidate.  I guess appropriate for the "creative class".  

I love watching Obama supporters making excuses for this one.  You guys are just a laugh a minute.  Only problem, you are effing up our chances of leading the country with a Democratic party agenda.  

Thanks netroots, thanks Dean, thanks Donna.  

I didn't realize that a LINE OF REBUTTAL instantly becomes trademarked once it is offered.

Surely we can agree that the citing of King's words and a line from our constitution isn't plagiarism. The real 'case' for plagiarism rests with the only portion unique to Patrick's rebuttal - 'Just words?'

Those two words are what has Jerome manties in a bunch? Fine. Enjoy being perpetually inflamed.

p.s: It wouldn't surprise me if the Obama camp find video of Kerry Healy (Patrick's opponent) making the exact same argument as Clinton is.

The Clinton spin team are willing to destroy ANYONE that gets in their way. For a candidate to talk about solutions and then waste our time by attacking Obama from using the words of his own supporter with permission, is silly.

Another manufactured controversy by a desperate campaign. Throw enough mud, hope some of it sticks, that's their idea. And if it damages the next Dem nominee? Who cares.

It's plagarism if you don't credit the source and try to pass it off as your own.

In that speech in WI Obama did not credit Deval and he tried to pass it off as his own and original until he got caught.

This is no different than Biden and should havethe same outcome...but it won't. it may, however, still have a negative affect. We won't know until tomorrow.

Two more down tomorrow, then Texas - then its over. Obama won't be stopped. The time for HRC to stop him was Maine, Wisconsin or Virginia. It's too late now.

Jerome - Your scorched earth policy with regards to Obama is bad business. Unbelievably shortsighted.

I respect this blog, but this is probably the single most ridiculous post I have seen on mydd.

Websters definition of plagiarism is "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

If Obama was authorized by Patrick to use it, its definitely not plagiarism.  Even if he wasn't, he basically restated historical quotes and added "just words?" at the end.  Give me a break...

The Clinton campaign must be desperate if this is the only straw they have left to grasp.

So let me get this straight, Obama and someone else talk for years about ideas, messages, and rhetoric, and then they use those ideas, then it is plagiarism of themselves?

This is what you are left trying to hang your hat on?

He is running as the authentic candidate of change. Yet, in this case, the words he says are not his own  but recycled from another politician. It goes to the heart of his campaign. I'm sure the press will give a pass if they had caught Hillary Clinton doing this.

..for all those people who keep saying that Deval authorized Obama to use the line:

1) That is irrelevant to charges of plagiarism.  Plagiarized work is often stolen of course, but fundamentally it is about using another's work and not giving them credit.

2) At this point it is impossible to ascertain whether or not they consulted about it in advance.  Patrick has endorsed Obama and anything less than saying he had given it to Obama in advance would cause tremendous embarrassment to Obama.  The fact he said he gave it is neither newsworthy nor a refutation:

3) It does nothing to refute the biggest issue here:  a candidate whose entire campaign is founded on his inspiring words and his rhetorical leadership has been shown to regurgitate lines from his top adviser and those in his adviser's circle.  I believe it goes to the heart of why Obama says he is qualified and why so many of his supporters blieve in him.

Right, because two friends never AGREE on anything, or phrase their rebuttals to a particular line of attack similarly, right?

Hillary is criticizing him for being just about words.  How is inauthentic to quote a bunch of famous phrases throughout his country's history to demonstrate that words CAN be powerful?  It's the most obvious rebuttal possible, and it's no surprise that two friends would both use it.

This really, really smacks of desperation.  Can we focus on the issues please, rather than these baseless personal attacks?

This seems extremely petty to me, but then again it seems that is the direction politics has been headed for quite some time. The fact that it was put on the front page is somewhat odd.

I think some of the most telling and insightful responses to this scandal have been from Bay Staters  who talk about how Patrick has not been able to deliver on any of his campaign promises or restore 'hope.'

That is my major concern about Obama --- he won't deliver, he will govern from the center, and we will squander a historic moment to advance the progressive agenda.

That is also why this incident is so concerning to me -- not just the plagiarism but the prospect of how Obama might play out closely to Patrick.  The more Axelrod fingerprints I see the more I become certain Obama will be a huge step back for our party and our political position.

On top of that, it makes me really worreid and sad to think about the millions of people looking to Obama for hope who will feel shut out and disappointed if he turns out to be the bungling centrist I fear he will govern as.

Yep, if it looks like it, sounds like. How original. Obama's entire campaign is redux of Deval Patrick "meets up" with Howard Dean.

It is not plagiarism... if he had prior permission like he says he did.

It is downright unethical, however...not sure what the appropriate word that could describe it.

JEROME - THIS USED TO BE A RESPECTED BLOG

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? YOU ARE LOSING IT

Only if you don't know the definition of the word. Guess you don't.

Does he need to start crediting his speechwriter for everything that he says too?  This is beyond lame.

If Hillary ends up winning the nomination, she's going to lose a lot of votes to crap like this.  Thankfully, Obama's staying above the fray, at least so far.

Hillary supporters should try to lose with some dignity. This is embarassing stuff from a once respectable blog. Another day, another half-assed attack.

all i've got from all these posts is that Obama plagiarized Patrick, Patrick plagiarized Obama and Team Hillary is plagiarizing the approach the GOP took to knock off Patrick.

yes, it is plagiarism. and it does matter because Obama pretending (until recently) that these words are his, basically showing problems with his character. But we all already know that he has many problems.

Hmmmm, no, it doesn't look like it is plagiarism. But maybe the entire facts behind the story are wrong, made up, one big lie, as they were on the Florida ad spend earlier today, no?

The day before a big primary and the Clinton camp is pushing some bullshit non-story?

I'm shocked, shocked at this stunning development.

You're a cheap hack, Jerome.

Lou Dobbs is covering this right now, and casting Obama in an unfavorable light. Isn't his target audience supposed to be political independents?

It's not the same as the Biden situation because it was a) a whole speech, b) done without permission and c) taken from someone who was not his associate with whom he talked about the ideas.

Why does this get so heated from the Obama suppoters?

What would St. Barry have to do to turn you guys off?

Every time it really is the same, it doesn't matter who the messenger is, if they have anything bad to say about Obama, then they must be a stupid, evil, corrupt, horrible person.

Can't we debate the merits and not whether we are idiots, shills, or hacks?

those lines as "said by".  This is a major stumble in my view.  After all, speeches aren't the blogs!

I will say once again what I said earlier: If there is any fairness in the world, Obama's presidential campaign will be finished over his stealing from Deval Patrick's speech. Joe Biden got trashed for borrowing only a few lines from John Kinnock (sp??) the British labor leader for which Kinnock did not have any objections. May be the lazy beltway reporters will now do their job and actually find out what else Obama has been borrowing/stealing in his rhetoric. BTW, Biden and Kinnock were also very close philosophically and may be they even spoke on occasions. Also from a news-story today:

"But memories of another rhetorically-powerful candidate, Joe Biden, getting in trouble for using parts of a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock in the run-up to the 1988 Democratic presidential race, linger. Biden actually got knocked out of the 1988 race on something of an unfair rap -- he usually credited Kinnock but got taped one time when he failed to do so. But all anyone remembers is that the senator from Delaware was charged with stealing a speech."

The Biden incident is no different from what Obama did this Saturday. So fairness demands that he should face the same outcome... no? An mind you it is not just republicans who trashed Biden on this. In fact when Biden entered the race this cycle there were poeple including many Obama supporters on another blog who were recycling this incident to say why Biden is not qualified because of this incident. So in all fairness the media must go after Obama over this.

I see that Kid Oakland's diary setting the record straight has disappeared.  Given that it has been removed, Jerome, are you going to issue an apology or a retraction to your previous diary?

Permission is irrelevant to charges of plagiarism?

That's what passes for wisdome around here?

yuck. Is this really all the anti-Obama people have? If so, the nomination is over. Who do you like in 2012?

The Obama supporters just don't get it. Obama is no different than any other candidate running for President. He demonstrates all the characteristics and behaviors he passionately disapproves of in others. It's time to look beyond the rhetoric. Rhetoric isn't going to fix George W. Bush's mess.

To me, plagiarism has always been its own special kind of wrong because appropriating/stealing another's ideas go to taking identity and making it your own.  But, thats philosophical.  Would I call this plagiarism? No...because of the apparent mutual agreement with Deval Patrick in the interchange.  But, would I question whether this type of approach undermines Barack Obama's claims to be visionary, unique, and otherwise inspriring.  YES--you betcha.  The obvious problem here is that it goes to the heart of his campaign, of his image.  He is presented as honest, bold, new-thinking, forthright, etc.  When you take another's words as your own in major speeches, it does take away from that persona.  More importantly, when the inspirational speaker concept is central to your theme, it hurts.  If not now, then later.  And, it will be used later.  Finally:  Tho none of us really can get outside the "now" of the campaign, it seems to presage something.  Who is this guy? What we want to believe? Or something else?

So basically Obama said "words matter" and "here are some examples of times when words mattered from well-known American history."  His friend and supporter Deval Patrick said the same thing before, and Obama borrowed his phrasing of this groundbreaking line of argument.  Aha!  Gotcha!

really, the Clinton campaign just makes me sad.

Hey, congrats Hillary partisans, you got Lou Dobbs on your side. Any more manufactured controversies you wish to highlight?

As a former teacher of English language and literature, creative writing and drama, if one of my students did that he would earn an F. Even if someone gave him permission IF he did not attribute the words to the author it is plagiarism.

Sen. Obama is better of offering a mea culpa rather than offering excuses. The media likes him enough to give him a pass again.

I don't see why this is worthy of focus, but if it works for Hillary, it justifies iteslf... I guess.  I mean, that's the game we're playing here, right?

I have to admit though, Jerome, your line about the Obama "marketing scheme" line cut me a little deep, and I consider myself a less frenzied than average Obama supporter.  

Encouraging folks to determine their own futures as made possible by democracy... a marketing scheme?  That's some pretty hefty and broadly aimed cynicism from an author of a book about "people-powered politics".

Just sayin'.

Bring it on Clintonites - you are doing Obama a BIG favor. You can believe every statement Clinton has ever made is now being poured over -There will be a YouTube version up and running by tomorrow. The comparison will be laughable.

Obama will emerge winner of two more primaries tomorrow night. Clinton will be left with more egg of her face and come March 5th this will be over.

The sad part is that in the meantime I have lost all respect for Jerome. I thought he was someone to be respected - alas - he's just very angry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweVOO-fh ug

Seeing as Obama is running for President and not turning in a college term paper, I think whatever tools he (or Hillary) can use to unite Americans and defeat the Republicans - so be it. I think this is petty.

Should we consider Hillary's triangulation and centrism plagiarism for `borrowing' Republican ideas? Is her corporatism plagiarism for `borrowing' ideas from big business?

I think Hillary and the Democrats should be far more concerned with polls showing that she will decidedly lose to McCain as more of an issue to address with voters than nitpicking Obama's words.

of thought as to why Clinton won so overwhelmingly in MA despite the fact that the Gov., the state's 2 Senators, and a built-in grassroots organization left over from Deval Patrick's campaign in which Patrick won by 20 points came out for Obama.

I can't help but think that we had heard Obama's rhetoric before( by our Gov. during his race) and then seen the result: nothing much changed.

Many people from MA saw an "inexperienced" person get elected and then get rolled by entrenchd powers on Beacon Hill.

We like Deval, but maybe the voters in MA weren't willing to give that "inexperince" a chance with a different, higher, office.

Unless someone studies the reason behind the Clinton win I can't give a better answer: the rhetoric is nice but results matter when push comes to shove.

Plagiarism or no, I don't care that much.  But Patrick isn't much of a governor in spite of the nice words that Obama lifted.  This leads me to believe that both of them are full of hot air, and Obama would make no better a president than Patrick makes a governor.

I'm not saying they're bad; they're Democrats, after all, and I'm a Democrat.  But we can do better than Obama for president.

I'm not sure where I stand on this plagiarism issue,but I think that this a bad news cycle for Obama and could affect Wisconsin.  I'm sure he wishes he would've agreed to that debate now.

Taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ the-wolfson-plagiarism-at_b_87209.html

Here's a major problem for Senator Clinton's campaign if her staff and surrogates really want to engage in this so-called "plagiarism" debate. At the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Senator Clinton employed what's called "anaphora" -- a common technique of repeating a word or phrase for emphasis in a speech:

   I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies...

   I see an America where we say that 47 million people uninsured...

   I see an America where we have schools worthy...

   I see an America where college is affordable again...

And so forth. It was a seriously awesome section of her Jefferson-Jackson speech. It's a shame that (again, as long as the gloves are off and there has to be this ridiculous "plagiarism" debate) she lifted the "I see an America" anaphora from other politicians, including then-Governor Jimmy Carter. June, 1976:

   I see an America poised not only at the brink of a new century, but at the dawn of a new era of honest, compassionate, responsive government.

   I see an America with a tax system that does not steal from the poor and give to the rich.

   I see an America with a job for every man and woman who can work, and a decent standard of living for those who cannot.

   I see an America in which my child and your child and every child receives an education second to none in the world.

   I see an America in which Martin Luther King's dream is our national dream.

   I see an America on the move again, united, its wounds healed, its head high, a diverse and vital nation, moving into its third century with confidence and competence and compassion, an America that lives up to the majesty of its Constitution and the simple decency of its people.

You are not doing yourself credit.

Everyone knows you are for Hillary, no sin to be an advocate, I'm for Obama.

But you are pimping for her. It sucks, man.

If you really believe in Hillary (I don't), you would not being pulling this crap.

The more you guys get in the sewer, I guarantee you, the more anti-Hillary Dems in the general will become.

I have gone back and forth on this one, but I will not vote for Hillary, ever.

Given all the real issues, there is no reason to make a big deal out of this.

Given all the real issues, there is no reason to make a big deal out of this.

Obama was trying to prove a point that running for President or enlisting support for any movement requires speaches and rhetoric. Clearly, Hillary would be happier if he'd stop giving speaches, he'd be much eaiser to beat that way.  Simply going through famous lines that moved people and pointing out they could have been written off as "all talk" to is a fair point to anyone it is accused of, not just the first person who thought of it.

If this kind of bogus plagiarism stuff is the best the Hillary supporters can do, then the race is over.  Pathetic.

If this kind of bogus plagiarism stuff is the best the Hillary supporters can do, then the race is over.  Pathetic.

old news . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602401. html?sub=AR And get back to me about copyright ownership of campaign stump speech phrases. NOTE: if you are dubious: the link is to an old article on how ALL of the candidates borrosw from one another.

....than if Clinton did it. As a Clinton supporter I cannot go back and say Hillary never lifted something similar from another politician. So far, nothing convincing or nearly as damning has been shown. Maybe it is out there, maybe it isn't. However, I think there is a critical difference between Clinton doing something like this and Obama doing it. Clinton's argument for why she should be president is not premised on her ability as a word smith. It is premised on her ability to work through the nitty-gritty Washington process and advance the progressive agenda, etc, etc. Obama's candidacy is premised on his ability to use words to empower and unite. I don't mean that to deride him. I think it is a powerful argument. For me, this is similar to Clinton's war support. I was a strong anti-war advocate. I thought going into this election that support for the Iraq war would disqualify any candidate for me to support. However, as the campaign progressed I was continually impressed by Clinton. I came to see what a comprehensive approach she had and how many layers she had as a person. Coming from someone who said I would never, ever support her a year ago, I am not a strong supporter. War was not fatal in the end for my support because of her depth. I think the same thing is the case here. This is an issue specifically for Obama because of his argument for why he should be president. Of course, it adds a layer of irony that he was caught plagiarizing an argument about why words matter. Well, I happen to agree. Words matter and can have a powerful influence. That is true for both their use and misuse.

Jesus you're a hack.

Disgraceful.

Did you call him on the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" that he lifted from Maria Shriver?

Typical Clinton shilling.  Are you at least paid?

Actually for me, the issue is not so much plagiarism as it is a rare glimpse through the window at the Obama word & image factory. Turns out he is not this  spontaneous, original deep thinker his handlers like to promote. His words are prefabricated, and in this case lifted wholesale from a prior speech by Deval Patrick, with whom he happens to share the same svengali campaign consultant named David Axelrod. It has the smell of trickery about it, the lack of care for meaning as long as it all sounds good.

What is happening is that our fresh faced smiley Obama is, well, beginning to look a little stale around the edges. Having ground down Hillary, there are no more MSM stories left, save the ultimate "Hillary Drops Out" one, which may of course never happen. In the meantime, Obama needs some new tricks otherwise the media will get bored and then have to cover Obama behind-the-scenes, which may well have begun, as this story makes the rounds.

::yawn::

The Karl Rove strategy seems to be yielding results.  Attack your opponent's strengths.

I love that this isn't even on Kos.

If this was Clinton they would crash the site piling on.

"Is this plagiarism?" Well that would depend on what the meaning of "is" is.

Wow, where to start with this whole discussion. As the posters above rightly pointed out, we have clear examples of Clinton borrowing slogans from John Edwards, video of her saying that she is "fired up and ready to go" and generally doing what candidates do which is try to appropriate the "hot" themes that are connecting with the voters. While I don't know the specifics of the Deval Patrick/ Barack Obama relationship I do know that each of them was challenged by a rival with not being substantive and being all "hot air" as it were. Obviously they share David Axelrod and he has helped both of them frame their messages. While I would prefer that Obama say something like "as my friend Deval Patrick said" I don't think you can make a Biden/Kinnock sort of situation out of this. They are clearly close as politicians, they have both faced similar criticisms and they have shared their experiences with each other. To the best of my knowledge there was no personal connection between Biden and Kinnock, no reason why they would have easily shared ideas and themes. But what really burns me up is that on the most basic level Clinton has been trying to usurp the change message from the moment that Iowa voted. Bill Clinton has been telling every audience that his wife is a "first class change agent", the HRC campaign has trotted out any number of campaign themes ("READY FOR CHANGE, READY TO LEAD") and they have generally tried to sap every moment of political transcendence that Obama has created. Because no matter if Barack Obama borrowed a turn of phrase from a like-minded, politically aligned governor, the message that he is bringing to the campaign trail day after day is way more powerful than what Clinton is selling, and way more popular to boot. I really wonder if this is the way that Hilary wants to be remembered in the history books, as the candidate that was against hope, against people powered politics, against a change in governmental style and substance that is so needed right now. I hope that is not how she wants to play it from here on out because not only will she lose this battle, but she will permanently stain her own legacy.

http://www.devalpatrickwatch.com/index.p hp

What was it T.S. Eliot said?

"Good poets borrow. Great poets steal."

Obama is either a great poet or knows how to hire one.

Sure beats the hell out of endlessly chanting "experience," "solutions," "experience," "solutions," and indulging in the functional equivalent of witchcraft accusations to ward off unanticipated threats.

"Cult of Clinton" anyone?

I'm skeptical that's the way it played out. It seems much more likely that David Axelrod, who is the message guru behind both campaigns, got sloppy with the text he wrote for Obama.

Jerome, based on nothing more than than his skepticism, has just accused both Governor Patrick and Senator Obama of lying.

At what point does a formerly respected blogger cross the line to become a joke? This certainly comes about as close as it comes.

...and Prey tell, what lofty position would Clinton supporters reserve for Mark Penn?

There is clearly some panic setting in a certain campaign....hmmm,,,why?

WI http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

TX
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

OH
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
1 out of three for Clinton?
Does anyone believe Clinton/Penn back in say last Feb...Last July...Last Nov did not think this would be over by 2/5?
The Obama Campaign has proven it has what it takes. At least there should be some acknowledgment of this. I am glad the petty crap is surfacing now..as it will certainly surface as polls show Obama kicking McMcain's ass.

I do have one last question...who is HRC's chief speech writer?

Imagine, after months of having crowds scream wildly the instant he opens your mouth; months of having the media talk endlessly about his inspirational speechs .... we find out that Obama is just another version of Deval Patrick.

The issue isn't whether it's plagiarism.  The issue is the letdown.  

should read "the instant he opens HIS mouth"

was not to blame or even someone else in his campaign.  He personally took responsibility for what he said.  I appreciate that after 8 years of an administration who are never responsible for anything.

But what I really think is the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

plagiarism

1.the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Jerome,

Do you think you would have been equally critical if Clinton had borrowed an equally long and distinctive passage from her supporters, and then said she;d done it by permission?

don't be lame Jerome.

How about some posts talking how lame McCain is, instead of your one man war against Obama.

I've gone from being a regular here, to only checking in to see what Jonathan and Todd are up to, and what ridiculous Clinton talking point or Obama hit piece you dream up.

It's pretty bad dude, you're going way over the realm of advocacy, into the type of writing that I blow past on ANY blog.

You know, after reading all this (and I know, I need to stay away for a bit) I feel like I never want to vote again, ever, for anyone, for anything.  Arrrgh.

lame and desperate

Since when does quoting the opinion of a pro-Obama hack constitute a rebuttal?

Are you freaking kidding me?  Seriously?

What a sad, sad, thing for the Clinton camp to push on the media.

Though it does once again reassure me belief that Senator Obama is the right choice, and Senator Clinton is old news.

What a joke.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html

Really?  This is the first time in your adult life you have been proud of your country?
Really?  So it's ok for people to say terrible things about a woman you said you admired?  Oh, that's right- it was BEFORE Barack was in the US Senate and you needed her help to get there.

oh yeah- and all that war talk- well that was just talk- words strung together.

Obama and the Carlyle executives

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

From Websters:

pla·gia·rism     Pronunciation[pley-juh-riz-uhm] noun
1.    the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Please.  If this is what HRC is going to focus on then she and her supporters are lost.  

I went to the event tonight, to hear her...to give her the respect she deserves and to give her a chance to win me back.  

For starters, the room was cordoned off to give the appearence of it being "past capacity".  She squeezed about 3000 people into a space that could have fit 4 times that number.

Secondly, there was not that much excitement in the air. The crowd was well...subdued.  We actually got numerous reminders from staff walking around to "whoop it up"...especially when the cameras came on, to create the appearence of unbridled exictement.

Thirdly, her speech was like a batter taking a mighty chop at a fastball and whiffing.  I'll give her credit for swinging for the fences, but her message was convoluted as she was clearly attempting a more populistdelivery in attempt to appear more like her rival.

It wasn't a TERRIBLE night for her.  She had some of the 2nd tier Wisconsin players with her...though Tammy Baldwin is an A-lister!

Bit here;s the thing...I attended Obama's Madison event as well, and if you look at my critique of this event...you'll notice as I have just done...that the word "appearences" figures largely.

Where HRC's campaign has been and still is about appearences (appearing inevitable, appearing to be the incumbant, appearing to be a change agent, appearing to be an orator, etc.), her rival's campaign is about inspiration and leadership.

One thing to note on the PLUS side for the HRC supporters:  Take Heart Hillraisers!

A local conservative radio show host, Viki McKenna, has told her sizable local audience that she and her producer are going to go vote for Hillary and is encouraging others to do so as well.

Wisconsin is an OPEN primary, meaning that the independents and GOP can vote in the Democratic race AT WILL.  Given the fact that it is well-known that Hillary will be the preferred candidate for the right to run against, and given the further fact that the Wiscosnin race is rather tight... this could be trouble.

We Barack supporters out there must reach more new voters and get them in the voting booths than Viki and her ilk can mobilize.  The right knows what Obama's supporters know...that is that he is (regardless of race or gender) the strongest general election candidate.

This has me spooked.

I went to the event tonight, to hear her...to give her the respect she deserves and to give her a chance to win me back.  

We Barack supporters out there must reach more new voters and get them in the voting booths than Viki and her ilk can mobilize.  The right knows what Obama's supporters know...that is that he is (regardless of race or gender) the strongest general election candidate.

A little contradiction there...aye?

Tammy Baldwin is the reason Madison is a vital voting block for progressives.  She helped build that machine.

More bread and circuses from the Clinton campaign.  I guess this is better than talking about that pesky Iraq vote.

<and a tear for a once great blog>

I'm a loyal MyDD reader and while I am now supporting Obama, I have had my doubts about him in the past.

However I really have to say that the recent constant anti-Obama diatribes from Jerome are starting to cross a line for me and I'm sure for other members of the community, irrespective of who they support. You clearly have a disdain for the man that is frankly inexplicable to most of us.

Express your opinions of course, but please let's have a little more objectivity in the postings on this blog!

No.

Both Clinton and McCain have used the phrase "Fired Up, Ready to Go!" in speeches.  Whether Obama truly owns this phrase is debatable, but he was the first to utter it as a political figure.  

Is this borrowing of phrase from Deval Patrick  attack all the Clinton campaign has?  The "October surprise"/rather Wisconsin eve primary surprise?  

Go Home Hillary-you're ruining the party.  

I agree-I think the anti-Obama comments on this website are counter productive-please rally around him as the nominee, people.  He will have won more half of the states by the end of the day tomorrow and will have more delegates than Clinton.  For him to win more states and delegates and not become the nominee would be an outright theft by the superdelegates, in my opinion.

There's really no point in trying to stop his momentum now, it just makes the party look divided and a weakened party is not what we need right now going into what could be a very difficult general election.  McCain is going to be very difficult to beat-a near impossibility if Clinton is the nominee and a possibility if Obama is the nominee.

Jeeezuz Frikkin Chrysler.
Argue about whatever.
Make your accusations.
Follow with a link. Prove your points. Great.
But if you would vote for McCain over Hillary if she miraculously wins the nomination , then you aren't a supporter of Obama's policies .
You are a populist douchebag who the progressive movement doesn't need.
Yes, the Ad Hom is absolutely neccessary in your case.

Jeeezuz Frikkin Chrysler.
Argue about whatever.
Make your accusations.
Follow with a link. Prove your points. Great.
But if you would vote for McCain over Hillary if she miraculously wins the nomination , then you aren't a supporter of Obama's policies .
You are a populist douchebag who the progressive movement doesn't need.
Yes, the Ad Hom is absolutely neccessary in your case.

Originally I did not pay attention to "War of Words" , but just a minute ago saw on TV Hillary said extremely valuable argument:
"if YOUR campaign based on words, they better will be YOUR WORDS". Well said, because it underscores that Obama has nothing: even words are not his!

This is not plagiarism in any serious way.

I suppose he was supposed to cite Jefferson, FDR, and Lincoln in his speech too.

And maybe add in the webster dictionary.

I saw the news segment that ABC did on this last night.  It was devastating to Senator Clinton.  It made her look desperate- especially when it showed her using lines from both Obama and John Edwards.