What Are Words For?

February 18, 2008 12:06 PM

Obama accused of plagarism. Clinton aide Howard Wolfson claims Barack Obama plagarized a speech by Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA). If they do seem similar, it could be because they were likely written by the same person, political consultant David Axelrod, a man who gets around.
posted by timsteil (299 comments total)

From here:

'UPDATE: The Obama campaign has issued a statement from Gov. 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. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."'
posted by chasing at 12:12 PM on February 18

I'm as much of an anti-plagiarist as anyone, but if both speeches were written by the same speechwriter, he's the one who should be culpable. Another ridiculous tactic by an increasingly desperate and Republican-Lite Clinton campaign.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:12 PM on February 18 [8 favorites]

Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that he doesn't think it's a big deal that he borrowed lines from his friend Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, although he probably should have given him credit. From Boston.com

I doubt he wrote the speech anyway. Although he's taking credit, apologizing. The real blame probably goes to some staffer.
posted by jeblis at 12:12 PM on February 18

Why does nobody mention that the speech also plagiarizes Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and John F. Kennedy?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:16 PM on February 18 [13 favorites]

From an academic standpoint, cites and attributions are handled very strictly. In the past, I've had to cite my own prior work if I want to reuse something in a future piece. Obviously I can't plagiarize myself in the accepted sense of the word, but clearly academic holds itself to a higher standard.

That said, I don't think stump speeches need to be accompanied by a page of footnotes handed out to every member of the audience. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Obama needs to insert the verbal equivalent of a superscript number at the end of each sentence. Patrick and Obama are supporters of one another and share staff. They're essentially on the same professional "team."

If we want to look at the strictest academic definition of plagiarism, then yeah, I suppose Obama goofed. But if what we're ultimately getting at is the man's state of mind and whether he is intellectually honest, I don't think you can use this incident as a mark against him.
posted by tsumo at 12:16 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

I follow politics pretty closely, but anyone else notice that pretty much nothing is going on in the Dem race at this point. The Clinton campaign is pretty far behind at this point. She could win, but it's unlikely.

But really, pretty much nothing interesting is happening.
posted by delmoi at 12:17 PM on February 18

From an academic standpoint, cites and attributions are handled very strictly. In the past, I've had to cite my own prior work if I want to reuse something in a future piece. Obviously I can't plagiarize myself in the accepted sense of the word, but clearly academic holds itself to a higher standard.

Right, but you also couldn't hire your own "paper-writers" to do your work for you. Given the fact that both candidates use professional speech writers, it seems kind of silly for one to attack the other for plagiarism.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on February 18

This is the key passage from a NY Times story on the controversy:

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

Deval Patrick shared language used in his speeches with Obama's speechwriters. He wanted Obama to use his words. He doesn't think Obama should give him credit. Please tell me where I can find the scandal here, because I'm just not seeing it.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:20 PM on February 18 [18 favorites]

This seems like a non-issue in a contentious primary campaign. Hardly surprising. Hopefully it won't get too far out of hand but sometimes the stupidest things do.

I mean, I had a lot of problems with Kerry as a candidate, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth thing was the most ridiculous drivel and hurt his campaign quite badly.
posted by Muttoneer at 12:21 PM on February 18

I agree that the Clintons must be getting desperate. I don't think this will work, but they may have a strategy to keep chipping away at Obama's reputation up until Texas/Ohio.
posted by cell divide at 12:21 PM on February 18

I also read somewhere, and I cannot for the life of me find where it was, that the remarks in question were not in the text of the speech, but were ad-libbed by Obama at the time of the speech.

I don't know if that should make a difference.

Meh.
posted by kbanas at 12:22 PM on February 18

Will someone copy me? I just gave another $50 to Obama.
posted by paulinsanjuan at 12:24 PM on February 18 [8 favorites]

BREAKING... MCCAIN STEALS FROM 1992 MOVIE "STRAIGHT TALK"
posted by ALongDecember at 12:25 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

Clintonian flopsweat.
posted by boo_radley at 12:25 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

(I'm ashamed to admit that) I read the drudge report too...
posted by ob at 12:26 PM on February 18

The Clinton campaign is pretty far behind at this point. She could win, but it's unlikely.

She's playing games behind the scenes to get superdelegates to support her nomination, instead of the candidate supported by the popular vote.

If she steals the nomination through this process, I suspect many liberals will be reminded of the stolen 2000 election and its consequences, and there will be a major rift in the party. I hope the DNC has survival instincts and doesn't allow this to happen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:27 PM on February 18

An ABC TV personality reports:

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.

posted by ibmcginty at 12:27 PM on February 18

This post on MSNBC's FirstRead suggests that Obama delivered this speech off the cuff, without a teleprompter. It seems to be the same speech Wolfson is contesting since the post references the passage in question, but I think the fact that it was improvised is significant.

Obama's speech, which started slow, built up steam and brought the subdued crowd to its feet. The lack of a teleprompter appeared to help him, allowing him to riff on his own and return to parts of his stump speech that he hasn't really used since Iowa or New Hampshire.

Another post on FirstRead today is also of interest.

Clearly, the Clinton campaign is using Wisconsin as something of a test case of how effective negative attacks on Obama can be.

posted by putzface_dickman at 12:34 PM on February 18

but if both speeches were written by the same speechwriter, he's the one who should be culpable

How did I manage to post this and not work a Toby Ziegler reference in somehow.

/applies palm to forehead vigorously
posted by timsteil at 12:34 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

The attacks on Obama have not even started, the machine is waiting till he wins the primary. There's a few scandals in the works.
posted by stbalbach at 12:35 PM on February 18

This was bullshit when it was pulled on Biden and it's bullshit now. Since when is political rhetoric -- especially that of allies -- NOT something to spread around? Isn't that the WHOLE FUCKING POINT?

The Clinton campaign is pretty far behind at this point.

Current delegate counts show Obama with ever the slightest of leads. There's nothing to suggest she's "pretty far behind". The problem for Clinton was running largely on the strength of inevitabiility, and without a massive lead, that selling point is lost. Personally, I think the campaign has struggled to find a new rationale for her, although I have grown to like her more during the campaign than I did a year ago.
posted by dhartung at 12:36 PM on February 18

Grasp those straws, girl.
(and I'm allowed to refer to Hillary as a girl, since her own website does)
posted by ColdChef at 12:37 PM on February 18

Ooo, what a tactical error to have the accusation come from a known campaign mouthpiece rather than a concerned "independent" group. This has a good chance of backfiring badly against the Clinton campaign. Here's hoping, anyway.

On preview:

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.

Wolfson is starting to move into adorably incompetent territory here. You can almost see his big-footed puppy of a mind struggling: "Omigod what if she did this sometime in the past oh shit oh shit think think think oh I know I'll say it's different if we do it because because ah I'll think of something this will work this will totally totally work ok here we go..."

Rove he is not.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:37 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

delmoi says: But really, pretty much nothing interesting is happening.

I think that has a lot to do with our increased expectations and short attention spans. We have come to expect something extraordinary to happen every day, and some days we expect it every hour. I don't mean you specifically, but us. Me. Everyone. Give us breaking news.

It was only two weeks ago that people were asking whether Obama could catch up. Now he's the foregone conclusion. No news is good news, at least in this case and from my perspective. And this is no news.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 12:39 PM on February 18

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

Oh? This tempest in a teapot is about a serious policy discussion?
posted by grouse at 12:39 PM on February 18

I see your plagiarism scandal and raise you a Red-States-Don't-Matter fracas:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," Ferguson said. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."
posted by billysumday at 12:41 PM on February 18

J'accuse, Hillary!
posted by ColdChef at 12:43 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

But really, pretty much nothing interesting is happening.

Bingo. There's no reason for anyone to be talking horse race bullshit until the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio. Of course, that won't stop the TV heads from jabbering away constantly about trivial idiocy like this.

Oh, and anyone who says Hillary is "far behind" must be on another planet.
posted by mediareport at 12:45 PM on February 18

The attacks on Obama have not even started, the machine is waiting till he wins the primary. There's a few scandals in the works.

Yeah, like Rezko! All you Obamabots are in for a real roller-coaster! Just take a look at this article:

The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller.

Oh noes! He's honest and prudent!
posted by billysumday at 12:46 PM on February 18

Please tell me where I can find the scandal here, because I'm just not seeing it.

Stop reading all the complicated little words and just look at the nice, simple headlines, including the original FPP link name, the big news sites, the newspapers. "Obama accused of plagarism!"

Life is easier in sixty point type.
posted by rokusan at 12:47 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

I'm sure that this has nothing to do with making a half assed accusation just hours before the polls open in Wisconsin. The Clintonian sleaze is just so transparent and predictable. If Deval Patrick has given him permission to use it, it is a nonissue.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:50 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Clearly, the Clinton campaign is using Wisconsin as something of a test case of how effective negative attacks on Obama can be.

Gee, I hope that's not true because I suspect (and yes, this is getting to be a theme with me) that Wisconsin is going to go worse for Obama than people think. ARG has Hil up by 6 this morning, and ARG is insane, yes, but as an Obama supporter I am ready for a loss in Wisconsin and the subsequent spin from Mark Penn about how Hill cam from behind against impossible odds and and stopped the momentum etc. etc. etc.

I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is going to win Wisconsin so handily. He's never had a substantial lead there and it's not demographically a good state for him. I suspect it may be the beginning of the "firewall" and Hillary's expectation-setting machine is so much better than poor Barack's that he could get really crushed by even a small loss.

I'm a constant pessimist now, since no candidate I have become invested in has done well recently, so feel free to discount this, but mark this post and return to it Tuesday night. I hope there's a lot of "Ha, ha, Bellman! You were wrong -- what a nattering naybob of negativism you are, ya big jerk!" But I doubt it...
posted by The Bellman at 12:51 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Also, once again, I can neither type nor proofread. For "Hill cam" please read "Hil came". It's not some strange webcam aimed at a grassy knoll.
posted by The Bellman at 12:53 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Can't give you Toby, timsteil, but Sam will have to do:

"Good writers borrow from other writers. Great writers steal from them outright."

Funny, that's exactly what came to mind when I read this. On topic: it doesn't really bother me that two people who talk to each other use the same arguments. If Obama and Patrick are close and talk about politics this really seems like a non-issue to me.
posted by hue at 12:55 PM on February 18

Obama's chief speechwriter is Jon Favreau, a wee 26-year-old.
posted by HotPatatta at 12:55 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Sure, Deval Patrick might have given the OK-- but what about empath? What does he think about all this?
posted by ibmcginty at 12:56 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

The attacks on Obama have not even started, the machine is waiting till he wins the primary. There's a few scandals in the works.

Yeah, like Rezko! All you Obamabots are in for a real roller-coaster!...

History implies that what matters is not the commission of wrongdoing, but whether your political opponents can create the appearance (or even the false memory) of wrongdoing.
posted by Prospero at 12:57 PM on February 18

Perhaps that’s why the Clinton folks felt it was ok then to steal votes from the Obama people?
To be fair, I don’t see why Obama should get even one vote from people in Harlem, when, after all there were almost 80 districts where he didn’t get even one vote.
posted by HVAC Guerilla at 12:58 PM on February 18

Wisconsin is going to be strange because Republicans who hate Hillary may want to vote for her in the Primary so they can beat her in the general election (unless if people still don't think McCain has wrapped up the nomination).
posted by drezdn at 1:01 PM on February 18

I can't see this making much of a difference. Besides there being no "smoking gun," it seems that Obama's supporters are pretty damned resolute. In the past months, I haven't talked to a single person who was wavering in who to support in the Dem. primary.

My (admittedly anecdotal) experience has been :

Old-school (second-wave) feminists, their boyfriends/husbands : Hilary. The mood has been one of general annoyance.

Everyone else : Obama. The general mood has been one of excitement bordering on religious fervor. This would probably annoy me were I not an Obama supporter.

Also - has anybody else noticed that choice in primary candidate has been a bit viral? Very few social groups I've observed seem to be heterogeneous in their support.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:02 PM on February 18

This was news last April.
posted by Floydd at 1:03 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Prospero: I'll take Obama's Rezko connection over the myriad scandals of the Clintons and the numerous ones of McCain in any general election. People can't seem to believe that Obama might actually be a real, genuine, honest politician. His biggest concern should be that because people consider him so ethical, even the whiff of corruption could tarnish him. Compare that to the Clintons and the press' reluctance to go after the donors to the Clinton library and Hillary's refusal to show her tax returns. Everyone already considers them corrupt, so it takes something really huge to impress anybody whereas with Obama, if he comes out tomorrow and says "poop," his campaign is ruined. He walks the tightrope. But still, the guy is amazingly clean for a Presidential candidate.
posted by billysumday at 1:04 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

Life is easier in sixty point type.

<60pt Font>Bush Murdered!</60pt Font>

It's just not always accurate ;)
posted by quin at 1:06 PM on February 18

See also
posted by Tlogmer at 1:09 PM on February 18

Plaigiarism means the unauthorized use of another's words. Obama is authorised, therefore there's no plagiarism. Full stop.
posted by Malor at 1:13 PM on February 18 [9 favorites]

Yeah, I think it's about time that Obama is exposed as the fraud that he is.

(OK, I don't have much to back that up, but this thread can sure use some balance.)
posted by sour cream at 1:17 PM on February 18

"She's playing games behind the scenes to get superdelegates to support her nomination, instead of the candidate supported by the popular vote. If she steals the nomination through this process . . ."

I love the implicit prejudices in this post. Clinton is attempting to sway the votes of the superdelegates. This is a perfectly legitimate tactic in the Democratic selection process, but it's derided as "playing games." Then it's suggested that she will steal the nomination by winning it in a perfectly legitimate way, completely within the rules of the DNC. Exactly how does one steal something by following the rules?

The superdelegates are under no obligation to vote for anyone in particular. Nor are they under any obligation to vote according to any particular rule or system. They can vote for whomever they damn well please. Heck they could all vote for John Edwards. In doing so they would not be violating any oath or standard. They would not be betraying their constituencies (many superdelegates aren't even elected officials). They would simply be fulfilling their responsibilities and exercising their discretion in a way that is completely consistent with their role as it was created by the party.

Please, stop acting as if the courting of superdelegates is some heinous evil concocted as a Clintonian end run on the will of the masses.
posted by oddman at 1:17 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

God, what a stupid, pointless criticism. It's always been plain that the race for the Democratic nomination was between Clinton and Obama. In the beginning, I respected Clinton but chose Obama. As all these distracting little smear campaigns of theirs spin out, my choice isn't changing but my level of respect for Clinton is.

I've been getting really frustrated with their spurious claims, their belittling comments (Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too!) and their apparent strategy of bending and exploiting party rules to edge out the candidate who has excited the most actual voters. I asked my Dad if this is what it felt like being a Republican in the nineties. He laughed and said watching their maneuvers was giving him some deja vu, alright.

rokusan nails it - the Clintons are looking to manufacture a couple days worth of headlines and to force Obama to bring himself down a little to respond to their claims. In the end, it's the same play they were making in trying to distort his record on the war before the South Carolina vote. I hope this goes just as poorly for them. Their campaign tactics are only slightly less slimy than Rove's, and they've changed their campaign theme only slightly less often than Romney did. And the fact they're doing all of this so they might force the DNC to field a candidate certain to lose to John McCain is really baffling.
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:18 PM on February 18 [5 favorites]

This is obviously not scientific, but last week all things considered did a "man on the street" piece in Wisconsin about tomorrow's open primary. Here's how it went:

1 Clinton: Because Bill did a good job and the Republicans have screwed everything up.
1 Obama: Lifelong Republican who thinks Republicans have "messed this world up," and he won't vote for Hillary so that leaves Obama.
1 Obama: Republican, "I'm leaning towards the black boy... this is the biggest mess we've ever been in."
1 Obama: Democrat, "Well, i'm not going to vote for Mrs. Clinton, and I don't want another Republican."
1 Obama: But maybe clinton, "but if her husband is there he's going to want to run it too, and is that going to work?"
1 Clinton: "I don't know much about Obama... Hillary we've known for years."
1 Obama: Lifelong Republican. "I like what [Obama] has to say."

Maybe NPR just attracts (or is attracted to) a certain element, and geography undoubtedly has a lot to do with it. Still, I found it encouraging.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 1:19 PM on February 18

Everyone else : Obama. The general mood has been one of excitement bordering on religious fervor. This would probably annoy me were I not an Obama supporter.

Isn't it funny, Afroblanco. I'm a terrible misanthrope myself and if I weren't an Obama supporter GOD how I would hate all those smug little hipster fucks. As it is, though: Go smug little hipster fucks!
posted by The Bellman at 1:24 PM on February 18 [12 favorites]

And, billysumday, who cares about tax returns?

The US needs a leader who can fearlessly face the likes of Hugo Chavez. Or the president of Russia, whoever that is now. I.e. someone who knows how to fight dirty and who won't have second thoughts about using semi-legal measures, as long as they are in our best interest.

I mean, who would you rather send to mud wrestle Kim Jong Il and Ahmajinedad?
posted by sour cream at 1:24 PM on February 18

but what about empath?

I should be a speechwriter.

Here's his defense for this attack:

"First, my opponent has accused my of using lofty rhetoric instead having real solutions. Now she says my rhetoric isn't even my own!

Now, I want to be honest here. I've used some words that aren't my own before.

"Fired Up, Ready to Go?" I go that from a supporter down in South Carolina.

"Yes, We Can?" Got that from hispanic farm workers in the southwest.

"We're the ones we've been waiting for?" Got that from another supporter of mine, Alice Walker.

And my good friend Deval Patrick gave me some suggestions before my speech in Wisconsin. It's great stuff! I ran with it.

Now, I haven't used footnotes in my speeches, but you can ask all these folks and they'll tell you they gave me permission to use those lines. See one of the things I'll do as president is listen to people when they offer me advice. After 8 years of Bush and Cheney ignoring all their advisors and the rest of the world to follow their own agenda, don't you want a president that actually listens to the smart people around them, whether they're minority union members, or writers and campaign volunteers or governors of states.

I'm a smart guy, but I've know I don't have a monopoly on good ideas. So I want to hear them. And as president, I'll continue to listen to suggestions I get from everyone.


Something like that anyway..
posted by empath at 1:24 PM on February 18 [41 favorites]

Sleazy last minute attacks? Yup. That's another $50 off to the Obama campaign.
posted by R. Mutt at 1:25 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

I suspect this will be the Gennifer Flowers / Dean scream / Voted for bevore Voted against / I invented the Internet moment for Obama. The reality of the situation has nothing to do with how it gets filtered through the pundocracy. The story will go because it attacks the central pillar of Obama's identity. Snarky partisans will simply repeat this copy cat story and bring it up every time Obama gives a speech. Watch his acceptance speech at the dem convention, and listen for the first pundit to say, "great speech, I wonder who he where he copied it from." We'll see how skilled a politician Mr. Obama is in how he is able to escape this one.
posted by humanfont at 1:25 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

This pretty much turns it for me. I'm now prepared to forgive Clinton for voting for the war in Iraq, voting for Kyl-Lieberman, dodging the telecoms retroactive immunity vote, her close ties to AIPAC, etc. etc., all BECAUSE OBAMA IS A COPYCAT.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 1:25 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

Btw, I'll also write excuses for turning in your homework late -- very reasonable rates! (cash upfront only)
posted by empath at 1:26 PM on February 18

They're just doing exactly what the GOP wants them to do: spend so much time and energy attacking each other that come November, they'll have nothing left to go against McCain with.
posted by tommasz at 1:30 PM on February 18

Obama's chief speechwriter is Jon Favreau, a wee 26-year-old.

Loved that guy in Swingers! "You're money, baby!"
posted by pardonyou? at 1:39 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

hue: "Good writers borrow from other writers. Great writers steal from them outright."

Funny thing is, he stole that line from Picasso.
posted by adamrice at 1:40 PM on February 18

Will someone copy me? I just gave another $50 to Obama.

I just plagiarized your donation.
posted by mosch at 1:41 PM on February 18 [7 favorites]

Current delegate counts show Obama with ever the slightest of leads. There's nothing to suggest she's "pretty far behind".

I'm not sure how current that list is, if includes the 'potomac primary' states. Anyway, Hillary's main problem is that most of her lead is made up of super delegates, who can switch at any point in time, in fact a handful of Hillary's super delegates have said they will not vote for her if Obama wins in pledge delegates. Obama is something like 100 pledged delegates up on Clinton, and the idea that super delegates are going to override the vote by going en-masse against the pledged delegate winner is pretty silly. Josh marshal has article on this. And he also has a Video explaining why it's almost impossible for Hillary to win. She has to basically blow him out in all the remaining states to win the pledged delegates.

You should definitely watch the video if you're not clear on this.
posted by delmoi at 1:41 PM on February 18

Is this a sleazy attempt to smear Obama? Yup. Hey, that's politics. Obama's political future lies in his abilities to overcome the distortions of his opponents.

Same with the Super Delegate issue. While it shows a total lack of ethics on the part of the Clinton Campaign, it is within the rules. It is up to Obama to use his political skills to keep Super Delegates from subverting the democratic process...
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:43 PM on February 18

Oh, and I will be emailing all the elected officials who are Super Delegates for my state. I want it to be known that if any of them vote against the majority vote of my fellow state citizens, I will not support their next campaign in any way. Some of the delegates are not mere Democratic officials, but elected officials as well. They will be held accountable.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:47 PM on February 18

It is a sleazy attempt to smear Obama. And he'll make it backfire like he always does. The man is bulletproof.
posted by empath at 1:47 PM on February 18

This has long been obvious to all residents of the Commonwealth who suffered through Deval Patrick's insipid, lowest-common-denominator campaign for governor.

It's long been known that the two men have been friends and shared material, and Obama's presidential campaign is a near mirror-image of Patrick's campaign for governor against Kerry Healy (who would have been our first elected woman governor an who actually had a platform). Hopefully Obama has some vision upon winning the election beyond legalizing casinos and getting bold haircuts.
posted by 1 at 1:48 PM on February 18

The Loch Ness Monster: "delmoi says: But really, pretty much nothing interesting is happening.

I think that has a lot to do with our increased expectations and short attention spans. We have come to expect something extraordinary to happen every day, and some days we expect it every hour. I don't mean you specifically, but us. Me. Everyone. Give us breaking news.

It was only two weeks ago that people were asking whether Obama could catch up. Now he's the foregone conclusion. No news is good news, at least in this case and from my perspective. And this is no news."

That's what the refresh button is for :D
posted by symbioid at 1:50 PM on February 18

Oops, that was supposed to be in reference to the first part.
posted by symbioid at 1:51 PM on February 18

I wonder if both Clinton and McCain will apologize for plagiarizing Obama's "change" speeches?
posted by afx114 at 1:54 PM on February 18

While it shows a total lack of ethics on the part of the Clinton Campaign, it is within the rules.

That "total lack of ethics" is a big problem politically, though -- at least when it's so obvious. Though I think she's just about totally unelectable, the nomination was really hers to lose. And while I can't speak for the Obama-ites who think he walks on water and probably were in his camp from day one, I can say that, for me, Hillary's shitty campaign was the tipping factor in supporting Obama. I have to wonder how much other potential support she's cost herself not because Obama is so damn charming, but because Hillary is just...Hillary.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:56 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

The US needs a leader who can fearlessly face the likes of Hugo Chavez. Or the president of Russia, whoever that is now. I.e. someone who knows how to fight dirty and who won't have second thoughts about using semi-legal measures, as long as they are in our best interest.

But if they're so dishonest and dirty, how do you know they actually fighting for your best interests? I mean, look Bush really fucked up the country, but his friends all made tons of money. Isn't it possible that rather then incompetence, he simply had a different agenda. If someone is going to lie and be crooked and dirty they're just as liable to screw you over too.

(and certainly, unfair attacks on Obama are certainly not in the best interest of the Democratic party)

I'm not scared of people like Ahmajinedad or Kim Jong Il (And Hugo Chavez? What, are we worried he'll give more free heating oil to poor Americans? Or is the problem just that he says rude thing about Bush? Chavez may be a bad leader for Venezuelans, but he's never done anything remotely threatening too the US)

Plus, the idea that you can just go out there and be an asshole and lie and cheat and push people around in the world and have it turn out well for you is absurd. People don't like being pushed around and continuing to do it is damaging over the long run.
posted by delmoi at 1:57 PM on February 18 [5 favorites]

Exactly how does one steal something by following the rules?

Let's ask the Supreme Court of the United States.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:08 PM on February 18 [9 favorites]

One of the news sites ran numbers that suggested Clinton needs to win 55% of the rest of the pledged delegates, if she loses Wi and Hi that goes to 57% and if she loses everywhere where Obama is heavily favored at the moment that goes close to 60%. At this moment is seems likely that Tx and Oh will predominately go for Clinton, but I don't think they will go so heavily she will pick up as many pledged delegates as she needs, especially in Tx, which just seems to be a mockery of the proportional voting system.

Prior to Wi my opinion of Clinton had gone up, now it is just sinking back down.

(Chelsea's insulation has done nothing for my support of the Clinton's. She is campaigning for her mom, but is off limits to reporters despite her being a full grown adult, 28? The whole stupid msnbc "pimped" affair is a good example of that. I can see why that may have been offensive and needed some response, but I think the primary response should have come form Chelsea herself, not her mom, and may be a good indication of how a new Clinton administration would be run.)
posted by edgeways at 2:08 PM on February 18

I feel sorry for the Clinton campaign. Every time they pull something, it backfires on them.

Obama had it sewed up weeks ago.

The US needs a leader who can fearlessly face the likes of Hugo Chavez. Or the president of Russia, whoever that is now. I.e. someone who knows how to fight dirty and who won't have second thoughts about using semi-legal measures, as long as they are in our best interest.

Statements like this are why people all over the world consider the United States a criminal state - because the US is willing to break the law in its best interests.

You cannot object to the statement "the US is a criminal state" if you advocate "using semi-legal measures, as long as they are in our best interest." (Semi-legal means illegal, by the way. Things are either legal, or they're not. Often, the laws aren't enforced but that doesn't make illegal things legal.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:09 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

(Oh, and Tx? I thought I was a Clinton forgone conclusion, but a CNN poll now says it is a dead heat, and at this point that's all Obama needs)
posted by edgeways at 2:15 PM on February 18

oddman writes "Please, stop acting as if the courting of superdelegates is some heinous evil concocted as a Clintonian end run on the will of the masses."

Yeah, just look how well it worked for Mondale when he utilized this strategy.

She may win the nomination through this method, but she will surely lose the election if that's how she gets the nomination. This will be even more likely if she gets elected by superdelegates but loses in the total vote and elected delegate count, most of the party will see her win as illegitimate, and/or without a mandate. That's all that's needed to tip the scales way over to McCain's side.

Mark my words.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:18 PM on February 18 [5 favorites]

This is about as ridiculous as the time John Fogerty was sued for plagiarizing himself.
posted by jonp72 at 2:18 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

Ignore the comma splice and extraneous comma. I need an editor ...
posted by krinklyfig at 2:21 PM on February 18

Will someone copy me? I just gave another $50 to Obama.

I just plagiarized your donation.

ditto.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 2:24 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Humanfont: "...Gennifer Flowers / Dean scream / Voted for bevore Voted against / I invented the Internet..."

One of these things is not like the other...
posted by symbioid at 2:24 PM on February 18

Seems obvious that there will be nothing sticky about this charge. It is leveled only so that the word 'plagiarism' will appear next to the name 'Obama' in headlines and teleprompters for part of a news cycle. A low tactic!

Oh and hey, while you smug hipsters are throwing Obama cash around, the Nerds For Obama gateway is still at zero.
posted by damehex at 2:25 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

The superdelegate system was put in place to avoid the nomination of fringe candidates, candidates who where unelectable. It would be high irony if it was used to nominate a less electable candidate. But, whomever, given the high level of support for both candidates the S-delegates need to support whomever has the most pledged delegates, even if that turns out to not be my candidate in the end I could live with it. Going against that will ensure a republican win in the fall.
posted by edgeways at 2:27 PM on February 18

damehex writes "Oh and hey, while you smug hipsters are throwing Obama cash around, the Nerds For Obama gateway is still at zero."

I've given and will again, and I'm a nerdy type, but, after reading the page ... well, I'll just add my support as a non-affiliated individual.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:28 PM on February 18

Lupus: You cannot object to the statement "the US is a criminal state" if you advocate "using semi-legal measures, as long as they are in our best interest." (Semi-legal means illegal, by the way.)

Did I object to the statement "the US is a criminal state"? I think it is great that the US has a president who endorses semi-legal interrogation means, regardless of what the rest of the world is saying.
Also, I really like the word "semi-legal". You have to admit that it is almost Clintonesque.

In any case, "Vote Hillary, because she knows how to play dirty." is a great campaign slogan, if you ask me.
posted by sour cream at 2:30 PM on February 18

sour cream writes "I think it is great that the US has a president who endorses semi-legal interrogation means, regardless of what the rest of the world is saying."

Or regardless of how effective it actually is, right? Because if we want results, that's not the way to go.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:32 PM on February 18

Did I object to the statement "the US is a criminal state"? I think it is great that the US has a president who endorses semi-legal interrogation means, regardless of what the rest of the world is saying.

Are you being sarcastic, or retarded?
posted by delmoi at 2:33 PM on February 18

there will be nothing sticky about this charge

Agreed; news outlets don't have a lot to say about it, since the Patrick statement and Obama statement put the controversy it to rest before it could be fanned into flame. Where they do spend time on it, they've been using it as a lead-in to a discussion of the state of the Clinton campaign or the race in general. It's a slow news day thing.
posted by Miko at 2:38 PM on February 18

In case you are unsure, here is a list of superdelegates by state.
posted by absalom at 2:44 PM on February 18

RNC donor event outlines Obama attack plan
posted by homunculus at 2:44 PM on February 18

delmoi: Are you being sarcastic, or retarded?

Just trying to be cheerful in this cold, cold world of ours.
posted by sour cream at 2:44 PM on February 18

My polling company has just completed a survey of [expletive deleted]. The aggregate of the respondent(s) shows a 95% certainty that sour cream is being facetious, +/-5% 19 times out of 20.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:54 PM on February 18

Is anybody surprised that Hillary is going negative now? She's not going to go down easy, and neither will the republicans. I'm sure he'll be accused of rape and murder before it's over.
posted by empath at 3:05 PM on February 18

Is anybody surprised that Hillary is going negative now?

No, but it's a fresh reminder of why I'm not voting for her.
posted by grouse at 3:11 PM on February 18 [8 favorites]

I sincerely doubt this thing has anything to do with Obama's ability to run the country.

That being said, this is very clearly an act of plagiarism. If he had turned this speech in for an assignment in college, he might rightfully have been expelled. Whether or not he had permission from the original author has absolutely nothing to do with it--just as passing off someone else's answers to a test as one's own is cheating, regardless of whether or not they gave you "permission" to use their answers.

It's one thing to forgive Obama for a lapse in judgment and ask that he not do it again. It's quite another to say that presenting another's work as one's own is not plagiarism simply because permission was granted. Plagiarism is about honesty as much as it is about intellectual property rights. That's why you don't find definitions of plagiarism with "but he said it was ok" exceptions. I don't know what common practice in political speech circles is, but if he's lifting a portion of a speech from another campaign (nearly verbatim), he should at the very least put a footnote on the transcript and release that to the news media.

If it really doesn't matter "whose argument it is," as Patrick claims, then there's really no reason not to properly cite the source. That much can't be rationally disputed.

Moreover, choosing to reward dishonest behavior with $50 just because somebody you don't like complained about it is ridiculously infantile. It tends to reinforce the perception that Obama's following is largely a cult of personality; the response to dishonesty by Obama is to blame Clinton for pointing it out. Very strange.
posted by dsword at 3:18 PM on February 18

"...because the US is willing to break the law in its bestshort-term interests."

Does that read better?
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:32 PM on February 18

Alexander said there will be a lot of angry Democrats if Obama arrives at the convention with the most elected delegates and Clinton emerges as the nominee.

In Chicago, I'd fully expect riots. Especially if HRC loses the general, the democratic establishment which defied the voters would face being wiped out electorally. The reason that so many superdelegates haven't committed is that they're waiting to see who is winning. TPM is right, and if you look at the latest data on Pollster it's even more grim for HRC in terms of pledged delegates; she's only looking at gaining 35 to 50 delegates from OH and TX as things stand today.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 3:37 PM on February 18

I think that's a false analogy you can't hold it to the same standard as a college paper, for one thing we don't hire 3rd parties to write our papers additionally it was not a paper at all, it was an extemporaneous speech (I'm reading that right?). I highly suspect this is something that goes on amongst all speech makers, certainly Clinton herself is "guilty" of it if guilt is even the right word here. Thus, calling out Obama on this on the eve of a big vote seems more likely political posturing rather then truly complaining, with the intent of bringing to light a wrong. And, while I didn't donate $50 to Obama as a result of this I can see why people have.
posted by edgeways at 3:38 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

then there's really no reason not to properly cite the source

Sure there is. It interrupts the lyrical flow of the speech and detracts from the message.

You seem to be confused about the purpose of political speech. It is very different from the purpose of a college paper. The purpose of a college paper or test is to demonstrate mastery of a subject. In that purpose, it is intellectually dishonest to take somebody elses thought or ideas and pass them off as your own.

In stark contrast, the purpose of political speech is to inspire and persuade. It's more about the person hearing the speech that it is about the person giving the speech. In that context, taking care to footnote every line is not only clunky and unpoetic. It's absurd.
posted by willnot at 3:39 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

Oh, and that's not a race thing. From the Obama campaign stops, I'd expect very multi-ethnic demonstrations of outrage and betrayal.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 3:39 PM on February 18

dsword: The problem with your comparison is that political campaign speechmaking is not the same as academic paper writing. From all accounts, Deval Patrick was acting as something just short of a campaign speechwriter; he provided Obama's writing team with examples of language he had used, Obama has Patrick's permission to use his language, and Patrick has stated that he wanted Obama to use his language.

Most of the things you'll hear a politician say on the stump aren't their words; is it plagarism that the speechwriters behind Bush's latest State of the Union aren't fully credited in the transcript? Is he cheating? Should he be expelled? Of course not, because this is political speechmaking, not academic writing. They're not even in the same universe.
posted by punishinglemur at 3:39 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

I feel bad for Bill Clinton, on some level. To be associated with such inept Rovian politicking.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:42 PM on February 18

The attacks on Obama have not even started

Well, holy crap, then. I listened, astonished, as the teenaged waitress at my diner talked of how Obama was sworn in on a Quran, turned his back on the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, was brainwashed at a madrassa, etc. I can hardly wait for the real sh*tslinging to start. :oP
posted by pax digita at 3:43 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Well, one of the Representatives from my State was sworn in on the Quran, (Tomas jefferson's copy I think), and he is black, not sure where else she may have gotten that concoction of idiotic from. But, you will always have a certain portion of the population who are just too dumb to be bothered.
posted by edgeways at 3:47 PM on February 18

Granted, this particular waitress embodied the concept "beauty times brains equals a constant."
posted by pax digita at 3:54 PM on February 18

Blazecock Pileon: "She's playing games behind the scenes to get superdelegates to support her nomination, instead of the candidate supported by the popular vote."

Interesting point: I was watching this video on YouTube, sort of an "Obama behind-the-scenes" type of thing. It was filmed at the California state Democratic convention last summer. At one point, he is walking down a corridor with an advisor in his ear quietly telling him about the local superdelegates Clinton has won over, like the chair of the LA city council. Obama smiles and says, "Well, see, that's what Hillary does, she's playing the convention game. But that's why she doesn't have 20,000 people outside..." Which I think is the essential issue: people vs. insiders.

Oh, and one point he walks into a room full of supporters and cameramen and people holding boom mics, and they all quiet when they see him. Then he clears his throat and says, "Who are all these folks? I feel like I'm in a Verizon ad. Ya'll are my network!"

I thought is was pretty funny...
posted by Rhaomi at 3:58 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

But really, pretty much nothing interesting is happening.

You obviously don't live in Texas. Things are just getting started around here.
posted by chrisamiller at 3:59 PM on February 18

dsword: I can't tell if you're trying to troll or not, but I'm going to reply as though you're not a troll.

You wrote:

Moreover, choosing to reward dishonest behavior with $50 just because somebody you don't like complained about it is ridiculously infantile. It tends to reinforce the perception that Obama's following is largely a cult of personality; the response to dishonesty by Obama is to blame Clinton for pointing it out.

We disagree on whether or not the behavior was, in any way at all, dishonest. I know that I routinely use the exact phrasing used by friends and colleagues in casual speech and in presentations. I've seen the same happen with other people. I view this as memetic transfer, not some sort of lazy or dishonest plagiarism.

As such, I see two possibilities for how this occurred: The first is that Obama was speaking off-hand, and simply remembered that construction as a powerful way to make his point that words have power. The second is that Obama's speech was prepared, and he used the same construction because he and the original source share a speechwriter.

In either case, I see nothing wrong done at all, and as such I felt it appropriate to send a small donation, to help fund the discussion of real issues, instead of what I believe to be an inane, manufactured publicity stunt.

The second point I'd like to address is the criticism of Clinton for pointing it out. I believe this is largely justified because numerous people have already identified similar uncited quotations in her speeches, but nobody is making a big deal of them. She's attempting to hold Obama to a standard where she would also fail. I find this hypocrisy troubling.

As for the idea that Obama is a cult of personality, perhaps some people view him that way, I can't know. I don't believe that Obama's presidency will be a magical fairyland of rainbows, unicorns and flawlessly executed initiatives. I simply believe that he is the most interesting, (and perhaps the least partisan) of all the viable candidates. As such, I'm interested in seeing what he brings to the plate.

I doubt that I can sway your mind on the dishonesty issue, as it seems to me that only an extraordinarily hard-headed and partisan fellow could have looked over the facts and decided that Obama was dishonest, but you should at least consider the idea that many reasonable and rational people see this from a different angle than you.
posted by mosch at 4:02 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

a bunch of ridiculous bullshit
posted by dsword at 3:18 PM on February 18

You are aware that there are significant differences between academic work and political speechwriting, yes? Academics are not allowed to have third parties write their speeches, whereas a politician who writes all his or her own speeches is using his or her precious time unwisely.

Please respond to us at the very least indicating that you understand that simple fact, because I'm worried that you've either a) had a serious stroke or b) come from Mars and are suffocating in our oxygen-rich environment.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:03 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

A few posters noted above that if they were not Obama supporters, the behavior of other supporters would probably really annoy them.

Speaking as someone who is currently planning to vote for Clinton tomorrow ... yes, yes it does. I can not tell you how tired I am of essentially hearing, "OUR left-leaning centrist candidate with a voting record nearly identical to yours is THE SECOND COMING OF THE MESSIAH! On the other hand, YOUR left-leaning centrist candidate with a voting record nearly identical to ours is THE DEVIL INCARNATE!"

I understand neither the Obama love nor the Clinton hatred. They both seem like pretty good candidates, and I'll support whichever one eventually gets the nomination, but I am baffled by the disparity in the treatment of them by the media, by Republicans, and by Democrats.

To be honest ... the reaction to Clinton is starting to feel like sexism to me. It really is. After hearing months and months of this, I really wonder if there isn't an undercurrent of "I just don't like her because she's such a bitch. She's so pushy. She just rubs me the wrong way for some reason."

I don't like it and it's pissing me off.
posted by kyrademon at 4:03 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

What Would a McCain Supreme Court Look Like?
posted by homunculus at 4:06 PM on February 18

Waiting in the wings:

The War Party Targets Obama
They'll never let him become president
posted by telstar at 4:07 PM on February 18

Sure there is. It interrupts the lyrical flow of the speech and detracts from the message.

This argument begs the question and boils down to this: it's ok to pass off somebody else's oratory achievement as one's own because giving credit would reduce one's perceived oratory skills. Presentation is never an excuse for plagiarism in any context. He could have introduced the line with, "As my good friend Deval Patrick has said..." or something similar.

Moreover, you'll notice that I placed that sentence immediately after the suggestion that the footnote be appended to the transcript, where this complaint doesn't apply.

And I'm well aware of the varied purposes of both papers and speeches. There's no need to be patronizing.

The problem with your comparison is that political campaign speechmaking is not the same as academic paper writing. From all accounts, Deval Patrick was acting as something just short of a campaign speechwriter; he provided Obama's writing team with examples of language he had used, Obama has Patrick's permission to use his language, and Patrick has stated that he wanted Obama to use his language.

See above. Politicians regularly provide sources for statistics that they quote. It's not as if citations are unheard of in politics. Again, permission has nothing to do with it; the issue is honesty. If it doesn't matter "whose argument it is," then the campaign should be transparent about the fact that they're recycling speeches from another politician's campaign. It's as much about not taking credit that isn't due as it is about giving credit.
posted by dsword at 4:07 PM on February 18

Well, holy crap, then. I listened, astonished, as the teenaged waitress at my diner talked of how Obama was sworn in on a Quran, turned his back on the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, was brainwashed at a madrassa, etc. I can hardly wait for the real sh*tslinging to start. :oP

I'm going to get the refutation to this bullshit printed up on a business card that I can hand to assholes who spout this to me. As it is, I've sent at least a dozen people I otherwise regarded as intelligent to the Snopes page.
posted by ColdChef at 4:07 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]

edgeways: But, you will always have a certain portion of the population who are just too dumb to be bothered.

Actually, I'd like to dispute this. They aren't dumb. They're willfully misinformed.

There's entire subcultures in the U.S. devoted to creating for themselves a comfortable warm cloud of lies for them to breathe in and fart back out. These groups are insular and view any challenges to their worldview as evidence of its correctness. It's a feedback loop and difficult to pierce unless the urge to seek objective truth arises from within. As they continue to create "alternate" media for themselves, like talk radio and FOX News, it'll become harder to get them to see reason.
posted by JHarris at 4:08 PM on February 18 [3 favorites]

kyrademon

As someone who was originally and edwards supporter and until the last month fairly ambivalent to obama/clinton (as you said, the voting records are nearly identical and they would both be great presidents) the campaign has been turning me off clinton. And I say this a huge fan of Bill and a modest fan of hillary. But the lines such as "Jesse jackson won south carolina twice" and the move to try and squeak this thing out with superdelagates even at the expense of the party strikes me as disastrous.
posted by slapshot57 at 4:14 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

Wow, absalom, that's something. My state and I went Obama, but Clinton has more pledged superdelegates. Must motivate.
posted by rainbaby at 4:14 PM on February 18

dsword: I just don't see why using Deval Patrick's language and using the language of an uncredited speechwriter receive such different levels of outrage. Many of the most famous moments in political speechmaking were produced by professional speechwriters, yet the transcript will never show the true author, nor will anyone have any problem citing the candidate him or herself as the source of the quotation.

It seems like the problem people have is that in this case, someone else said it first, instead of writing it first. Both of this situations are, by your standard, dishonest. So why does one get so much more outrage than the other?
posted by punishinglemur at 4:15 PM on February 18

dsword: Politicians use speechwriters all the time. Does Bush credit his speechwriters everytime he gives a speech? A politician giving a speech only makes the implication that he means what he says, not that he originally wrote the words that he said.

Do you know what Jon Favraeu wrote of Obama's speeches and what Obama wrote?

Now, granted, it was a lapse of judgement to mimic that entire riff, but who knows how the conversation went? It may be that Obama didn't know that Patrick had used those exact words in a speech before. He might have first heard it when Patrick suggested it to him. Surely he was capable of re-stating the general gist in his own words if he thought he needed to.
posted by empath at 4:18 PM on February 18

rainbaby, there is no such thing as a pledged superdelegate.
posted by empath at 4:19 PM on February 18

kyrademon wrote:To be honest ... the reaction to Clinton is starting to feel like sexism to me. It really is.

Please consider watching this video on why Lawrence Lessig is for Obama, or reading this transcript.

It addresses the fact that many of their political positions are similar, but points out some differences that are responsible for the extreme reaction to Hillary's candidacy.

I do not, by any means, cite his video as a full and complete list of reasons I don't like Hillary, but as somebody who supports Obama strongly and detests Hillary, I'd like to offer you a small view into the reasons that I feel the way I do, and to let you know that precisely none of my distaste is due to her gender, or other intangibles.
posted by mosch at 4:29 PM on February 18

kyrademon, I certainly understand your position, and generally feel similar on many of the points. I personally did not vote for Clinton in our primary for a number of reasons, one of which is I do not care for her personally. I've tried to figure out if that was a sexist based position, as it does concern me, finally I came to decide don't think it is so as I've voted for quite a few women over men (even in local/state primaries), I would, (or at least I believe I would) vote for a woman for president without any concern they would perform the job any differently then any given male.

I suspect Clinton is on the receiving end of sexism bias in the media, there certainly have been some pretty plain instances of it, but I also think she, as an individual not as a woman, has some personality traits that turn some people off, including myself. Clinton would make a better president them McCain, I believe, but she carries so much baggage, she can be so uninspiring to the majority of the country that it would be a contentious presidency, even where it doesn't need to be, from, yes, "day one".

I've certainly heard your concerns (my candidate is better, yours is evil) from Clinton supporters as well, so it is not a one sided issue.

The funny thing is, if Clinton and Obama could have kept it civil, or focused on McCain and run this thing all the way to June the sheer amount of media attention, especially after McCain finally wins the R nomination would have been worth twice its weight in money spent. It may still be, one of Tony Blair's strategies during his long tenure, was to make sure he and Labor soaked up the lion's share of media attention, even if it wasn't 100% positive 100% of the time.

The mania thing may well be, by and large, a generational thing. A lot of younger voters are seeing this as a potential shift and have allowed themselves to be inspired by it. Inspired people can be annoying, but it is good to see so many people fired up about this election. I think Clinton needs Obama on her ticket more then he needs her, especially for the young vote, but they are both burning bridges so I don't really think either will have the other as VP.
posted by edgeways at 4:29 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

slapshot57 -

I understand where you're coming from, but I also think the criticism of the two candidates has been bizarrely disproportionate. The superdelegates thing, for example, I think is ridiculous. Obama has been campaigning to win the support of superdelegates just as hard as Clinton is. Honestly, either candidate would have to be an idiot not to. But somehow, when Clinton does is, she is trying to game the system, and when Obama does it, he is trying to retain his rightful place. Why? Because he has a minute lead in pledged delegates at this very moment? What happens if that switches in a month? Will he suddenly be trying to game the system? Somehow, I doubt it will be regarded that way.

A huge fuss is made over every tactical move made by the Clinton camp - such as, for example, the subject of this FPP. Oh no! She is running a negative campaign! What a bitch! When the Obama team, however, performs tactical moves - such as Nevada's, "Well, we lost the popular vote but we won more delagates to we REALLY won" spin - it's regarded as only right and proper. (When Clinton downplays Obama's wins, however, she's ... running a horrible negative campaign.)
posted by kyrademon at 4:29 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

"I just don't like her because she's such a bitch. She's so pushy. She just rubs me the wrong way for some reason."

Perhaps this is a reaction to negative campaign tactics, rather than one related to gender. Or perhaps it's a reaction to her stated desire to win the convention using superdelegates if she loses the popular vote.

I see no reason to believe that those sorts of vague negative opinions are because of her gender.
posted by mosch at 4:33 PM on February 18

Who called Hillary a bitch for running a negative campaign?
posted by punishinglemur at 4:33 PM on February 18

Politicians regularly provide sources for statistics that they quote

That's because the source of statistics and empirical claims is important. It's how we know that they aren't making it up. You're not dealing with the fact that political speeches routinely use material from other speakers and writers without citation. The rules of the game are different than paper-writing. Oratory has several components, one of which is writing material. Another is delivery. Another is selecting material.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 4:36 PM on February 18

I understand neither the Obama love nor the Clinton hatred.
posted by kyrademon at 4:03 PM on February 18

Hilary Clinton voted for and supports a damn fool war that has cost us a half trillion dollars, left thousands of members of our armed forces dead or crippled, and left countless innocent Iraqi civilians dead or crippled.

Barack Obama has opposed the war from the very beginning.

So it's pretty fucking simple from where I'm standing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:37 PM on February 18 [19 favorites]

The fact is that Obama is playing by the rules: He who gets the most delegates wins. If Hillary wins by superdelegates, that's playing by the rules, too. I don't know what kind of campaign hillary thought she was running, but it wasn't and isn't grounded in reality. She can't win. She's going to have to drop out after Texas and Ohio anyway. Running a dirty, negative campaign now is just spiteful.
posted by empath at 4:38 PM on February 18

Optimus Chyme -

Yes. I do consider that a point in Obama's favor. I would consider it much more a point in his favor if he had ever unequivocally stated, during his campaign, that he intends to pull out of Iraq, or if his voting record on war funding etc. had not been identical to Clinton's since the moment he took office.

If he ever does unequivocally state that, say, the War in Iraq would be over by the end of his first term in office, it would do much to sway me towards his side. There are other issues, but that's a big one for me. He's got about 14 hours before I vote.

But yeah, for the moment ... I understand neither the Obama love nor the Clinton hatred.
posted by kyrademon at 4:43 PM on February 18

But somehow, when Clinton does is, she is trying to game the system, and when Obama does it, he is trying to retain his rightful place. Why?

One candidate says that it's perfectly acceptable for backroom deals to thwart the declared will of the people, and actively pursues a strategy of making this happen. Another candidate says that when all is said and done, it seems likely that the party leaders will follow the will of the people.

Now, taking whatever candidate you prefer out of it, which of those positions do you think will be met with more derision by the public at large?
posted by willnot at 4:44 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

A huge fuss is made over every tactical move made by the Clinton camp - such as, for example, the subject of this FPP. Oh no! She is running a negative campaign! What a bitch! When the Obama team, however, performs tactical moves - such as Nevada's, "Well, we lost the popular vote but we won more delagates to we REALLY won" spin - it's regarded as only right and proper. (When Clinton downplays Obama's wins, however, she's ... running a horrible negative campaign.)
posted by kyrademon at 7:29 PM on February 18

The difference in your example is that Clinton is attacking her opponent, where Barack is playing up a positive thing for his own campaign. That is the kind of thing that is turning people off with regard to Clinton's campaign.

Also, Barack has stated that the supers should go with the will of the people, regardless of who the candidate is. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard the same out of the Clinton camp.
posted by chiababe at 4:47 PM on February 18

Now, now, you're not being fair to Ms Clinton.

She says we should follow the will of the people, except for African Americans, people who live in red states, people who vote in caucus's, white men and people who make more than $50,000 a year.
posted by empath at 4:47 PM on February 18 [4 favorites]

That's okay, though, she forgives black people for voting for Obama.
posted by empath at 4:48 PM on February 18

willnot -

If Obama, say, states that he would concede if he has fewer pledged delegates than Clinton going into the convention, even if he acquires a lead because of superdelegates, I will take his position seriously. Barring a statement like that, to me it just sounds like spin from both sides because, at this particular moment in time, he has more pledged delegates and she has more superdelegates. That's my reaction, anyway - the public at large admittedly seems to have a different view.
posted by kyrademon at 4:49 PM on February 18

If he ever does unequivocally state that, say, the War in Iraq would be over by the end of his first term in office, it would do much to sway me towards his side. There are other issues, but that's a big one for me. He's got about 14 hours before I vote.

But yeah, for the moment ... I understand neither the Obama love nor the Clinton hatred.
posted by kyrademon at 4:43 PM on February 18

He tried to end it by March 2008. He's not just going to say "nah, forget it" once he's in the Oval Office. I hope and pray that Obama has your support tomorrow.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:50 PM on February 18

If he ever does unequivocally state that, say, the War in Iraq would be over by the end of his first term in office, it would do much to sway me towards his side. There are other issues, but that's a big one for me. He's got about 14 hours before I vote.

From Obama's Issues section of his website:

"Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
posted by chiababe at 4:50 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

It's as much about not taking credit that isn't due as it is about giving credit.

Outside of academia, I think this happens all the time. Newspaper editors insert uncredited language into articles, CEO's give PowerPoint presentations put together and written by underlings, clerks sometimes write the legal opinions that judges sign their name to - even at the Supreme Court level. It's just the way the world works.

Now if any one felt that their words had been stolen, that would be a problem. However, mostly it just comes with the job. Since Deval Patrick doesn't have a problem with it and that he seems to have worked in an advisory capacity, it shouldn't be a big deal.
posted by Staggering Jack at 4:52 PM on February 18

To be honest ... the reaction to Clinton is starting to feel like sexism to me. It really is. After hearing months and months of this, I really wonder if there isn't an undercurrent of "I just don't like her because she's such a bitch. She's so pushy. She just rubs me the wrong way for some reason."

Oh, give it a rest already. People who hate Hilary don't give a crap that she's female. They hate her because she's a Clinton.

And, frankly, crying wolf on sexism does nothing but discredit the honest efforts of feminists everywhere.
posted by Afroblanco at 4:52 PM on February 18 [6 favorites]

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

Just keeping in mind why people dislike Hillary. This was just a few days ago, after Obama had won 31 states total. She now says that 30 of those states are 'insignificant'. The campaign is a joke. In fact, let's throw a few more insignificant states on the pile that she's already conceded -- WI and HI...
posted by empath at 4:52 PM on February 18

And empath, that's exactly the sort of thing that's pissing the hell out of me, since Obama has made clear that we should follow the will of the people, except in Nevada, or any other place where he might perhaps get a delegate lead despite losing the majority. Which is why I don't take his spin on superdelegates at all seriously.

If you want me to vote for your candidate, explain to me why his policies are better. Because right now, all the rest of it that I'm hearing is spin spin spin spin spin spin spin from BOTH sides.
posted by kyrademon at 4:52 PM on February 18

What policies would you like to hear about, kyrademon?
posted by chiababe at 4:55 PM on February 18

There's a history to this, dsword.
It's a non-issue. It speaks to nothing. It's just more noise to distract us from the fact that neither Democratic candidate has much substance. To claim otherwise is just being disingenuous.
I linked to this earlier in the thread, but I'll quote it here so you don't even have to click:

Boston Globe
April 16, 2007

Of all the things Deval Patrick's Republican opponent threw at him in last year's governor's race, one charge that stuck in his craw was that his speeches were more fluff than substance -- that they were, in Patrick's telling, "just words." So he devised an artful response.

" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' -- just words," Patrick said at a rally in Roxbury right before Election Day. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. . . . 'I have a dream' -- just words. They're all just words."

The crowd erupted as it got Patrick's point about the power of language. But perhaps no one at the rally understood the point better than Barack Obama, who had joined him on stage that night.
posted by Floydd at 4:58 PM on February 18 [1 favorite]

If you really care, read his website. He has it all broken down by issue. I'm not particularly invested in getting anyone else to vote for him.

I'm primarily motivated to vote for him because he's intelligent, he has demonstrated good judgment, he's a good speaker, he inspires people, and he's a liberal. I don't particularly care about the policy details because all of that is going to get thrown out the window on day one.

Hillary has just run an embarrassingly bad, out of touch campaign from day one.
posted by empath at 5:00 PM on February 18

Obama supports net neutrality. Now, not everybody agrees with that, but I think that's better. Do you agree kyrademon?

Obama wants to bring more transparency to government. He believes that shining a bright light on it will dispel some of the backroom finagling and dealing that has halted our progress on issues. I think that's better. Do you agree kyrademon?

Obama voted for an amendment that would prevent the US from dropping cluster bombs near cities where children can mistake them for food or toys and thus loose arms and legs. I think that's better. Do you agree kyrademon?

Obama did not propose a flag burning amendment to the constitution. I think that's better. Do you agree kyrademon?

Those are a few of the issues that are important to me. What issues are important you you kyrademon?
posted by willnot at 5:03 PM on February 18

If you want me to vote for your candidate, explain to me why his policies are better. Because right now, all the rest of it that I'm hearing is spin spin spin spin spin spin spin from BOTH sides.
posted by kyrademon at 4:52 PM on February 18

Both chiababe and I have linked to primary sources that demonstrate Obama's willingness to end this war. Is there anything specific you are looking for?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:03 PM on February 18