As you know, the Clinton campaign has charged that Barack Obama lifted whole chunks of another person’s speech, specifically specifically Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who delivered a speech in 2006 when running for office that is similar in nature to one Obama gave. (WaPo):
“Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric, and the strength of his promises. So I think it’s relevant when someone who’s running on his rhetoric lifts words from the speeches of another politician,” Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said Monday during a conference call with reporters. When asked why the campaign is highlighting the similarities, Wolfson stated that “Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric. She’s not running to be the Orator in Chief. She’s running to be the president.”Unfortunately for Clinton, the WaPo notes that she has lifted key phrases from her rival.
“We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa,” Clinton said in Iowa in early JanuaryWell, he did, though a charge of plagiarism is pretty weak.
Joe Biden famously withdrew from the presidential campaign in 1987 after it was discovered that he lifted quite a bit of a speech from British politician, Neil Kinnock. I presume the Clinton campaign, in its desperation is throwing everything but the kitchen sink to attack Hillary’s rival for the Dem nomination.
Yeah, Obama should have cited Patrick within the speech, but all of this seems really weak and panicked, particularly since Patrick quickly responded to the charge. It’s after the jump, along with a video from a man alleging he gave a BJ to Obama in a limo. Oh, it’s too much.
(NYT):
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.OK. Whatever. Is this what it’s come down to? Where are the discussions about policy matters, for goodness sake - wasn’t it Clinton who charged Obama’s “all hat and no cattle”? If the Clinton campaign wants to get some traction, this really isn’t going to do much. Drawing policy distinctions is a more helpful and plays to her strength and message that she’s the one with experience, but clearly the campaign fears that doing is not particularly energizing or headline grabbing, so I get what the game plan is. Look at what the MSM chooses to cover.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.”
David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate.
“They often riff off one another. They share a world view,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely.”
***
On the matter of real issues of concern when evaluating candidates, on Sunday I saw a bizarre exchange about Clinton’s and Obama’s differences in their health care plans. Senior advisor to the Hillary campaign, Kiki McLean, appeared on the normally ridiculous Tucker Carlson show. The MSNBC talking head queried her about the fact that Clinton’s plan mandates that all citizens buy coverage. Naturally, one would want to know what the punishment would be for some poor schmo who cannot afford to buy any plan for themselves or their family. One of the options under consideration by Clinton is to garnish wages. Getting a basic answer to the question of what penalties would be incurred for not complying with the mandate (such as being too poor), was excruciating. McLean said this:
TUCKER CARLSON: If you’re going to mandate health insurance, what if people don’t, don’t obey? And she has said “we’re going to garnish wages.” Which wages, and how much? Cause she’s the substance candidate.Uh, what exactly does that mean if garnishing wages is on the table? Seriously, Clinton’s team needs to come up with better responses than this to convince voters that she’s running a campaign about being ready on day one and be ready to explain why Obama’s plans are inferior. If she’s about substance, folks need to take it all in, good and bad.KIKI MCLEAN: She is the substance candidate, and she’s looking at the options. She’s also said, Senator Obama’s team has tried to put out an attack saying she’s going to force people who can’t afford it to pay for it themselves and that’s just not true.
CARLSON: But she’s said herself, she’s said herself, that she’d be willing to garnish wages. I think that’s pretty much exactly what she said.
MCLEAN: She said in one interview that’s something to look at. I think the reality is that she’s also focusing on bringing everybody — here’s the thing about universal coverage —
…CARLSON: She’s soft-selling the stick. She’s selling the carrot; she’s not talking about the stick, the punishment for not going along with her vision of the Brave New World.
MCLEAN: The reality is, that we’re going to have to bring everybody into the plan, and there’s going to have to be —
CARLSON: Punishment.
MCLEAN: Outcomes. There’s going to have to be an outcome for people who don’t participate because it all affects us. Remember, we are a community that lives here.
CARLSON [bursting into laughter]: I love that: an “outcome”!
MCLEAN: There has to be an outcome.
However, there is also this problem - Clinton (likely former) close friend and Bill Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich said this about the plan:
I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.***
Here’s an interesting take on the race from across the pond. (Times Online):
THERE is an air of desperation in Hillary Clinton’s camp. The New York senator has embarked on a door-die mission to hector and bully her way to victory, putting her on a potential collision course with Democratic party leaders.
It is a risky strategy that could leave her more isolated and unpopular as voters defect to Barack Obama, the new front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama, 46, is being labelled a cultish, messianic figure who talks big but cannot deliver.
Clinton, 60, is being driven into her last redoubts as white women, blue collar workers and Hispanics – her core supporters – have begun to peel away. In public she is adopting a feistier tone and a more populist message against the Illinois senator in a bid to stem her losses.
“Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night,” she said at a rally in Ohio, a swing state with a heavy component of “rust belt” working-class voters who are already feeling the effects of looming recession.
This latest nonsense about the “cultish, messianic” Obama has reached outlandish heights of late, from comparisons to Hitler (!)
Almost like clockwork, no sooner do liberals start raising eyebrows about the “cult of Obama” than right-wing talkers pick up that ball and run with it:
Fox News Radio host Tom Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when listening to Barack Obama speak, “it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they’d come to their feet and scream and yell.” Sullivan then played a “side-by-side comparison” of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, “Yay! Yay!” When a later caller complained that Sullivan was “denigrating” Obama with the comparison, Sullivan said he wouldn’t play it again, then begged: “Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won’t do it again. … Until the next time.”
To claims that people at Obama rallies are fainting a) on purpose or 2) are somehow under his spell, comparing him to Jim Jones (!):
This nonsense is out of control, but if Obama’s the nom, this is the kind of stuff the right wing will dole out.“No one, other than Jim Jones – founder of the People’s Temple, has captivated crowds like Obama. This has nothing to do with the ‘Kool-Aid’ party Jones foisted on his people. Watch footage of his sermons at the People’s Temple, while in San Francisco. Same crying, passing out, etc.”
***
To wrap up this post with something truly preposterous and hurl-worthy, take a look at this WND headline, another clear sign of what kind of circus this has become:
Sleaze charge: ‘I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama’. Uh. Right. I’m pretty certain that Barack Obama can do a lot better than this:
The hotbodies would be lining up for the presidential candidate. How hard up is this Larry Sinclair for press? Apparently the comments at his YouTube video are hilarious. Just one for the record:
With mental illness you believe your own idea of what is true. Anyone can pass a lie detector test if you are mentally ill and believe your lie. The polygraph is inadmissible in court and you will be sued for slander. Your main goal was to besmirch this mans name. This is all very self-serving since you never came forward 9 years ago. Why? Why now? Lets see fame, money, and as stint on Larry King. Go home you sad pathetic little man!Ah, good old American politics - you can’t make this stuff up.
30 Responses to “‘Bidenizing’ Obama, health care — and whopper of a laughfest at WND”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
You’re just seeing that Larry Sinclair video? It’s a laugh riot!
I had not seen it before, apparently the folks at WingNutDaily hadn’t either. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing as I watched that video.
I don’t see how “you will be forced to buy health care” equates to government supported, universal coverage. Isn’t one of the big problems right now, the fact that there are a lot of people who can’t afford health care?
How about instead of forcing people to buy health insurance, we just force them to not get sick? Much simpler and more direct.
Better yet, let’s let the markets decide who’s allowed to get sick!
Companies that produce bad medicine will lose customers (sure, they might be dead, but they won’t be supporting the bad companies, so the market will play out right).
Better doctors can charge higher rates and quacks will not make enough money to stay in business.
The market can fix it all! We can’t have the government running things–look at how they screwed up Katrina!
And if we regulate medicine at ALL, we’ll get rationing…
Sitting here quietly and waiting for the Clinton supporters to come out in response and attack Obama/Obama-supporting “faux feminists” again.
Three…two…one…
The appropriate response to any attack this stupid should be outright laughter. “Sen. Obama, did you plagiarize less than a 16-year-old English paper in that one speech?” Obama: *belly laughs* “That’s a good one, chief!”
No, really, the MSM needs to stop taking this crap seriously.
“Better yet, let’s let the markets decide who’s allowed to get sick!”
…and they’re doing a heck of a job! If you don’t actually NEED healthcare, and are unlikely to need it anytime soon, then you can buy it at reasonable rates - as long as you don’t use it.
If you DO need healthcare, you either have to pay outrageous rates, or are totally unable to get healthcare at all - except through GWB’s “anybody can go to the Emergency Room” solution.
See? The Invisible Hand Of The Marketplace knows all, sees all, and makes everything perfect. And if you question it, you’re a communist…
“Uh. Right. I’m pretty certain that Barack Obama can do a lot better than this:”
Some strange logic there.
Isn’t that like when a woman who is not young, able-bodied or conventionally attractive is raped, people say “HE wouldn’t have raped HER, she’s UGLY!”
Or when guys are ashamed for a girlfriend who is not “hot” enough to meet their friends.
Not that I think Obama did sleep with the guy, but it was a cheap shot.
Isn’t this guy a professional comedian, “Larry the Cable Guy?” When I first saw this video, I thought it was an uncharacteristically clever joke.
I don’t know anything about “Larry’s” politics. The comedy on the bits of the “Blue Collar Comedy Tour” that I’ve seen has often been reactionary, misogynistic, cracker humor, but of course that’s no guarantee that the comedians themselves are reactionary, misogynistic crackers in real life.
If in fact “Larry” is such a person in real life, than I suppose the chance that the video might go viral and embarrass Obama was a potential side benefit, but I’m not convinced that was its main goal. In fact, it looked to me like “Larry” had lost a bet.
Isn’t that like when a woman who is not young, able-bodied or conventionally attractive is raped, people say “HE wouldn’t have raped HER, she’s UGLY!”
Not really. Without the /sarcasm added.
Per the Larry Sinclair video I just found out about it this past weekend. Out of morbid curiosity I watched it at YouTube, but it’s plastered everywhere. Now the premise this loon presents is hilarious but the reactions of some of the TinFoil Hat Brigade are priceless. Mostly to the effect that they “knew” something was “wrong” with Barack and now they “definitely wont’ vote for him.” Gotta love the old intertubes.
I’m sorry, pam, but i have to ask if you hit your head or something. There is a huge difference between slogans and cliches and an ENTIRE PASSAGE OF A SPEECH - including the underlying idea. I mean, to the point, Obama didn’t even come up with “Fired up and ready to go” (SC NAACP), Yes We Can (Dolores Hueta) or “We are the change …” (Hopi Indians). So his counter here is weak.
But even if it wasn’t - there is a huge difference between a slogan and a full passage of a speech. Jeez. If Clinton had started using entire segments of someone else’s speeches, you’d go nuts.
It’s especially damaging to him because the line in question was defending the power of words. Yet he wasn’t even using his own words. I mean, that’s some irony right there.
Deval Patrick says that he told Obama to use his speechwriters. Were you under the impression that neither Obama nor Clinton uses speechwriters so it’s horrible to find out that OMG! he didn’t write his own words his own self!!!!
If it turned out that Clinton used a passage from a speech of Bill Richardson’s with Richardson’s permission, I’d think that was a silly tempest in a teapot, too. Because Clinton is also a Democrat and is not the enemy.
I don’t have to think Obama is the enemy to know that this sort of intellectual laziness is a boon to Republicans. It wouldn’t be accepted by a college teacher and it shouldn’t get a pass from voters because we all think Obama is so swell. He brought this on himself.
And, since you mention a speechwriter, that brings up another issue. A campaign that has been held up as uniquely authentic and the only one that can … yada, yada, yada, is actually very much like a campaign that happened two years ago in MA. With the same consultants and speechwriters. It really undercuts his argument about the “specialness” of this movement if you can see the man behind the curtain. And HE raised the curtain himself by lifting someone else’s speech!
Not to mention that I’ve seen more than one story talk about how Obama has written his own speeches (specificially 2004) and how his “best” lines are often off-the-cuff. So he’s hurting his own mythology by being like, “oh my speechwriter…”
(And I fully expect that if I were to search the archives of this blog, I would see you defending Clinton from the GOP-style Harry and Louise attacks from Obama, right? because it’s bad when either side attacks?)
Campaigns try to establish narratives for their candidates. Mistakes are just mistakes unless they go against that narrative. Obama did that in a big way. And Pam is trying to brush it off or attack Clinton. Hillary didn’t make Obama copy Patrick. And the double standard is getting old.
I believe this is the current plan. The idea being that the free market drives you either a) to earn an enormous sum of money to pay for healthcare or b) don’t get sick. If you happen to get sick, and can’t afford healthcare it’s a failure of the markets due to government regulation - just think of the competition if we didn’t require medical licenses and outlawed civil lawsuits for malpractice, and think of all the glorious laudanums that would be available without stifling regulation and the FDA. Regardless, if you happen to die due to a treatable illness you’re simply responding to the invisible hand of the free market - as the market has determined that you were simply too lazy to live. Nonetheless, the free market is always right.
And Pam is trying to brush it off or attack Clinton.
No, this really is a mountain out of a mole hill, and it’s less about Clinton herself, than the flailing methods her arrogant team has resorted to, primarily because they have failed their candidate by believing her nomination was inevitable. I’d want my money back if I were Hillary, bad ROI.
I don’t have to think Obama is the enemy to know that this sort of intellectual laziness is a boon to Republicans.
Considering that the right-wing media has already picked up the “OMG Obama is forming a CULT!!!” meme that’s formed on the internet, you’re absolutely right that the Republicans will immediately take this and point out that Obama isn’t really authentic because he uses speechwriters. So thank you for providing them with a lovely meme they can use to defeat the Democrats in November.
(And I fully expect that if I were to search the archives of this blog, I would see you defending Clinton from the GOP-style Harry and Louise attacks from Obama, right? because it’s bad when either side attacks?)
Yes, you would. Search away. Because, believe it or not, I don’t really care which one of them wins. It will not be the end of the world if your preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination, unless supporters on either side decide to be crybabies and stay home because “their” candidate didn’t get it.
Or, as Thers put it on Firedoglake, Your Candidate Sucks.
The only logical response to HRC’s “talk is cheap” meme is “words matter”. I don’t think Patrick has a patent on this idea. It would be a sad day when candidates are precluded from using good ideas just because they’ve been used before. In contrast, Biden was talking about growing up as a poor coal miner’s boy. Here, Obama was not appropriating someone else’s bio.
Hey, does Hillary write all her own speeches? If not, she’s a plagiarist.
Yeah, Obama should have cited Patrick within the speech
Um, I don’t see why he should have, exactly; when was the last time you heard of a speechwriter being credited, period? It seems like we’re now creating special rules of politics that apply to Barack Obama and no one else.
I’m kind of tempted to look at this at the whole Rove-school strategy of basically attacking your opponents for their strengths. If your opponent is a war hero, attack your opponent for being a cowardly war criminal, etc. Even if this is completely nonsensical or the exact opposite of reality, it doesn’t matter; afterward people won’t remember reality, they’ll remember the smears and the denials, and an association will be built in their mind.
With Obama we as far as I can tell have a politician who writes a surprising degree of his own material, both books and speeches. One of his great strengths is that he has a voice, that he is able to communicate his political ideas and vision personally and effectively. And what has the Clinton-driven naarative for the last week been? That Obama talks too much, and that instead of writing he at some point used material written by another author [which that author gave to him to use]. Huh?
I highly doubt the Republicans need to search the comments of this blog to come up with attacks on Obama. This is an attack that Obama brought on himself. It wasn’t made up - he didn’t credit the guy. Shielding Obama from legit criticism on this (or other) issues doesn’t help the democrats. It just means we put forward an untested candidate - and that worked so well for us in 2004.
And Pam - by repeating the insultiningly lame “a three word slogan is practically copy righted” defense, you are attacking Clinton. Apples and oranges.
This isn’t a legit criticism.
And it doesn’t help the Democrats to pose as if this WAS a legit criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry
“Untested”? Are you kidding or just numb?
Here’s the thing - if government can’t do anything (healthcare, for example) right, how do Republicans justify their wargasms? They love the military. They’re constantly going on about how we’ve got the best military in the world. What circuit is missing in their brains such that they can’t recognize that the military is a) run by the government, and b) successful because it is lavishly funded? It’s even overfunded, and could complete any reasonable mission for a fraction of its current cost.
“They love the military. They’re constantly going on about how we’ve got the best military in the world.”
I think the incredible increase in the use of mercenaries, um sorry, “private military contractors” is an indication that even the pass the military has gotten in the past may be over.
Ultimately, the whole thing is a way to extract money from us and give it to defense industries. But some of the money is still going to troops - so if they eliminate that, it’ll be perfect!…
Now if they can just contract out cops and firemen…
I don’t have to think Obama is the enemy to know that this sort of intellectual laziness is a boon to Republicans.
Ah yes, the “intellectually lazy” accusation, generally brought against black politicians of all stripes. Code word much, Columbia? Speech writers recycle lines all the time when they move from political job to political job so I guess politicians who’ve shared speech writers better watch out!
And stringing a bunch of quotes from history with the catch phrase ‘just words’ is not unique thoughts written on paper, but rhetorical flourishes, imo. How do you attribute rhetorical flourishes?
About the dialogue on Tucker Carlson, I watched Clinton do the same thing with George Stephanopoulos. He asked her the question about garnishing wages three times and she kept deflecting the question instead of giving a yes or no. It was frustrating to watch.
lou, my teachers years ago would have said that stringing a bunch of quotes from history to make a report was a form of plagerism! Was credit to the correct authors given??
That’s it- I now declare ownership of every word with an E in it and anyone who uses a word with an E in it w/o my expressed written consent has stolen from me. So there!
(exception given to MikeEss, who is a friend; he can use E’s in all of his speeches…) Hey, very similar to what Duval said regarding Obama! Neat how this sort of lunacy comes around full-circle some days.
Is there any real news out there today, like the Obama/McCain “pride in America” brouhaha?
“(exception given to MikeEss, who is a friend; he can use E’s in all of his speeches…)”
Thanks, louise. I was getting worried there for a second…
I can’t remember now; did patrick footnote his JFK, FDR, MLK, and TJ quotes? How about that “Where’s the Beef” guy — did he credit J. Walter Thompson or whoever came up with that Wendy’s campaign?
I highly doubt the Republicans need to search the comments of this blog to come up with attacks on Obama.
And yet the “Obama as cult leader” meme that started on the liberal blogs is now in the MSM. You’d almost think they picked it up from somewhere, wouldn’t you?