He played his supporters for suckers

[no name 1]

It's not plagiarism, though. If I have a conversation with a fellow academic and then go on to give a talk and incorporate some of our discussion, it isn't plagiarism. It's nice to acknowledge their input -- as Obama did -- but it's not plagiarism. The guy he 'plagiarized' doesn't even think it's plagiarism.

Doesn't make it NOT plagiarism, though.

No, but Obama having used the lines even earlier than he's accused of plagiarizing them does.

So he plagiarized them earlier than this time. Still plagiarized, no?

And yes, Clinton's "solutions not speeches" speech is about two weeks old. She's been running on "experience" the whole time, but she's been going after Obama's rhetoric more within the past two weeks.

Welcome to campaigning 101.

[mawilson 2,133]

Do you think Hillary has written a single speech during this campaign?

In case anyone missed the memo, candidates have speech writers.

Don't even try to talk sense to Alumina - she'll rip your throat out if you say anything negative about her gal.

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, actually, it does matter what the other guy thinks. This is not secretly stealing someone's written work and passing it off as your own. It's using a rhetorical trope that you developed in concert with your friend and used before your friend did for his campaign, and cited in earlier speeches.

I doubt that Obama's friend having denied it was plagiarism will convince Hillbots that it's not plagiarism. There are other reasons it's not, though.

[Caladan 19]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

[Alex+R 0]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard

wow.

[no name 1]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

[Caladan 19]

It's not plagiarism, though. If I have a conversation with a fellow academic and then go on to give a talk and incorporate some of our discussion, it isn't plagiarism. It's nice to acknowledge their input -- as Obama did -- but it's not plagiarism. The guy he 'plagiarized' doesn't even think it's plagiarism.

Doesn't make it NOT plagiarism, though.

No, but Obama having used the lines even earlier than he's accused of plagiarizing them does.

So he plagiarized them earlier than this time. Still plagiarized, no?

And yes, Clinton's "solutions not speeches" speech is about two weeks old. She's been running on "experience" the whole time, but she's been going after Obama's rhetoric more within the past two weeks.

Welcome to campaigning 101.

Sure, nothing wrong with her trying to do anything to win. Makes her campaign look a little ridiculous, but hey, if the best they can come up with is that Patrick and Obama, who worked together and share advisors, gave speeches using the same rhetorical tropes, I guess they better run with the best they got.

Here's the whole story, and why I think it's about as ridiculous as calling co-authors on a book plagiarizing each other. Note that it's from 2007. Not spin in response to this.

Also, it's a little ridiculous to get all up in Obama's face over sharing ideas with another politician when you're backing Clinton, who whatever her political skills, surely benefits from name-recognition -- that isn't hers.

[GaryC 7]

This really is unbelievable. The dems had this election all wrapped up. There was no way they could lose. But for some reason they screwed the pooch. The hype about Obama turns out to be just that, hype. If he is the nominee IMO McCain will make mince meat out of him. Hillary meanwhile is going out of her way to pizz off everyone. In her lust for power she will try every shady trick in the book to get the nomination. Seating delegates that everyone agreed not to seat, going after committed delegates, and in the end counting on Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. She will get creamed by the inevitable smear campaign the reps will start after the convention. They have pretty much assured McCain will be the president.

Gary, is having McCain as the GOP's nominee, a win? Just trying to inject a little reality here.

No, I do not consider it a "win" personally. I only meant a win as opposed to the dem candidate winning. If it were not for the Supreme Court appointments that will come up in the next 4 years I wouldn't care at all who wins. Trust me, McCain is my 3rd to the last choice for president. Just (barely) in front of Clinton and Obama.

[Caladan 19]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

Eh, whatever. It's easier to dismiss me than answer my question, I suppose. (I don't think Clinton plagiarized Edwards either. It's rhetoric. It's speeches. Alluding to and borrowing themes is how it works.)

[no name 1]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

Eh, whatever. It's easier to dismiss me than answer my question, I suppose. (I don't think Clinton plagiarized Edwards either. It's rhetoric. It's speeches. Alluding to and borrowing themes is how it works.)

So if it's so lowball to claim it - why did (v. weakly) O claim Clinton plagiarized him? See post #10.

[Caladan 19]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

Eh, whatever. It's easier to dismiss me than answer my question, I suppose. (I don't think Clinton plagiarized Edwards either. It's rhetoric. It's speeches. Alluding to and borrowing themes is how it works.)

So if it's so lowball to claim it - why did (v. weakly) O claim Clinton plagiarized him? See post #10.

To point out how silly it is?

[no name 1]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

Eh, whatever. It's easier to dismiss me than answer my question, I suppose. (I don't think Clinton plagiarized Edwards either. It's rhetoric. It's speeches. Alluding to and borrowing themes is how it works.)

So if it's so lowball to claim it - why did (v. weakly) O claim Clinton plagiarized him? See post #10.

To point out how silly it is?

I doubt they would go to all the trouble for nothing. Shows their own desperation.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

[metta 0]

It's not plagiarism, though. If I have a conversation with a fellow academic and then go on to give a talk and incorporate some of our discussion, it isn't plagiarism. It's nice to acknowledge their input -- as Obama did -- but it's not plagiarism. The guy he 'plagiarized' doesn't even think it's plagiarism.

Doesn't make it NOT plagiarism, though.

No, but Obama having used the lines even earlier than he's accused of plagiarizing them does.

So he plagiarized them earlier than this time. Still plagiarized, no?

And yes, Clinton's "solutions not speeches" speech is about two weeks old. She's been running on "experience" the whole time, but she's been going after Obama's rhetoric more within the past two weeks.

Welcome to campaigning 101.

Sure, nothing wrong with her trying to do anything to win. Makes her campaign look a little ridiculous, but hey, if the best they can come up with is that Patrick and Obama, who worked together and share advisors, gave speeches using the same rhetorical tropes, I guess they better run with the best they got.

Here's the whole story, and why I think it's about as ridiculous as calling co-authors on a book plagiarizing each other. Note that it's from 2007. Not spin in response to this.

Also, it's a little ridiculous to get all up in Obama's face over sharing ideas with another politician when you're backing Clinton, who whatever her political skills, surely benefits from name-recognition -- that isn't hers.

Rhetoric vs Reality

This is from the story you referenced:

"The similarities between Patrick and Obama, who have known each other for more than a decade, are obvious: Both are idealistic African-American leaders who came of age after the Civil Rights movement. Both have Chicago roots, a Harvard Law degree, and a gift for appealing to both blacks and whites.Their political likeness runs deeper. Both believe that people long for a new dawn of postpartisan, hopeful, and optimistic public leadership. Both staked their fates on grass-roots activism and fund-raising. Both campaign on supplanting cynicism with citizenship."

This is how the idealist Patrick has performed so far, post-elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick

Administration as Governor of Massachusetts

Transition

Deval Patrick became the governor of Massachusetts on January 4, 2007. Before taking office, he named a transition team headed by lawyer Michael Angelini, bank executive Ronald Homer, and Weld administration economic affairs secretary Gloria Cordes Larson.^[14] In his first meetings with the legislative leadership, he proposed his first action would be to hire 1000 new police officers and to expand full-day kindergarten statewide.^[15]He has since scaled back his original proposal and will hire only 250 officers.^[16] As part of the transition, Patrick created a series of working groups who held public meetings to advise him on various policy areas.^[17] The groups included a few names prominent in the election: Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charles Baker. on Budget & Finance, a Weld administration finance advisor who had been considered a potential GOP candidate for governor; Center of Women and Enterprise founder and candidate in the Lieutenant Governor's primary Andrea Silbert on Economic Development; and gubernatorial primary candidate Chris Gabrieli on PreK-12 Education.

Controversies

In the early months of Patrick's administration a series of decisions the governor later conceded as missteps have brought substantial unfavorable press. These include spending almost $11,000 on drapery for the governor's state house suite, changing the state's customary car lease from a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Victoria" class="mw-redirect" title="Crown Victoria">Crown Victoria to a Cadillac, and hiring a staff assistant (who had previously helped chair his election campaign) for the Commonwealth's first lady at an annual salary of almost $75,000. Emerging from a weekend of working on the state's budget and calling for cuts in services to taxpayers, Patrick responded in a February 20, 2007 press conference that "I realize I cannot in good conscience ask the agencies to make those choices without being willing to make them myself,"^[18] Patrick subsequently reimbursed the Commonwealth for the cost of the drapery and furniture purchased for the state house, and the additional monthly difference in his car lease.^[18] First Lady Diane Patrick's staff assistant, Amy Gorin, resigned. ^[19] Later in the same month Patrick again came under fire, this time for contacting Citigroup Executive Committee chair, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on behalf of the financially beleaguered mortgage company Ameriquest, a subsidiary of ACC Capital Holdings of which Patrick is a former board member. Both Citigroup and ACC Capital Holdings have substantial holdings in Massachusetts.^[20] Patrick attempted to deflect criticism claiming he was calling not as governor but as a private citizen. Later Patrick backed down, stating "I appreciate that I should not have made the call. I regret the mistake."^[20]

Patrick's Sep. 11 memorial service speech in 2007 caused a controversy as well. Among other things, he said "It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other. It seems to me that lesson at that morning is something that we must carry with us every day." This was criticized by several newspapers as well as some relatives of the victims. Jim Ogonowski, a brother of the 9/11 victim and a Republican congressional candidate called the comments "completely inappropriate." ^[21][22]

During the election, Patrick's membership in the historically elitist Fly Club drew the sincerity of his progressive and populist political mantra into question. ^[23] Patrick claims to have left the club in 1983, when he realized the discrepancy. Still, the criticism he drew could be compared to that of his Democratic colleague, Ted Kennedy, for membership in another final club while at Harvard.

In February 2008, Carl Stanley McGee who serves as assistant secretary for policy and planning in the Patrick administration was placed on unpaid leave pending the resolution of criminal charges against him in Florida. McGee was arrested on December 28, 2007 at the Gasparilla Inn & Club in Lee County, Florida and charged with sexual battery for sexually assaulting ^[24] a 15 year old boy who was also a guest at the hotel. McGee is scheduled to be arraigned on the charges on February 11, 2008.^[25]

http://' target="_blank">

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

illumine, this shouldn't be all that hard, but it's not plagiarizing if two people work on rhetoric together and use it separately, especially when they cite each other.

Did Hillary plagiarize John Edwards?

must be under that Obama spell....

Eh, whatever. It's easier to dismiss me than answer my question, I suppose. (I don't think Clinton plagiarized Edwards either. It's rhetoric. It's speeches. Alluding to and borrowing themes is how it works.)

So if it's so lowball to claim it - why did (v. weakly) O claim Clinton plagiarized him? See post #10.

To point out how silly it is?

I doubt they would go to all the trouble for nothing. Shows their own desperation.

The only desperate party I see at this point is the campaign of the candidate formerly known as "Ms. Inevitable" which is running against the wind. They don't have any substance to hold against their opponent so they just dio what Clintons do well: sling mud in the hope that some sticks.