Plagiarize This!

Why am I finding the Clinton campaign's harping on Obama's borrowing of rhetoric from a Deval Patrick speech to be infuriating?   Do they think that this will resonate with the Democratic electorate in upcoming primaries?  Because having come home to a series of stories about the flap on CNN, the network news, and MSNBC, I am once again finding myself in a lather against Clinton and Co.  I am curious how this sits with everyone out there.  Again, to me it smacks of Republican like tactics, not a quality I find endearing. 

I particularly enjoy the fact that Clinton flack Howard Wolfson would not guarantee that Hillary has not done the same thing that he is making a fuss about regarding Obama. 

I predict that this backfires. 

Comments

[ikl]

I don't know. I think that they have been successful in creating a bad news cycle for Obama in the day before a primary. I'm not sure if this puts them over the top in Wisconsin, but I suspect that it doesn't hurt. Voters who really take exception to this are probably voting for Obama anyway. At least that is my best guess.

[weboy]

I'm at a loss to see why this is a big deal - why wouldn't Obama crib lines from a successful candidate like Patrick? (who, I noted back in 2006, won against a white woman in a way that said to me that Clinton could run into trouble with Obama... in much the same way.) I think what's interesting is just the reaction you describe, Sir C - why so angry? So he swiped a useful line... is that a big deal? And if it is a big deal... why does that say something about Clinton? Doesn't it say more about Obama?

[Joe Klein's conscience]

Hasn't Clinton been cribbing lines from John Edwards?

[Sir Charles]

Weboy,

I'm angry at Clinton -- not Obama. I share your view that this is much ado about nothing.

I think I was clear. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[Sir Charles]

The fact that Obama and Patrick have shared rhetoric was reported by the Boston Globe in April 2007.

bhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope/?page=1y

[ikl]

I just read a summary of how the three major networks played this story at

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=655

If accurate, this seems not particularly damaging to Obama and in some cases may make Clinton look silly. So perhaps my first instrinct was off.

[Sir Charles]

ikl,

My sense of Democrats writ large is that they are desperate for victory, want to feel good about their nominee, and are exceedingly bitter about the treatment afforded both Gore and Kerry at the hands of the Republicans and the mainstream media. To the extent that one fits this profile and has not yet decided between Obama and Clinton, I am guessing that Clinton has helped make up your mind -- and not in her favor.

[weboy]

No, Sir Charles, I get that you're annoyed with Clinton... again. I'm just not sure why. This whole thing seems very politics as usual to me, and one of those "slow news day" stories that would otherwise not cause much comment. But then, I think Obama supporters seem so ready to decry virtually any Clinton criticism (and use this "higher plane" discussion of disliking politics as it usually happens), it doesn't surprise me that you're annoyed... I just don't really see why. And it makes me wonder if the real usefulness here is getting the Obama people to react, roughly, to even the most benign stories, rather than - were one actually rising above politics as usual - ignoring the whole thing.

[Crissa]

I predict this will be on every Obamaitis blog.

At some point, I really wish you guys would have something inspirational to say other than 'nuh-uh! My candidate doesn't steal more than your candidate!'.

[Sir Charles]

Weboy,

It can't be ignored because the Clinton people have injected it into the news cycle. It was all over the place tonight. I am pissed not because I have the illusion of rising above politics, but because this is the kind of non-substantive attack that our Republican brethren specialize in. This is not a benign story though -- it's an attempt to take Obama down a peg -- bring him down to her level as it were, rather than engage on the issues.

I should point out that I started as an Edwards supporter, I am neither a naif or some "cult" follower, but that I am deeply invested in a Democratic win in November. I feel like I've lived my entire adult life in the poltical wilderness and I don't appreciate what the Clinton campaign seems to me to be about. I will support her if she is the nominee, but this stuff gets tiresome.

[weboy]

Charles, of course it can be ignored - campaigns throw all sorts of things over the transom on any given day, and sometimes the press bites and sometimes they don't, and even if the press bites, the story won't have legs if the audience ignores it. Like I said, I don't see what the big deal is here; the Clinton people can call it whatever they wish, but the fact that Obama would use Patrick's words seems not a big deal to me. I don't think it brings him down a peg... why should you? And indeed, does anyone? I haven't heard anyone say this makes them think less of him, so at best, it's a charge by the Clintons that has little effect. Which is why I think the fact that Obama folks get riled over it is the story here... because the story itself doesn't amount to much.

As ofr this wilderness stuff - I've been voting in elections since 1984. As far as the wilderness goes, I think we've been in a better place vis-a-vis wilderness since the nineties, and while the Bush elections were frustrating, as far as wildernesses go, 1984 and 1988 were really (really) disillusioning. At this point we have two really good candidates, momentum, and the right agenda. And I think there's way too much hand wringing on both sides of supporters about what's happening here: really, two very good people with very similar points of view and little to differentiate them are struggling to win over groups that have failed to see their appeal.

As much as I think some Clinton moves - like this one - can be a bit ham-handed, I think the Obama campaign is pretty flummoxed about how to win over the core of Hillary Clinton supporters too. And getting mad when she tweaks him for some borrowed rhetoric seems a part of not quite knowing how to cope with even the least difficult attacks... the various things Clinton's brought up, to me, seem minor compared to what the Republicans are ready to do... and Obama needs more game face. I'm supporting her (partly because I do think she's prepared to fight harder and rougher), but I'll be fine with supporting him in November too; I just wish his campaign didn't get rattled by such minor stuff.

[ikl]

Do you have any evidence that his campaign is "rattled"?

I also am confused about why anyone would think that Clinton would run a better campaign in November. Maybe she will pull through in March and things will look different, but at this point, I'd say that her campaign looks pretty inept (wasting money, not planning for the future, losing delegates because you don't contest states, making dumb excuses that will only serve to annoy people whose votes you might need in the future etc.) Of course, Clinton spin says that she is "tested" and will "fight", but I can't see much real evidence that she is particularly good at running campaigns. Reality seems to be catching up to imagine in this case.

[ikl]

Should have been image, not imagine.

[ikl]

Also note that Obama doesn't have to win over the core of Clinton's supporters to prevail in the primary, but just keep things about where they are now. Clinton is behind and needs to win big in some large states especially since Obama is apt to pick up more delegates in places like MI, NC, SD and VT. Recent polls from Texas showing Clinton up 2% or 5% cannot be reassuring. Clinton could win by about that margin and still lose delegates in Texas - something which Clinton absolutely cannot afford to do now. I think that it is pretty important for Clinton to win or tie in Wisconsin . . .

[riffle]

weboy wrote "Like I said, I don't see what the big deal is here; the Clinton people can call it whatever they wish, but the fact that Obama would use Patrick's words seems not a big deal to me. I don't think it brings him down a peg... why should you? And indeed, does anyone?"

It's not a big deal to me, and to many who know what real plagiarism is and why this isn't it.

But most people don't other than have some vague impression that plagiarism is quite bad (people get fired for it! Biden dropped out of the race due to it! Is it like pedophilia?)

Having a candidate's name attached to such a term about a thousand times in one day is bad for that candidate.

For those who do know what plagiariism is and who think this may arguably be a case of it, it is a way to reduce that so important but only-awarded-by-the-cognescenti attribute called "authenticity."

So it's a totally bullshit charge and the Clintonistas know it (Wolfson wouldn't even admit that Clinton had not done exactly the same thing), and it's not a fatal blow or anything, but it's not good for Obama.

I doubt it did much damage but this is only one of quite a few of these BS charges that are to come from the Clintonista. It's all they have, really. But it'll come in handy for McCain's crew in the fall, too, if Obama is the nominee.

[riffle]

Also adding, I think the Obama campaign, and Obama himself, handled it quite well. Obama didn't even break a sweat and managed to get a glancing blow at Clinton on his rebuttal--also quite a few of the evening news' showed HRC making much the same borrowings of verbiage from others.

But CNN didn't care too much, and attached the word plagiarism to Obama several dozen times with (of course) generally little to no perspective beyond "accused of plagiarism" for hour after hour.

But as far as Obama and his campaign, they were pretty good about handling it overall.

[Sir Charles]

Agree with everything that ikl and riffle said.

And Weboy, my first futile vote was for Carter in 1980, so I win the suffering Olympics.

[weboy]

Look, all I said was that I don't think this is a big deal, and no one since has suggested exactly how it is... there's a lot of supposition and theoretical of how it could be, but nothing to point to of anyone actually reacting any way other than this notion of "plagiarism" isn't especially important. I think - and I've said as much on my own blog, repeatedly, that Clinton faces considerable antipathy, I think there's a "she can do no right" aspect to discussing her at this point, and I think Obama folks (not the campaign itself, but average supporters) have a visceral annoyance at any challenge to Obama on almost any level, which Clinton supporters don't necessarily have in reverse. There's an earnestness, and a sense of mission to this discussion that I simply don't share - to me, Obama is a politician, a skilled one, but not the "change agent" so many want to see.

ikl, we'll know soon enough if there is an insurmountable lead/momentum for Obama, and I'm not one to predict confidently one way or another. I'm hopeful that the Clinton folks have made some progress turning things around (because I support her), but it may not be enough, or in enough time (and things like that visceral antipathy are hard to ever overcome). But I'd point out that what we've had so far is a roughly 50-50 split of votes up to now, and no, Obama has not closed the deal with that other 50% so far. I'm not saying it's a huge problem, but both candidates need to deal with the side that isn't voting for them, however one wants to break that down. Again, it could be that everything's shifted and he's already broadened his appeal... but I don't see it happening yet, and I don't see it from others I know who support her.

Finally Charles, as you say, you win the suffering Olympics (I was for Anderson in 80, so what do I know).... but again, with all that experience we have, you and I, I'd challenge the notion that what we have now is anywhere near as bad as what we had in the eighties. That was horrendous; what we have now seems far better... at least from where I'm sitting.

[Sir Charles]

Weboy,

Once again this morning I had to listen to Howard Wolfson flogging this story on MSNBC with a vengance. It is all designed to tear down Obama, not tout the positive things that Hillary can do.

I certainly agree that the media have been unfair to Clinton and I have not hesitated to write about it -- I've blasted Matthews, Maureen Dowd and others for their misogyny and double standards, etc.

But I don't appreciate at all what is being done here. And no, Obama hasn't done the same or responded in kind in what is a pretty target rich environment.

The only reason that things are superior to the 1980s I guess is that these clowns have had a run for a generation, they put junior in charge and he's fucked things up to a fare thee well, so we have a moment that is ripe for change. Let's hope we take advantage of it.

[Oh, an Anderson supporter -- I always get to act smug around them, a group that includes my wife and one of my best friends at work -- of course, I supported Kennedy passionately in the primaries and had backed a series of Carter's opponents in 1976, so the charms of the peanut farmer were always pretty limited in my mind too.]

[weboy]

I'm not a big fan of this "they've been in power for a generation" meme that's floating these days about Republicans - it ignores the Clinton presidency, and a substantial portion of Democratic control of Congress in the eighties that were meaningful brakes on a terrible agenda that was never the success conservatives like to imagine it was. We won some battles, and ultimately, I think we've exposed the "conservative ideas" for the emperor's clothes that they are. Yes, there have been enormous costs, and yes, Iraq pains me as much as anyone, but this "poor little Dems" thing that we've got going is too moody by half. We've done damn well lately, and the party is much better, stronger and more energetic than the one I supported growing up in the seventies and eighties. Perk up!

Second, I didn't say the Obama folks played "the same" or "in kind" - what I said was that there's a resistance to criticism of Obama by his supporters that often out of proportion to what's actually been said or critiqued, and a sense of mission and inspiration about him that I, and other Clinton supporters I know, don't share. I think he'll be a fine President; but I think some folks will be disappointed should he succeed (a reality that's certainly well on the horizon now), when he turns out to be knowable, explicable, flawed and not wondrous. I don't think Clinton is flawless (and I don't spend my time following folks like Howard Wolfson, so I haven't heard him today or yesterday), I just think she'd make a good President. I respect the people who want more... who want inspiration, meaning, and all... I just don't think that's what we're going to get, from anyone, with this election.

[Sir Charles]

Weboy,

Pardon my gloominess, but the ideological battle for the last generation has been a pretty difficult one, particularly on the economic left, where we have taken it on the chin in a big way, including during the Clinton years. There has not been a working liberal majority in the country since the Carter Administration and Clinton pretty much governed from a completely defensive posture for his eight years. The things that Clinton accomplished -- a balanced budget and sustained economic growth -- are ideologically compatible with what a moderate Republican of the 1970s would have advocated.

I think we have stopped the right from doing some incredibly bad things -- but that is a world away from implementing a positive agenda of our own.

Fortunately, I think the right has exhausted its agenda, and the things that it stands for are not terribly popular. The contradictions within the right are far more profound than what is going on in the Democratic primaries, so I am somewhat hopeful. But it is hope tempered by a lifetime of disappointments and the fear that right wing veniality is endless and may yet triumph again.