The Clinton campaign has a new line of attack on Barack Obama: he's a plagiarist. And it's hard to argue with the video:
Pretty damning, right? Clearly, the Clinton camp has an open-and-shut case.
Well, except for one thing.
The person being plagiarized here is Deval Patrick, now the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Patrick is a strong backer of Obama, and...well, I'm sure you can see where this is heading: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.”
Now, plagiarism is a serious charge, and it's based on failing to attribute words properly. Obama did not, in his speech, say "As Deval Patrick said...", but then again, Deval Patrick himself told Obama to use the line, and not to worry about the credit.
That's not plagiarism. That's speechwriting.
Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign, continuing that campaign's efforts to make everyone surrounding Hillary Clinton look like a complete buffoon, asserts the plagiarism charge still sticks:Wolfson said the plagiarism charge still holds because listeners go in with the assumption that Obama's speeches are original, unless credit is given. "So I think it's fine that Deval Patrick said that," Wolfson said. "But what I'm concerned about is that the public has an expectation that Sen. Obama's words are his own."
To which I can only respond: has Hillary Clinton fired her speechwriters? I highly doubt it. Every day, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee get out of bed, go somewhere, and give speeches written, at least in part, by someone who is not them. The words, in short, are "not their own." And yet nobody accuses Hillary Clinton of plagiarizing her speechwriters' words when speaking; indeed, it would be stupid to do so.
That's what happened here: Deval Patrick gave Barack Obama some lines to use in a speech, free of charge or requirement for attribution. Obama used them. That's not a scandal. That's the way things are supposed to work. Indeed, Obama should probably use other peoples' words more often, especially when referring to Hillary Clinton. It would make me happier, I can tell you that.
Pretty damning, right? Clearly, the Clinton camp has an open-and-shut case.
Well, except for one thing.
The person being plagiarized here is Deval Patrick, now the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Patrick is a strong backer of Obama, and...well, I'm sure you can see where this is heading:
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.”
Now, plagiarism is a serious charge, and it's based on failing to attribute words properly. Obama did not, in his speech, say "As Deval Patrick said...", but then again, Deval Patrick himself told Obama to use the line, and not to worry about the credit.
That's not plagiarism. That's speechwriting.
Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign, continuing that campaign's efforts to make everyone surrounding Hillary Clinton look like a complete buffoon, asserts the plagiarism charge still sticks:
Wolfson said the plagiarism charge still holds because listeners go in with the assumption that Obama's speeches are original, unless credit is given. "So I think it's fine that Deval Patrick said that," Wolfson said. "But what I'm concerned about is that the public has an expectation that Sen. Obama's words are his own."
To which I can only respond: has Hillary Clinton fired her speechwriters? I highly doubt it. Every day, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee get out of bed, go somewhere, and give speeches written, at least in part, by someone who is not them. The words, in short, are "not their own." And yet nobody accuses Hillary Clinton of plagiarizing her speechwriters' words when speaking; indeed, it would be stupid to do so.
That's what happened here: Deval Patrick gave Barack Obama some lines to use in a speech, free of charge or requirement for attribution. Obama used them. That's not a scandal. That's the way things are supposed to work. Indeed, Obama should probably use other peoples' words more often, especially when referring to Hillary Clinton. It would make me happier, I can tell you that.
