Pages

Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama Plagiarizes? Don't Make Me Go There...

Just as I'm starting to think I can get behind a presidential candidate...

Clinton aide accuses Obama of plagiarism
[Mike Allen, Politico.com, 2008.02.18]

The text in question: Obama's ad lib to the Wisconsin Dems Founder's Day Gala Saturday night in Milwaukee:

Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! [Applause.] ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!

The source: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, campaign rally, 2006.10.15:

But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.’ [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!

Yeah, I'd bust Dwaine Chapel for turning that phrase. I should bust Obama as well. The Clinton aide making the charge, campaign communications director Howard Wolfson, makes the case well:

Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.

When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader" [Allen]


Wolfson is echoing things DSU's Casualene Meyer and I have (no plagiarism here, I promise) about plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious crime. And the crime might be compounded by the fact that this is not the first time Obama has used the text in question: he used the "Just words?" retort in a New Republic interview defending University of Chicago social scientist Saul Alinsky.

However, there's more to this story. Allen fleshes out the story with some background. Obama and Patrick apparently are friends and share ideas regularly. Governor Patrick himself has said so:

The Massachusetts governor said in a statement: “Sen. Obama and I are longtime 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 [for] responding in just the way he did” [Allen].

Now this is a different story. Here we have the alleged plagiarist and source interacting closely. The source, Patrick, has given explicit approval of the plagiarist's, Obama's, use of the text for the specific purpose of responding to Clinton's attacks. Both Obama and Patrick are students of Chicago political strategist David Axelrod, who has advised both men's campaigns and for we all know may have had a hand in crafting the original message [see Scott Helman, "Patrick, Obama Campaigns Share Language of 'Hope,'" Boston Globe, 2007.04.16]. They share more than a chance line in a speech (and a darn good one, at that): they share political beliefs, strategies, and circles. This close relationship calls into question whether any harm was done.

So is it plagiarism or not? I don't want to give Obama a pass, just because I'm starting to like him as a candidate. I note that Obama himself is openly giving credit now to Deval for the line and says he should have done given that credit in the speech Saturday [see Nedra Pickler, AP, "Obama Says Borrowed Lines Not a Big Deal," Yahoo News, 2008.02.18]. Alas, the Obama campaign also tries a little "Everyone's doing it" defense, citing lines Hillary Clinton likes to borrow from his speeches.

Grrr. I am not happy. I see the plagiarism story is catching some wind on the blogs: perhaps we'll see a full-scale review of every candidate's speech texts and find some scary results. If they keep this up, I'll turn my attention back to agitating for a brokered convention, a Cleveland insurgency, and Dennis Kucinich back at the top of the ticket.

Update: 15:58 CST: I read a little further and find some more commentary on the plagiarism question:

--Jason Zengerle on the New Republic blog The Plank cites a December speech in which Obama noted that he and Patrick have stolen lines from each other regularly.

--David Kusnet, a former Bill Clinton speechwriter, tells The Plank Obama's statement comes nowhere near plagiarism:

To be condemned as plagiarism, a political speech needs to be grievously offensive--using lots of distinctive but little-known material from another source without attributing it to that speaker or receiving his or her permission [Kusnet, "Former Clinton Speechwriter Weighs In On Plagiarism-Gate '08," The Plank, 2008.02.18].

--Noam Scheiber notes the Patrick-Axelrod-Obama connection and catalogs some Clintonian line-filching (the latter is still no excuse).

--The Chicago Tribune's Swamp points to a New York Times interview with Patrick, who says he and Obama anticipated criticism of Obama's rhetorical strength and discussed responses. Patrick says he "shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters." He also explicitly rejects the notion that Obama needs to 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” [see Jeff Zeleny, "An Obama Refrain Bears Echoes of a Governor's Speeches," New York Times, 2008.02.18].

At the point where the alleged victim does not press charges, the debate might be over. I've said the same about local instances of plagiarism: if the LAIC can show it has permission to reprint articles without attribution, then I raise no fuss. Governor Patrick is telling Senator Obama, "Use my stuff. Make the point. Win the argument." If Patrick knows about Obama's use of his language, and if Patrick doesn't mind, then I guess there's no scandal here.

7 comments:

  1. Madville, check references. “There is nothing new under the Sun.” Ecclesiastes. Plagiarism is not a crime. If so, what's the sentencing scheme? - besides staying after school and cleaning the blackboard.

    Besides the academic hoopla, Clinton borrowed phases and ideas from Obama, from her spouse, Howard Dean, and from Edwards without attribution.
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjgzOTZhMDMxNzc2OTNlYjU5OGI5OGU3OTBiNTI2NTI=
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/18/former-clinton-speechwriter-weighs-in-on-plagiarism-gate-08.aspx
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080218/cm_huffpost/087209

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, Anon, plagiarism is a crime, just like lying. The sentencing scheme? Depends: losing your job is one common rememdy....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't care if Obama uses somebody's elses words or not actually. What I do mind is that he is planning to use MY money to reward his voters with free money to college students, at least partially if not fully funded health care, etc etc, basic income redistribution. He's promising everything to everyone via his admittedly inspiring speeches, and young people especially who haven't even experienced the job field and paying taxes etc. are buying into this rhetoric. If I thru hard work over years have managed to accumulate a little more money (not rich by any means though), why should my income be redistributed to someone who did not choose to work hard or save money etc?

    As I said, I could care less about his words. I do care deeply about how he plans to implement these words, and he is very adept at avoiding any explanation of this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Crime? Please find it for us in the criminal code.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Haven't we been over this before? Plagiarism is lying, cheating, and stealing. As I have written before, plagiarism can result in "disciplinary probation, suspension, or expulsion [SDSU Student Conduct Code of the University Community 01:10:25:02],... loss of contract," and termination of employment. It's like adultery: you may not go to jail, but you can end up getting all sorts of punishment that the courts will uphold.

    By the way, Anonymous, I am deeply curious as to who you are and why you have such an investment in trying to defend plagiarism. Are you just having fun arguing with me, or do you really want to make the world safe for plagiarism?

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's why I'm voting McCain... he doesn't plagarize! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I agree that Plagiarism is a serious offense that should be considered when holding elected officials accountable, I don't believe this event rises to that level. It would have been better if Barak had said something like, "In the words of my friend". But even without that statement, the common discussion about these ideas between the two had, I believe, created a communal idea they could share.
    With that aside, let me say that I agree completely with the words spoken. Words, ideas are important. Hopefully these words will frame policy in the future.

    FJ

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.