Do as I say, not as I do
After making Obama’s use of a theme one of his friends utilized their attack du jour, the Clinton campaign was questioned by Jake Tapper at ABC:
I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.
They would not.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn’t be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had “lifted” such language.
“Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric,” Wolfson said.
Hmmmm.
Obama is running on rhetoric and Hillary’s running on being older with more experience, according to Team Clinton. Which means he needs to be more ethical and she doesn’t, apparently.
Is that the logic experience yields?
Obama’s response via Nedra Pickler at AP:
NILES, Ohio - Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that he doesn’t think it’s a big deal that he borrowed lines from his friend Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, although he probably should have given him credit.
Patrick said during his gubernatorial campaign a year and a half ago that words matter, like “I have a dream” and “all men are created equal.”
Obama used the same lines Saturday night in Wisconsin. Obama said that Patrick suggested he use the lines to respond to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s suggestion that Obama is more of a talker than a doer.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson accused Obama of plagiarizing Patrick, and that’s particularly troubling since Obama’s appeal is based in large part on his rhetorical skills.
“It raises questions about the premise of his candidacy,” Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.
Obama, D-Ill., says that’s going too far.
“Now hold on a second. Let’s see — I’ve written two books, wrote most of my speeches,” Obama told reporters at a news conference after touring a titanium plant.
“I’m happy to give Deval credit, as I give credit to a lot people for spurring all kinds of ideas,” he said. “But I think that it is fair to say that everything that we’ve been doing in generating excitement and the interest that people have in the election is based on the core belief in me that we need change in America.”
Asked whether he wished he would have given him credit given the criticism he’s facing, Obama responded: “I was on the stump, and he had suggested that we use these lines. I thought they were good lines. I’m sure I should have — didn’t this time.”
“I really don’t think this is too big of a deal,” he said. He said he’s noticed Clinton using his phrases sometimes, like “it’s time to turn the page” and “fired up, ready to go.”
February 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Stop with your attacks on the Clinton’s, jerk!
February 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Way to persuade, Pricky. See, I can be ineffective and insulting, too. I’ll criticize both whenever I think they earn it. Now go find your special purpose.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
It’s not that he’s used words - everyone has used words. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSVsUvqb_Q
Obama is an opportunist and presents no substance. And now, methinks, he’s a fraud.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The thing that is most disgusting is that there has been a one-sided personal attack campaign on Hillary. The entire country sees this, hears this, reads this and begins to buy into it. From the beginning it’s been all about knocking Hillary down as many pegs as the mysogynist thugs in the media can. Meanwhile Obama just slithers along. Politics is a dirty business and it is possible that the hate campaign has worked and with Hillary sidelined the ever smug and arrogant Obama will be dragged through the mud. His wife’s every word will be criticized, and in her case it will be well deserved. They’ll both be cannibalized by the GOP and McCain will be the next president. On the off-chance that the charlatan, Obama ends up in the White House he will fall on his own petard and we will have four more years of strife.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:15 am
The anti-Clinton attack mentality is a holdover from the 90s. And yes, with Hillary, the addition of sexism is thrown in.
In reality, this is LESS than what occurred in the Sixties. The dreamers and marchers and hippies and yippies and liberated women and war defiers were hated and reviled, saved only by their own numbers from being disappeared. We changed the world anyway. As a minority amid a majority who thought we were all Communists when most of us weren’t.
And when the first boomer hit the White House who was hardly a radical but merely anti-Vietnam War, the attacks began anew.
That’s the real knives that are out for Hillary. It comes from the warmongers, the nationalists, the bullies.
Some from the boomer left critique her for other reasons, feeling she left those ideals. But they carry no knives. For them, it’s not driven by blind rage nor personal animosity.
And Barack? I think it’s wrong to blame him for any of it. To paraphrase Billy Joel, he didnt start the fire. He’s merely another idealist with another way. So I don’t get the big animosity towards him.
Maybe he’ll wend his way through, maybe he won’t. I will say this: in this country, doing what he’s doing carries a great risk that a hater will aim a gun at him. So I don’t view him as some prima donna, despite what the media does or some of his overzealous fans. He’s intelligent and is well aware of the dangers his candidacy poses.
So you might want to reconsider and back off a little bit. He didn’t make the world unfair. I don’t believe he’s anti-Hillary at all. He just happens to be a temporary political opponent.
I see flaws in both I don’t like, but McCranky would be far, far worse. I encourage partisans to reconsider and focus on the real enemies ahead.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
>>So I don’t get the big animosity towards him.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“So I don’t get the big animosity towards him.”
This is pretty easy to understand. Those who are passionate about Clinton, either for her actual accomplishments or out of issues of identity (she’s a woman, she was high-profile during bitter culture wars) will tend to vilify or demonize anyone who stands in her way. Most Clinton supporters don’t hate Obama or see his campaign in terms of good and evil. But for those who are most passionately in favor of her, he’s bad if he doesn’t help her.
I see this in fringe supporters of both campaigns. Those who demonize either candidate are thinking about the world a lot the way that George W. Bush does: You’re either with us, or you’re against us.
This is childish, but very human. I’m just glad that such passion rarely devolves in our country to street violence. In much of the world, the tendency to see political rivals and their supporters as “evil” has very ugly consequences.
Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee could all serve in the Oval Office effectively, and though each would bring a very different approach and tone, none of them is the anti-Christ (though each has been called that) and none would result in the end of civilization or the ruin of his or her respective party.
But I expect the shrill tone to continue. If we were to elect either Clinton or Huckabee, that shrillness from the opposition would continue for another four years at least, so I hope the eventual winner is someone who can begin to bring our divided country together again.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
That makes sense, Bruce, though, with the likelihood that Huckabee would stack the Supremes further rightward, his effectiveness would be minimal and his divisiveness great. I don’t believe Clinton would run into such divisiveness in the Senate, where she’s effectively broken the partisan barrier, but the House would remain shrill (no matter; it’s likely to be Democratic and her appts only require Senate consent.)
McCain is weak on the economy, against national healthcare, has vowed to not raise taxes (despite his former opposition to the tax cuts to the wealthy) and, worst of all, is a warmonger in a time that requires a more effective way. His infamous temper makes him a good candidate for choosing the bully pulpit over compromise. The only positive he may bring is a renewal of Republican environmentalism like we haven’t seen since the early 1970s.
Effective? Effective at keeping Americans endangered and fearful.
I think both Clinton and Obama can be effective. They’ve learned the way to get through to the powerbrokers in Congress. I think they both know how and when to butt heads. I think they both have highly skilled advisers. And I think Obama has a clear edge in motivating people, utilizing innovation and vision.
Nevertheless, I suspect we’re entering a troublesome economic period that can’t be cleared up by the midterm elections, because foundational changes are required. Any renewal is likely to occur in the final year of the next term, no matter who takes the helm, and if it’s not sufficient, they may be destined for only one term.
Partisan politics will continue but I think the majority of Americans are ready to stuff their ears if it gets as bad as the last 16 years, granting a good opening for the next president. Ongoing war remains the greatest impediment to a renewal of comity and the two fastest outs from Iraq will be Obama and Clinton, in that order.