Barack Obama Is Unoriginal
STUMP SPEECH PLAGIARIZES MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR’S 2006 ORATION
FITSNews - February 18, 2008 - We know it’s against the law to criticize Barack Obama these days, but the fact that sections of his stump speech are pretty much plagiarized from speeches given two years ago by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is kind of disappointing. Or at least it would be if we shared Obama’s vision for America, which we don’t, so that’s probably a poor choice of words.
Speaking of poor word choices, though, here’s what Obama’s been saying lately on the campaign trail:
“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. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words, just speeches!”
And here’s what Patrick said back in 2006 while running against then-Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey:
“Her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is all I have to offer is words. Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — 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.”
Is it plagiarism? Probably. Of course, since we’re the most original writers like, ever (and since we can’t even spell “plagiarism” without computer assistance), we’re probably the last people on the planet you should ask. We have noted how unoriginal Obama can be in the past, but that was before a certain sultry supporter of his stole our hearts, people. Now we believe in “One Nation, Under Oprah,” too!
Comments
By notverybright on February 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
This is an example of why I wonder if readers of this this blog can trust what they read here. You obviously intentionally left out the central fact, the one that is essential to a conclusion of plagiarism.
Obama had permission from Patrick. End of debate.
By Palmetto Pulse on February 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Notverybright, permission or otherwise doesn’t really matter to me. I’m more concerned with the fact that this man doesn’t have an original thought.
By Natasha on February 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
notverybright,
Where are the news reports that he got permission? Nothing I have read says that…Would love it if you could share a link to that story…
By CL on February 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
How is anyone surprised that Barack is unoriginal? Every speech he gives is nothing but recycled ’60’s platitudes.
By Silence Dogood on February 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Palmetto Pulse, you noted “permission or otherwise doesn’t really matter to me. I’m more concerned with the fact that this man doesn’t have an original thought.”
Does to quote some one else really mean he doesn’t have an original thought. This is probably one of several HUNDRED speeches he (as well as other candidates have given). I don’t know if that amounts to not having an orginial thought.
Is there something else you are basing that comment upon? You could be right for all I know, but it seems a little terse if is it based on this story article alone.
By notverybright on February 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
This is from the NY Times. I tried posting the link, but it may have been caught by this blog’s spam-catcher, which blocks comments with links. You can Google it, but here’s the excerpt:
“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.”
By Palmetto Pulse on February 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Dogood…
I should be more clear with my thoughts and stand corrected. I generally think that he doesn’t have many original thoughts…personal opinion mind you. I recognize speech writing as an art form and acknowledge the usuage of quotes as a meaningful tool but I think he just goes a step further. As far as basing something on a FITS article alone…never. Sic Willie is a tormented soul upon which nothing should be based - namely, my opinion.
By Silence Dogood on February 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Palmetto Pulse, thanks for the candor - and I can respect your opinion on him being unoriginal w/o needing plenty of examples. I would have just been concerned if this had been your only basis.
I haven’t heard too-too many of his speeches, but one from last night that I found pretty funny that was obviously not borrowed from anyone was this in response to Hillary touting that she is tough enough to face the Republican in the gen. election (and infering Obama is not) - “Let me just remind you that I grew up in the South side of Chicago, and I may be skinny, but I am tough!” I do it no justice as the delivery was done with just enough self deprecation and lack of personal importance as to make it really funny. I don’t base my presidential pick on that, yet it did manage to generate a chuckle on the morning drive in to work.
By Palmetto Patriot on February 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/did_obama_plagiarize_clinton_t.html
This is a link to an article that quotes New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny’s interview with Gov. Patrick. It is clear, from Gov. Patrick’s own quote, that Gov. Patrick not only permitted Obama to use this language but encouraged him do so.
Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as - “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
The operative word in this definition is “unauthorized”, the bottom line is that this is a last ditch effort from a campaign in free fall.
By fitsnews on February 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Palmetto Pulse = Sexy. Rrrrawwwr.
-FITSNews
By G.L. on February 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
This is not a surprise. Even though it may not be plagiarism, it just proves that his rhetoric is unoriginal. He knocked off his book title, “The Audacity of Hope” from his radical black supremist pastor.
By Wondering on February 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Do you think atrick would have said anything different?
Would Bill tell on Hillary?
Obama on Michelle?
Personally, I don’t think it is a big deal….but the little “white” lies told afterwards say a lot.
By Palmetto Patriot on February 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I wonder if McCain would be considered unoriginal??? He never uses any of Reagan’s phrases and rhetorical devices…
By Gillon on February 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Obama does not have an “original thought?” Well try this one. He was one of a handful that voted AGAINST George Bush and Dick Cheney’s
unneccessary , costly, and unwinnable war against Iraq. But I suppose the thought that maybe we could have avoided up to this point the loss of 4,000 brave young Americans and the maiming of thousands more, the wasting of nearly three billion dollars a week of our national treasure, and the incalculable loss of American prestige abroad does not rate as “original ” to some.
By Monkeydarts on February 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
David Axelrod handles both of these guys in is certainly the creator of the bit of rhetoric both used. A-Rod is a lefty campaign genius.
By Monkeydarts on February 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Gillon, what’s “original” about adopting the Moveon.org/ Code Pink surrender model?
By utah on February 18th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
gillon, was obama voting against the Iraq War while he was in the Illinois senate? That vote took place 2 years before he was elected to the US Senate.
By Harden Gervais on February 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
A campaign in free fall? Last time I checked, he was 8-0 in the last contests, and on the path to being 10-0. Not to mention that the latest CNN poll has him tied with Clinton in Texas.
John Edwards’ run after NH was “a campaign in free fall.” I just don’t understand the logic of saying someone who is winning is losing, and, conversely (this time from the Clinton people), saying losing is winning.
By Gillon on February 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Utah, you are of course correct. Obama was not in the Senate when the vote was taken on Oct. 11, 2002. He did speak out strongly against and condemn the war in a speech nine days earlier. In this, he was one of the few among his future Senate colleagues who early on went on record against the war. While in the Senate he continued this opposition with his De-Escalation Act of Jan. 2007. So I stand corrected, substitute “opposed’ for “voted.” Still, the original thought and position is the same. (Shades of Mitt Romney with his metaphorical remark that he had “marched” with MLK )
By Silence Dogood on February 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hardent G., I think he was refering to the opposite campaign (the one using this against Obama) as being in free fall.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on February 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Plagiarism-not. Another willie-scam.
By Oprah on February 18th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Ur just another fat gay Perez Hilton but u look a lil bit more lesbo butch.
your site sucks and your opinions blow
btw: your SEO is lame- you should buy 5 books.
1) How to write an interesting Article
2) SEO Optimization
3) Graphic / Web Design 101
4) Copyright Law
5) The art of Not being FULL Of yourself.
This site BLOWS TOO –> Viewpolitik, LLC,
any moron can tell that site was built in a day, and the copy came flying outta your arse and onto the screen.
more pride in your work and less spent building yourself up.
Peace Willie grow up you Puttz
By OprahBitch on February 18th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Ur just another fat gay Perez Hilton but u look a lil bit more lesbo butch.
your site sucks and your opinions blow
btw: your SEO is lame- you should buy 5 books.
1) How to write an interesting Article
2) SEO Optimization
3) Graphic / Web Design 101
4) Copyright Law
5) The art of Not being FULL Of yourself.
This site BLOWS TOO –> Viewpolitik, LLC,
any moron can tell that site was built in a day, and the copy came flying outta your arse and onto the screen.
more pride in your work and less spent building yourself up.
Peace Willie grow up you Puttz
By b on February 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“No New Taxes.” Ive never heard that one before. Atleast there is one McCain original that wont be stolen, “We will be in Iraq for the next 50…100 years.”
By b on February 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Oh and by the way Fitz, your bloggers are even more uninformed than you, if thats possible. Obama never voted for or against the war…But, never fear, by November, B. Hussein Obama will be yet another victim of the GOP fear machine…This country can’t elect a terrorist…can we?
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Gillon,
Obama also said in 2004 that “On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” He also criticized Bush for not sending in MORE TROOPS to secure peace.
There is nothing “original” about hypocrisy and flip flopping. This is business as usual for liberal politicians.
By Silence Dogood on February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
CL - I think we should have sent more troops in to begin with also. If you are going to invade, do it right.
That is like you kid going on a cross country vacation you don’t want him/her to go on, and when they go to set out across the desert you tell them to make sure they have a full tank of gas.
“Sheesh Dad, your such a flip flooper, first you don’t want me take the trip, now you say I need a full tank of gas before going into the desert instead of heading in on ‘E’” Yet the whole time saying “come back home!”
The reason you may see a conundrum here is because despite being against the current policy in Iraq - Democrats are not against the troops, nor do they want the United States to fail or the troops to be in anymore danger than need be (Hell many Democrats went waaaaay out on a limb and even wanted a definable goal in Iraq - note we still don’t have one).
I don’t think this is flip flopping, and if going in with the requisite amount of force in the beginning was the right thing to do. It does me those who refuse to throw ‘good money after bad’ now, are in anyway ‘flip-flopping.’
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Silence,
You failed to mention BO’s statement that his position was no different than W’s in 2004. That is certainly inconsistent with what he is saying now and what he was saying in 2002. And I don’t think much discussion should be warranted on Hillary’s flip flopping on Iraq.
Sure the Left “support the troops.” Ask yourself, how would the Left’s rhetoric be any different if they were traitors? How do you have to delude yourself to think it is anyway supportive to say “I don’t support your mission, I don’t support how you are carrying it out, and I think you are incompetent and incapable of completing it, but I think you are just great.”
Or since you like analogies, consider a segregationalist in the 60’s saying “I think MLK was a great guy, I just don’t support his mission. I think the races should be separate and MLK should not be allowed to demonstrate because people will get hurt in these rallies, which are based upon a mistaken premise.” Who are you to criticize him, since he “supports MLK?”
By Bushies love revisionism on February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Cl,
That last one is as funny as when Bush says he let’s the generals on the ground make the decisions — except of course when they said they needed at least twice as many ground forces to do the job right, Bush and Rummy said “no.”
That’s as funny as when Bush says we invaded Iraq because we can’t tolerate brutal dictatorships in the middle east — except of course the one in Saudi Arabia that sends us oil.
That’s as funny as when Bush and his apologists say they support the troops then stand by while the DOD charges wounded soldiers for their meals in the hospital, cuts funding for their long-term care and therapy and for body armor and the newly designed humvees that would have protected them from IEDs.
Man, it’s funny when the bush apologists try to rationalize the complete and utter failure of the past 8 years.
By Silence Dogood on February 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
CL, you noted “Sure the Left ’support the troops.’ Ask yourself, how would the Left’s rhetoric be any different if they were traitors? How do you have to delude yourself to think it is anyway supportive to say “’ don’t support your mission, I don’t support how you are carrying it out, and I think you are incompetent and incapable of completing it, but I think you are just great.’
I well appreciate your pigeon holling in any who does not support the undefined mission in Iraq as be effectively the same as a traitor. However, don’t you think their rhetoric would be against the troops themselves instead of against the policy of staying in Iraq with no particular aim other than to continue staying there? If they were ‘traitors’ wouldn’t the ‘left’ be acutally against the individual troops themselves? Many on the ‘left’ have served in Iraq or have family in Iraq - they care for the troops and are not against them.
What if for instance the President, not Bush, but any President, ordered ‘the troops’ to leve an American city, or one better still one in Great Britain. Would you be a traitor to be against this action? I would argue not - but some would say once the order has taken place, to question the policy is traitorous, or against the troops. It is the policy most on the left are opposed to and not the troops themselves.
I think our soldiers have performed marvelously, but effectively we have our troops in harms way and they are like attorneys trying to perform the work of physicians. I ’support our troops’ but if the President wanted to order them all to perfrom brain surgeries (all but the actual brain surgeons in the army) would you be ‘against the troops’ to sign up and submit youself or a loved one to their care for brain surgery? Of course not.
Furthermore thanks for the MLK analogy, MLK made his own life mission, the troops submit to the mission of the Commander in chief (years ago it was up to Congress to declare war, but I digress), and I don’t doubt it would be possible to like or support MLK while arguing vehemently against his policies.
If you want to argue against the policy of being in Iraq that is another debate entirely. If the point is that one is a traitor/non-patriot et cetera because they are against America’s current involvement in Iraq, on that I would strongly disagree - I formerly held a commission, both my parents were military officers, and none of us support further U.S. involvement in Iraq. Disagreeing with me on that is fine, to question loyalties based on arguement for a course that I think is better for America (and our troops) is not helpful or correct. I think U.S. involvement is Iraq is no longer helpful or in our nation’s best interest. For those that do, fine, that is another debate - worth having as I wrote above - but I don’t think it is correct to assert (as I am sure some on the ‘left’ may have) that those who would support further involvement in Iraq are “against the troops” because obviously they think X,Y, and Z, or continuing to prosecute a war with an undefined and undefinable mission is more worthy than the lives of many of our nation’s finest and most dutiful citizens.
Lastly - your comment on Obama’s statement of being in agreeance with Bush in 2004, has some merit and is particularly pertinent in light of his other comments and stances on the war, since he claimed to make statements to the contrarly priorly and then after that statement. I don’t currently have knowledge about that statement or the circumstances under which it was made so won’t pretend to write authoritatively about it. Also, to change one’s mind after thoughtful consideration of an issue is not always the worst thing in the world, or a ‘flip-flop’ so deemed. It could be a sign of maturity and a willingness consider things from a reasoned point of view (I am speaking about situations in general and not to any particular set of facts here).
By Silence Dogood on February 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
CL- P.S. one more analogy for you. If you Child wanted to be a porn star, would you be “against” your child or not be “supportive” of him or her if you didn’t support the child in that particular mission?
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
So we should crack down on dictatorships in Saudi Arabia that are at least somewhat willing to deal with America, but we should be reaching out to dictatorships like Iran that are openly hostile to America. Which is it? The answer is that many liberals view America as evil, and thus whatever America is doing must be wrong.
If you really support the troops, I invite you to visit anysoldier.com (I understand there are many other similar organizations but I have not used them) and put your money where your mouth is.
I actually was against the war at the outset, because I thought we should go after Iran. But once we opened this front, I would prefer to beat the terrorists rather than be defeated. You obviously disagree.
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
SD,
I certainly agree that you can oppose the war without being anti-american or a traitor. The problem is the Left brazenly crosses that line on a daily basis and then claims immunity from any criticism for its behavior. Take for instance Berkeley City Councilwoman saying the Marines are the “President’s own gansters” and trying to expel the Marines from that city. But not to worry, they have assured us they “supports the troops.” The New York Times warns of an epidemic of murders by homicidal vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. When it turns out that returning vets are about a fifth as likely to kill someone as the genpop and the Times was counting involuntary homicides like DUI’s, the Times does not apologize to the soldiers and we don’t get to question the Times’ patriotism because “they support the troops.”
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
SD,
The porn analogy is rather convoluted. Is the soldier the porn star? The general? Bush? The entire armed forces? And what is the overaching mission, sex education?
Your analogy only reinforces my point. There is nothing admirable about the porn industry or being a porn star. I believe many on the left believe the same about the military and being a soldier and that the idea that the soldier is some sort of victim is the perverse rationalization for their position.
By Silence Dogood on February 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
CL - the porn analogy was to elucidate a point about “support” and that one need not be a traitor to withhold support from certain actions. Furthermore I don’t see those on the left as “parents” to the troops, Bush or the generals.
You also noted “So we should crack down on dictatorships in Saudi Arabia that are at least somewhat willing to deal with America, but we should be reaching out to dictatorships like Iran that are openly hostile to America. Which is it?” When in any of my comments did I say anything about which regimes to support or deny support to? I assume this comment was to some hypothetical person on the left (created by Rush Limbaugh or some one else) and not myself, as my comments had nothing to do with particular support of regimes in the region.
I think the Berkley city council’s actions were absolutely descpicable and a perfect example of the council’s feelings on the war policy fueling over and leading them to a misguided, perverted and wrongheaded action against the troops themselves. The head of city councils, is to my understanding, a former Capt. and rather than DeMint’s actions of taking away federal fuding the real vote sould have been to strip him of his former rank and honorable discharge if he received one.
Please don’t impute the actions of some memeber of the ‘left’ on to Democrats or people who don’t support the current policy in Iraq. Otherwise you will only be bolstering an argument of people putting yourself (or those on the “right”) in the same category as those wacko’s who protest soldiers funerals based on the fact that their deaths are God’s just punishment for America for tolerating homosexuals in society. Would you consider that fair?
Lastly I already stated that three people in my immediate family alone held commission with the U.S. Government - obviously my views of the military don’t comport with the tidy hit job done by many conservative commentators on anyone who won’t blidly follow the war policy in Iraq. If you want to beat up on some hypothetical staw man creation of the most evil liberal you can think of, go ahead, but myself and the vast, vast majority of people who’s views are left of center probably won’t fit that bill.
By CL on February 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
SD,
My comment at #33 was in response to comment #30.
Neither one of us is going to change the mind of the other, but I would point out your complaint about me using straw man arguments against “anyone who won’t blindly follow the war policy in Iraq” would include myself, since I have not been happy with many of the decisions made in this war. However, my criticism comes from my unwavering desire for us to win the war and beat the terrorists. I cannot say the same for many flesh and blood liberals I interact with on a daily basis. And to correct a point in your last post, I do not think these people are evil. Suicide bombers are evil.
By Silence Dogood on February 19th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
CL, thank you for your thoughts on this thread, and for considering mine as well.
By Bushies love revisionism on February 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“…my unwavering desire for us to win the war and beat the terrorists…”
CL, this is exactly the kind of chest-thumping nonsense that has put our country at more risk than ever. How do you figure invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 is helping to beat the terrorists, whomever you think they are? The attacks on 9/11 were criminal acts perpetrated by religious fanatics, not any one nation, and should have been dealt with like criminal acts. To do that, you need the help of all nations in order to marginalize and eliminate terrorist groups that operate across national boundaries.
By lashing out wildly and tying the pursuit of a fringe extremist group into their Neo-Con fantasy of cowboy foreign policy, this administration has done more to hurt our interests and put us at risk than any so-called terrorists ever could. And worst of all, it’s EXACTLY WHAT BIN LADEN WANTED BUSH TO DO. Going to war in Iraq because of the acts of religious fanatics that were ENEMIES OF IRAQ and IRAN did nothing but confirm the fears and suspicions of the rest of the world that the United States’ foreign policy is capricious and arbitrary and has done nothing but invite those same religious fanatics we say we’re fighting to flood into the void left when we took out Saddam with no plan for the aftermath.
How far would you have us follow this madness of a policy? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? How far do you have to run into a fire before you realize it’s time to turn around?
Don’t blame people who recognize this administration’s bungled response to 9/11 as folly and who aren’t willing to blindly send more soldiers to die just so we can feel better about the bad choices we’ve made and beat our chests and say “America is No. 1″ whatever that means. This isn’t a Toby Keith song. This is real life, and I’m sorry you care more about your ego than you do about actually eliminating terrorism and ending this senseless waste of our military personnel, but don’t blame liberals because you can’t admit the Bush Administration has been a horrible, horrible tragedy for this country and the world.
By CL on February 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Bushies,
Well, we are fighting a group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq right now, so that is a pretty good clue that we are beating terrorists every time we kill one of them. I did not want this to be the next front in the war on terror, but Bush opened it and the enemy engaged. Why do you want to spend more time on your paranoid conspiracy theories about the president and a neocon cabal rather than focus on the actual situation on the ground in Iraq. I get so tired of anti-war folks who seem to be in a time warp and cannot talk about anything other than whether we should have gotten into the war. Guess what, we are there and we need to decide if we want to stay. As long as victory is possible, then I say yes. The surge is pretty good evidence this approach is correct. And how exactly does surrender fight terrorism? It does nothing but encourage the bad guys.
As far as timelines, how long have we had troops in S. Korea? Will the next president pull us out of that “quagmire?”
It is pointless to discuss his legacy with you, as you are incapable of being in any sense objective (”madness”?, seriously step off the ledge). But I am willing to bet that history will judge him more favorably than the press or the Left.
“’America is No. 1′ whatever that means.” This is the most telling statement of anything you have posted. As I said before, many on the Left view America as the problem in the world and establish their positions accordingly. I pity those whose worldview is defined by their own self loathing.
Trackbacks