Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Just Words, Part 2

February 19, 2008 3:18 PM

The Obama campaign is taking issue with the idea that there's any contradiction in Patrick's timeline.

The argument is that, yes, as the New York Times reported, Gov. Patrick talked about Clinton's attacks on him last Summer, and then Patrick talked to Obama's speechwriters.

But the Obama campaign maintains that explanation of how Patrick's language ended up in Obama's speech doesn't contradict the fact that Obama was using the language prior to the Summer.

They did not elaborate on when Obama first started using the language beyond the notion that both Patrick and Obama say they riff off each other and have for years.

Here's the graph in question, written by the excellent Ryan Lizza in The New Republic from March 2007 in a story about community organizer Saul Alinksy:

The church also helped Obama develop politically. It provided him with new insights about getting people to act, or agitating, that his organizing pals didn't always understand. "It's true that the notion of self-interest was critical," Obama told me. "But Alinsky understated the degree to which people's hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people's self-interest." He continued, "Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. I have a dream.' Just words. But they help move things. And I think it was partly that understanding that probably led me to try to do something similar in different arenas."

I guess my questions are when did Obama first start using this Patrick riff as his own.

And why would Patrick need to talk to Obama's speechwriters if he'd already clearly incorporated it into his language? Keep in mind -- the words in question from the Wisconsin speech were NOT in the prepared remarks, as ABC News' eagle-eyed Jonathan Greenberger notes. So I'm not quite clear where the speechwriters come into this.

-- jpt

February 19, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (106)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Agreed, Harley!

Posted by: Wil | Feb 19, 2008 5:53:03 PM

So much propoganda and deception coming from the Obama campaign that I can't believe a word they say. The thinking members of society have not been fooled by their shameless efforts to seduce unthinking voters. I hope they pay the price for this by LOSING. Vote for sane politics - Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Muzza | Feb 19, 2008 5:52:27 PM

I don't disagree with a re-do but I don't think it should be a caucus. It has to be a full primary or nothing at all. If not. Count them as is. The reason she wants them to count is because this race is so close. If you counted those two states since they did have record turnouts it would give some space to the REAL candidate.

Posted by: Harley | Feb 19, 2008 5:50:51 PM

Mike, are we coming together on something? Who said different camps cannot talk with each other? I appreciate this. No swearing, no stupidity, no useless trashing of the other side, just a polite give and take. Maybe there is hope for us democrats yet.

Posted by: Wil | Feb 19, 2008 5:50:41 PM

If FL and MI should count there must be a a campaign and new votes.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:46:27 PM

Mike, you do have a point with FL and Mich. Here is my concern: Will democrats from both states remember the harsh/kind words we all seem to recklessly use against or for them? After all it was a republican administration down in FL who moved the voting dates causing dems to turn on each other. In a democracy, which I believe in, I honestly see no alternative but counting them in if democrats honestly want to win the White House. I'm positive we disagree in this, but I refuse to cede a single state to republicans if I can do something to prevent this from happening in November. For me no single democrat, Hillary or Obama, is bigger than the hopes and dreams of the party itself. I would hope if Obama had won those states I would say the same.

Posted by: Wil | Feb 19, 2008 5:42:07 PM

I think Obamabuts is funnier, but too rude, and Hillbuts maybe too sexist.
But also there definitely are Hillabots too.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:38:57 PM

Wil, she says she has more than words, but also she is using her buzzwords and gestures and so forth, Obama is just more authentic. For me, it is scandalous, that Hillary wants to count Mich, and Florida.
She is ( again ) bending a party law.
And really look in their records. Omama has more experience(8 yrs.) as a senator than Hillary 6 years, and he worked hard in Illinois.
She was first lady for 8 years , OK, but does that give here more experience? Maybe the board of Walmart?

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:29:12 PM

Of course not, Harley. Remember we talked about this in 2004?

Posted by: Wil | Feb 19, 2008 5:29:02 PM

or is it plagiarized if I say I got it from a good friend? LOL

Posted by: Harley Webb | Feb 19, 2008 5:25:25 PM

Another Obamabot. (plagiarized by will)

Posted by: Harley | Feb 19, 2008 5:24:23 PM

Thats the difference. She told people he said it. Obama only told those words weren't his when called on it. I think you are REACHING now.

Posted by: Harley | Feb 19, 2008 5:20:58 PM

Nice spin Rachel but it appears you did not address Obama's uses of someone else's words. You did address Clinton's word usage now how about using your own logic you used here to address Obama's?

Posted by: Wil | Feb 19, 2008 5:20:44 PM

shelgirl, she said NOW I am really proud of America, which implies she wasn't before. Personally, I think it's again a ridiculous fishing in the accuracy of ones language.
But I am still not completely proud. Too much pride makes one lazy. And it will be hard work to give good reason to be proud again after 8 years of Bush fires.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:19:58 PM

If you think you using the race card makes me back down from anything your crazy. I was making a joke about Oprah. I'll put you in your place. Who's racist in America? I think the black vote is 90-10 for Obama and about 50-50 with white voters. Can you honestly say that 90 percent of African Americans are voting for Obama based on the issues. I think not.

Posted by: Harley | Feb 19, 2008 5:18:26 PM

There is a HUGE difference in what Obama did and what the other campaigns have done. He used a huge section of a speech and she used 2 words. Also Hillary isn't really running on the power of words like Obama is. Also like I said, when he borrows words it doesn't matter and when his wife uses horrible words we should just let that pass. I think that's the definition of a hypocrite

Posted by: Harley | Feb 19, 2008 5:13:18 PM

Thanks afroza.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:11:26 PM

Well, first to H...If Oprah si so scarey because she has white females under her spell; why are they the reason Hillary is still around.

Second, I am a Black American female and I know exactly what Michelle Obama meant when she said she felt really proud of America because I felt that same way..proud of being an American...not a Black American, for the first time in my life. Unfortunately, reading many of you here, listening to the media and of course to Hillary who made this all OKAY again, has brought be back to my senses. OR SHOULD I SAY MY PLACE.

Posted by: shelgirl | Feb 19, 2008 5:10:12 PM

Wil, one word answer, no two word answer: Surveillance, Guantanamo.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:09:02 PM

Obama didn't copy a speech, he just made one argument also a friend has used. The question is more: Can one stand behind his statements? The answer is of course Yes (w)he can!
I wonder how many phrases, arguments and buzzwords Hillary did subconsciously copy from Bill?

Or McCain, who copied from Bush senior: "Read my lips." Or is this one maybe from Clint Eastwood? Or King Richard I ?

Posted by: Mike | Feb 19, 2008 5:05:00 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS