Political Punch

can you post the audio of these calls?

The t-r-u-t-h comes out about Hillary Clinton! Former White House Press Secretary (For President Clinton) speaks out about the real character of the former First Lady in a PBS Interview. Search: PBS Clinton Years and read it for yourself. There are numerous Clinton Staffers who give their account of the woman who would be President.

Q: Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

A: Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't.

...I didn't respect that. If you have a problem with me or anybody else, it doesn't mean she shouldn't try achieve whatever outcome she wanted to achieve. But I think there is a certain grace and I just think it's a bit better politics and personnel management to be direct

Wow, good for you, Jake! That's a very good question and a very telling answer.

Now can we all move on to more important topics, like Obama's excellent economic plan?

I hope so, but I have to say, that's very good work. Highly commendable.

Hillary is just talk? Ironic that Hillary is blasting speech-making and talking during one of her speeches. It is like writing a book about how horrible books are. If we accept her assertion that promises do not solve problems but that solutions do, shouldn't we conclude that her promise of solutions are also empty? Maybe she should have written a communique or manifesto blasting speech making and promises of hope instead of verbally doing so while making promises (solutions) of her own.

The Clinton campaign is looking less and less attractive every day. This kind of attack stinks of desperation. You'd think that they would want to go down with some shred of integrity but I guess not.

Newt Gingrich has used "American Solutions" for awhile now. Seems sketchy, HRC. And please, stop being "fired up, and ready to go" a la Obama.

Obama's campaign is real, and better than Clinton's. So that's why you're upset?! If you think Hillary invented anything, you are crazy. Politics are oft-recycled. I voted for Obama because I think he is a generally honest man, and smarter than Clinton -something about more elected experience, community organizing and number one in his class at Harvard, versus ONE stinkin' year at the Children's Defense Fund in 1974, about 15 years as a State, then National First Lady, and graduation without honors at Yale. ps Guess who skipped the vote on FISA last week? HRC.

bacalove writes: Let's talk about getting Real. Just because Obama used a few lines from a political advisor and friend for a speech,

You people so need to do your homework if you think this is a first. It's only
now "some of the media" is finally sobering up and actually doing their jobs. But real journalists have been reporting on this for several months. For starters his campaign is circa Bill Clinton 92. "I come from a small town called Hope" ring any bells? It has been reported numerously how this man has been plagiarizing campaign speeches that go back 50 to 100 years. Are they really that stupid (rhetorical question) not to realize anyone can dig up the exact same speeches? I guess no one read the article about him stealing lines from McCains campaign as well or how he just happened to borrow Hillary Clinton's policies? And I totally agree with the poster who wrote how NOBama hides behind his race as does his wife. Case in point, had Bill said "I'll have to think about supporting Barak if he wins the nomination" he would've been stripped of his former presidential title castrated in the media and called a racist. But Michelle says she "has to think about supporting Hillary" and no one says a damn thing about it.

As always... this ridiculous stuff will probably work with some people. Mainly the "low information voter" AKA "Clinton's base".

Oh puh-leeze people get real and wake up. This entire mans campaign has been plagiarized from day one. There's damn good reason why the two platforms are
so much alike, this man has never had his own thoughts, words and idea's since he stepped foot on the campaign trail. How many votes has he been absent for or voted present? Every single speech he gives is written from the first letter to the final period. Ever wonder WHY they keep him sequestered from the press on his OWN BUS? Could it be their afraid the ruse will be exposed, that someone might catch or overhear him memorizing his lines? The man goes no where without a telepromter and refuses to take questions. Then you wonder WHY he refuses to debate Hillary? He has quoted JFK and RFK more times than Ted Kennedy has ever spoken of them in his entire life. And let's not even mention him constantly invoking Martin Luther King and Ronald Regan. This is the biggest farce and charade since the media sold the WMD's. People all over the world are laughing at you. You think you would've learned after Bush.

Hillary believes herself to be the master of projection-- that ever so handy trick where you throw on your opponent that which you do yourself. Reason she believes this? Because she also believes she can justify anything, nevermind this kind of justifying is foundational in all addicts' thinking in order to maintain their amazing capacity for denial. With all that going on, she sincerely won't be able to understand that her plagiarism counts too. Her enormous yet fragile ego is still safe from any actual realization about logic or fair play. Question is: how safe are we from her? About as safe as we've been from Bush. He is exactly like this.

Obama says constantly to everyone who is jumping down up to his feet in adulation that he is NEW. A near fifty year old claiming to be new - you have to give the bloke due credit for it! Either this or his electorate are willing muttons! That he does not take lobbyists' money ( which is showing up to be a complete falsehood ), that he is CHANGE ( somehow, the electorate, democratic ones mind, are believing that indeed he is not a politican like Clinton and others ). Criticise him and we lashed those that do for being rather puny-minded, have-to do-better-than-this-am-afraid brigade. Really... what nerve! He gets by BECAUSE of his race, when others have to walk the line for fear of being labeled racists ( viz the Bill Clinton phrases which were jumped onto by the really-have-to-do-better-than-that brigade). Yet at every opportunity, his adulators do not fail to circumvect the opportunities to lay into Hillary Clinton ( rarely is the media saying hey wait a minute here, Hillary is being laid into mainly because of Bill Clinton's womanising trespasses, and let us talk about issues ). And you have to check the invectitudes that are directed towards Hillary Clinton. How many would have said before that we want a politician to talk to us about issues that matter. Go do a check as to who does this on the campaign trail. It definitely is Hillary, whilst the other candidate dreamily parrot the word change. Obama IS what is wrong - part of this nonsense political correctness front, when it is quasi impossible to expose any truth about a black man that makes him out be just this - a politician with the same hunger for power. Change indeed!

Clinton says she has Solutions but the Solution she offered, when it really matterd to millions of lives of young people and to our country, was the Solution and Authorization to go to War --the Iraq War. In the Most Important Policy Decisiion of Our Times, the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton got it Wrong. Her 35 years of experience didn't get it Right then, and that speaks Volumes.....

Let's talk about getting Real. Just because Obama used a few lines from a political advisor and friend for a speech, they now want to muddy and cloud the issues by stating Obama is a Plagarist, which by definition means you are stealing someone's words or lines without their knowlege, which is a very serious Charge. Is that her Solution to make this non-issue into something it's not, to offer more Spin and Illusion, when they know full well exactly what it was and is, and because they too are guilty of the same thing, this borrowing of lines in political discourse and is common practice.

Her solution is to insult the intelligence of every day average, citizens by distorting this situation, which is total hypocrisy, because they too have done the same thing and are doing it NOW. They should apologize to the Country, for turning away from being so-called Real, as she likes to say, to puting out this kind of Slime, Distortion and Illusion into the water, trying to Cloud the issues -- to Cloud Reality! If you are going to raise doubts about an oppenent, it should be about real facts and not about illusions, about truth and not about falsity.

OK
An offer from a supporter of all DEMS with HILL first
OK

As much as I dislike BO defending himself and his style with the words of others ...I will offer the following bargain

I can agree that it is not a big deal as BO said - if BO supporters can agree that the media has been Pro Obama and anti Hillary

OK?

The point?

Well sometimes its fair for a politician to say try a hail mary pass -- if the PRESS is biased and does not listen to anything of substance
-- when other means of pointing out legitmate faults and shortcomings of BO are as useful as trying to nail Jello to the wall

(I heard that phrase before it is not mine)

I'm particularly interested in the fact that the Clinton demographic is poor and uneducated. To me, that speaks volumes. Clinton appeals to dummies and that's probably the real crux of the problem here!

From Wikipedia:

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman. When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying “The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text.”

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work. Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book….

During her promotional tour for the book, Clinton said, “I actually wrote the book … I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word.” Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of “connecting paragraphs”, while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.

This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement.[12] In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that “New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton’s refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book.”

Later, in a 2002 article for The Writer’s Chronicle, Barbara Feinman Todd (now using her married name) related that the project with Clinton had gone smoothly, producing drafts in a round-robin style. Feinman agrees that Clinton was involved with the project, but also states that, “Like any first lady, Mrs. Clinton had an extremely hectic schedule and writing a book without assistance would have been logistically impossible.”

Feinman reiterates that her only objection to the whole process was the lack of any acknowledgement. A 2005 Georgetown University web page bio for Barbara Feinman Todd states that It Takes a Village was one of “several high-profile books” that she has “assisted, as editor, writer and researcher

As someone who was as ardent supporter of the Clintons, I feel betrayed by their actions in this primary season. I have become disillusioned by the machinations of the Democratic party, and have changed from Democratic to No Affiliation, as a way to express my displeasure. However, I still consider myself a very liberal person. I believe in this country and I want the best for US. We are in a critical stage in the history of this nation. If we blink the insidious fascists will devour us, totally. At this juncture we need to deal with the issues that are ailing our great nation, and not some petty nonsense. The brouhaha surrounding Barack Obama's use of words his friend used during his campaign it just a smokescreen being used by the Clintons. My personal belief is that they, the Clintons, were under the misconception that their candidate was an automatic to represent our side for the presidential race. However, one should always treat a competitor with respect and credit them with some abilities. Especially so, the American public should be able to see that you're making an honest effort to win your arguments without resorting to petulant behavior. The Clinton campaign was ill-conceived and ill-planned. They expected to have blown away the competition early, therefore there were no plans for what has become a protracted affair. In their desperate attempt to halt the progress of a more vital and inspiring campaign they have resorted to Rove-like tactics. Perhaps Rove is on their team and spooning out his turd-blossom advice to them. At this stage the Clinton campaign will try anything to get back the White House. Perhaps they have nefarious reasons to once again get behind the wheels of the Executive branch. Perhaps they have left something incriminating that needs to be hidden until they are dead, and the presidency is their only access. Whatever their motivations for the possible destruction of the Democratic party, as their actions have lead me to believe will happen, I wouldn't know, but we have to be cognizant of their willfulness. At this point I don't think there's an hair breadth of difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and GWB. HRC and JM are both power-lusting individuals for whom scruples do not exist on their way to their prize. I can now understand why so many Republicans detest and despise the Clintons. For so long I looked to them for leadership and trusted their judgement--no longer do I wear rose-tinted glasses when observing these sociopaths.

Per the comments of Grace Adams

RIGHT ON!

From an earlier posting....

"Clinton doesn't run on her rhetoric and inspirational message therefore it's almost a non issue - she is running on experience, breadth and depth of her knowledge of the issues."

ummmmm, the experience is largely her husbands. I watch a lot of football, doesn't mean that I can play.

Canada will go down side by side with the US if the US economy tanks. The US cannot afford the war, let alone a war for 10 or 100 more years.

Many in the world prefer Obama because we are on the outside looking in. We can see the need for the US to be stable and doing well economically...we can see how the US has had its reputation ruined by Bush. The US once had many friends and now has very few.

McCain said the US is looked at as the "LAST HOPE FOR THE WORLD" - this guy is scary beyond belief.

LAST HOPE???

God help us all if he gets elected. A hot-head, war monger like him is exactly the type of person who will lead us into a nuclear war.

So I'm begging you all who hate Hillary - PLEASE - if she is the democratic nominee - VOTE FOR HER.

Don't vote for McCain out of spite. The US will tank and take everyone in North America with it.

Another point of contention with the reductive Mr. Wolfson,

Obama's campaign is not based on his rhetoric alone, but rather his ability to inspire others to action. Rhetoric is one means by which he does this.

I don't care how great your policies are, if you can't get people to come along behind you they are largely worthless. Sort of like an empty pantsuit.

These words were first uttered by Thomas Jefferson he said “…we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”

Hillary strategy, a day before the poll,create a diversion issue.
We saw it in New Hampshire and Nevada she won both.

Hillary wins the nomination, she loses in Nov

This is of course from the crowd that just wasn't quite sure what the word is meant.

Obama paraphrased a few words of a close freinds speech at that freinds urging.

HRc is lifting her entire resume from her husband.

Posted by: KD | Feb 18, 2008 8:44:01 PM

KD

I'm suggesting that you to put away any misgivings, run away from the Clintons while you can and hitch your wagon to the Obama star.

That long and winding post of yours demonstrates sadly how much of the very very flawed and destructive qualities of the Clintons you have imbibed.

Why do you choose to forget/ignore the reason Barack Obama is ASSIGNED a Black identity in America, even though Barack Obama FELL FROM WHITE LOINS, and even though no Black person in Africa have ever fallen from white loins over the thousands of generations of human history?

You talk of 'Barack attacking the Clintons'; but you failed to mention that the Clintons are the ones who drew first blood.
Do we live in a society where WRONGDOER draws first blood without eliciting 'police action' by the authorities or through citizen's arrest?

Do you know why Al Gore never made it to the Presidency, even though some like to brag about the 'Clinton legacy' of the 90's?
Even Daddy Bush succeeded Reagan; but Al Gore was unable to succeed the 'great' Bill Clinton?

Let's not overlook the fact that the Clintons debased the Oval Office, undermine the Presidency, destroyed their own White House legacy, turn off the American people, destroyed the path of Al Gore to the Presidency and enabled the Bush-whacking of America.

So don't weep for the Clintons: They are self-destructive. They will build legacies and then SELFISHLY destroy them.

For all those many millions of Americans who are virtuous and appreciate fairness, they recognized from the outset that the basic themes of Barack Obama's Presidential campaign DO NOT involve going negative on fellow candidate.

Basically, Barack Obama's campaign is built around mobilizing the millions of Americans people who feel ignored by the politicians in Washington; so that they can take their rightful seat at the table and help direct America's destiny for ALL Americans.

As long as the average American does not participate in the process of governing, or do not believe that they can have an influence in steering America's destiny, then the Special Interests and their political servants will greedily devour the American pie and destroy the nation and its liberties.

Plagiarism is he unauthorized use of someone else's ideas or words. Gov. Patrick not only authorized Obama to use his words but he suggested that he used them. Besides, political speeches are part of the free exchange of ideas. Politicians often borrow from one another, use each others catch phrases, they modify and build off them. There is no copy-right attached to this process. If they were to credit the sources every time they make a speech, they'd have to pass a flier with a bibliographical list to the audience.

This accusation is an attempt by Clinton to derail this campaign into a mudslinging fest. Just like her ceaseless whining about the non-issue of Obama's refusal to debate her in Wisconsin, a state where she wasn't even campaigning in until two days ago. She must be thinking everyone is stupid or somehow forgot the other important issues we are supposed to care about: the economy, the war in Iraq, health care etc etc. She is mudding this campaign and reminds people again why they stayed away from politics in the first place. There are other more important issues to discuss but apparently she doesn't have the ability to discuss them like an adult.

If Obama wins Wisconsin tomorrow, Hillary is going to come off looking pretty bad with this 11th hour hack job. You can really sense their desperation. It's really sad to see actually. I think she's a bright and passionate Senator. But if she manages the country like she manages her campaign then....ughhh I don't want to even think about it.

Buy my vote is for Change. C'mon Barack. It's time to close.

First, it’s not about plagiarizing. That’s the media twist because they aren’t that bright and that’s how the media can make this about Hillary and not about a problem that Obama has. It’s about the fact that Obama uses the language of others and lifts himself up and others with him through the inspirational speech of others. That’s ok to inspire with the words of others. It’s not about not giving credit to the original speaker. It’s about the fact that Obama uses MLK JFK and others and leads others to believe that he is them, just like them. When in fact he is just rhetoric, vapor. For those of us who hold as important certain statements he uses to his personal benefit, it’s an offensive ridiculous charade. While it appears that Obama is inspiring the crowds, he just giving someone else’s speech and attempting to morph into that person. That’s ok too, except that Obama has NOTHING THAT IS HIMSELF OR ORIGINAL OR HIS VIEW that is in any way A CHANGE. He gets a pass because the media press boys are closing the circle around their boy, Obama. He has said nothing. He has nothing to offer except slogans. I need more. The country deserves a better nominee and better press coverage. It's possible that one will insure that we get neither.

Hillary made some waitresses very unhappy at her on the campaign trail. She does not tip (a difference with a canoe). She is desperate and all America knows it. She sends her attack dogs on Obama accusing him of the same
thing she does: stealing people's speeches. I watched Saturday night both speeches, hers and Obama's. She had this line from the Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your sick, your poor etc... Who does she think she is trying to fool? I guess if she could turn herself into a real statue in order to be elected, she will go for it.
She cackles,then cries then begs people to vote for her. Shows what kind class she has.

The only reason why this non-issue is getting any play is because Hillary has lost 8 straight states to Obama, is trailing in the delegate count, has tallied less in overall votes, and is polling as a loser to John McCain while Obama polls as winning.

Therefore any straw in the wind, however trivial is going to be elevated into an issue worthy of discussion. With Iraq in flames, the economy tanking, and the mortgage crisis getting worse by the day, the only issue Hillary can pursue is her absurd claim of plagiarism. This from the lady who could not bring herself to acknowledge Ms. Feinman who actually wrote It Takes a Village.

Oh, did I mention that Hillary has taken a number of phrases from Obama's talks and used them herself. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Well, she certainly has flattered Obama.

As Bill likes to say, "Give me a break."

Hillary Clinton has lifted multiple well-known tag lines from Obama's speeches including:
1) I'm fired up and ready to go; 2) It's time to turn the page on Cheney and Bush; 3) Yes we can!; 4) I'm not running to be President of the Democratic Party, I'm running to be President of the United States." T Can we say desperation? I'm going to start spelling "hypocrisy" H-I-L-L-A-R-Y!

Ugonna,

Thank you for that clarification. I suppose my point is that I see no evidence of the so-called haters and doubters. Most everyone has been enamored by Obama since day-one and I recall no one ever saying that he could never win. Why would he run if he thought (or was told) that he could not win? The primary core of haters in this election cycle is directed toward Hillary -- I have perceived little animus toward BO. More to the point, BO and his calls to action are not authentic or original at all. They are tested rhetorical tactics that Deval Patrick used to get elected. The good people of MASS know all to well how that ended up. Patrick was a devastatingly poor executive. Unfortunately, I fear that Hillary cannot use that fact as counter-point (though it is fair game) because the press will accuse her of drawing the comparisons simply because both Patrick and Obama are relatively inexperienced black men. But the fact of the matter is that BO is running the Patrick campaign precisely because it works and precisely because it successfully allowed an inexperienced black man to defeat his more experienced opponent. Do you really think that a white person could run on slogans like "Come Be a Part of History" and "Keep the Hope Alive?" Anyone who fails to recognize that these are race-centric calls to action, is not listening carefully - or has forgotten history. The latter slogan is a direct continuation of Jesse Jackson's slogan from the 80s. Anyone who challenges them risks being labelled a race-baiting "killer of hope." If Hillary even remotely attempts to invoke the primacy of her gender, she is crucified. She has been shackled and gagged by the media. Do you really think that Obama, like Patrick, is not totally aware of this dynamic and the built-in advantage he gains from it? Like it or not, race is an issue here and many counter-points that would be available against a white opponent simply are off limits in this context. I do not doubt for a minute that Obama is (just as Patrick was) keenly aware of this political reality, and he has used it to his advantage brilliantly. Hillary should argue that Obama is not only speechifying like Patrick, but that he will govern as ineffectively as Patrick has as well. One can only hope that some responsible journalist like Mr. Tapper will step up and make the arguments that Hillary and her campaign are unable to make for themselves. So far they have not. But there is still time.

democrats shouldn't sound so divided.

but then if we weren't, would we be still democrats?

As a fan of HRC, I hope Obama continues to exonerate himself by pointing at others and to run from the debates. It only confirms that he has no real message, but rather rehashed speeches and talking points. We've already had 8 years of poltics through empty slogans...

As an Obama supporter I actually hope Hillary continues to make this her campaign message. At best it's minutia and takes her nowhere. At the worst it makes her look like a poor manager -- again.

One thing is certain. This is not the campaign team the Democrats want carrying their cause in a general election.

Obama raised the bar for himself by saying that he was not a Washington politician and that he was not playing politics.

Now that he has been busted, he claims that eveyone recycles and copies strategies. But, the point is that he said he was not a typical politician. Apparently, he is. So, what is his strong point now?

I have to admit, Jake... you did a better job today addressing this issue than you did the other day when you wrote that fluff piece about Obama being sexist.

So, when do we get the counterbalancing piece about Hillary Clinton's rhetoric treating targeting women as if they were an inherently superior gender?

It's okay for Hillary and her closest supporters to say "we need a woman in the White House", but if Obama said anything comparable regarding race, he'd be accused of being a radical or militant.

Shouldn't her campaign's language be seen as a divisive kind of radical / militant feminism, as opposed to more modern views on feminism, where women should succeed based on their merits, as opposed to merely their gender?

KD, "they said it couldn't be done" refers to ppl doubting BO's chances of being a frontrunner/winning the presidency. And he's right, he proved the doubters/haters wrong.

Personally, I have no problem with the next President of the United States stealing good ideas from elsewhere.

Personally, I wish George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton had stole some good ideas from the French, Germans, Canadians, etc. before sending U.S. soldiers into Iraq.

Irma,

I totally agree with your critique. I have attended and watched BO's rallies. He employs a very well-known rhetorical tactic in which he sets up a false dichotomy and then argues from this conclusion to his own self-serving premise. Using rhetorical ploys like, "they said to could never be done,", "they said I shouldn't be here", "someone told me there were no democrats in Idaho", "they said words don't matter." Then, from these false premises, he crafts a platform to argue opposition and then to create support for a so-called "movement". But the truth is that no one ever said it could not be done -- in fact, EVERYONE said in 2004 after the convention speech that he would run for (and possibly win) the presidency. And nearly everyone to the man in the chattering classes has said he can and will destroy the Clintons. So, where is this so-called oppressive establishment? Indeed, no one ever said that Obama - an attractive, articulate, disarmingly charming and politically-savvy, ivy-league educated lawyer - would not be standing here today. No one ever said that. No one ever said that words don't matter -- HE said it. He is disingenuous. And what of his claimed challenging childhood? As far as I can tell he was raised by a college-educated, middle-class committed and loving white family, in an island paradise far removed from inner city-strife, and privately educated in America and overseas. Not surprising to me that such a man would be standing here. I doubt Obama is even remotely surprised. NYT did a piece a couple weeks ago describing BO's fist days in the Illinois senate and the manner in which he aggressively sought and forged relationships with the power brokers there -- announcing early on his ambition to be a United States Senator. I don't know who ever said he could not do what he has been doing his entire career. Obama is not and has never been an outsider - do you really think that outsiders get invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention?? Seriously? Anyone with a discerning ear would recognize these manipulative rhetorical tricks. More troubling, is the fact that BO has set up a dark and false vision of America in order to mobilize youth to reject the status quo, and in so doing has demonized the Clintons, marginalized their contributions to this country and cast them as would-be racists. It is not surprising that the millennials would fall into this rhetorical trap. It is the nature of youth to want to rebel - but against what? How many of them are suffering, really? And how many of them fail to recognize what the Clintons did to make their lives better? Few, I'd gather (btw: Bill Clinton -that racist - appointed Patrick to his Justice Dept and had more blacks in his admin than any other President before or since, and both Clintons campaigned for Obama). I don't care much about plagiarism -- but I care quite a bit about authenticity, especially when the whole foundation of Obama's campaign (and his attack against Hillary) is rooted in his claims of honesty and originality. Open your eyes, millennials.

"Your candidate is a copy cat!"

"So? *Your* candidate is a copy cat!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-huh!"

"Is not!"

"Is so!"

Impressive substantive political discussion you're having in the U.S. I'm an American citizen, but I'm glad I'm living abroad just now.

If Mrs. Clinton would run the country anything like the way she runs a campaign (Carl Rove in a pantsuit, only not as good at it as Carl Rove) then I guess I can look forward to *more* years of apologizing to Europeans for my inept President. I haven't made up my mind about Obama or McCain, but Clinton would be as bad as George W. Bush.

Look back at the history of BO's campaign and you will find that this was not a "riff" at all - he has used Patrick's rhetoric routinely at rallies and as a basis to distinguish himself as the so called "change candidate." Mantras including, "Yes we can", "change you can believe", "disagreeing without being disagreeable", "they said it could not be done", and claiming that no one expected him - the "skinny kid from the south side of Chicago with the funny name" to be standing here now, are ALL rhetorical tactics used by Patrick. This is not new. Look it up. The problem is not plagiarism -- it is that BO has run on claims of authenticity, originality and a rejection of the "old" ways of political manipulation. He claims to be new, transcendent and worthy of our vote on the basis of his identity, authenticity and the power of his words - while he summarily dismisses Hillary's merit and accuses her of engaging in old political tricks. We are asked to vote for BO on the basis of who he is NOT what he has done. Now we find out that his claimed identity is simply a tried and true marketing plan - politics and polling as usual (the facts are that BO has spent more on polling than HRC -- but no one wants to know that). People in Mass. have known about this for a while -- and they showed their disdain for Patrick and his manipulative rhetoric by voting for Hillary - even in the face of the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements. Hopefully, now, "folks" will start to look at what BO does and not who he says he is.

Senator Obama never claimed to be running on rhetoric. The accusation that he was doing so came from the Clinton camp! Which means all is well, I guess. Because if Senator Obama is not running on his rhetoric, then, by Wolfson's logic, the plagiarism (and it's clearly not plagiarism, and even if it was so what?), the charges don't matter. Thank you Mr. Wolfson!

I'm a Repub, and it hurts my brain to read the twisted, tortured logic of Team Clinton. I really dread having to deal with 4 or 8 more years of "depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

all this just for sen.clinton to get an attention? Pathetic!!!!

Did she not borrow some quotes from other respected people? Did she not use even obama quotes that time she was in wisconsin?

All she has been doing so far is attack obama because he has been getting more senate votes n now...some votes from other states.

She is really showing her true colours from the way she's behaving. That goes to show, how she will run the office with her dirty tricks.

It is a sad sign of how bad the press is that they even bother to carry charges like this from the Clinton campaign.

They could be busy trying to figure out what HRC is hiding by not releasing her tax returns, or look into the amazing overlaps in personnel between the William J. Clinton Foundation and HRC's staff.

Or maybe address the issue of whether the whole HRC campaign is just an end run on the Constitution to get a serial philanderer back in the White House where he can once again embarrass the nation while squinting at us and telling us he did NOT have sex with that woman.

These seem to me to be substantive issues that are largely unaddressed, but if Howard Wolfson holds a conference call, no matter what he says it is all over the front page. And he knows full well that all that counts is that initial headline, not the details of the story.

Reak issue: candidate heart very different. One is half christian.

The irony here is that Obama's riff came in response to Clinton's use of the phrase "words are cheap." Did I miss something or did the smug Senator from New York forget to attribute her clever turn of phrase to Charlie Chaplain?
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charlie_chaplin/
Perhaps Mr. Chaplain is a senior advisor on Mrs. Clinton's campaign? No? Hmm, well my goodness, what a scandal! Call the New York times! There's been a plagarism outbreak!

Seriously, people who live in glass houses...

All the accusations from the Clinton camp is just another attempt to distract from the real issues. If this and the debate issue is the best they can come up with on Obama, seeing that he and the Gov. of Massachusetts are friends and they have debated 18 times already, then I'd say Obama is pretty darn good! Lets dig all of Hillarys stuff up and see where the balance tilts.

If disclosure in speeches is so important, I wonder why Senator Clinton has not pursued Senator McCain who recently stated he was "fired up and ready to go" without attributing the phrase to Senator Obama? After all, aren't they on the same side for the general election? Shouldn't she hold him to those standards as well?

Of course, to do so would go against her statements that words do not matter, and her actions that imply disclosure and transparency do not matter also. Also, it'd be immediately recognized as largely immaterial to the presidential race. Why her campaign thought this would be a good political move within her own party is beyond me, but it's further evidence to me that she is willing to try all measures to get the nomination.

Most of us [voters] won't fall for this or condone it.

This is the democratic curse in action, let's shoot ourselves in the foot by nominating an unelectable pickle who is both boring and unseemly, a sure fire way to lose the election in a year when it is theirs to lose.

Why don't we just bring back Michael Dukakis and Geraldine Ferraro, or better yet John Kerry? If Democrats had a grain of sense, Clinton would not even be a contender in this race. Maybe good sense will shine through and Obama will get the nomination.

Oh geez..............I think all of you people who are arguing about plagarizing from Martin Luther King, JFK, the Constitution and Deval Patrick need to GET A LIFE!!! I guess the good news is it means that nobody has been blown up in Baghdad today and there have been no terrorist threats or school killings!

So ridiculous....it doesn't justify a response.

America, continue to turn the page on the Clintons and the "yesteryears" of that era.

Obama 2008

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton made some of the same arguments Sunday in New Hampshire when she defended her earnest speaking style by saying, in an indirect reference to Mr. Obama, "you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose."

That particular political maxim was first uttered in a 1985 speech at Yale University-- by Mr. Cuomo.

"She didn't attribute it to me, although it's in Bartlett's Quotations and they did," the former governor said, laughing.

Talk about calling the Kettle black. This is stupid, pathetic, and signs of desperation.

According to today’s New York Times, Patrick last week GAVE Obama the permission to use these speech lines.

“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.”

It’s not plagiarism if the source tells you to use it. Sorry Hillary.

irma: Hillary said words don't matter last week. Please follow the news!!!!!

One other thing about those Clinton events yesterday: The woman is not at all bashful about stealing from her rivals. Between the two events, I counted six rhetorical turns I've heard other candidates employ:

She talked about goals "I hope will bring our country together," a la Barack Obama.

In response to a question about excessive partisanship, she talked about how she's not running to be president of the states that voted for Democrats, she's running to be president of the United States. This closely resembles Obama's "I don’t want to pit red America against blue America. I want to be the President of the United States of America."

She said she didn't want to be part of the first generation of Americans that didn't leave the country better off than when they inherited it, which recalls John Edwards's line about how we don't want to be the first generation of Americans whose children do worse in life than they did.

She talked about how, if video stores can keep track of their tapes and DVDs, surely we can keep track of people here on visas, many of whom overstay them and become illegal immigrants. I've heard Edwards make the same point, except he explicitly cites Blockbuster.

She argued that our young men and women in Iraq are doing everything we ask of them; it's the Bush administration and the Iraqi government who are letting them down. Edwards has argued that our soldiers have done everything we've asked of them; it's our government that's letting them down.

Finally, she made the point that opposing comprehensive immigration reform is tantamount to supporting amnesty, because it allows the present situation to continue. I've heard John McCain make the same point. (At least I think it was him--it's possible that it was some other non-Hillary candidate.)

Apparently Deval Patrick actually suggested to Obama that he use these lines. It's not plagiarism any more than hiring a speechwriter is plagiarism.

The problem with the Illinois Senators use of someone else’s speech is that he actually creates a scenario in which he is able to work the "speech" in. For example; In order to say words matter, he had to make a false claim about Hillary to make it work. He led the audience to believe that Hillary said "words don't matter" she did not say that. He sets things up to use "words" he has stolen/borrowed. He is doing the same thing to make himself seem victimized. The Ill. Senator said that he is a Hope Monger. No one has said that about him, but then he gets to go on this rampage about how people are trying to squash enthusiasm and hope. He was a teacher. He like most teachers knows how to work a young audience. The difference is we teachers use it to benefit the students; the Illinois Senator is using it to benefit himself and that is the disgraceful part to me. When you have a philosophy you are deeply inspired by, words come easy. I don’t need someone else’s words to express how I feel, I do use credited quotes that better illustrate my feelings. He used someone else’s words to explain a concoction of his, not a philosophy.

How can it be plagiarism when the "author" knew about it? Get over it folks.

Is it any wonder why people develop a disdain for "The Clintons" when they resort to these types of baseless, personal, character-assassination attacks.

Clinton, who spent the past week nagging about a debate on the issues, is now doing anything but actually discussing the issues. Seems rather contradictory to me.

Reading through the MANY examples given in the comments already posted, I'd say Team Clinton didn't think their tactic through at all.

This is like watching a poker game. Clinton bets on a poor hand, the rest of the table says "match and raise". And it keeps happening.

And yes, people who live in glass houses, people who open up a can of worms, let sleeping dogs lie....

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones:

"Clinton Stole The Phrase "Fired Up And Ready To Go" From Obama. "We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa." In Davenport, Iowa, those words escaped the barriers of a tired Hillary Clinton's teeth. Without irony. That phrase is associated with Barack Obama. Obama borrows it from a woman in South Carolina who helped remind him what was important in life. It's the signature, in fact, of Obama's close. [Marc Ambinder, 1/2/08]"

Clinton is pathetic. Her attacks are fuel for the Obama campaign, everytime she attacks and spins, we donate more money and make more calls and work positively towards a better future! YES WE CAN!!! OBAMA '08!

I love how Obama responds with simple grace and maturity to Clinton's attempt the lower the discourse down to the gradeschool level. He is able to comment on this silliness without getting derailed from his purpose. He has the confidence to say that he should have credited Patrick; though personally I don't even think that is necessary. Perhaps she could have the confidence to say she regretted giving Bush war authorization -- I think this would go a long way with voters in building back some trust in her.

What ever happened to the Hillary Clinton ghostwriter scandal with her book "It takes a village"? The gal who helped her with that book got NO credit whatsoever, not even "piecing the paragraphs together" as her input was later demeaned by Clinton. Why wouldn't a busy First Lady acknowledge that she had lots of literary and editing support during the writing of "her" book? It's the Glass Houses thing all over again. Don't her campaign people check these things out before wildly flinging accusations? Like her campaign's criticism of a nuclear energy bill that Hillary applauded when it passed. This is just disarray. Or is it micromanagement on display?

Let's look at what plagairism is in copyright law: Even if Obama did use Patrick's words, Patrick gave him permission to do so, which voids plagairism. However, only a very few of those words were Patrick's -- they were the public domain words of others -- Martin Luther King, etc. It is only Patrick's idea of stringing together those words of others that Obama may or may not have "stolen." According to US copyright law, ideas cannot be copyrighted or plaigerised. And, I believe, even if Patrick's words could be considered "plagairized," they probably fall under the "Fair Use" provision of copyright law. However, since Obama and Patrick worked together on ideas to be used in speeches, Obama probably could be considered a "co-author" of the words.

This whole brouhaha is just the same old dirty tricks. Hillary has been stealing Obama's words and policies from the beginning of the race. She is also using the language of John Edwards now. The Hillary camp's making a fight out of this is incredibly petty -- and pitifully desperate-sounding.

Do we want someone this petty in the White House? Think about it. We need bigger thinkers.

Clinton's campaign team is just plain WEIRD! Don't they understand if they accuse their opponent of "lifting words", then they will be similarly scrutinized. Way to paint yourself into a corner. From Mark Penn's strange comment that "winning primaries is not an indicator of winning the general election" to Clinton's own comment that "activists only vote at caucuses and activists are not real voters" (compare this to Clinton's other comment that "lobbyists represent real people") we are seeing the fractures in a delusional and warped grasp for political power. Total disturbing, give me another Kafka novel please.

hillary and bill are angry, old, worn and guilty of most what their accused of. the book "It ta