The Clinton Campaign Just Now...

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.