« Texas Is Supposed To Be A Clinton Campaign Firewall
Candidates Fight to Be Underdog, A Great Risk: The Boy Who Cried Wolf »
Clinton Campaign Can’t Say It Never “Borrowed” Anyone Else’s Rhetoric
It turns out that, after raising the issue of Senator Barack Obama “borrowing” someone else’s campaign rhetoric, the Clinton campaign reportedly not only says it can’t guarantee that it never did the same thing — but it also now suggests that if even if it did, it would not be a big deal if it involved Hillary Clinton.
So we not only have two campaigns…apparently two sets of standards for campaigns. ABC’s Political Punch:
In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else’s rhetoric without crediting them.
I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.
They would not.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn’t be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had “lifted” such language.
“Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric,” Wolfson said.
Hmmmm.
Basically, the Clinton campaign is arguing that Obama’s only strength is his rhetoric – not the ideas behind the rhetoric. This will come as big news to many of his supporters.
But there are several troubling things here:
(1) The Clinton campaign raised the issue which became big news on Drudge Report and has been the subject of angry, denunciation-filled blog posts on some weblogs.
(2) The Obama campaign then countered by saying Clinton had borrowed from Obama. Obama later then conceded that, in retrospect, he should have credited the source.
(3) But now the Clinton campaign is suggesting that the ethical rules they insisted be applied to Obama — using as a standard Joe Biden’s lifting of passages from a speech — don’t apply to Mrs. Clinton because she isn’t running on rhetoric.
The fallout is likely to be as follows:
–If the Clintons thought they had a bad press before, they ought to get ready for what could follow. Editors and reporters generally don’t like verbal gyrations such as this and pay special attention to politicos who virtually beg that their every word be scrutinized and tested. The Clinton campaign is virtually begging.
–A continued loss of support from independent voters if this aspect of this story gets a lot of coverage…and it might not. Most voters really are more concerned with the high cost of gas, the war in Iraq (whether they support it or don’t), the economy, whether they’ll lose their homes, and illegal immigration (sympathetic or unsympathetic to it).
–A problem facing the Bush White House: a credibility problem. You can’t do a full-court press on this issue and then come up with a reason why it doesn’t apply to you and not generate distrust about what you allege in the future.
16 Responses to “Clinton Campaign Can’t Say It Never “Borrowed” Anyone Else’s Rhetoric”
But, Joe, she's Hillary Clinton. She deserves to be Prez; it's her right, dammit!
Even if they said it first she thought of it before them. Even if they said it before she was born she thought of it first. Unless it was Bill then she told him to say it.
The more I see and hear of Wolfson the less respect I have for someone who would hire him.
Where were they when the Internet still had to be invented?
It seems that these accusations are tossed out to grab the news cycle and impact the few voters on the fence in the primaries tomorrow. It is clever, standard operation procedure, and wrong.
Joe,
I'd like to point out a major distinction: Sen. Obama has received major media attention specifically for his speeches and rhetorical skills. Hillary has not.
The “change” theme and comparisons to JFK are based largely on Obama's power to “inspire” people via words. The media hasn't built up Hillary in that way.
Obama's “inspirational” and “change”-related themes are base largely on the notion that Obama is saying something new — and presumably ORIGINAL. Now, we're finding that his words aren't so original.
It's no big deal if your car performs like a Toyota if you bought the car knowing that it would. I've you've shelled out twice the price for a different car, wouldn't you be a tad disappointed to find that it performs like a Toyota?
NO OFFENSE to Toyota owners: I've owned a few.
Sorry, Cupples, but I just don't buy it. I decided to vote for Obama not after hearing him speak or attending an event but after I went through his take on the issues on his web site. And guess what? The claim about plagiarism is so overblown that the greatest likelihood is blowback for Clinton, not damage to Obama.
Cupples: Patrick even admitted he told Obama to use it.
Hillary is in full desperation mode, and that is turning off more and more Indies.
Hill's campaign theme seems to be: If we cannot use inspiration, try desperation!
It's blatant plagiarism when you steal someone else's words and claim them as your own. Most speeches are written by someone else, do the candidates need to call out the authors. This isn't Joe Biden's plagiarism.
I'm really saddened by this whole thing, and I'll sure be glad when it's decided. I've respected Sen. Clinton for a long time, separate from Bill's accomplishments. But this is truly embarassing. This is full-on throw-garbage-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks desperation politics. It's unseemly at least, and deeply damaging to her, Obama, and the Democratic Party at worst.
I'm beginning to think her campaign actually is willing to wage a 1968-style knock down drag out convention fight, because she is simply unwilling or unable to concede that she has lost fair and square. Should she at this point somehow pull off her own win, it will have been at a cost that might serve to redefine the term pyrrhic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/ar…
The funny thing is that Patrick “borrowed” lots of lines from Obama. They share media consultants and generate similar narratives on the campaign trail. Is it plagiarism when John McCain says, “No New Taxes” when it was first said by George H. W. Bush? Of course not. Is it plagiarism when Hillary Clinton's campaign says, “Yes She Can” after Obama's “Yes We Can?” No. That's standard operating procedure. Take what works from another candidate and use it yourself.
Plagiarism means the “unauthorized” usage of other's words as one's own. Depending upon the context there are different ways of determining authorization for using others' words. In the academic world we have a strict standard of footnotes and quotation rules that govern the usage of others' words. In the business world there are copyright rules that determine appropriateness of use. In the political world there are virtually no rules except some sort of mutual understanding. Since most speeches are ghostwritten the implication is that politicians' rhetoric is already at a lower standard of authenticity compared to academic speech. But politicians regularly take each other's lines and work them into new frames and contexts. When politicians use extended portions of speeches from others, they usually need to ask permission from the other politician. In politics that's enough. After all, many politicians share speechwriters and media consultants and are in no position to claim every turn of phrase as his or her own.
In this case, the important issue is Deval Patrick's permission granted to Obama to use these lines. In fact, they are close friends and they have each borrowed from the other in the past. There is nothing inappropriate here at all.
More importantly, let's think about the purpose of speechmaking. Politicians give speeches in order to move public opinion. All the listening public cares about is that the words are accurate. The public is not grading the politician on an academic speech assignment (where using others' lines would be a big problem). No, the public wants to see how the politician incorporates those words into a larger message. This isn't plagiarism and should not be spoken of in such terms.
elrod- great comments on plagiarism. Thanks!
Mike_P:
“….she is simply unwilling or unable to concede that she has lost fair and square.”
She hasn't lost yet and is more or less even with Obama.
“Should she at this point somehow pull off her own win, it will have been at a cost that might serve to redefine the term pyrrhic.”
Well… she has already shown she is willing to be polarizing and resort to other dirty tricks to win the nomination (if she does). And that could be enough to discourage enough Dems from voting, energize the republicans and have McCain win the presidency (again, assuming she gets the Dem. nomination).
StockBoySF: You are right. Sorry about the declaretive nature of my statement. She has not lost the race yet, though most of the delegate math I've seen indicates it's near impossible for her to win cleanly at this point, with Obama better positioned overall. Which led to the second sentence you quoted. My point being, Obama, barring unforseen *major* losses (could happen as soon as tomorrow in WI) can not lose the race, and in fact is clearly positioned to remain the hands-down front-runner in pledged delegates as well as popular votes into the convention. It seems to me that the Clinton campaign is relying on: 1. The FL and MI delegates being fully seated with no changes in their current delegate tallys. (That's simply a non-starter, though some compromise will be reached in the end.) 2. *Big* delegate wins in each of the TX, OH, and PA campaigns (the Texas hybrid campaign/caucus alone seems to rule that scenario out) and 3. Undecided superdelegates breaking heavily for her between now and the convention.
And that “strategy” relies on freezing the campaign in its place. No momentum is allowed, no further campaigning accepted.
It's a long shot, but it could happen.
Still, if I wandered into this dogfight and was forced to choose sides, my money would be on Obama.
Mike, yeah, I agree with you. And sometimes the postings on here are not exactly precise- not knocking anyone, because I know that I rush through some of my postings. But thanks for the clarification of your statement on Hillary- it's appreciated. I commented on it because a lot of people think Hill is out of the race and I don't think so at all.
I think it's really too close to call. Since I'm a big Obama supporter I can't breathe easy until it's clear he's ahead AND THEN it's a done deal in Denver at the convention. I still worry about those superdelegates.
Thanks again for the postings.
Go Obama!