Blogcritics Comments on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Comment by Bennett on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:29:35 EST

"I may have thrown up in my mouth a little when I read that." Original? I think not. Source please. This whole business of repeating catchphrases without mentioning when/where you first heard them has got to stop!

Comment by alessandro on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:34:30 EST

Google? What's that? You forgot to thank all the little children around the world. I think Victor is on the right path on this one. I absolutely agree with what some scholars and journalists have suggested about integrity but in this case maybe he could be cut some slack. That being said, Oplagiarama better be more careful next time.

Comment by Clavos on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:10:21 EST

"Obama made a mistake. He isn't the first presidential candidate to do so nor will he be the last." Quoted for Truth.

Comment by Victor Lana on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:39:56 EST

Clavos, glad to see you do not fail to thank the little people (at Google). As for this being a "tough room," I think people are reacting personally instead of realistically. It's the same in teaching. I never feel personally offended if a student plagiarizes. It is sometimes an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It can also be done deliberately, but again, no offense is taken. The student loses points and fails the assignment. End of story. More serious violations and he/she fails the course. Obama may or may not lose points in the election. As of now, it seems to matter to Hillary and McCain more than anyone else. Obama made a mistake. He isn't the first presidential candidate to do so nor will he be the last.

Comment by Clavos on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:17:46 EST

"For Obama, who is suppoed to be an educated man, to say this is anything less than plagiarism, to negate the importance of what he's done, is irresponsible- which would be the theme of his term in office." Wow! There's a stretch! Guy makes ONE minor mistake, (Patrick DID tell him he could use the material), and from that you infer his entire presidency would be dishonest? Tough room...

Comment by Clavos on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:11:35 EST

Thanks, Alessandro. So many to thank! But first and foremost, I share this award with my brilliant partner: Google.

Comment by alessandro on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:12:07 EST

Bravo Clavos! Indeed, William Inge. Can't put one past you folks. You ARE smarter than 5th graders.

Comment by Propagandist on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:16:18 EST

Obama did cure my leprosy!

Comment by Gina on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:50:46 EST

I don't like Obama because I won't vote for a celebrity of the moment. There is nothing to back him up. His inspirational words are not his. He has nothing to offer just change and hope - and that doesn't put food on the table. I also don't like the way he brushed aside those charges of plagiarism as unimportant because that says a lot of the man. Plagiarism is theft. Any student knows that. Authors fight against plagiarism and their associations stress ethics and standards against it. So I don't know what is more disturbing - that a presidencial candidate is too stupid to quote a source or that it doesn't matter to him even if it is a theft, making his ethics suspect. Lets inspire our children to use the "Obama defense" when they get in trouble in college with charges of plagiarism. They can copy a "friend's" paper and state he gave me permission. If we demand standards of our children, how come we do not from a presidencial candidate??? I know Obama walks on water. I know he is winning the popularity vote. Women scream and faint in his presence. They scream, "I love you" as if he were a rockstar, but even if Oprah offers a car, I need at least some ethics and standards from a president. I'm very dissapointed in Obama.

Comment by Victor Lana on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:08:07 EST

I appreciate your intelligent observations, Nicole. I am in no way giving anyone a free pass, but it is incongruous to compare what Obama did to a student who deliberately cheats on a term paper. It is one thing to try and cut and paste your way to an "A" in English 101; it is another thing to be running for the job in the White House. I do still believe that Obama did not intentionally want to plagiarize. The key word here is "want." In oral rhetoric, it is difficult to find the copyright on words. How many of us have used anyone of those lines quoted from their sources (King, Jefferson, JFK)? I don't think we have to pause while speaking and say, "As said by so and so on this date in...." These lines are well established as public knowledge. Yes, of course, scrutiny of a candidate and his choice of words is going to be intense. Perhaps Mr. Obama should have noted something about the original source. He could have used an aside like, "As my good friend Deval Patrick has said..." Whatever the case, it seems that this campaign will only get dirtier (witness John McCain's "shocker" as some newspapers put it)as the going gets tougher.

Comment by Nicole on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:47:31 EST

I was with the author of the blog until she said that Obama did nothing wrong. As an academic and writer myself, I agree with other posters. If I don't cite my writing, it's plagiarism. The idea that Obama gets a pass because it is the spoken word is ludicrous- I may have thrown up in my mouth a little when I read that. The example that we plagiarize our parents may be accurate, but we're not trying to make money off of it. Part of copyright law states that when something is put in print or spoken, it becomes public knowledge/domain. Well, it's up to the accused to prove it's public knowledge/domain- and Obama hasn't done that yet. He's in a campaign, ultimately to become president and earn a salary and he used someone's ideas as his own. I also have to question someone who is a writer and who would excuse this blatant example of plagiarism- perhaps this is laying the groundwork for the justification of some borrowing in his own work? This type of thinking just gives students free license to say, "Oh, I would never dream of plagiarizing....." and "back cite" their sources verbally. It gives every editor out there free license to steal work, whether visual, aural or written. If this particular speech was written by David Axelrod, then shame on David as well. If he writes for a variety of people (and who doesn't?) then the terms need to be clarified. I am sure as a speechwriter, it is "work for hire". David doesn't own the words; his client does. So if he wrote the speech for Obama and used the same words, Obama is guity by association. If this scenario isnt the case, shame on Obama. For Obama, who is suppoed to be an educated man, to say this is anything less than plagiarism, to negate the importance of what he's done, is irresponsible- which would be the theme of his term in office.

Comment by Victor Lana on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:40:50 EST

It is very easy for anyone to make spurious accusations regarding famous people. Unless it is captured on video (as has happened in some cases) there is no proof; however, it sullies that person's reputation forever. Unfortunately, mud throwing seems to be the norm these days. Why can't people engage in intelligent discourse about the issues without resorting to personal attacks? Of course, this is a rhetorical question.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:22:00 EST

That's simply not true. Don't get too big of a head thinking that journalists are the end all and be all of importance. At the end of the day, hard working mothers and fathers don't care about the press, they are too busy trying to get by to take the word of the media as gospel. They are looking to our elected leaders to be accountable, not the editors of some newspaper. These people are required to pay taxes to support government. But they can choose whether to buy someones paper regardless of how ethical it pretends to be. So you tell me who they are holding to the higher standard.

Comment by joiii on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:38:28 EST

Lets not forget about larry sinclair the slow man trying his best to get his story out about Obama being bi-sexual. Doing crack and gay sex acts with Obama in 1999 in a LIMO

Comment by Victor Lana on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:13:07 EST

Alessandro, thanks for the great quotation; Clavos, thank you for identifying the source.

Comment by Clavos on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:15:36 EST

William Ralph Inge. English clergyman, 1860-1954

Comment by alessandro on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:01:31 EST

Scholars may be held to a higher standard but I am sure they "borrow" ideas. "Originality is undetected plagiarism." I'll let you determine who said this. Until then, it's mine.

Comment by Charlie D on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:06:22 EST

Clavos, I would agree with you, but Obama and Deval have known each other for years (I think 15) and have been sharing each others' language in recent years. Deval Patrick's "Together We Can" slogan during his gubernatorial campaign in 2006 was actually an alternate version of Obama's "Yes we can" theme, which Obama used in his Senate run in 2004. From HP/Boston Globe: "[W]hile Patrick did notably back away from using Obama's "Yes we can" refrain -- Patrick campaign advisor Dan Payne said at the time, 'We definitely didn't want to copy him, Deval takes pride in his words and he wants to use them uniquely' -- there's no indication that either man objected to sharing rhetorical flourishes." As I sort of pointed out earlier, The Boston Globe even wrote about the two sharing each others' campaign language back in April of 2007. It's long but well worth reading. This is yet another non-issue in relation to the Obamas (the right-wing is also busy trying to distort Michelle Obama's words as well).

Comment by Charlie D on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:53:31 EST

Mr. Obnoxious, you are wrong about politicians being held "to the highest standard" by Americans. Why do you think they mislead us every day? Because the media either doesn't do their homework on them or pushes their BS along to the masses.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:20:36 EST

"I do believe that academia is held to a higher standard by virtue of necessity. Obviously, writers and journalists, who are in the business of words, must be held accountable to the highest degree." I do think a bit too much has been made of the supposed Obama plagerism. And as has been noted in my article, "The Official Obama Hit Piece", there are plenty of real policy positions of Obama's to find fault with. But your comments (quoted above) are laughable. Clearly you love Obama, and you are trying to defend him as best as you can. Fact is, in the real world, it's politicians who are held to the highest standard by the people. No American who isn't a journalist really believes that journalistic integrity is really practiced in the newsrooms. Sure, maybe publishers are seperated from editors and all that. But in terms of reporting truly fair and balanced news, all major news outlets fail miserably every day. In fact, just flip on CNN or Fox or Keith Olbermann or read the New York Times to understand why I say this. I think it speaks volumes that you'd support a candidate for president, and hold him to a lesser standard in the words he'd choose, than you'd hold your fellow colleagues. Especially with a candidate whose sole trade is in words. Scary.

Comment by Victor Lana on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:58:17 EST

Thanks to all for the great comments. I do believe that academia is held to a higher standard by virtue of necessity. Obviously, writers and journalists, who are in the business of words, must be held accountable to the highest degree. I do think that in politics there are gold standards for speeches, such as Dr. King's and JFK's marvelous words. Orators would be foolish not to refer to them. Most learned listeners are aware these words have been borrowed, but perhaps it would be wiser for speakers to acknowledge their sources in the future due to the increased scrutiny of this matter. Kimberly, you are right, of course about the ramifications for most other people in the real world. Unfortunately, politics is by design nothing close to reality.

Comment by Kimberly Winston on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:27:19 EST

I am a journalist and author. Here's the bottom line of this issue for me: While at journalism school, if I had borrowed the words of another writer with permission but without a citation, I would have been expelled. If I had done it as a newspaper reporter, I would have been fired. If Mr. Obama did the same thing as a student at Harvard, he would have been expelled. If he had done it as editor of the Harvard Law Review, he would have been ousted. Why does he get a free pass now?

Comment by Franco on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:54:20 EST

Dave: Just another sign of how ruthless certain forces of the political establishment can be. Ruthless is a good word, but the word ugly, along with all of its synonyms, I personally think better describes it. Clavos: Elect Hillary and get two for the price of one. Yes, and just the thought, is nauseous. Michael: the dreaded Clinton co-candidacy might not be a concern anymore. I love your optimism, I truly do, but getting rid of the Clintons is not going be as simple as wishful thinking. Even leached have to be burned off with hot ashes. I do not think the Clinton co-candidacy slime machine is even close to being "done", or should I say, "started" with what they do best. Nicholas von Hoffman, a New York Observer columnist, wrote last month,: "The heart of the Clintons' strategy is to pull Obama down to their level . . . The Clintons cannot compete with the enthusiasm Obama sets off so they must destroy it. Their tactic is disillusionment. They are the quashers of the dream. Bring Obama's people down by showing them he is just another pol like themselves." This is going to be Obama's biggest test as it all starts to get uglier from here on out. Yes the Clintons are taking a severe and humiliating thumping, but this only means they have now gotten to the place where they have nothing to loose and they can now start being themselves. They can now full risk throwing off the cumbersome baggage of carry around of faults ethics and class, that prevents them from being agile at operating to the full potential of who and what they really are. Slime balls. The Clintons know no shame, and will pull out all the stops, both the really ugly ones and the (so called) legal ones to win at any cost. They have a following of political suicide bombers willing to blow up their own credibility by sling the slime and when the MSM starts to call foul on the Clinton campaign, those suicide bombers are fired and discredited. But the slime makes fron page MSM. Mission accomplished! They already have their legal eagles fatty or oily talons working on the disqualified Florida early primaries, and the Hunt Commissions Superdelegates, who can override any and all popular vote delegates and thus the will of the people. The Clintons are pushing hard already for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention, even though the Democratic National Committee has voted that those delegates are nonbinding since the states broke the rules and held elections too early.Mrs. Clinton won in both states, though in Michigan she was the only viable candidate on the ballot, after all the candidates agreed they would not campaign in either state. Both this efforts the Clinton co-candidates will spare not costs and have no shame in abandoning all ethics to exploit to win. Watching them from hear on out as they gear up for they're slid into the abyss of slime and subversion will be embarrassing for our nation and the world to watch, and should make for some colorful BC threads. IMO

Comment by Michael J. West on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:31:07 EST

Of course, if last night is any indication, the dreaded Clinton co-candidacy might not be a concern anymore.

Comment by Clavos on Obama's Speech: Is It Plagiarism or Just Words?

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:22:46 EST

It wasn't plagiarism, but it is too bad, for him above all, that Obama didn't simply say something to the effect of "As my good friend, Deval Patrick has said..." "Just another sign of how ruthless certain forces of the political establishment can be." Let's not be coy here. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, you're speaking of what I call the Clinton co-candidacy. "Elect Hillary and get two for the price of one"