I can take a phrase that’s rarely heard, flip it, now it’s a daily word
This plagiarism charge from the Clinton campaign is absolutely bogus. For one, it applies just as well to Senator Clinton, who has been steadily appropriating themes and slogans from the Obama campaign. More importantly though, borrowing good lines from other speeches isn’t plagiarism. Or at least not in the academic sense.
In academia, plagiarism is relatively straight-forward, it is the “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” In oratory, it’s simply not as clear cut. To quote from blogger Rutherford:
But more to the point, if Obama is guilty of anything, he is guilty of using Patrick’s rhetorical construct to make his point. But loads of orators borrow constructs from other orators. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in the rhythmic patterns of many preachers before him. Did that make him a plagiarist? A good motivational speech employs rhythm, imagery, repetition of certain phrases and a certain vocal tone. Every great speaker from FDR, to the Kennedys, to King, to Obama employs these methods.
Should Obama have been more careful? Certainly. But using another’s turn of phrase or “rhetorical construct” without documenting it (even though he had Patrick’s permission) isn’t plagiarism, and to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.
Dishonesty?
From the Clintons? I never would have guessed …
I certainly hope that we’re watching the implosion of the Clinton regime. Sadly (from my point of view), that will just about assure Sen. Obama’s promotion to President.
This is another of those things that I think won’t resonate with real people. It looks like what it is — a desperate cheap shot from the Clinton campaign.
Obama’s handling this with class and grace, while Clinton looks like a raving lunatic. With the person on the street, I think it’s all a net gain for him.
wickle,
I’m wondering, you seem like you’d be amenable to Senator Obama, why not?
My ultimate problem with Sen. Obama is that he’s to the left of NARAL on abortion, referring specifically to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
BAIPA sailed through the US Senate unanimously. NARAL took no position on it. In Illinois, though, Obama fought it hard. It didn’t pass until after he left office.
I’ll give you a couple links to some of the information.
I understand a pro-choice point of view. Disagree, yes, but I understand. But opposing BAIPA is literally supporting infanticide.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
And another one, but I feel like I must warn you … WND is, well, … not diplomatic in its Rightist perspective. Let’s put it that way.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
I like a number of things about Sen. Obama. He’s got as much class than anyone else in the field for either party, putting him there with my man, Huckabee. (Who isn’t, I admit sometimes, going to win the nomination.) He relates to people because he is one of them — unlike McCain, Clinton, etc.. While Edwards was forcing populism, Obama really is a populist.
But I can’t get over the flagrant disregard for life … up through and including the willingness to have babies killed who survive abortion.
Good to find a kindred spirit on this point. As I stated in my blog that you so graciously quoted, I never cease to be amazed by the twists and turns that the Clinton campaign takes … each one more desperate than the one before.