Silly Season
It truly is silly season on the campaign trail, and I hesitate to wade into these little spats because whatever I say will likely be dismissed on account of my previously-declared support for Obama, but here goes. The accusation that Obama is somehow guilty of plagiarism because of the similarities between his rhetoric and that of Deval Patrick is silly.
As I wrote many months ago, Deval Patrick's 2006 gubenatorial campaign was in many ways a test run of Obama's presidential campaign. Patrick and Obama are close friends, have very similar backgrounds and political styles, and share the same advisors. Obama and his team (most notably David Axelrod) played a major role in Patrick's campaign. Patrick appeared alongside Obama in a number of his campaign commercials and borrowed heavily from the themes and rhetoric Obama used in his successful senatorial campaign two years earlier. Indeed, Patrick's "Together We Can" theme was taken directly from Obama's signature "Yes We Can." And during the 2006 campaign, Patrick was attacked by his opponents in much the same way Obama is being attacked now.
It is not at all surprising, therefore, that Obama and his advisers are trying to apply the lessons they learned from Patrick's campaign or that Patrick is trying to help them in doing so. Patrick has contributed to a number of Obama's speeches. This is a collaborative process among close friends. Indeed here's how Obama jokingly characterized the situation just recently, while at an appearance with Patrick:
UPDATE: Just to be clear, plagiarism involves taking words that someone else crafted, without their permission, and passing them off as your own. In this case, Obama--at Deval Patrick's suggestion--responded to a specific criticism that had been leveled against him in the same (though not verbatim) way Patrick had responded when that criticism was leveled against him. The response involved quoting famous words from Thomas Jefferson and others, an effective if not particularly creative retort. Moreover, Obama has been completely candid about the fact that he and Patrick have borrowed rhetoric from each other and advise each other on crafting their message.
That's just not plagiarism under any reasonable definition. Politicians routinely borrow from effective political rhetoric of other politicians, particularly those who are advisers to their campaigns. It's completely commonplace and unremarkable. And as I'm sure we'll see in coming days, there are undoubtedly countless examples of Clinton--and every other politician who has ever lived--doing the same thing. Tellingly, Clinton's own speechwriter thinks this accusation is silly.
As I wrote many months ago, Deval Patrick's 2006 gubenatorial campaign was in many ways a test run of Obama's presidential campaign. Patrick and Obama are close friends, have very similar backgrounds and political styles, and share the same advisors. Obama and his team (most notably David Axelrod) played a major role in Patrick's campaign. Patrick appeared alongside Obama in a number of his campaign commercials and borrowed heavily from the themes and rhetoric Obama used in his successful senatorial campaign two years earlier. Indeed, Patrick's "Together We Can" theme was taken directly from Obama's signature "Yes We Can." And during the 2006 campaign, Patrick was attacked by his opponents in much the same way Obama is being attacked now.
It is not at all surprising, therefore, that Obama and his advisers are trying to apply the lessons they learned from Patrick's campaign or that Patrick is trying to help them in doing so. Patrick has contributed to a number of Obama's speeches. This is a collaborative process among close friends. Indeed here's how Obama jokingly characterized the situation just recently, while at an appearance with Patrick:
"I'm stealing some lines from Deval because he stole a bunch of mine when he was running for governor."The notion that this is some sort of big scoop or scandal is silly. Patrick is now one of Obama's advisers, just as Obama was one of Patrick's advisers in 2006. Patrick was attacked in 2006 in exactly the same way Obama is being attacked now, and Obama is responding with an argument that worked well for Patrick. It would be bizarre if that weren't the case.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, plagiarism involves taking words that someone else crafted, without their permission, and passing them off as your own. In this case, Obama--at Deval Patrick's suggestion--responded to a specific criticism that had been leveled against him in the same (though not verbatim) way Patrick had responded when that criticism was leveled against him. The response involved quoting famous words from Thomas Jefferson and others, an effective if not particularly creative retort. Moreover, Obama has been completely candid about the fact that he and Patrick have borrowed rhetoric from each other and advise each other on crafting their message.
That's just not plagiarism under any reasonable definition. Politicians routinely borrow from effective political rhetoric of other politicians, particularly those who are advisers to their campaigns. It's completely commonplace and unremarkable. And as I'm sure we'll see in coming days, there are undoubtedly countless examples of Clinton--and every other politician who has ever lived--doing the same thing. Tellingly, Clinton's own speechwriter thinks this accusation is silly.
posted by A.L. at 12:19 PM
6 Comments:
I think it is complete naivety to think that politicians don't study successful campaign formulas that they can then use for themselves. Half the reason manufactures go to trade shows is to keep an eye out on what their competition is doing and to see where the market is heading.
Borrowing from successful campaign formulas does not "cheapen" a politician - plugging politician X into campaign formula Z does not equal candidate success. The politician still has to make their own personal, unique connection to the electorate.
But by basing, or making adjustments to, a campaign on an existing, appropriate formula (appropriate to that politician) the politician isn't re-inventing the wheel each election cycle.
hillary flails
It's wonderful that you support Obama and all. But that doesn't mean you have to act as his personal Public Relations Man or Defense Attorney every time he gets into trouble. If Obama plagerized, and it doesn't change your support of him, fine. You can even say that in the blog if you want, and even explain why his positions outweigh minor things like plagerism. But don't defend the plagerism, and come up with sly, twisted arguments to try and cross off plagerism from his list of cons. That turns you into a dishonest political hack. And why does simply prefering one candidate over another require one to be a robotic, lying bastard (i.e pundit) for said candidate????
Anonymous,
Is it plagiarism when the person "plagiarized" suggested Obama use the phraseology in question?
From the New York Times:
“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.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.”
(Sorry, not sure how to embed links)
Exactly,
You can't "plagiarize" something when the person you're supposedly stealing from is an adviser and is telling you to say it. Moreover, the odds are Obama helped Patrick formulate that response when he originally used it.
There might be some thing useful in this.
The standard response to a large number of semi-factual right wing talking points could be, "That's plagiarism."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home