<p>The ability to get excited about this is a pretty decent litmus test for loss of the ability to distinguish between significance and trivia.</p>
<p>Using the message of ‘change’ is a quite different from plagiarizing an entire speech.</p>
<p>True tapedDuck…but if Obama had said “In the words of June Jordan…” or “A good friend once said…”, Hillary and company would have to shut their mouths.</p>
<p>If you want to see a great original speech, listen to Obama’s 2004 Democratic Convention speech. I can’t imagine a single line of it was borrowed from anyone.</p>
<p>Here’s part 1: [YouTube</a> - Barack Obama 2004 Democratic National Convention Speech P1](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQkJNVsgKM]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQkJNVsgKM)</p>
<p>And here’s part 2: [YouTube</a> - Barack Obama 2004 Democratic National Convention Speech P2](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UDKXKGZ3PY]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UDKXKGZ3PY)</p>
<p>It appears that the shakeup in the campaign staff has brought in some new energy in the Clinton camp. They are doing a better job of fighting Obama’s momentum. They are more willing to attack him in ads. Trivial issues like this one and the whole “debate” issue are very useful to create a diversion and interrupt the momentum. It was also a good move to send Hillary to Wisconsin to try and push back and keep it close or even pull off a surprise. </p>
<p>Regardless of which side you are on, this battle is proving to be quite interesting to watch. Hillary is not going to give up easily. Unless Obama crushes her in Texas and Ohio, (or even if he does) she appears willing to take it to the Convention if she has to.</p>
<p>“As for “it’s not plagiarism if the person plagiarized doesn’t care”: I think that is wrong. If you pass someone else’s work off as your own when you could have given them credit, then you are a plagiarist.”</p>
<p>Where did you get the idea that there’s an obligation to credit the author of each phrase in a political speech? 100% of serious candidates use speechwriters, and that’s totally kosher, even though there’s never any attribution. What’s the difference between having a campaign staffer suggest phrases for a speech and having a political ally like Deval Patrick suggest phrases for a speech?</p>
<p>Furthermore, Gov. Patrick didn’t simply say after the fact that this was OK. He told Obama, “Here’s some material you should use.” This makes Hillary look petty and desperate, IMHO.</p>
<p>I’m trying to imagine the first president Bush giving his famous speech: “In the words of my speechwriter Peggy Noonan, I see a thousand points of light.”</p>
<p>I don’t blame the Clinton campaign - I blame the people who allow themselves to get worked up over something like this. Granted - they’re mostly people who are just looking for an excuse to bash a politician on the “other side” - but those who buy into this level of vacuous mudslinging, and repeat it as if it actually has some meaning - are the ones to blame for the sorry state of American political discourse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, not only different times, different yardsticks, but totally different people. The author of “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life” was an unapologetic plagiarist who lifted more than 40 passages from another book. </p>
<p>Appraising the differences might be a cultural divide, but the facts surrounding Kavvya Viswanathan’s fraud were clear. She was only saved by the fact that Harvard did not want to repeat the embarassing circumstances of having accepted yet another cheater from a tony New Jersey suburb to the sanctity of its Ivy covered walls.</p>
<p>Or did you find inspiration here: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so when 19 year shamelessly takes passages from other work with the motive of becoming rich and famous is a plagiarist, but when a middle aged man with a motive to become president borrows from others is not a plagiarist.</p>
<p>Obama’s crime was not that he copied; but that he didn’t do it well.</p>
<p>Personally I didn’t care then and don’t care about Obama’s use either. I just find it ironic that many posters here who were on a crusade then, are defending their saint.</p>
<p>“when a middle aged man with a motive to become president borrows from others is not a plagiarist.”</p>
<p>Simba, how is Deval Patrick different from a speechwriter in this instance?</p>
<p>Plagiarism is defined by literary conventions. The conventions are different in different contexts. In the context of political speeches, using multiple authors to construct a speech, without crediting them, is consistent with the conventions of the genre. Using language from another author’s novel in your own novel is inconsistent with the conventions of that genre. So I just don’t see the parallel. One person is following the rules in his chosen medium and the other is not.</p>
<p>“so when 19 year shamelessly takes passages from other work with the motive of becoming rich and famous is a plagiarist, but when a middle aged man with a motive to become president borrows from others is not a plagiarist.”</p>
<p>First of all, Obama didn’t do it “shamelessly”. He did it with the express urging of the “author”. Except we don’t know that Deval Patrick was the author. It could have been HIS speechwriter. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, it was a line that made excellent sense - it was appropo, and disposed of yet another Clinton desperation heave. And he delivered it SO WELL! ;)</p>
<p>Seems to me that John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country,” was a slight adaptation of a line that one of his teachers used to say. No one has accused Kennedy of plagiarism for not crediting the teacher. As Hanna said, the conventions of speech giving are different than the conventions of, for instance, writing a novel.</p>
<p>I think Obama will have a harder time getting sainthood now.</p>
<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | Europe | Vatican slows sainthood process](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251557.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican slows sainthood process)</p>
<p>“First of all, Obama didn’t do it “shamelessly”.”</p>
<p>whatever</p>
<p>mini - correct me if I’m wrong (I’m too lazy to search this out amongst your 7000+ posts!), but didn’t you identify yourself as a Republican prior to this primary? If so, I have to say I’m impressed that you’ve obviously become so passionate about this election… not just that you’re voting out of your comfort zone, but that you’ve obviously spent a LOT of time researching and debating a candidate that you wouldn’t have previously supported.</p>
<p>“whatever”</p>
<p>Touche! Guess that takes care of my argument.</p>
<p>the few words we are talking about are so simple, so obvious, and probably spoken by many who had used MLKjr/s speech as a jumping off point</p>
<p>its like saying we can’t use I have but one life to give for my country…and never be able to say anything even resembling that</p>
<p>some ideas are universal, and Obama’s and Patricks ideas most certainly are</p>
<p>I don’t recall Mini EVER claiming to be a Republican. In fact, Mini is about an non-partisan as they come around these parts. He has been an equal opportunity stern critic of both parties, much to the chagrin of many here. Mini can not be pigeon holed, and I’m sure that’s how he likes it;).</p>
<p>dude hilary plagiarizes in her speeches too!!</p>
<p>Obama & Patrick have the same campaign manager. He probably employs the same speechwriter for both. The speech was rather trite, but the difference in hearing the two men deliver it was rather stark. Obama has yet to express any solid plan or articulate anything substantive except to tell us how miserable it is to be us. But he sure sounds good saying even the dumbest things.</p>