On plagiarism and humanity
Two key moments in this debate: one a win for Obama and the other for Clinton. On the plagiarism line (did he steal lines from Governor Deval Patrick) he sent her packing: "The notion that I plagiarised from one of my national co-chairs who gave me the line and I used it, is silly." Her line - "Change you can Xerox" - sounded cheap. It would have worked well in the old style British House of Commons when everyone had had a couple of stiff drinks, but bombed in Austin. I saw Jeff Toobin of CNN say she appeared to regret the line even as she made it and surely he was right.
But she ended strongly: a story about seeing people who had truly suffered and a moral about how nothing she has suffered in politics could compare turned into a rather moving little acknowledgement of how well off she was and he was as well. In a sense, the words did not matter - it was the humanity that counted. I am honoured to be here with Barack Obama, she said, and she appeared to mean it. "We will both be all right," and, she added: "I just hope we will be able to say the same about the American people." It was not an attack; it was much more effective - it was an effort to give pause, to provoke thought, to slow the rush to Obama and turn it around.
Having said that, I remember reporting after the first debate, back in whenever it was, that Mrs Clinton walked it, head and shoulders above the others.
For a detailed take see .
And for an odd little side-effect of the Obama surge I liked .
I have just had an email from the Obama camp claiming - in effect - that that Hillary strong ending was itself plagiarised from John Edwards! Did she ask his permission?
UPDATE: I liked - written before the debate but even more relevant after it, particularly the last line.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
I rather liked the 'xerox' comment but surely her campaign could have found a better zinger. However, if indeed the Obama campaign seriously suggests that Mrs Clinton used John Edwards' wording, then they show absolutely no class - the lady was being gracious and received much applause, so much so that she was interrupted by it. Shame on them if they cannot recognise the gesture; as my mother would have said, "class will out" and should she be defeated, she can hold her head high.
I think it's wonderful how all these cases for "buyer's remorse" are being suggested explicitly and implicitly in all the media commentary. Wouldn't all this have been wonderful when a man like G.W. Bush was being nominated and ultimately elected president? And, by the way, what on earth qualifies a first-lady, however competent (think Eleanor Roosevelt), from claiming that kind of experience as being indicative of presidential bonafides? The lady has been in elected office fewer years than he has been, and it is offensive to hear all this sentiment toward Obama: "empty suit", "unqualified", "no-substance." The whole thing smacks of poor journalism across the board or simply a case of lazy journalists echoing narratives of more vociferous colleagues. I guess we can't expect too much these days... Did someone say "New York Times"?
The media is insane.
To me Sen Clinton represents pure unadulterated ambition, and Sen Obama represents the American Dream personified, ready and willing to effect something seemingly impossible (change).
That Sen Obama comes off as a rockstar without portfolio is as idiotic as Sen Clinton coming off as a seasoned pol with portfolio.
They both are vying for something that will have lasting effect on the US and the world, so who is better for this position? A seemingly seasoned pol with ambition, or a darkhorse (pardon...) with ideals and hope for the future.
In the end the voters come November will ultimately decide who is best, so please can the second guessing all you third rate handicappers.
Dear Mr. Webb: The Boston Herald essay you referenced at the end is very prescient!
There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Obama has a rare charisma about him, a 'pop-star/rock-star/movie-idol' sort of presence.
I was reminded of a conversation I had in the late 1970's with a musician who had toured extensively with Elvis Presley. I asked, 'What was it about Elvis that made him such a star?'. The gentleman said wistfully, 'Well he really couldn't sing that well, and he wasn't that good looking really, but when he walked into a room, you just had to look at him!'
Mr. Obama has that quality, and much more saavy and command of language than Mr. Presley could have ever dreamed of.
I have NO intention of voting for this man--even Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch for my conservative beliefs.
But--I admit it really is a tad inspiring to watch him on the podium. He positively glows with optimism and good feelings!
This is what makes him so dangerous to the free world.
All that charisma, all those worshippers, all that hype, not a thimble full of substantive experience, and he intends to retreat the US from the world, and impose a socialist vision upon us here.
The Presidents who 'feel-good' their way to the Oval Office in this manner, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, end up being disastrously inept leaders in the day-to-day grind of that job.
We really need a sober grown-up in this office, not a rock star, and not a home-grown version of Eva Peron.
I hope Mr. McCain is up to the challenge!
Hi Justin, I read the piece from the Boston Herald, and as a skeptical supporter of Barack Obama I can relate to some of the fears that Margery Eagan claims that she has. However, I am not skeptical because Obama is an eloquent speaker, nor because Clinton has 4 more years in the senate, nor because of the 'gaffes' of the Obama campaign. I am skeptical, because I do not want to be let down. Because what Obama stands for resonates with me and with many others, but some including me are afraid to hope because we do not want to be let down and this may as well be what Margery fears.
Hmmm. So they both write their speeches themselves do they? I think not. What a fatuous comment.
Clinton XeroX this :
**Bill Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.
"**Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I鈥檝e taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.
& this
Clinton Tonight:
You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.?
Edwards the December 13 debate:
What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.?
Shes made such a big deal about this expose her !
Mr er . . um . . was still there last night. It is quite clear to me that Obama without his prepared speeches and cliches finds it difficult to cope when put on the spot.
By the way it's not just a single speech has plagiarised but also whole rafts of policy including Mrs Clinton's own economic policy.
I have toi say I'd rather have someone who understands the finer detail than someone who makes broad sweeping statements that are meaningless and then who does not really understand the finer points of the argument.
Justin you said a while ago you could smell Obama's 'brew'. Previously you had been mentioning McDonald's coffee but you were referring to something more mysterious in his ingredience which you 'well understood'. It occurred to me that you were suggesting something magical, foreign to you personally, but sounding maybe - I'm sure you're not being racist - like a kind of bewitchment, superstion, dare I say voodoo?
Now you are directing us to the Eagan commentary in which you seem to agree with her that Obama is leading a 'cult' that may proove to be empty of substance. I'm sure you recall your earlier references to Obama 'mania' and other apparently disparaging references before events forced commentators like yourself to take him more seriously. I do think you should examine what you really feel and think of Obama - and tell us directly - before making these kinds of suggestions. I don't think I'm the only reader of your blog to find it disturbing.
On the Xerox issue: it is pretty obvious how she grew desperate over the past few caucuses and primaries won in a row by Obama. And despair brings out aggression: she attacks trying to weaken her opponent instead of showing off something that makes her more valuable. It's the strategy of mediocrity, and it is clearly efficient, because most people don't go behind the words, but are affected by the primary impulses.
The Observer,
Obamas economic plan was graded higher than Clintons plan by every news paper in the US so he must have some magic copying skills that they all missed google for your self and see! Even Edwards beat Clinton in the rankings! Guess you missed that ?
Maybe you should vist Obamas website Hillary has a 13 page plan for the future Obama has a 70 page PDF.
If you just dont like the guy thats cool but to make false statments based on nothing is prety sad hmm ?
I hope Texas and Ohio make a clear choice so that we can all be spared these tit-for-tat 'debates'. And although I have nothing against Obama, I don't think we Europeans are really waiting for 'inspirational leadership' from the U.S. We would like some down to earth decisions on some real problems and no 'prayers' or 'speeches'. So my vote would go to mrs. Clinton if I were an American, which I'm not. And if the USA persists in electing leaders who rather listen to their own words, it's time we take things in our own hand here in Europe, like Joschka Fisher has been saying for the past years.
we are all wacthing,if Obama win the Democratic ticket,beleive me I will Kill a chiken for him,but if Clinton win,then you must expect another more years in office for The republican cow boys,and More wars.
Dear Democrat American friends
Whoever you choose, what a choice you have!!
Be proud, be happy, be optimistic!!
You have Obama or Hilary, we have boring Gordon or soft David>
The Observer takes exception to Obama's use of phonemes at the beginning of his sentences. Actually, I have a feeling he uses them, not because he's not coping, but as a deliberate strategy to collect his thoughts before saying something meaningful. Now, I'd rather have someone who first thinks about what he's about to say than someone who memorizes cliches and bullet lists of policies (prepared by her advisors, no doubt) and then regurgitates them flawlessly. We are electing a human, not a machine.
Hi Justin
Can you find out if Sen Obama is planning to visit the UK anytime soon?
It would be interesting to see him under the British Media spotlight.
From the link to the article about names: "The poll of 1,072 voters found that 58 percent said the name (Barack) would not pose a problem to them."
What I find unbelievable is the implication that 42% of voters WOULD have a problem with Barack Obama because of his name. Can anyone help me get my head round that? I know that there are always going to be a minority of people who are bigoted but that is a pretty big minority.
Thank God for the 58% though.
Shane:
If Bill Clinton or John Edwards began a speech with "It's a beautiful day in this country of ours", and Hillary did the same at a later date, is that plagiarism? Of course not.
There is a difference between word-for-word plagiarism, as Obama has done, versus multiple independent speakers converging upon some of the same ideas and generally obvious points.
I am not an Obama supporter - I should say, I would not be an Obama supporter even if I were American - but I do find it interesting that almost all of the criticism leveled against him depends on mass ignorance to be effective. "Obama has no platform" depends on people not Googling it. "Obama copied his economic platform from Clinton" depends on people not Googling it (I can see why some might think he did copy, though, since just yesterday he had no platform!).
My favourite, "Obama is an evil muslim, Snopes says so!" depends on people not actually checking Snopes.com out, as the site thoroughly debunks every aspect of this myth. I'm just an armchair observer, and I can come up with dozens of factual downsides to Barack Obama without having to resort to making up fictions - so why can't the media or his detractors' expert campaign managers?
As a one-liner, I liked Hillary Clinton's comment on the deficits run up during the Bush administration, and the US's energy dependency: We are borrowing massively from China to pay Saudi Arabia.
The key difference: The change Obama is proposing is a change in style and approach - a move away from adversarial, closed politics to consensus, open politics.
The change Clinton is proposing is a change in substance, and her policies on health care, the mortgage crisis and the economy would represent a greater break with the past. Consensus is fine, she says, but it must have a purpose.
Who would be most effective in bringing about change? If the Democrats strengthened their position in Congress, she would be the right person. If they do not, Mr Obama might have a better chance because he is better able to appeal to the people. But if he can't produce results, his popular appeal would wane.
A key question: which of the two would have a stronger pull for Democratic candidates in the Congressional elections? That's the sort of question the super-delegates will be asking themselves.
I have just read the Margery Eagan piece and I am astounded that someone who can write so well is not able to google 'obama achievements'. My recommendation to Margery and Justin is to do the proper research we expect of highbrow reporters and tells us if they do find that Barack Obama has achievemtns or he does not. To report that a supporter could not name one of his achievements is not the same as he has no achievements.
I bet there are many millions of Hillary's supporters who could not name a single achievement either than she is the wife of an ex-president. While Justin's blog has pointed readers to material that questions the suitability of Obama and other candidates to govern the US, the blog is silent to the many material that must be out there arguing that Hillary is unsuitable; for the sake of fairness Justin point us to materials from the many who are also critical about Hillary.
Who really cares whether various campaigns are borrowing from each other?
Campaign speak is a fairly limited language with a limited number of words and phrases in its dictionary. There are only so many ways of saying the same insipid things that I'm surprised they don't repeat themselves and each other more often.
Sure Hillary made a big deal out of Obama's line-lift the other day but she's in a desperate position and will use whatever ammunition she can find, no matter how little damage it might do.
The game's over and that last line was a near to a concession of les jeux sont fait as we'll see until February 5th.
For all those that believe Obama is an "empty suit" with "no experience" and "just words, not action", offering "false hope", please recall that when Bill Clinton was running for president, his campaign made a big deal of this "kid from Hope, Arkansas". Clearly the implication was that hope matters, that one must offer more than dry statistics. So why is it a negative for Obama to offer hope?
I don't buy all this rockstar business. I met Tony Blair back in 1996, the year before he got elected, they used to call him Bambi then. For me he looked like a sure-fire winner (the Elvis thing, as another poster put it). He caputured the mood and the rest is history.
I think Obama will win, but a lot of it will be down to McCain taking more hits than perhaps people expect. I like McCain, I just wish he had been elected in 2000. What a different world we would be living in now. Sadly I think it will prove too late for him. A shame in many ways, he would bring much-needed respect to the office and perhaps renew America's relationship with the world for the better - he certainly has the skills.
This is Obama's time though. Just like with Blair there will be a new dawn on November 5th, whether it will turn out to be anything more than that, well let's see. As we heard a lot in the UK in 1997, "things can only get better". Perhaps. We all like to dream.
I think it was a wonderful debate. I am not American but can't help admiring their politics. I think these two: Obama and Clinton should definitely run on the same ticket and in any order. They complement each other so well and do genuinely like and respect each other. However, Hillary should refrain from opportunistic criticism which appear to be "empty words" rather than her opponent's speeches. He's given so much substance to his speeches and has a clear sense of direction. I think it was his best debate and he fitted so well in the seat as US commander-in-chief and leader of the free, peaceful and tolerant world.
For me, she sounded like an actress in a Broadway scene. maybe I am wrong!
He sounded presidential.
One thing is sure about Obama :
his supporters will rue the day they voted for him.
If he wins, he loses.
He can't get out of Iraq without covering the US with disgrace.
His big promises will blow up on him.
So, let's just wait and laugh when it happens.
Having watched a recording of the debate I'd say Hillary won on points but did not score a knock-out blow.
It was interesting to note that she did not go for the cheap, easy shot that the debate's moderators were giving her. Perhaps she is learning that in some campaigns being negative does not always work. The Republicans can get away with it while she cannot - it's a sad fact of life for her - that combined with the media's pathetic analysis of Obama has meant that he has not really been challenged on either his character or his policies.
Unless there is a major scandal affecting Obama, I can't see Clinton winning the nomination. Even if she takes Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10%+ margins she would, because of the skewed demographics, not gain much on Obama.
Obama looks strong now but that I believe is an illusion. His support base is built on quicksand - young voters are notoriously fickle; the black vote can only help him in certain states (and in fact be a vote loser in others - that's not being racist - it's just stating the reality of US politics); and he can't use the rich trendy white politically correct middle-class liberals to bully and intimidate in caucuses because there are not any in the Presidential election.
I honestly believe that when Obama feels the full force of the GOP attack his support will melt away. It won't just be about issues such as Rezko and his previously admitted cocaine habit. They will attack him for not being a patriot regards Iraq. They will attack him regards his stance on Cuba (bye, bye Florida then). They will attack his economic policy and say that he will hike taxes. Above all they will portray him as a socialist (ironically he isn't), as far left, raising the McCarthyist spectre of communism is the minds of voters.
And that's just the negatives he will have to deal with!!
He will also have to deal with many of the positives that McCain has. McCain the war hero. McCain's years of experience. McCain's ability to cross boundaries and work with Democrat and Republicans alike. That is not an easy target to topple.
I know some have said that McCain has two weaknesses - Iraq and his age. As I have already pointed out Iraq could be a double-edged sword for Obama - he can portray McCain as a warmonger but equally McCain can portray him as being unpatriotic. Moreover, Obama's stance on Iraq is weakened by his views on Pakistan - where he says he would consider US action there without the support of the Pakistan government. As for McCain's age - that too is double-edged sword - Obama may gain the votes of the youth but the reality is that it is older voters who decide elections because they vote in greater numbers than the under-30s. I am sure many would not appreciate an attack on the age of a candidate.
The only way Obama can win in November is to strengthen his support base. He needs to very quickly get the Latino voters and the Centrist democrats - the so-called Reagan Democrats behind him. That's why he needs to include not only the likes of Bill Richardson and John Edwards in his team but also Hillary Clinton herself. I know for some she may be a hate figure - I've never quite understood why some people have fallen hook, line and sinker for the GOP line regards her. Clinton (and Bill) would not only bring detail to Obama's policies - which really do need more meat put on them - she would also bring her (and Bill's) experience of dealing with the Republican attack machine.
If she "borrowed" her last comment from John Edwards, Hillary Clinton can hardly go around banging on about Obama plagarising when she is doing it herself. Even if John Edwards did give her permission to use that comment, it's hypocritical because it's no different to what Barack Obama did with his supposedly "plagarised" comment.
Nevertheless, I rather liked the 'xerox' comment but surely her campaign could have found a better zinger.
#11
Shane - he took Clinton's plans and added to them - the 70 pages I've read and if you take out the padded rhetoric it is not substantially different. He had NO economic plan prior to Clinton publishing hers.
The man is a demagogue but it seems that he has managed to fool some of the peopel all of the time.
Looks like you are one of them.
I had little else to do this morning and watched the debate. The first half I thought Obama really struggled to answer the questions. He seemed to ramble around with simple 鈥渨ords of change鈥 and attempt to speak philosophically about his ideals. They looked and sounded flat. The opening seemed to set the tone. Hillary went on the offensive and spoke about her achievements and the number of years in office. Obama tried to hit back by saying he鈥檚 been in political circles for 20 years, but that was it.
The Xerox comment was flat and crap, and yes I鈥檓 sure she regretted it as soon as she mentioned it. But I think it is wrong to focus purely on this one comment when so many where made, by both sides!
The second half Obama made up ground 鈥榣ost鈥, so it seem to end relatively even, save for the end.
Love her or hate her, the fact she doesn鈥檛 have the 鈥渃harisma鈥 or instant 鈥渟top-look-listen鈥 presence that Obama has, she ended on a high. A high that Obama could never do, because he seems to rest on his laurels of being charismatic, the message is lost. Anyone can say lets have change, but how this is achieved and demonstrate a track record of doing such, ie words into actions, well鈥︹hat鈥檚 the kicker.
Which leads to the Boston Herald blog. The loss the real palpable loss and effect this will have on the American psyche will be too much, if he fails to delver on his 鈥渃harm鈥. But perhaps things couldn鈥檛 be any worse than the past 8 years鈥ould they??
The most disgraceful turn in the debate was not, to my mind, Hillary's throw-away "change you can xerox" line. Rather, it was when she cited an Obama supporter's failure to identify a specific "accomplishment" of Obama's. Obama embodies accomplishment.
Which begs the question - - what is the crowning achievement of our self-proclaimed feminist standard bearer? Marrying a man on whose coattails she could ride to power and then perversely claiming her marriage as a credential?
TheQuotient is absolutely dead on. Where was all the "Oh, gosh, I'm nervous" when Bush was running? When he took us to war? Or made any of the policies that have led to economic instability and international disgrace?
This sudden crisis of faith smacks of journalistic hubris. Good thing the professionals are around to caution us mass-educated average joes, who aren't capable of discernment on our own.
So to all the columnists who are uncomfortable being behind a movement instead of leading it: Be nervous. Be cynical and jaded. Be waiting for the moment you can say "I told you so." The rest of us are moving on.
I have far more enjoyed the debates by the Republican candidates than the Democratic candidates. I don't know who Hillary is without Bill and I certainly don't want him back. All this rah rah about Obama and his rhetoric is shallow hope. How quickly we forget our love affair with John Kennedy - very similar to Obama - and how much was NOT accomplished. Folks Camelot is a myth and always has been a myth. I want to see real issues discussed with viable solutions not some give you what you want to hear promises that can neither be kept nor funded.
Universal health care does not work well where it is in effect.
In response to #3, I would suggest that the majority of people in the media are hardly full of 'the milk of human kindness' themselves and so less likely to find fault with the quality in Mrs Clinton that you mention! As for this Observer fellow who keeps cropping up in these pages he seems think rather meanly of Mr Obama's talents; perhaps he could do with a dose of paraphrased JFK: ask not what your president can do for you but what you can do for your president!
Be honest with yourselves - If Obama was a white man, would anyone be calling for "buyer's remorse" or any other form of reality check? No, because by now he would have wrapped up the nomination!
Exactly what experience did Bill Clinton have over George Bush, Sr. in 1992, and since when did Presidents come up with their own policy points anyway?
What struck me most was not a verbal thing but a visual one: Clinton's cheeks never moved and her thin smile looked permanently fixed, as if she has had plastic surgery. It left her looking self-satisfied and smug: not qualities that will endear her to the voters.
"Justin you said a while ago you could smell Obama's 'brew'. Previously you had been mentioning McDonald's coffee but you were referring to something more mysterious in his ingredience which you 'well understood'. It occurred to me that you were suggesting something magical, foreign to you personally, but sounding maybe - I'm sure you're not being racist - like a kind of bewitchment, superstion, dare I say voodoo?.......Now you are directing us to the Eagan commentary in which you seem to agree with her that Obama is leading a 'cult' that may proove to be empty of substance. I'm sure you recall your earlier references to Obama 'mania' and other apparently disparaging references before events forced commentators like yourself to take him more seriously. I do think you should examine what you really feel and think of Obama - and tell us directly - before making these kinds of suggestions. I don't think I'm the only reader of your blog to find it disturbing." From: Michael Yates.
To be honest, me also I have had all along these kind of disturbing thoughts about our own (bbc) man in Washington about his writings on Obama!.... some of his writing on the man ( Obama) sometimes beg disturbing questions....
I just hope ( for heavenly sake) that I鈥檓 wrong....
Actually, Sen. Obama reminds me of a young Tony Blair in his cool, self confident manner. Unlike Blair, he doesn't speak well extemporaneously. His website has grown enormously since last August, but his initial plan for the economy was tax cuts. His plan for health care was dissed by professional economist, Paul Krugman. He voted against a recent comprehensive and bi-partisan immigration bill. He spoke out against war in Iraq four years BEFORE running for US Senate. Unfortunately, it feels more like 2000 than 1992.
Personality choice, YES ;)
I'm a white English man working as an English teacher in a Thai school and I have a beautiful Thai wife :)
America has a very special choice.
first black president or
first female president :)
Personally, I'm with the brother but if the sister wins, good luck USA ;)
"it was much more effective - it was an effort to give pause, to provoke thought, to slow the rush to [Clinton? Obama?] ... and turn it around."
Redefining "ponderous?" Good man. Seriously.
And remember, it's a brew, a single-malt, not chemical colors and flavors in flouridated tapwater.
Freshly ground Sumatra, roasted, not burnt.
I absolutely loved Hillary's closing remarks last night.
Hillary's point about facing stiff opposition to their positions was more realistic than Obama's talk of uniting. Many of his positions will ignite stiff opposition because they are extremely liberal.
Obama should be talking about specifically how he is going to bridge those divides. We all agree it's better to be united, but, his positions are quite polarizing.
Notice how she gets the best reception when she is sensitive or sentimental (talking about humanity). But her campaign was mistakenly built on false experience (thus the grinding policy statements)and random tactical moves. If she had built her campaign on who she gunuinely is, she would have fared better. The country has listened to too many lies, so personal credibility and integrity had to be a major factor (which the Obama camp knew)in the elections. Projecting who you are not, will always do you in.
Being from Texas I find the canidates lacking on the border issues. All this talk of the Republican fence and how it's needed. Wrong. As Reagan said .."take down this wall" should be thought of here. Let us invest in the infrastructure of Mexico with this money, lets build roads, schools and power plants. Dams and water purification plants, (septic and fresh water). Instead of a wall that seperates, let us unite for the good of both sides.
This is the same in our education system. Pandering to thier level we all lose. Challange the students to surpass thier parents and they will. Yes, some will not do well, but should all be backed up to save the feelings of a few?
The change Texans want, is not to alienate our friends, co-workers and neighbors. Not to dumb down our children. But to stand for a change to the betterment of all.
I did not think it was a cheap comment by her. Clinton could have definitively used better words than that. She does have a point here to make that she has more experience and you can't just accomplish goals by simply talking big. However, she is not getting that message across effectively.
Why each and every single job you apply to asks for experience? Obama has almost no experience. My answer would be yes to people following Obama are "somehow delusional". Barack Obama is for sure better speaker and debater. Would he be effective leader to solve the problems the united states is facing? I am not sure at all. Even, Clinton who has much more experience, would have hard time solving problems we are facing.
People of USA... Please don't just follow the wave/momentum etc. Do your homework. If not for you, for future generation.
Breaking news: Obama chooses Bill O'Reilly as his white house press secretary!!!
I listened to the debate on C-SPAN radio. The petty issue of plagiarism was brought up by the moderators--clearly, the candidates didn't want to touch it. They both borrow lines from others, and we shouldn't hold that against them.
As for the debate as a whole: Clinton came across as more authentic, more in control of her material and more confident. Obama worked hard to push the idea that his perceived ability to inspire others is more important than his resume. (It's not.)
The debate resolved nothing for me--it showed that Clinton and Obama have the same positions on almost every issue. But Clinton's resume and self-confidence should give her an edge ultimately, for Obama hasn't shown that he can offer more than just hope. Still, both are attractive candidates, and I'm glad I'm ineligible to vote in this election.
"The Presidents who 'feel-good' their way to the Oval Office in this manner, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, end up being disastrously inept leaders in the day-to-day grind of that job."
well as an outsider I would question whether Bill Clinton's term of economic growth and successful military/diplomatic interventions abroad qualifies as a disaster but leaving that aside I would point to another president who got into the White House largely on the 'feel-good' factor: Ronald Reagan, or are there any Conservative Republicans who would care to describe him as disastrous and inept?
Fact is charisma and the ability to win people over are useful qualities and so long as a president hasa sound team around them 'experience' is a moot point, indeed one of the most politcally experienced, and least charismatic, presidents of the 20th century was Richard Nixon, whose tenure was indisputably disastrous for the standing of the office of President.
I read the Eagan article,
and your point is...?
I haven't followed your other blogs but having read the comments on this particular one I have to say that we ought to know that a president or prime minister does not have to know the nitty-gritty of all the policy issues. He/she is a leader, and the role is that of a CEO, so despite Mrs. Clinton's grasp of the issues this is not a classroom test of knowledge. That makes for great TV but right now we want someone to make people believe.
I may never meet Barack Obama, like I never met Martin Luther King or JFK, but their words have inspired me and have made me think and do things that I never thought possible. That is what leaders do.
One last thing, Leaders hire people who have an intricate grasp of the issues to deal with the fine details. We would never have hired Alan Greenspan to be president, would we?.
"Silly season" was the most apt phrase in that debate, I feel. Clinton has so little with which to attack Obama that she's making an issue out of two paraphrased lines! It is absolutely ridiculous, and if you go by recent polls in Ohio and Texas, not doing her any good either.
OK choices are
1. Black male
2. White woman
The emperor has no "no race, sex" is a mass delusion, as the real difference between the candidates are obvious.
Black voters see it with 88% picking race, that is as valid a reason as any for voting.
I admit I did not watch the debate as the thought of listening to Omaba makes me sick to my stomach - and i am a committed democrate but not so brainless that i will jump on his bandwagon. Voters need to think about what they are doing following his every word as a one sheep follows another - the majority of his supporters are simply "groupies" with no thoughts of their own. What about his foreign policy - is he going to become friends with Iran so that he can keep feeling good about himself - his campaign is all about HIM and not about the people. I personally do not believe one word that comes out of his mouth and I am not sure that I will be able to support him if he is the nominee even though I have never ever voted for a single republican - but he scares me so I may have to do that and I don't think I am alone in this feeling.
I read the Eagan article,
and your point is...?
I haven't followed your other blogs but having read the comments on this particular one I have to say that we ought to know that a president or prime minister does not have to know the nitty-gritty of all the policy issues. He/she is a leader, and the role is that of a CEO, so despite Mrs. Clinton's grasp of the issues this is not a classroom test of knowledge. That makes for great TV but right now we want someone to make people believe.
I may never meet Barack Obama, like I never met Martin Luther King or JFK, but their words have inspired me and have made me think and do things that I never thought possible. That is what leaders do.
One last thing, Leaders hire people who have an intricate grasp of the issues to deal with the fine details. We would never have hired Alan Greenspan to be president, would we?.
Shane (at #18).
For crying out loud, it isn't plagerism if the person who first used the words specifically suggests to Obama that he (Obama) should use them. Further, the words came from Obama's national campaign co-chairperson. Obama simply chose to take friend's offer and added the lines to a speech.
If you don't like Obama, that's fine, but please list real, substantive issues.
Obama doesn't have experience, eh?
Check out this article by a former skeptic:
Obama tries to make much of the fact that he did not support the Iraqi War, but since he was not a US senator at the time, who asked him, and is his claim to this wisdom not deserved. Clinton had to choose publically if she endorsed the war or not but where is it recorded that Obama did the same?
Obama is the person that we need to be president. What worries me is that he is here to serve 'the people' as it should be and not the party or the institution.
What this means is that if he actually gets elected, he will make many in the old institution very nervous because he will do what is right for the people and not for the 'party'
That being said, he should take extra care to choose his VP running mate, possibly even his wife.
Without getting into gory details, I believe that if he chooses a Demo party insider as his running mate, he would be making the biggest mistake of his life.
Some of the people on here need to get a grip! The propaganda is astounding! David Cunard.....mate you need to stop it, just stop it. And Andrea.....how typically sentimental. Oh I just loved Hilary's clearly pre planned ending comments! Of course you did. But the funniest thing Andrea says is that some of Obama's positions are polarising! Hilary Rodham Clinton is probably the most polarising politician in American politics. Obama is the one who is collecting the independent voters! Please please do not come out with such garbage without researching the issues. To call Obama the polarising figure is hilariously inaccurate!
Actually, Barack Obama said: "The notion that I 'HAD' plagiarised from 'SOMEBODY WHO IS' one of my national co-chairs who gave me the line and 'SUGGESTED THAT' I 'USE' it, 'I THINK' is silly."
The corrections make a big difference to the meaning. Did you leave the word 'suggested' out on purpose?
Why is it that the author of this article failed to mention that the lines Hillary gave at the close of the debate were plagiarized from John Edwards.
Candidates "you can xerox" is more like it! Yeah, they'll both be more than alright. They both come from wealth and privelege and represent the interests of the same; so humane Hillary's professions of "humanity" sounds a little hollow to say the least. She was alot more concerned about the interests of large insurance companies than she was about the American people when she chaired the ill-fated committee on universal coverage during her hubby's first term. Neither candidate once mentioned the taboo term 'class' in the course of the mock debate. No "change" in that taboo. And certainly no one bothered to show much "humanity" for Palestinians or the many other long-suffering victims of American foreign policies that both candidates have always supported. Think they'll be alright while Billary and Obama Copacabana go on living the life of luxury?
Slghtly off topic or not.
As a european living in europe I have the same fears and hopes for the future of the next American President as do most of the American Public.
I am sure that the reverse does not apply; if there is an election in France,Germany,Britain, etc. the result does not impinge so much on the future of american domestic policy. When the american eagle sneezes the rest of the world prays.
Is there an awareness in the popular american press of this concern and are there any tangible efforts being made to explain this concern to the american electorate?
John #12 said, "if the USA persists in electing leaders who rather listen
to their own words, it's time we take things in our own hand here in Europe, like Joschka Fisher has been saying for the past years."
You have no idea how happy I would be if that in fact could actually happen! While I hole heartidly disagree with you on Obama, nevertheless it seems that no matter what party holds the office we always manige to get blamed for something that's not our falt, so if a small retreat would help make people more happy, why not?
John Redpath #14: Thank you!! I surely hope we win, and we'll try our best!
Si #16: While I hole heartidly agree with you on the fact that our journalists need to be much, much tougher with our (especially) current presidents, I should point out that Obama will be scrutinised very, very hard in the comming months. Although I must say, whie your journalists are (in my opinion) the best in the world at intarigating your prime ministers, there are times they croos the line from being tough, to being mean. A journalist's job is to keep their leader honest, not bully them. But hey! I'd like to see Obama in the British media spotlight as well! He is the most prime ministerial presidencial candidate we have ever had, and if he can survive that, he is most definitely ready to be president!
David UK #17: Yes that is, indeed, very disturbing. But I would caussion against taking it to heart. Not that many people here surveyed, and that is one, of many surveys I suspect, that is being refferenced here. I'm sure others have very different results, and I am certainly not one of those 42%!
Andy #24: I must say, I find that extremely hard to believe! Aside from Regan, every other Republican president has made us less, not more respected and liked in the world. Although I do completely agree with you on Obama-he is our Tony Blair (preemptive wars excluded), hopefully!
There is nothing "hilariously inaccurate" about calling Obama a far left liberal. He is much further to the left than those centrists to whom he is now appealing.
Do you really believe the US will be "united" by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Good grief. Keep dreaming.
It was Hillary that caused alot of that human suffering in Iraq! Neither of them have the guts to mention the suffering of the Iraqui people.
Hillary Clinton is ready to be president and Obama is not - those are the facts. I do not dislike Obama and would vote for him in the future but not now - we need Hillary Clinton to fix all the messed up programs in the US such as FEMA, Social Security, health care for the American people. Job growth for all and especially because she will bring joy to the White House because she loves being there every single day.
How Barack got my vote -
Three quotes from Barack during last night's debate.
"Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.
Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.
We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things. So we need comprehensive reform..."
"So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we're going to..."
"Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step."
That doesn't sound like an empty suit to me.
This is absolutely ridiculous! I don't believe we should even stop to give it any attention. All Clinton is, desperately, trying so hard to detract from Obama's support and success one way or another, even if it means coming up claptrap "gossip". Doesn't she know it will hurt her even more???
How Barack got my vote -
Three quotes from Barack during last night's debate.
"Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.
Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.
We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things. So we need comprehensive reform..."
"So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we're going to..."
"Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step."
That doesn't sound like an empty suit to me.
Links to articles in the Washington Times and Boston Herald? Yikes. Where's your NY Post link to complete the right-wing rag trifecta?
As much as I was enthusiastic in seeing Obama win his Senate seat in 2004, I'm frankly concerned that he lacks both substance and experience to the extent that he could add more instability to the already fragile world political situation.
Obama talks 'Change' but how do we know that this is not code for a Second American Revolution? His obvious vagueness allows many voters the opportunity to fill in their own private scenario any way that they wish!
Sorry, but B.O. is just too cleverly packaged to be sufficiently believable and trustworthy to be the Democratic Party's next Presidential Nominee.
Hopefully, if he really can be objective about himself and the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world, Obama will be able to see that choosing for the Vice Presidential nominee with Senator Clinton as the Presidential one is in the best interest for us all.
Yes, I certainly agree with Tony McCuaig's post. As much as I was enthusiastic in seeing Obama win his Senate seat in 2004, I'm frankly concerned that he lacks both substance and experience to the extent that he could add more instability to the already fragile world political situation.
Obama talks 'Change' but how do we know that this is not code for a Second American Revolution? His obvious vagueness allows many voters the opportunity to fill in their own private scenario any way that they wish!
Sorry, but B.O. is just too cleverly packaged to be sufficiently believable and trustworthy to be the Democratic Party's next Presidential Nominee.
Hopefully, if he really can be objective about himself and the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world, Obama will be able to see that choosing for the Vice Presidential nominee with Senator Clinton as the Presidential one is in the best interest for us all.
Yes, I certainly agree with Tony McCuaig's post. As much as I was enthusiastic in seeing Obama win his Senate seat in 2004, I'm frankly concerned that he lacks both substance and experience to the extent that he could add more instability to the already fragile world political situation.
Obama talks 'Change' but how do we know that this is not code for a Second American Revolution? His obvious vagueness allows many voters the opportunity to fill in their own private scenario any way that they wish!
Sorry, but B.O. is just too cleverly packaged to be sufficiently believable and trustworthy to be the Democratic Party's next Presidential Nominee.
Hopefully, if he really can be objective about himself and the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world, Obama will be able to see that choosing for the Vice Presidential nominee with Senator Clinton as the Presidential one is in the best interest for us all.
Joanna #67: Here Here!!!
Phil #62: Yes, well sadly, due to America's position in the world in terms of our economy compared to those of France, Britain, or Germany, unfortionately what the US president does will impact the world comunity much more than what the prime minister of Britian, president of France, or chansiler of Germany does. This is not to say that European countries's heads don't hold a candle to us! Its just to say that our actions are (slightly) more impactful in the world than their's, and it is perhaps why many Americans say not share the same fears for the future of the world if one of the European countries is going through an election. Although I stress its not all Americans!, and certainly not me! I care what happens in Europe just as much as what happens here!!
I must admit I am very uneasy about Obama mania. It seems to me that Obama has not said anything just about anyone could say without too much forethought. He keeps saying it's time for change but never really pinpoints many specifics. I am concerned about the lack of critical thinking skills that American voters seem to bring to the table. Electing a president is not like awarding an Oscar, and America needs to understand that basic point. You don't even have to like the president but you do have to trust him. There is something I just don't trust about Obama.
The Bradley effect is on full throttle. The reporter for the Boston Herald nicely makes it appear like she is an "Obama girl" and then sets out reminding the people the fears they should have.
hello!!! The kind of light that Mark Anthony (eulogy at Caesar's funeral)shined on "Honorable" Brutus and company is not praise but a bullet to the head.
So many reporters and people hiding their bias against Obama keep bringing up or emphasizing negatives that have nothing to do with a balanced reality.
On plagiarism and humanity:
how far off base when you consider this rehash of Bill Clinton 1992 campaign
Bill Clinton, 1992: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time." November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...
Hillary Clinton, Debate in Texas: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
and this was her highlight moment of her humanity. How original and heartfelt is this? another calculation.....
Thou shall not kill---Oh dear I forgot to footnote it. Oh ibid for the other 9 commandments.
Mr. Obama like to say "I represent change!"
Anyone can say that!
Don't think they had xeroxes in the old style house of commons -so it might have gone a bit -whoosh!- over say Gladstone or Disraeli's head.
The plagarism charge was pure desperation.
When your campaign co-chairman recommends you to use an angle and you do - that's plagarism?
C'mon, let's get real.
The plagarism story was always weak sauce, why people are still talking about it I don't know.
*Very* few politicians have the intelligence to write their own speeches, and if you dissect a Clinton speech you can find all kinds of 'plagarism'. Even her ending remarks the other night.
Obama writes his own, and took the advice of a campaign co-chairman to put some words in, TWO words, that were his.
Seriously folks, more than ONE MILLION people have died in Iraq, and you are talking about Obama plagarising nothing because the desparate Clintons said he did.
Well the Clintons have said a lot of things haven't they, and that doesn't necessarily make it true, does it?
Then again, you could look at someone like Bush/Cheney, now there is a bag of liars if we've ever had one in power. Make the Clintons look like saints, those Republicans do.
HTD (73),
"Sorry, but B.O. is just too cleverly packaged to be sufficiently believable and trustworthy to be the Democratic Party's next Presidential Nominee."
Which less cleverly packaged one would you prefer?
xx
ed
The words Barack was accused of plagiarism were words of well know people. They were already in public domain; they had no copyright attached to them. The were pronounced in public speech and anybody could use them. What infuriated HRC is that Obama has the proper tone to utter those words and defeat her message. That was the "real plagiarism" she could complain about. She is just jealous she was not endowed by nature to have that tone...
So, go on Obama. 'Yes, we can; Si, se puede"!!!!!
Using Senator Clinton's overly onerous criteria for attribution of source the most famous speech in American History (e.g., Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) fall short. In it President Lincoln's phrase, " A new birth of freedom" was loosely borrowed from NY Time's reporter Samuel Wilkeson's article on battle of Gettysburg dated 7/6/1863 in which he refers to a "Second Birth of Freedom" as coming from the battle. Senator Clinton exemplifies those leaders identified in the following aphorism. The Unwitting leading the unwilling to do the unnecessary.
You know Justin I cant even stand hearing her name anymore she is the pits shame on her, she dressed up in other countrys garb and it wasnt even her blood , his father was born in Africa which happens to be one of the most beautiful countrys in the world!
YES WE CAN Obama I Believe !
I keep waiting for the words " I have a dream " to appear from Obama. He seems, to me, to be a black man desperately pretending to be white. He leaves the black canvassing to his wife or Oprah.