Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Hillary's Visit To The Xerox Machine

Shane-O's picture

Here's a little video montage I put together this morning.

It speaks for itself... Enjoy!

0
No votes yet

Comments

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

The crux of her argument to begin with was only over two words - "Just Words."

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I bet if you try you could find clips of her saying things like "ladies and gentlemen" "thank-you" "goodnight" and "God bless America."

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

What more did she have when accusing Obama of plagarism?

Only two words.

And yes, I could find plenty of instances where people utter common words. However, "hard work" and "proven results" have been infuriating mantras of the Bush administration.

The other two comparisions go far beyond - a person that takes an objective look at it would admit as much.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Obama lifted this in November 2007 speech from a speech given by Duval Patrick in June 2006.

"I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations." Obama said "anyone" instead of "anybody", but other than that, the quote is exact.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

We're not talking about remarks make extemporaneously at a debate here -- we're talking about a speech that was written down, and delivered by Obama -- and posted on his website afterwards.

What Clinton odes is something everyone does -- they hear something expressed well, and the next time they want to communicate what was expressed, they echo much of the original phrasing.

I mean, lets face it, Obama even stole his big selling point of "change" from John Edwards. That word was being used constantly by Edwards well before Obama make it a focal point of his campaign.

You want to see someone "stealing" other people's ideas in action? Watch the first debate that Obama participated in, where it was glaringly obvious that he didn't even know the rationale of his own health care plan. The media loves to talk about how much Obama has "improved" during the debates -- and he has. After all, he's had nearly a year to finally get to read and understand all of "his" detailed policy positions and proposals (but most of the time, he still sounds like he's only memorized the Power-Point version.)

Do I actually care that Obama uses other peoples lines in his speeches without attribution? No. I realized a long time ago that the guy wasn't much more than an empty suit -- lifting stuff for his speeches is the least of his deficiencies.

But please don't try and deny that he's done it.

Sima's picture
Submitted by Sima on

Even slightly convincing to me was Bill's speech and then Hillary's.

However, they are married. You know what? Sometimes when I think something, my husband says it. Sometimes I hear words I spoke to him coming out of his mouth exactly as I spoke them as he explains our point of view to someone else. So that really doesn't bug me.

The Edwards part bothered me at first but, honestly, after you goggle that phrase (gonna be fine) you realize just about everyone has said it for a long time. So, no smoke there.

The rest is just stupid. Hard work? You know I said to my partner/husband the other day, 'We've got a lot of sheds and fencing to put up. It's going to be hard work.' I guess I stole Bush's line, eh? Yeesh.

There is a huge difference between this and stealing full passages from someone else. AND there's another difference, which many have said and I'll repeat. Hillary isn't running on being a motivational speaker. She isn't running on her eloquence, or on the brilliance of her thoughts. Maybe she should, because she's so smart and I find her to be very eloquent. But whatever, she's not running on that. Obama is.

And by that standard, I expect Mr. Brilliant, Mr. Eloquent, to be exactly those things. Not a common politician who has to read his words to make any sense and who uses others' words when they sound better than his own rambling mutterings.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

I don't care if a politician borrows an idea, paraphrases it or copies it in their comments, speeches or debate responses (so long as it is a good idea, of course).

My only issue is that we apply the same standard to both Obama and Clinton. The same definition of plagiarism.

Either they both do it or neither of them do it, depending on the definition.

To use a different standard for each of them based based upon who is the "better" speaker seems a bit odd to me. Taken to the extreme, if someone cannot speak at all (i.e. W) - would you accuse him of plagiarism if he simply repeated the enirety of FDR's Fear Itself speech at his last State of the Union? Granted, it would have been a better speech - but plagiarism nevertheless.

And please do not make the diffentiation based upon which was a speech and which occurred in a debate. Both the Bill and Edwards clips were taken from Senator Clinton's closing remark. I doubt it was improvised. Few remarks made by either of the candidates are.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

janittdott's picture
Submitted by janittdott on

What I've ALWAYS loved about the Clintons...

is that they are just SO much smarter that the rest of us.
And we don't always get their little jokes.

When I first saw her "duplications" on Washington Week
I was puzzled.
Cause Hillary is WAY too smart and saavy to DO that.

Then it occured to me that she was doing it...on purpose.
Just to drive Barack nuts!
He might recognize Bill's line FOR SURE the line by John Edwards.
But he could not SAY anything about it!

Because HE had just told HER her objection was "silly"
And to OBJECT would be to ADMIT that it's...unethical.

So he just had to sit there while she brought the house down
by doing EXACTLY what...he does.

...

America!
"You need a mother VERY badly!"

-wendy to captain hook

...

Submitted by lambert on

The situations are not the same! (Personally, I think the plagiarism charge was inane to begin with. But neither of us are arguing on that level.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

In order to be plagarism, the words must be fairly unique - "the bill of rights, just words, the emancipation proclamation, just words, etc" . Go ahead, find someone else beside Deval and Obama that uttered that series of phrases. It's highly unlikely that exists.

It is however highly likely that millions of people have said, whatever happens, we'll be fine. IT's very likely that lots of fairly well-off candidates running for office say exactly what Hillary and Bill say here - what I've gone through is nothing compared to what Americans go through every day. In fact, I'm fairly certain Bush has said that in some of speeches.

That's the fundamental difference. What Hillary, Bill and John expressed was a fairly normal human emotion - half "better the devil y'know, than the devil y'don't" and half "we're still standing".

So go ahead - if obama didn't plagarize, then Obama supporters should be able to find lots of other people who expressed the thought that the "bill of rights" is "just words". if you can't, then it is, indeed, plagarism. And very similar to the plagarism that knocked Biden out of the race.

BTW, as my Marine stepson pointed out, Obama would be thrown out of any military academy for copying to that degree, even with permission.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

Clinton has chastized Obama for "plargiarism."

Lambert - is Clinton also guilty of the same?

If not - why not. What distiguishes the actions of the two?

Allow me to first disagree with a few of the factors already offered:

1. The marriage exception: just try to republish your partner's, husband's wife's paper;

2. Spoken vs. written: plagiarism is defined to include words and ideas, spoken and written;

3. The "Good Talker" standard: see above.

Are there any other factors (relevent, of course) that distinguish the two of them on this (non)issue (and I've only posted on this because a candidate made it an issue)?

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Either they both do it or neither of them do it, depending on the definition.

sorry, by my idea of plagarism isn't someone using phrases and ideas that others have used when speaking extemporaneously.

My idea of plagarizing is writing down an exact quote, and then publishing it without attribution. Which is precisely what happened with the "aspirations" quote I cited above (I consider web publishing to be publishing.)

What Clinton did was brilliant -- it was the last question, and a really good one to ask Obama, but a really stupid one to ask Clinton, considering how public here crises, and her handling of those crises, have been.

So she took the opportunity to turn the question around, and say [paraphrase] "its not about me, its about you. Me and Obama will both be fine, regardless of who wins, and my campaign is about...."

janittdott's picture
Submitted by janittdott on

I’m new to blogging, Shrillones,
(so i hope it's ethical to post something here that I've posted elsewhere.)

...

I call myself a lapsed gonzo journalists (Hunter would be nuts by now!)
I was in journalism school reporting for my college paper during…watergate.

And I realize the issues of attribution and plargiarism are...arcane.
So most people who don't really GET what all this "fuss" is about.
But the ethics of attribution and accuracy and the just use of words
they...matter.

ALL the candidates “borrow” a phase here and there from each other.
By the end of a long day who knows where who heard what first.
Maybe candidates can claim to own a slogan. But it would be…wrong.

I’m MUCH less concerned about what Obama borrows
than what he TAKES full credit for.
For instance, inventing the concept of political…change.
Also the wheel. And I believe he discovered fire.
At least to hear him tell it.

The POINT is that Barry doesn’t just lift a word or phrase
now and then.
He lifts WHOLE concepts, personas, social movements…
fallen heroes!
The hard fought bloody wars and intellectual battles of a
whole generation
And also the one that followed. The ones he says we don’t need…anymore.

Which I can’t help but take a bit…personally.
Maybe that’s why I don’t like him much.

A favored guy, barely bruised by a life that was NOT that tough.
who presents these soaring tearstained heartrending...words...
of those who bled out in American streets in The Troubles before him
with HIS own byline.

That is Barack’s real plagiarism.

No wonder Obama requires…change…total slate wiping change.
Someone might figure out that ALL this stuff he spouts is a rehash
of far better braver men (and women!) than he is.
Who SAID it long ago FOR REAL and much better than he does.

As a weary old boomer who actually HEARD those speeches
AS they were delivered by The Dead on black and white TV,

someone who got tear-gassed in the streets with TENS of thousands
for REAL change, my hope to vote for George McGovern.

Then wept all night as I watched us loose…a whole country…to Nixon.

I’m still waiting to hear Barack, in comfy climate controlled stadiums
say something to his legions of “hopefuls” that I…haven’t heard.

too many times by now.

Here’s one word he doesn’t use much. I think he finds it worthless.

History.

...

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

A while back (nearly 20 years), I had the opportunity to sit down with Leonard Bernstein for an evening with some fellow musicians. The topic of his writing and conducting came up and Maestro Bernstein described his yearly schedule.

He said that for three months he would learn the music he was going to conduct for the season. The next three months he spent conducting and performing. But most interesting was how he spent the following three months - he spent them largely away from music - trying to get the music he had immersed himself in for the prior six months out of his head - so that in the next three months he could write his own music without using the prior works of others.

Couple that with an old Llyods of London challenge that offered $1 million for eight bars of original music (using quarter notes in 4/4 and only the 12-tone scale). Of course, no one ever took the prize because every variation of the 12-tone scale over eight bars had already been written somewhere in music.

My point in all this - these candidates have not had a respite from compaining in a long time, and many of the themes in oratory have been spoken before.

I just wish Senator Clinton had not tried to use the plargiarism charge.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Turlock