Available at 
Tweet
OK, I may run the risk of looking really stupid here, but I am not really following today's breaking political "scandal."
All the sites, FoxNews, CNN, Drudge, etc., are running the story that the Clinton camp is accusing Obama of plagarism. Specifically, one high-ranking Clinton ally argues that because Obama essentially word-for-word "copycatted" during a debate a 2006 response that the Massachusetts governor (NOT Romney--a Dem) made when presented with a similar situation. Apparently, this Governor belittled his opponent's dismissive position that words are "just words" by quoting "I have a dream" and "Ask not what your country" as examples of words being more than mere rhetoric. Recently, Obama made an extremely similar argument to counter Clinton's identical criticism of his campaign.
Obama agrees that his response was a lift of the Governor's response. In fact, he said that he probably should have credited the Governor (I guess, meaning that he says that he perhaps should have introduced his remarks with the comment, "As Governor So-and-So once said..."
Regardless, though, of whether "good form" mandated that Obama "credit" the Governor with coming up with this response, I don't understand how NOT crediting the Governor constitutes plagarism.
Plagarism, as I understand it and how the dictionary defines is, is the "stealing and using" of another's ideas and crediting it as one's own. Does a clever response in a public political debate really constitute an "idea" that belongs to the debater? It's not like it was the theme of a dissertation, or a published article, or an "idea" upon which the Governor intellectually expounded and argued. It seems to me that it was just a good comeback--not an idea that can be stolen and improperly attributed, as plagarism usually connotes.
I am not debating whether plagarism is a particularly persuasive point to head your political opponent on the head with. That seems particularly case specific. However, I am curious: does anyone else have thoughts on whether this situation actually constitutes plagarism? I am just not seeing it...?
All the sites, FoxNews, CNN, Drudge, etc., are running the story that the Clinton camp is accusing Obama of plagarism. Specifically, one high-ranking Clinton ally argues that because Obama essentially word-for-word "copycatted" during a debate a 2006 response that the Massachusetts governor (NOT Romney--a Dem) made when presented with a similar situation. Apparently, this Governor belittled his opponent's dismissive position that words are "just words" by quoting "I have a dream" and "Ask not what your country" as examples of words being more than mere rhetoric. Recently, Obama made an extremely similar argument to counter Clinton's identical criticism of his campaign.
Obama agrees that his response was a lift of the Governor's response. In fact, he said that he probably should have credited the Governor (I guess, meaning that he says that he perhaps should have introduced his remarks with the comment, "As Governor So-and-So once said..."
Regardless, though, of whether "good form" mandated that Obama "credit" the Governor with coming up with this response, I don't understand how NOT crediting the Governor constitutes plagarism.
Plagarism, as I understand it and how the dictionary defines is, is the "stealing and using" of another's ideas and crediting it as one's own. Does a clever response in a public political debate really constitute an "idea" that belongs to the debater? It's not like it was the theme of a dissertation, or a published article, or an "idea" upon which the Governor intellectually expounded and argued. It seems to me that it was just a good comeback--not an idea that can be stolen and improperly attributed, as plagarism usually connotes.
I am not debating whether plagarism is a particularly persuasive point to head your political opponent on the head with. That seems particularly case specific. However, I am curious: does anyone else have thoughts on whether this situation actually constitutes plagarism? I am just not seeing it...?
I read some comparisons of text and I was a little suprised to see that he had all out taken several key sentences and plopped them into his speeches. After the fact, his friend said it was ok. So I guess it's ok. I just think it's a bit unusual to do something like that. For someone trying to sell hope and change it's not very original to copy your buddy's words.
I missed that one, Nellie.
I also know he is neither a vegan nor a vegetarian (and who the hell cares?)
And, as you said, why go to the effort to make stories when there is real news to be had?
Comment