"It’s not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox," Hillary Clinton said, referring to Obama's copying material from Deval Patrick.
Well, that sounds like a cute dig — but does it make sense? People can believe in something just fine even if it's copied from someone else. The merits or the rhetorical power of a speech are not dependent on its originality. (True, if something is so often repeated that it becomes cliché, it may become less inspirational, but there's a big gulf between entirely original and cliché.) In fact, when an idea or a line has been tested by someone else first, that can sometimes help demonstrate its substantive or rhetorical quality.
Dan Drezner also points out that some of Hillary's own rhetoric seems to be closely borrowed from others. (Thanks to Megan McArdle, guest-blogging at InstaPundit for the pointer.) The inconsistency is telling, and amusing — but the more important point is that even when we want change from politicians, we shouldn't demand originality, a virtue in scholars and novelists but generally not in political leaders.
One of the digs against Reagan, of course, was that he was just an actor. His detractors (sometimes) conceded that he was a great communicator, but charged that since he was an actor, he was just a showman, a stuffed shirt.
Of course the American people had to make their own minds up about that, but one of the ways they could be reassured about the ratio of substance to style was to know that his ideas were his own. People could look at his speeches going back to 1968 and earlier to see that he was the formulator of his own ideas.
Where is our assurance with Obama? Not only does he not have the record of accomplishments in office that most potential nominees have, he has no record of formulating his own deep thoughts. And those thoughts that are the direct cause of his current success-- his stirring orations--aren't even his own.
I've been enjoying watching Clinton get her long-deserved comeuppance, but it's been so thorough, so unremitting, it's going to stop being fun. Heck, what am I saying? It'll always be fun. Bring it on! Think maybe she'll cry again?
Seriously, I think Bill may be sabotaging her campaign on purpose. Doesn't it seem like every time he opens his mouth, her campaign weakens just a little bit more? Maybe he doesn't want to be First Lady, or maybe he's still sore about all the apologizing he had to do about Monica. Even if he isn't doing it deliberately, La Hillary is going to be looking for someone to blame when the hammer finally comes down. Hide the lamps is what I'm saying.
Hillary Clinton cannot make this strong an argument: as first lady she claimed sole authorship of a book written in collaboration with Barbara Feinman. Mrs. Clinton did not even cite Ms. Feinman as collaborator, editor, or co-author.
Further, Mrs. Clinton's record of accomplishment is so entangled with her husband's that its impossible to discern whether she is "formulating her own deep thoughts" much less whether those "deep thoughts" are the direct cause of her current success. I wonder if Mrs. Clinton has seized on this particular line of attack because, subconsciously, she knows that the accomplishments she claims as her own are due entirely to her partnership with a far greater political talent.
Also, delivering a good speech is no mean feat. Its not a simple matter of putting together some good material and adopting an oratorical style—I could read the declaration of independence in the style of ChuckD and it wouldn't move a soul. Obama has a talent or even a gift for creating a space around him that others are drawn into. For a President, that ability isn't necessary or sufficient, but it's refreshing, appealing, and disarming.
You say: "ere thrice the sun done salutation to the dawn"
And you claim these words as your own
But I've read well, and I've heard them said
A hundred times, maybe less, maybe more
If you must write prose and poems
The words you use should be your own
Don't plagiarise or take "on loans"
There's always someone, somewhere
With a big nose, who knows
And who trips you up and laughs
When you fall
Who'll trip you up and laugh
When you fall
I had a similar thought about Bill Clinton. I wonder if Hillary gets up every morning and curses her husband for the first thirty minutes, because he has really helped screw up her political aspirations.
If he hadn't fooled around with the help, we wouldn't have had Monica-gate, his lying, the character assassination on that subject by his proxies. In short, you would have little to no "Clinton fatigue," at least among those who vote in Democratic primaries. In my mind, no Lewisnski means no opening for a candidate who espouses change from the Clinton years. They could have been pitched as "the good old days."
Then Bill goes out and, by all accounts, can't be controlled by Hillary's campaign, and starts spouting off in a way with racial overtones, which hurts Hillary even more among the core democratic base she needs.
Obama's message for "change" is, at least arguably, problematic in two respects--not only is it divorced from a new or unique perspective (e.g., substantive proposals are essentially typical Democratic positions, like a larger federal role for health care, tax raises for the wealthy, etc.), but this speeches are also divorced from any novelty (e.g., the "a uniter not a divider" language is used by, essentially, every candidate running for office; recall Bush's mantra from Texas, Romney's reminder from Massachusetts, and so forth--everyone wants to sound bipartisan, or as if they're bringing an "outsider" or, well, "maverick" perspective).
I think, then, the problem can be more legitimate of the lack of originality is viewed through the lens of the underlying message. If the underlying message truly is (or intends to be) "unique," then (perhaps) we should hold the speaker to a higher standard of requiring originality in his speeches.
As I've noted in comments to other blogs, what we may be seeing here is the start of Hillary's exit strategy. She's beaten, and she knows it; now all there really is to do is keep from embarrassing herself any further and hope she gets another shot in 2012 or '16.
I agree that she's beaten, or nearly so. A strong showing in Texas or Ohio might breathe some life back in her campaign, though it seems doubtful at this point. But why would she get another shot? The Democrats have a roster of losers--Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Edwards--to pick from, and none is very delectable. And if she is still married to Bill, she will still be poison to many voters.
What do we want from a chief executive anyway? I certainly don't need them to be telling me what to do. They are more like a ship's captain ... just steer the freakin' country so it doesn't go aground. Read the weather, avoid the shoals. They don't even set the course without lots of Congressional input. Don't start monkeying with the engines, ... you aren't qualified!
The best thing about election campaigns is we get to see the self-anointed elites of this country hammer on each other in public. And they deserve all the unpleasantness of it that they generate.
As a friend of mine once said, "I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire!"
On a spectrum of left to right, no candidate will be able to appear with policies that are "south," so it's equally a classification problem. You can't have "new" ideas when the evaluative method works to categorize them in a range. To aim for traditional goals by seeking to empower a new group of people to achieve them is, however, still change.
Looking at the grassroots campaign, the high turnout, and the ability to draw support from all sectors, it seems evident - even when you disagree with the policy stances Obama takes - he has tapped into some area of the US populace that has felt underserved by recent elections. His message repeatedly relies on a dichotomy that is less "Dems v GOP" as "People v Special Groups." And, it seems, people are listening.
Involvement by the electorate between elections isn't a new idea, and obviously traces back to the earliest notions that undergird the country ("We the People"). Obama's success to date, nevertheless, should serve as an indication that our fidelity to such principles might require more careful scrutiny by all sides going forward, regardless of the outcome of this election process.
Yes, because everyone pulling the level for McCain this fall will be doing so exclusively on the basis of a carefully reasoned thought process by which they've exhaustively analyzed the practical details of each candidate's policy proposals and certainly not because any of them think, "I'm not voting for a guy with a funny sounding name." (As an aside, I assume you also always refer to the other candidates as John Sidney McCain III and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?)
And, as far as we know, it is completely original.
"As an aside, I assume you also always refer to the other candidates as John Sidney McCain III and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?"
I'm afraid we'll all have to get used to this sad little game of always using Obama's middle name because of the negative associations it has for many Americans. I'll assume it's a virus spread from talk radio (like only saying the "democrat party") to go along with the cold calls and emails telling people that Obama is actually a Muslim.
To be fair to McCain (who I do NOT think would encourage such stuff), he's had to endure calls like this when he ran against Bush in 2000 and even in this race, when calls went out in S. Carolina claiming he sided with the N. Vietnamese.
"After all the time that Xerox has spent trying to protect its
copyrighttrademark, along comes Hillary, verbing the word and trying to turn it generic."Less actually.
McCain won't have that problem.
The tone of national politics has been very sharp and hateful over the past decade from both sides, and this is why people are responding to his campaign on a more emotional level as being positive and uplifiting. I don't think he'd be a stronger leader than the others, or that he's smarter, tougher, etc.
But the tenor of his campaign is much more welcome than the others. Compare that against the Swift Boating smear team, or the embarassment of McCain during 2000, or the gay marriage / terrorists will win messages... People are sick of that nonsense. The position of POTUS will corrupt anyone in the chair, of that I have no doubt. But since the Ends will be the same no matter what, the Means start to become a little more important to me. And Obama has that firmly locked down in my opinion.
I hate the thought that Hillary could ever become President. But let us not fool ourselves that Obama is anything but a smooth talking socialst shill.
His stemwinders are so generalized that he is everything to everyman. I heard a guy from West Africa say yesterday he was for Obama because Obama was the only one cared about Africa. When the commentator mentioned Bush's contributions to the war on AIDS and malaria in Africa the guy said that was ok but Obamma wuld do more because he cares.
UCLA student says it's a
Ironical that, failing to see what other people see, UCLA call them blind. Wouldn't it would make more sense if UCLA charged that other people are hallucinating? Admittedly, UCLA would then more clearly look a little deranged, but hey.
Nessuno says Obama
Nessuno, you're blind. Or for some other reason unable to read a book, apparently. Sorry.
...and that is the LAST time you'll see me admit to agreeing with Hillary Clinton on anything!
I thought it was the most brilliant turn of the debate last night when Obama turned Clinton's somewhat accurate "lack of substance and accomplishment" criticisms of Obama into a Clinton attack on Obama supporters. He didn't address the claims, he simply recharacterized them as the equivalent of calling his millions of supporters delusional. very smooth.
There's one positive thing I can say for Obama: His voice and elocution are good enough that I don't turn off the radio when a sound clip of his comes on. I find that the voices and/or content of almost all other contemporary politicos' vocalizations has the same effect on me as fingernails scratching a blackboard. I invariably turn the radio off for 30 seconds or so when Bush, Clinton(B/H), McCain, Rangel, etc., etc. come on. Obama's speechifying may be nothing more than bland treacle/pablum but at least it's not nauseating.
There's plenty more listed here -- scroll down to the paragraph that begins "There's a lot more" and follow the links therein.
Look -- there is certainly plenty of room to disagree with Senator Obama on the substance of what he has proposed and what he has done. But to say he hasn't done anything? In his three years in the Senate (two as a member of the minority), he has racked up a list of accomplishments that would do a far more experienced Senator proud.
Barack is all talk. He is full of fiery rhetoric (hot air). This is what completely frightens me about him. He has no substance, and nobody seems to care. He has no experience - he only has his passionate speeches. What does he really think? What does he really know? What would he really do?
All Hillary is pointing out is that his empty rhetoric isn't even his own. How can you believe in his passion for "change" based on words alone if they aren't even his words, but words borrowed from some other guy's speeches? Of course, I don't know how people believe it even if it were all his.
That America could vote this empty suit with no experience and borrowed speeches into the most powerful position in the world is very very very frightening.
I rarely agree with Hillary Clinton, but on this one she's right. (Even if she only said it to score points).
Seriously though, the folks at NRO's Corner made a similar point, and the bottom line is that Obama hasn't accomplished any tough legislative work. The main items to his name are the Coburn earmark bill, a non-proliferation initiative, and some work on Congressional ethics; it is exactly this tangible track record that gives credence to the "lightweight" charge, not a supposed lack of any track record at all.
The first is a decent piece of legislation, but hardly the stuff of bold leadership; it's difficult for opponents to publicly take the side of flagrant earmarking. Non-proliferation is great, but who was really fighting him on it; is there a significant pro-proliferation lobby out there? (And do we have an measure of the Luger-Obama Initiative's success yet?) As for the last... well, let's just say I chalk "Congressional ethics" under the same cynical heading that "military intelligence" is often thrown. Your mileage may vary.
To steal from my own link, "it would be pretty lame to campaign for the presidency based on that one bill [Coburn-Obama]". I would argue it is pretty lame to think the other two accomplishments provide enough resume padding to meet the grade. Certainly Jason F would disagree with me, but you can hardly call the charge of "lightweight" unreasonable.
Your experienced fellow McCain seems to have gotten his own campaign finance tangled up in his campaign finance regulations. Oops! Good luck with that.
Looking ahead four years, who will the Republicans be ready to coalesce around as the challenger?
Political theater isn't about policy, accomplishments, or great thoughts. It's about entertainment. Bread and circuses. It's limbic communication. Obama is amiable and entertaining. Hillary comes across as a scold.
I actually think most elections are decided by the question, "Who would you rather have a beer with?" Think about it. Obama or Hillary?
Perhaps, yet two of the most experienced and accomplished senators (Sens. Byrd and Stevens) tried to derail it.
Likewise, maybe Lugar-Obama was non-controversial, but it still required leadership to get it done.
Look -- if you want to find reasons why none of Senator Obama's accomplishments count, that's your perogative. Just don't expect me to come along for the ride.
How lazy can you be? Maybe you should watch a rerun of last night's debate. Or the LA debate. Or read any number of policy papers that have been available for months. Or the speech in Houston after the WI primary win.
Furthermore, the call to citizen participation is not just a call for votes, although that has been the emphasis in the victory speeches most people are familiar with. For example, speaking about education on Tuesday, he talked about how we are going to have to parent better, turn off the TV, etc. His approach isn't just knee-jerk government solutions, and I would think that a thoughtful conservative would hear this strand of shared responsibility and prefer it to the policy-only approach to improving the country.
It's all rhetoric. McCain, Clinton, Obama, anyone. It's a campaign, rhetoric is what we get. But there is substance in all the rhetoric, and the uplifting optimism isn't just a means to the end of getting elected but a means to the end of changing the underlying political culture of the country. Perhaps this is why Obama is so threatening to movement conservatives that they repeat lazy assertions about a lack of depth.
If you don't agree with issuing a greater call to civic duty, fine, but it is a major idea and one that will take leadership in the form of effective rhetoric to get jump started.
1. Sure he talks about some policy ideas, but my point was he has no experience, so who knows what he'd actually do when he finally has a real job.
2. Calls to civic duty? That is the new job of the president? What does the president have to do with how good a parent I am or how much I help out around my community? That simply ain't the presidents job.
This is the definition I go by. Do you have a different understanding?
so·cial·ist [soh-shuh-list]
-noun
1. an advocate of any of the New Deal programs implemented by the American socialist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
2. a person who criticizes official American policy regarding the conflict in Iraq.
3. Barack Hussein Obama.
4. a Clinton, a Kennedy (including the current Governor of California) or a Baldwin.
5. a believer in the discredited theories of Evolution and Global Warming.
6. a person afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
7. George W. Bush on the subject of immigration.
Synonyms: liberal, progressive, RINO, pacifist, European, diplomat, negotiator, "Gang of 14," Episcopalian, "Dixie Chick," eco-terrorist, Reid, Pelosi, McCain.
N.B., often erroneously used to describe Sean Penn, Mark Cuban and advocates of feminism, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, the Estate Tax and fluoridation, for all of whom the preferred term is "Stalinist" or "Nazi." Also, for certain people described only by definition #2, the better term is "Paleoconservative," or "Pat" for short. Since this particular anomaly is known to confuse and trouble neo and other pro-war conservatives, the usage panel recommends the approach adopted by those pro-war-cons, i.e., just pretend the paleos don't exist.
8. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Democratic party.
9. (archaic) an advocate or supporter of socialism.
Kin you wackos mark your posts as such up front? It would save a lot of trouble.
A "cute" dig? Cmon Eugene, we get that she's a woman and some of you guys just aren't comfortable working with that at this point in time, but it doesn't take a genius to understand it.
People can't (or really shouldn't) believe in somebody who is promising he can deliver messianic "Change" if the truth is he just copied (or Xeroxed) it from another candidate, or was fed it from their similar advisor. How's he going to deliver if his words aren't even original, just taken from another. And take a closer look at how that earlier candidate's faring now that he's in office and facing reality.
You really don't get that, or you're just making a cute dig at her again because you just might be a sexist? (Yeah, I stole that from "You might be a redneck..." It's a guy thing though, so I bet you understood that one.)
Obama has had several real jobs including law professor, State legislator and US Senator. If it is executive experience you are looking for, McCain doesn't have much of a claim either. But more experience doesn't make one more or less honest about what their priorities will be as President anyway. If you want to know what a candidate is going to do, listen to what they say and what they write.
The Thousand Points of Light are dead.
I suppose it would be bad form for the President to call for more volunteers for the Armed Forces?
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
If you don't agree that citizenship should entail an informal and unenforced sense of obligation, fine, so be it. I disagree. However, the proposition that it is inappropriate for the public leader of the country to speak about public service is indefensible -- and small.
Which wackiness do have in mind? That during the 1950's, many on the Right claimed fluoridation was part of a vast Communist Conspiracy? Or that today, the claim has been made from the Right that John McCain is to the left of the frequently labeled here as Socialist, Hillary Clinton?
It's not that they don't count - it's that we just can't count them. What are they?
However, I really don't see Hillary having any more acomplishments than Obama. What is Hillary's major accomplishment?
Used to fight the deficit, but that's now out the window.
Got the campaign finance rules in, but now he's all twisted up in them.
Led the fight for cap &trade for CO2, but apparently wants to give away the store to the utilities.
Joined up with the Gang of 14 to save a sliver of collegiality.
I'm sure there's more; he's been there a long time. But what? Any succinct summary available?
Conference calls can get pretty long.