Similar Obama, Patrick speeches scrutinized

[Teri B.]

Now I've really heard it all. I got a heartfelt lecture from someone I respect, trying to bring me over to the Obama side, about how he writes all his own speeches.

Similar Obama, Patrick speeches scrutinized

From Josh Levs
CNN

(CNN) -- Similarities between the words of Sen. Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick have raised eyebrows and attracted traffic on YouTube.

A central passage in a speech Obama gave Saturday -- aimed at convincing voters that his campaign is not just about lofty rhetoric -- is adapted from one that Patrick used in his 2006 campaign, the Obama campaign said when asked about it.

The controversy is lost on the Massachusetts governor, who endorsed Obama.

Obama's campaign had Patrick call the New York Times over the weekend and issue a statement.

"Senator Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language," Patrick said in the statement. "The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Senator Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."

The Obama campaign also confirmed comments chief strategist David Axelrod -- an adviser on Obama's Senate campaign and Patrick's gubernatorial run -- made to the New York Times about the speeches.

"They often riff off one another. They share a world view," Axelrod told the Times about Obama and Patrick. "Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely."

Responding to attacks from Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton that he offers words while she offers action, Obama has been arguing that words matter.

Saturday night at a gala for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Obama said to frequent applause, "Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream.' Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words, just speeches!"

In 2006, Patrick, fending off attacks from his rival Kerry Healey, told a crowd, "Her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is all I have to offer is words. Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country' -- just words. 'I have a dream' -- just words."

An Obama campaign spokesman said Monday the campaign was "obviously not traumatized" by the discovery of the similarities, "which is why we're not putting out any official statement."

Clinton argues that while Obama provides rousing speeches, she has the stronger grasp of the issues and the knowledge of how to use the presidency to start making changes from "day one."

Speaking last week at a General Motors plant in Ohio, she said, "There's a big difference between us - speeches versus solutions, talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap. I know it takes work."

 

[Annie]

If it's a one-shot deal, no biggie. If there are others? Not good, ask Biden.

 

[Teri B.]

If it's a one-shot deal, no biggie. If there are others? Not good, ask Biden.

Exactly. It just irks me that I got this lecture on Obama's grand eloquence, and the next day we find out he's borrowing some of that eloquence. I just don't get the whole Obama fad. I guess I was asleep when they were handing out the Koolaid. I mean, he's alright I suppose, not my first or second choice, or third for that matter.

 

[JeffWartman]

Does this really matter?

 

[Annie]

Does this really matter?

Only if there's a pattern of plagerism.

 

[JeffWartman]

Only if there's a pattern of plagerism.

Of which there is no evidence for.

You mention Biden; that scandal hurt him inn 1988, but is irrelevant since. Why? Because the media looks for a juicy story, but in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter in the least.

 

[Annie]

Of which there is no evidence for.

You mention Biden; that scandal hurt him inn 1988, but is irrelevant since. Why? Because the media looks for a juicy story, but in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter in the least.

Actually it would, at least in the past. Cheating is not something wanted in higher education, (well actually at any level), it can get one expelled, ask Teddy Kennedy. Those values were still evident when Biden won, he had the grace to be embarrassed. Obama has said he should have given credit, while I'm not voting for him, that is enough for me, less more evidence of other lapses were shown.

 

[Gem]

I think that for this to be "a story," the person whose words were used would have to be offended. Not only is Patrick not offended, but he's defending Obama! Its a non-story...and it makes Clinton look desperate. She should have, if she was truly interested in making this an issue that made him look bad but not have any negative blow-back on her campaign, should have had one of her groups do it for her. That way she could have remained "above it all." A mistake by her "new" manager???

 

[JeffWartman]

Actually it would, at least in the past. Cheating is not something wanted in higher education, (well actually at any level), it can get one expelled, ask Teddy Kennedy. /quote]

You're hurting your own case; higher education in politics. Unfortunately, we ask so little of our elected officials that we continue to reelect criminals, like Teddy Kennedy. In the end, the public could care less about this.

 

[Annie]

Actually it would, at least in the past. Cheating is not something wanted in higher education, (well actually at any level), it can get one expelled, ask Teddy Kennedy.

You're hurting your own case; higher education in politics. Unfortunately, we ask so little of our elected officials that we continue to reelect criminals, like Teddy Kennedy. In the end, the public could care less about this.

I thought of that after posting, got diverted from editing. Those types of values were considered important requirements from anyone in a position of authority. Values and character were supposed to matter, they certainly seem in decline around political theater for years now, at least from the headlines.

I think Henry Hyde tried to act with character, though the woman from years ago was human. Like I said of Obama, seemed to be a one time thing, so wrong but human. I think Lieberman is honorable and Biden seems to not only have reformed, but become a man of character. I think I could have voted for him this go round.

I'm sure there are many others, not perfect, not saints, but try not to lie or steal. I don't ask for that much!

 

[Teri B.]

I think that for this to be "a story," the person whose words were used would have to be offended. Not only is Patrick not offended, but he's defending Obama! Its a non-story...and it makes Clinton look desperate. She should have, if she was truly interested in making this an issue that made him look bad but not have any negative blow-back on her campaign, should have had one of her groups do it for her. That way she could have remained "above it all." A mistake by her "new" manager???

I disagree. It's not whether the person who's words were used, his friend, was offended. It's whether he's passing these words off as his own to the public. Again, this isn't really a big deal, in and of itself, but it caught my attention because I'm always being told how sincere he is, and how he writes all of his own speeches.

Yes, he should have credited the person he was quoting, and he admitted it. Enough said IMO. But it's certainly worth noting.

 

[Gem]

I completely see your point Teri. Maybe its just that I'm too cynical now to get surprised by someone in politics saying things that aren't simply just their own original, never-said-before, thoughts. I expect every politician to have a parade of people telling him/her what to say, how to say it, when to say it to make the most political gain from it...in many ways...politicians are little more than actors who happen to have the best PR team behind them, rather than men and women with brilliant, inspiring, original ideas of their own.

Sigh...ok, now I've just depressed myself.

 

[Teri B.]

I completely see your point Teri. Maybe its just that I'm too cynical now to get surprised by someone in politics saying things that aren't simply just their own original, never-said-before, thoughts. I expect every politician to have a parade of people telling him/her what to say, how to say it, when to say it to make the most political gain from it...in many ways...politicians are little more than actors who happen to have the best PR team behind them, rather than men and women with brilliant, inspiring, original ideas of their own.

Sigh...ok, now I've just depressed myself.

Lol. I don't think that it's so much they don't have any integrity or ideas of their own, so much as what they have to twist themselves into in order to win. It's become some kind of game, and that's the truly sad part. That's what worries me most about these never ending primaries. They're savaging each other to the point of dividing the party like I've never seen before. There's barely a wisp of difference between Obama's and Clinton's policies, so the ways they're trying to set themselves apart has become so personal and destructive - or "the politics of personal destruction." (I'm not sure who said that first, but let it be known - it wasn't me.).

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a high stakes American Idol competition, rather than the candidates for President of the United States putting forth their platforms.