Talk about desperate measures...

Isnt it very clear that Hillary keeps plagiarizing

SOMINEX!

Disclosure: I'm an Obama guy.

But that seems like a reach to me.

In politics, there's no such thing as plagiarism. The night of Hillary's New Hampshire win, she took the stage and launched into a verbatim rip off of everything Obama had been saying--change, hope etc.

Keep throwing everything at obama if you can hillary... we need to win.... if we have to get ugly do it... the republicans do.

The definition of plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

From everything I've read, Governor Patrick has fully authorized Obama to use these words.

And it is not like he is stealing someones thesis, he is echoing a fair argument that words DO matter.

They are in full out pasta mode. Throw everything in the bowl at the wall to see if anything at all sticks.

This has been an interesting two month slow motion trainwreck on the part of the Clintons.

I don't think he thought up "Yes We Can" all by himself either. Hhmmmmmmm

Am I supposed to be taking this seriously because I really only find it amusing.

Oh brother, they are flailing around saying the silliest things. I guess he plagerized his kindergarten essay as well. Desperation. I guess they have finally realized the texas situation and it ain't looking pretty.

It's desperation all right. Do you think there's any chance, though, that people will buy the "plagiarism" thing? After all, have you seen the pathetic clip from Ohio in which Hillary tried to start a chant of "Yes we will!" and the crowd refuses?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRQD-MsSpfI

Humiliating.

So why is it the least bit questionable that Gov. Patrick, an Obama supporter who whom Obama campaign adviser also advised, offers suggestions for Obama stump speeches. Axelrod, a former political reporter, is well kown for his turning of a phrase.

It's clear that the Clinton campaign has gotten to the "nothing to lose" phase of the death spiral. I can only imagine how silly the debate is going to be on Thursday.

Dear Mr. Kleefeld,

Here is a link to the Boston Globe piece from LAST APRIL about the Obama & Patrick teams' long standing ties.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope/

Slow news day.

Word has it that Obama has also been advocating that people NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

Can we get a story on that, please?

This boomerang is already on its way back to bite her.

Maybe not in 2004, but after eight years of Bush, voters readily see through these twisting tactics.

Hillary would do better talking more about how great she is, instead of so much about how awful her opponent is.

Especially when the negatives she throws at him are so... insignificant and easily refuted.

Her campaign is starting to veer into dangerous territory with this and campaign finance attack - they are trying hard to hurt him big time, and it was cause a backlash from the superdelegates. Ted Kennedy supported Obama in part because of Bill's attacks, and warned Bill not to try to wound Obama so much that Obama wouldn't be a good general election candidate. I think we'll now see more of the same from other superdelegates and party leaders. The Clintons won't be allowed to win dirty and they'll forfeit their remaining chance to get back into the race if they try.

Today is a vicious attack day from the Clinton front on Obama. Be it on this story, to the pro-Clinton folks at MyDD talking about Obama spending money in Florida (they don't say on what) and Jerome Armstrong taking on the idea that we Obama supporters are acting like cult members.

This is depressing. If Obama can survive this, no doubt he can survive the General Election.

It really is pathetic to see Bill and Hillary Clinton succumb to this level.

The one thing that should be noted about this latest smear is that it is right out of the Rove/Swiftboat school of politics of attacking your oponents strengths. Yet again we see that the Hillary campaign wants to continue the divisive politics of the Bush/Clinton/Bush era instead of bringing us to the 'promised land' of a UNITED States of America.

I live outside of Boston and have appreciated the similarities between Patrick and Obama. Both I think understand how to run a campaign that plays on emotion and images- they are both attacked for it by Democrats who seem to have a desire to lose. Elections are won on this kind of rhetoric- not on nitty gritty policy details. It is a sad part of our politics- but the truth. I am impressed with Obama's ability to use high minded rhetoric and when it comes down to legislation time- he knows his stuff and is good with the details- he knows he doesn't need the rhetoric in meetings and he doesn't need the policy details at a rally.

Still... it seems to me that the Clinton campaign is not just pointing out that the two are using the same words--- I think this is another attempt to show us that Obama is black. After all- he tries to be above race (as does Patrick) and this is perhaps a reminder to all those white voters who are uncomfortable with black leaders that Obama on his own may be fine- but there are MORE of THEM coming.... Maybe I am paranoid- but I just have come to expect this type of thing from the Clintons....

Politicians rarely speak in their own words. They have speechwriters. I doubt Patrick originally wrote the words himself, and if he wants to share them with Obama, that's his decision. HRC's campaign needs to get a clue.

The words that Patrick and Obama cite were words spoken by great men and well-tested leaders. They carried the weight of their speakers' actions and reputations. Conversely, words spoken by Patrick and Obama are, by and large, just that: words. The speakers bring little to the table to back them up and invest them with power. The fact that their words are so interchangeable further highlights their essential emptiness.

On a more personal level, I found the speaking style in both video excerpts to be rather whiny and self-conscious. Where do people get the notion that Obama is some kind of second-coming of King and Kennedy? Certainly not from his voice. And didn't leading with "I Have a Dream" sound really contrived and weird? It fell completely flat. He should have cribbed verbatim from Patrick.

This story is much more subtle than people are giving it credit for.

If Obama wasn't worried about the plagiarism charge, then he wouldn't go to such lengths to excuse it.

Advantage Clinton.

Come on, JTHB. Are Clinton's words all written by her? Has she not copied Obama's phrases - WITHOUT authorization?

I was getting to the point of thinking I might vote for Clinton in the general election if she wins the nomination - but I won't do it if she wins ugly. I was fed up with Bill by '96 (but held my nose and voted for him anyway, because what was the alternative?), but this time I'm not sure I can do it. It's pretty clear to me that this is a not-so-subtle attempt to show that both Obama and Patrick are black. Nothing they do is without calculation.

To me it sounded more like he was quoting. Obama's a great orator, and if the Hillary campaign attack him saying he's all words, then of course he's going to respond by giving a speech quoting great people and speeches, and then ask, "just words?".

He say's it himself: We have nothing to fear but fear itself. just words, just speeches.

To me it sounded more like he was quoting. Obama's a great orator, and if the Hillary campaign attack him saying he's all words, then of course he's going to respond by giving a speech quoting great people and speeches, and then ask, "just words?".

He say's it himself: We have nothing to fear but fear itself. just words, just speeches.

If words matter (and are seemingly all that matter for Obamatrons), then doesn't it matter whether they are your own words or not. Nobody is claiming copyright infringement here. Just that the guy has based his entire campaign on the fact that he can give good speeches. It is pretty relevant, then, that his speeches are not his own.

What's really amazing is that Obama folks so much time and energy defending him on these piddly charges and comments from Hillary staffers than they do actually drawing distinctions between the records of the two politicians. While you guys are suckered into complaining about Mark Penn, Wisconsin and Texas and Ohio voters are just hearing "buzz buzz buzz ordinary politician buzz buzz buzz".

All this bickering helps drag Obama down to the level of mere mortals and ordinary politicians. If voters see a messiah vs. senator, they are going to vote for the messiah. If they are just comparing two senators--two ordinary politicians--then Obama stands no chance.

***yawn*** scandalous....outrageous....zzzzzzzzzz

Seriously, that's what the Clinton camp came up with? Laughable.

Really? That's it? Deval says they share ideas and strategies. If she makes too much of this she's going to look even more foolish than she already does.

JTHB,

Not without credit: Obama and Patrick have been sharing ideas for years. It would be hard to know what comes exactly from whom.

Obama's top selling points are not his words.

This is his best selling point: his ability to inspire, organize and accomplish. This he does through his words, his ideas, his plans, his policies, his inclusive demeanor, his independence and honesty, his management and organizing skills, his judgment, his beliefs, his faith in the people...

That is, he inspires, organizes and accomplishes with his substance.

He is also a good speaker with great speech writers.

In speeches, hardly anything is new under the sun by now. But of course, you are entitled to keep twisting.

So now I ask you:

After noticing how well it worked for Barack, is Hillary's use of the words "change" and "hope," plagiarism?

Also interesting that though the HRC campaign is shocked by this IP transgression, it has never brought up that "yes we can" is, stop the presses, pretty clearly meant to be a riff on Cesar Chavez.

None of you really get it, do you? I agree that the 'charge of plagiarism' seems petty: silly, on it's face. I would not have raised the issue in opposition to his candidacy, as Senator Clinton's campaign representative has chosen to.

But, you're not paying attention. This is not about lifting someone else's words without attribution. It is about a lack of authenticity, a clear attempt at portrayal of the candidate as an original, strong, and independent thinker, one offering new, exciting, hereforeto undisclosed 'big ideas', the skilled orator…

In reality, Senator Obama shares more in common with a fundamentalist revival tent preacher: lots of flash, and not much defensible, demonstrable substance. Great with canned phrases, prepared speeches and when assisted by teleprompters, but short on substance and not a skilled extemporaneous speaker.

Even the 'Si, se puede!' line is lifted from the 2004 efforts of the SEIU to support the candidacy of Governor Dean, itself borrowed from Cesar Chavez, the great organizer of predominantly Chicano migrant farm workers.

Look behind the curtain…

1)To the critic of plagiarism: "Well, Hillary, you are doing all the time with my speeches and ideas, and I never gave you permission, while Patrick did"
2) Tho the critic about his pledge to McCain: Hillary, this is between McCain and me, you were not invited in this discussion"

more Rovian strategy in play here. good luck, CLINTONites, attacking BARACK OBAMA on a lack of authenticity.

is it not odd that most of Hillary's offensive campaign directed at Obama has been centered around the premise "he's just as bad as i am!"?

OK, Hillary, I'll make you a deal. I'll write you a speech--and you don't even have to give me credit:

It will begin like this: "I am so proud to be here today, to stand here with so many friends who have been with me for so long. After pouring my heart and soul into this campaign, I have concluded that the voters were looking for a different kind of candidate...one who truly represents a break from the past and who came with a lot less baggage. I am proud of the campaign we waged. Sadly, I realized I couldn't win."

There are lots of classy concession speeches out there, Hillary. And nobody will hold it against you if you borrow some of the words.

The Clinton version of "it's okay if I do it, just not him":

"In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language. "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

No well-informed person could dismiss Obama's campaign as nothing but empty words. It's a meme that HRC's campaign is trying hard to push, along with the laughable charges of plagiarism (as if politicians write their own speeches anyway!) and the whole inane "cult" business, but both are false to the core.

If HRC gets the nomination, she can't win on November without Obama's supporters--it just isn't mathematically possible.

So she (and her supporters) had best think twice before insinuating that Obama supporters are empty-headed Kool-Aid drinkers who respond to pretty speeches like Pavlov's dog. You cannot throw a very large, very diverse, very well-informed group of Democratic supporters under the bus in that way and then expect to win a general election with them.

This isn't even new. Obama used those same words in a speech last spring and people whined he was plagiarizing then and Patrick said that he was cool with it, since they share words.

Talk about short memories. Seems people have officially moved to Groundhog Day.

From Politico:

A co-chairman of Hillary's Michigan campaign and has a line that's sure to drive a whole bunch of red state governor's up the wall:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

These people are desperate. They also won't hesitate to throw entire regions of the country under the bus if they have the temerity vote against them.

Yes, I used to like Charlie Parker, but then I learned he never once stopped the show to credit David Raskin when he quoted Laura in a solo (a lot more often than Obama channels Deval Patrick).

So I guess that just shows Bird was not really such a great musician after all, huh?

give me a break.

I have to think the Clinton folks have a worse estimation of the state of the race than the numbers we can see suggest. They're not just flailing, they're obviously flailing. It's as though the onside kick is the only thing left in the playbook. They seem to have decided to try anything, even at the risk of looking like a desperate loser.

m

LOL LOL !!

Wow, how inspiring! (cheers, woooo, applause, cheers, applause, wooo) cry the sheep....

LOL

Wow, Obama really knows how to plagarize words. Everyone from Duval Patrick and Martin Luther King back to the Declaration of Independence!

(And not to mention much of Hillary's plans.)

LOL
Rae

Damn, you beat me to it.

It was the source of much amusement over the weekend among my fellow Obama-supporters.

Desperation is not pretty.

On an entirely unrelated topic, why does the site recognize me as me when I get here, then ask again for a password when I attempt to post (or reply), and then return a "password invalid" reply?

Obama's response is the appropriate response to the nonsense that is coming form Clinton. What better response then to quote other famous orator-Presidents, to discount the notion that oratory skills preclude your ability to be a substantive President. My God, we are about to end eight years with the inarticulate guy-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with. There are only so many ways to counter the Clinton nonsense. The fact that others have used the same argument before doesn't matter. The Clintons are in the process of throwing up anything they can hoping something will stick. Idealist, plagarist, flip-flopper, Iraq war supporter, what's next? Regarding Obama's idealism: anyone remember the presidential candidate from Hope, Arkansas?

This "plagiarism" bullshit is the lamest yet. The Clinton campaign is so old-school. The train has left the station: we don't want the Clintons or any other old Dems around any more, it's time for something completely new. Obama is the one. Hillary should drop out now and get ready to be named to the Supreme Court, where she could actually do a helluva lot of good!

Obama needs to develop a standard response, something like: "As my campaign gains more and more support, Bill and Hillary Clinton and their team seem to get more and more desperate. I would prefer to stay focused on the issues. I want to look to the future, to inspire unity in a nation that wants unity again. I don't want to stop and respond one by one to the constant stream of attacks from team Clinton."

Back in '88, a videotape of Joe Biden interspersed with footage of British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock was circulated among the press corps by the Dukakis campaign. The videotape proved that Biden had plagiarized parts of Kinnock's speech (Biden explicitly claimed the thoughts as his own in the text of the speech). The revelation ended Biden's bid for the Democratic nomination.

When it became public knowledge that the tape had been compiled and circulated at the instruction of Dukakis' then campaign manager, John Sasso, he was fired by the campaign.

This begs the question, when will Hillary do the right thing and fire Wolfson for doing essentially the same thing as Sasso (with the exception that Obama is innocent whereas Biden was guilty)?

Lol. I totally bought it.

Pot meet kettle. Really, Wolfson should do a little Googling before he starts firing accusations. Ever wonder where Hillary's Super Tuesday "I see an America..." refrain came from? None other than Jimmy Carter: http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/carterseg.htm. I don't recall her providing any attribution.

Hey undecided voters: remember this negative campaigning. This is your future on Hillary Clinton.

Over to you Jimmy C.

If this is the best Hillary's hacks can come up with then they deserve to fail. I have had my intelligence insulted one too many times in this election and I am really sick of it. They are targeting the idiots out there who don't seem to pay attention to the fact that "speeches and words" have made the Clinton's into multi-millionaires.

It is all stolen. That is the nature of a good speech. What worries me is the Obama reaction to attack at once. Is this the new politics? Wasn´t he suppose to be above this old politics?

Whenever Hillary goes on the attack all I can think is:

Rocks. Glass Houses. Clintons.

I can't imagine the Clinton's using this as an ad (though, I can't imagine how they just found out about the Texas primary rules this morning). Obama delivers it so much better than Patrick, for sure you don't want to highlight how extraordinary he is in front of a crowd. Plus, three lines out of an entire speech?! That wasn't even the most incredible part of that speech.

Good writers borrow, great writers steal outright.

And it's only plagiarism if you don't get permission to use it. Arguing that Obama should have said "As Deval Patrick said..." is pretty freakin stupid.

plagiarism
pla·gia·rism [ pláyjə rìzzəm ] (plural pla·gia·risms)

noun
Definition:

"The practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment."

Obama not only incorporated Patrick's ideas without acknowledging where they came from, but he used the very same words and examples. Plagiarism means to use someone’s ideas without referencing the source. It makes no difference if the person you are plagiarizing is your political supporter, and they never intend to sue you in court. It is still plagiarism, and Obama is defrauding the American people.

Obama has a rich history of stealing other people's ideas. John Edwards often accused him of doing the very same thing. The point is that Obama is a phoney. He is a fraud. He is not an original thinker - he is a con artist. And the Democratic Party is about to be swindled into the worst political disaster in its long history.

rstephen, I taught college composition and I take plagiarism seriously.

Two words cannot be plagiarized. "Just words?" isn't a long enough string or an original enough thought to warrant a call for attribution.

If two words could be plagiarized, what about one word?

Is HRC a plagiarist every time she uses the word "hope,"?

From realclearpolitics blog:

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is aggressively pushing the notion that irrespective of whether Deval Patrick gave his permission, Obama's failure to credit Patrick and to pass off the words as his own seriously undermines Obama's credibility. Responding to a question about Gov. Patrick's comments to the New York Times, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said:

"When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to 2 different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader, who has a set of assumptions and expectations that when you read words in a book they are the words of the author unless they are appropriately credited to another party.

So I think it's fine that Deval Patrick said that. But what I'm concerned about here is that the public has an expectation that Senator Obama's words are his own, unless he credits them to someone else. And so when you are running on your rhetoric and the power of your oratory and the words that you are using turnout to be someone else's, I think it undermines a very central and important premise of Senator Obama's candidacy."

Does anyone else feel that the Clinton campaign would be far better off by locking Howard Wolfson in a closet somewhere?

Although I support Senator Obama, I hold Senator Clinton in high regard. That regard is tested every time I see Howard Wolfson speak on her behalf.

I'm not blind to the fact that any candidate's flack is obligated to recite the campaign's talking points. But Wolfson is so resistant to responding with anything resembling an answer to a question, I have a very difficult time listening to him.

We can assume that Hillary approved of this hit job.

This issue is completely silly. However, looking at the CNN site, I notice a large number of comments that seem to go on about how both are whiners, and a large contingent that seems to think it is a big deal. I tend to think CNN is closer to the average voter rather than the political junkie, so it does worry me.

I've been thinking this through for some time now and I'm pretty certain I'm right about this (as you read me, you'll find that I rarely say anything that I haven't thought pretty well through, and refrain from speaking if I do not have a pretty solid rationale for something):

It would be best for the Nation, and the Democratic party if Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, and Barack Obama in 2016. I know this will hit Obama supporters right between the eyes and stimulate an emotional response, but take a second to think about this and it's hard not to agree with this point of view. Also, understand, I'm not a Clinton insider of any kind. I haven't campaigned for her, I haven't sent her money, I've just been in deep thought on this for a few months now.

So, here is what swayed me;

It is clear to me that we need a prolonged period of Democratic rule to fix the various socio-economic structures that are nicked up right now. (I'd just like to point out that I don't believe I'm understating in saying "nicked up." For the most part we are still a very strong country and very rich, so we really aren't in the disaster recovery mode that some make us out to be.) I believe that we need twelve or sixteen years of Democratic balance of power, primarily to clean up corporate (executive pay, rules abuse, outright fraud) and social corruption (abuse of government programs by free-riders and worthless bureaucrats must be included in the clean-up), regain our moral authority in the international community, realign religion with home-life instead of government influence and rebuild the middle class through a comprehensive education initiative at the youngest levels.

Next, it appears to me that the Democrats really do have two good candidates for the first time in a long time. Each has a flaw however. Hillary Clinton's flaw is the extreme dislike of her from the Evangelical and red-neck right (they like labels, so let's label). Barack Obama's flaw is a little more serious, but more fixable; he's woefully inexperienced, as are his barely tenured advisors. His flaw would likely cause him to lose to McCain in the fall, Hillary's wouldn't.

So, how do we solve our little issue between two good candidates, and get the prolonged period of Democratic balance of power. We need to elect Hillary now, and Barack later. We can do it easily by having the ticket be Clinton/Obama (I don't care if they like each other or not). We can in one fell swoop solve a lot of problems if we run Hillary with Barack as the VP. This would all but guarantee a victory in the fall, and, it would create a presumptive successor to the White House.

http://www.realwisconisinnews.com

Beav,

Talking in terms of the 2016 Election is really besides the point. Who knows what is going on by then? This type of talk tends to be the "peacemaker" talk similar to "dream tickets". It's always the side that's slipping that makes these types of arguments.

But I think I can meet you half-way. How about Obama runs in 2008, and we have Chelsea shadow HRC in the Senate for the next 8 years. And then -- you guessed it -- we run Chelsea in 2016 (she will be eligible!)

Jon Favreau is Obama's head speech writer, there are two others:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Jon+Favreau&st=nyt&oref=slogin

One was an assistant to Sorensen when he was writing his memoirs, and the other helped Lee Hamilton write the Iraq Study Group report.

And the oldest one is 30. Not to shabby

Clinton Campaign: We're in the 21st Century Slogans business. And we believe our slogans and speeches are totally better than Obama's. His slogans are made in China.

If only Obama would stop borrowing clever comebacks and uplifting phrases from JFK and MLK whenever we try to attack him, we could start winning again!

Lord. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

The real message behind this goes beyond the bogus issue of "plagarism;" it's Wolfson's line that "Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric." As if that's his sole contribution. The problem is, people aren't buying the bullshit. Most importantly, while the folks who follow politics closely may have their collective panties in a wad about this latest non-issue, the people who will decide the nomination and the GE will most likely never even hear about this, and if they do, will not care. And that says all that needs to be said about the people running HRC's campaign: they're preahing to the choir. Which is fine, but won't get you more votes. Thus Obama's upward polling momentum, and HRC's ongoing plateau.

Clinton is not my candidate of choice, but she's a smart and capable woman. However, watching the way her campaign has been so grossly mismanaged has to call into question her ostensible ability to manage a complex organization or process. Penn and Wolfson are damaging Clinton far more than Obama could have dreamed of doing - and that's where HRC supporters' anger should be directed.

Jon Favreau is Obama's head speech writer

Damn! Unfortunate name... I can see how the Clintons will use this to try to tie into the right-wing vote:

OBAMA'S HEAD SPEECH WRITER WAS SCREENWRITER BEHIND HOLLYWOOD MOTION PICTURE 'SWINGERS'

Really dumb move. They should have just made a funny ad out of the two speeches side by side and let it go at that.

who cares who writes the speeches as long as the the candidates core beliefs are within it . surely they cant campaign , travel , raise money , kiss babies, shake hands and be expected to write great speeches

Obama has billed himself as the "next generation" candidate with fresh ideas, so why is he stealing ideas and words from others including the Clinton campaign.

1) OBAMA copied almost word for word, the "just words" refrain from Duval Patrick.

2) OBAMA is accused of plagiarizing Clinton's economic plan.

3) OBAMA stole the "audacity of hope" book title from Reverend Wright, the paster of his church.

In none of these cases did he provide attribution. He is supposed to be so inspiring but shouldn't he inspire with his own words and ideas? So interesting that he differentiates himself from the baby boomer generation,and particularly Clinton,as the person with fresh ideas while he steals hers.

Obama also plagerized Clinton's Ecconomic Plan (cited all over the news last week). If you run on rhetoric alone...you better make sure its your own. He is an empty suit....and the suit is starting to look a bit withered at the edges.

He is a horrible example for the students who have latched on to him. As a professor I would expel him or anyone who takes someone's work as his own. I just got an email from a young Obama supporter who was outraged by the fact that he did this. Shame on Obama!!!

I am so outraged by the videos from the Humane Society about the way these slaughter houses in Ca. have treated these poor cows, that I just feel terrible.

The person who would PLEDGE to put slaughethouses out of business would get my vote, regardless of how I felt about them otherwise.

With all the meat substitutes we have now, why do people have to keep butchering animals anyway!? And to do it with such heatlessness and cruelty is just beyond words.

Rae

I have been saying this for a long time, Obama's authenticity is highly questionable. It is a big of an ugly irony that while Obama attests that his campaign is not just about lofty rhetoric, he is yet using the same lofty rhetoric from another politician. Barack does not write his own speeches, he performs them. He performs the speeches quite well, well enough to pack in the crowds, but he does not write anything he says. Usually, his main speech writer (who is incidientally is the young 26 year old white man Jon Favreau) often lifts various passages the straight out of the speeches spoken during the 60's civil rights era. If that is all Obama has going for him, just a performance, hwo can we truly expect him to bring about change?

Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. The popular vote. Close in WI and takes the other three, Clinton wins. Wins WI and wins any of Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania, Obama wins. Isn't it that simple? She won't stay in the race if she loses the popular vote in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. He won't stay in the race if it's close in WI and she wins the other three. Hang on. It's almost over. I hear the rich contralto of a big woman warming up to sing.

Yeah. Taylor Marsh has always been....well, spirited. Given to bouts of hyperbole. Sanguine. But lately, I fear she has gone completely off her rocker. She has lost all ability to put things into perspective...or proportion...whatever.

On the other hand, for those of us who are able to maintain cooler heads, I think the protracted primary contest will have some positive effects, too.

Regardless of who your favorite candidate is, it's hard to deny that the Democratic Party is energized! And the longer this lasts, and the more states that are involved (with voters feeling empowered) in this process, the more that energy and enthusiasm spreads. I can't help but think that'll be an advantage going into the GE.

So Obama uses Deval's words - no problem. But if Clinton did it? Wow the reaction would have been different. TPM has become an unreliable site for balanced discussion. It is in the Obama camp: you can see it the slant, the focus and the headlines. Let us hope that Obama can win the election without Clinton supporters. I plan to sit this one out. Obama has just got too much of a pass. Not to worry: he has both the MSM and the leftish netroots honchos in his corner. I am sure they can deliver.

Look at his Super Tuesday speech...A little throw back to the West Wing anyone?

From The West Wing, “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen (Part 2)”
http://communicationsoffice.tripod.com/2-02.txt

BARTLET [VO]
“Tonight, what began on the commons in Concord, Massachusetts, as an alliance of farmers and workers, of cobbles man and tinsmiths, of statesmen and students, of mothers and wives, of men and boys, lives two centuries later as America!”