« Hillary Hits Obama Over Surrogate's Inability To Name Obama Accomplishment | Home | Hillary And Obama's Warm Backstage Moment Before Debate »
Hillary On Obama's Speeches: "It's Change You Can Xerox"
Hillary is really cranking up the attacks on -- or "drawing contrasts with" -- Obama on every front. As noted below she hit him over that hapless surrogate's inability to name any Obama accomplishment. Now she's hit him on the charges that he's "lifted" speech lines. Hillary:
Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That’s I think a very simple proposition. And you know, lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in — it’s change you can Xerox...There is no doubt that you are a passionate eloquent speaker. And I applaud you for that. But when you look at what we face in this country...it is not enough to say let’s come together.
Late Update: Video of this moment:
Advertisement















FYI, we at Xerox make mostly printers and multi-function devices, not copiers. So yes, Obama, like Xerox offers 21st century color multi-function devices.
February 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and almost a 1/3rd of our business comes from integrated document solution systems not copiers. It is kinda like saying Disney's only offerings are Mickey Mouse cartoons, and overlooking everything else from theme parks to television networks and retail clothing.
February 21, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight, Donna Brazile said Braack Obama was good. But Hillary needs to be GREAT. I'm so glad at last there is equality.
February 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I especially liked the part where Brazile said: "To clarify, I mean that Hillary needs to be great simply because she's a woman, and our collective hidden misogynistic bias requires that she far outshine her male colleague."
That was helpful. Because I'd assumed she meant that Hillary needed to be great because she's losing and badly needs a momentum shift. In fact, that would've been a far more plausible explanation.
February 22, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap and childish.
February 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary got the only boos of the night with the Xerox line.
February 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't usually quote Peggy Noonan, but:
'In any case Mrs. Clinton has lifted so many phrases and approaches from Mr. Obama, and other candidates, that her accusation was like the neighborhood kleptomaniac running through the street crying, "Thief! Thief!"'
February 21, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
she should cry. loudly. like an infant.
February 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her Xerox line, which Bill Schneider over at the CNN live blogging, characterized as "contrived", really went over well. The crowd booed.
February 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raise your hand if you think Hillary Clinton wrote the "change you can Xerox" line.
February 21, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't write it. Penn wrote it. She delivered it.
Score one for Grunwald's side in the internal Hillary campaign debate about going negative vs. going gracious for the Clinton brand.
February 21, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't write it. Penn wrote it. She delivered it.
Score one for Grunwald's side in the internal Hillary campaign debate about going negative vs. going gracious for the Clinton brand.
February 21, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack definitely got the better of that exchange. "Silly Season" was perfect.
February 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot more Clinton supporters commenting on the CNN threads than there are here.
February 21, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh is right on health care though.
February 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe so, but the enforcement of "mandates" is the thorn in that argument. Edwards proposed having the IRS enforce his proposed mandate.
How does Clinton propose to enforce her proposed mandate. Garnish wages? Which she has said she will consider.
February 21, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
money shot. checkmate.
February 21, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the Clinton News Network?
What's with all the softball questions for Hillaru?
"You have said you are Ready on Day One. Explain"
February 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. I am sick to death of the blame the media line, which has been used repeatedly by the Clinton campaign, including by President Clinton.
February 21, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way the Clinton supporters over at the CNN threads are carping about how mean the moderators are being to her.
February 21, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Applause is cheap, hey has gotten the only laugh, and in that tension filled room that was important. I give the edge so far on the plagarism line, made Hillary look petty, got a laugh, and then she went and borrowed Edwards line on Healthcare being equal to Social Security.
I think Obama is realistic about not garnishing wages for healthcare.
So far, Hillary has not changed momentum
February 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and don't think this debate, no matter how it goes, will make a material difference in how things play out in the campaign.
February 21, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is doing what he has to do in this debate...he is separating himself as the front runner...he seems more "presidential" than her tonight...
She is trying to show the differences between her and BO, but his rebuttals are on point...
February 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
February 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
they're totally helping Hillary - she doesn't have to say anything about her bad judgment on Iraq. Instead she's allowed to discuss the surge. Clinton News Network indeed.
February 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
thats good for Obama...the more "tuff" questions they throw at BO, he gets to show is knowledge on that issue....thats something HRC dont want...she needs to dominate this deabate and as of now, she isnt...
February 21, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Barack. A strategic blunder. Right on.
February 21, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He cleaned up the question on the Surge quite nicely. Time is running out for Clinton to score some kind of major blow. So far she's failed.
February 21, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about the speeches for Hillary now. To me, it's become her main attack on Obama during her speeches.
Ironically, her attack against the rhetoric has become her rhetoric.
February 21, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
9:11 PM ... Hillary yanks it back to the health care debate. But it's hard for me to see that Hillary doesn't have the better part of the policy question. If the young and healthy don't have to buy in, there's not enough money for the ailing and old to be covered -- or for the vast middle who are healthy but might suddenly not be. I don't see a way around that. And that's the rub to this whole debate. Not just this debate right now within the Democratic party, but the whole question of health care.
That is a good point, but with all the baby boomers can we really say to the 20 something crowd, pay health insurance, pay social security, inheret the budget deficit?
I mean really is that fair?
I agree on Children coverage, and preventive medicine, but really folks conscription into health care is as almost as bad as conscription into military service.
Hillary not McCain is the economics light weight IMHO, I mean hell just abridge and make null legal contracts, declare interest rates flat, instead of creating a vehicle for refinancing.
Hillary is not doing that great of a job as far as I'm concerned.
February 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Full disclosure... obama supporter here).
Yes, it is totally fair. The young and healthy need to chip in for health insurance, not just to help cover the costs for the people who are sick and/or elderly NOW, but also because us young people will be sick and/or old someday, too, and will need others to help cover our share then too.
It's basic economics. And it's the same principle that asks us all to pay social security, whether we'll benefit directly from it or not. Medicare too, etc.
February 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you ask me, it's totally UNFAIR. Why should a single 20 year old living paycheck to paycheck making $30k per year might have to pay an additional 15% 'tax' for health insurance they never use, and on top of that that money would get skimmed to pay the salaries of millionaire health care executives.
Executives who, if they were making $450k would only be paying 1%. Less then 1% if they were making $5 million dollars.
We all need to pay into the system, but we need to pay in based on our income, not based on a flat fee simply because we are healthy.
February 22, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton seemed very petty on the xerox line. He had just delivered a very good response to that whole issue. He had talked about the silliness of it and how it paled in comparison to the real issues. Then she turned around and tried to hit him on it. Seemed very mean and low, and she didnt even get the whole line out because she was interupted by boos
February 21, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF was that question?
February 21, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
HE WAS IN THE BOTTOM 25% and she was in the top ten!!! how do they lead with that to hiM!??!
February 21, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anderson Cooper, get your stuff together bro. It was Clinton who didn't disclose all of her earmarks. Yeesh. I'm starting to agree with the guy above who calls CNN the Clinton News Network.
February 21, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
EMO TIME!!!!!!!
February 21, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Hillary talking so slow in her closing speech? Is she trying to be dramatic? Trying to be Obama-like, what is this?
Go away.
February 21, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
i thoguth she was going to cry
February 21, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is better.
I'd better admit it...
(And pretend in the process I wasn't silly about plagiarism.)
February 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, Hillary is sounding so fake as this thing comes to a close. Sentimental BS sounds packaged.
February 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inconclusive IMHO and I thought the moderators sucked.
I thought the crowd should have held their applause.
February 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've often wondered what Hillary Clinton sounds like when the masks are off and she's herself; at her most genuine.
I didn't find that out this evening. I doubt if I ever will.
February 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If HRC is so principled about only speaking original words without consultation with anyone else, she should fire her speech writers. I'd bet my life she didn't write the Xerox line...so obviously calculated.
February 21, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I thought that during the earmarks thing too, the questioning was wwaaaayyy off. Maybe this is why she hates MSNBC, maybe they don't pad all of the questions for her.
And her final speech seemed so fake, but I know I'm kind of biased...can anyone else confirm? Was that final bit totally contrived??
February 21, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Josh's question is right, can we afford health care for the ailing and old? But, I don't agree at all with his answer that we can, only if the young and healthy are forced to buy into it. Yes, it will be more expensive to start with Obama's plan. But, his plan allows us to time to address the problems with our health care system and to improve upon the insurance that will be made available. If we manage to get a full mandate with our current system I see nothing but trouble ahead. I am happy to sacrifice to achieve universal coverage. But, I see it becoming a huge wedge issue that will be attacked (out of control costs / limited coverage) until the changes are reversed.
February 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that after bashing OBama all week for "plagiarism" she ended the debate by stealing John Edwards' signature line. I can't believe it.
February 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did she just treat what was supposed to be just a final question as though it were a closing statement?
February 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dillu, i agree, Campbell Brown and the other two moderators sucked
February 21, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC got in a good one at the end... sentimental and near crying. In fact, she led in with "People ask me how can I go on..."
Talk about scripted.
But very strategic. That tone will play with the type of voters she needs to recapture.
February 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my problem with this "fifteen million dollar" thing. She (and Krugman) keep throwing that number around as if it were an estalished fact. Where did it come from? The truth is simple: some smart guys with an agenda pulled it out of their asses. No one knows how many people will opt out of health insurance under Obama's plan, if it were implemented in its current form (which, in itself is an absurd statement).
Josh, on the main page, says:
Like Hillary, and Ezra, and Krugman, and God knows how else, Josh leaps from "if they don't have to buy" to "there won't be enough money in the system." That is, they assume that if they don't have to buy, they won't.
Certainly, to some extent, that would be true. Obama's point is that notwithstanding the certitude of some experts modelling a bunch of assumptions, we don't know for a fact that that number will be enough to make a difference.
One thing nobody seems to consider is if the coverage is affordable, a lot more of these twentysomethings everyone is worried about are going to be getting it through their jobs. More importantly, those who aren't getting it at work, or staying on thier parents plans longer, are going to be under enormous social pressure to buy it. They'll get it from their parents, they'll get it from their employers, they'll get it from the government.
They could surprise us. We should at least give them the opportunity to surprise us before we haul out the sticks.
February 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you mean of course is "fifteen million" who would, reportedly, not be covered by Obama's non-mandate plan.
The number was derived by a health care analyst, but I'd have to look to see who it was.
As far as pulling stuff out of asses, look, obviously both candidates have a legion of health insurance advisers and they don't all agree. One's conclusion depend upon one's assumptions. The fact doesn't mean that any of the advisers are acting dishonorably.
February 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone notice Hillary totally plagiarized John Edward's closing line in the debate. In I think at least 2 debates at the very end Edward's said "After all of this is over we're all going to be fine, this is about making sure the American people are fine"
How dare she after the "change you can xerox" line.
February 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not like Obama's comment about Hugo Chavez. I've been hoping for something better than the same old, tired, empire-building or empire-expanding or decrepit-empire-maintenance crap we've been seeing for over half of century from the State Departments of both Democrats and Republicans. What does targeting Chavez have to do with change? Disappointing. Very disappointing.
February 21, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hear it as a knock against Chavez or China. I think he was saying that Chavez and China have been gaining influence in Latin America, while the U.S. has failed to play a big enough role in that region due to being too wrapped up in Bush's wars.
February 22, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not one to claim media bias, but I really dislike CNN claiming that the closing 2 minutes is closer to what HRC is really like.
How do they know?
The numbers claim otherwise: hours of TV showing one side and then 2 minutes on the other... and I'm supposed to buy that the 2 minutes is more genuine?
February 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seemed that people applauded out of relief - that in the end, they both like each other etc... But yeah, lifting this from Edwards for her conclusion, that might come back to bite her in the ass. Watch out for "the youtube" Hillary...
February 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
did she take the line from Primary Colors?:
"The hits I've taken are nothing compared to..."
This was at the end of the debate, but I remember that from the movie. It would be ironic and hypocritical.
February 21, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for Hugo Chavez, he's a paleo-lefty caudillo of the worst kind. Why is it that Venezuela, with its incredible oil wealth, does not have a transparent sovereign fund like Norway - or ok, like Kuwait (much less democratic, but at least rational in its investment policy?) That would go a long way to secure the future of the people of Venezuela. Instead, Chavez subsidizes gasoline to the point where Venezuela has the most humvees per capita in the world. Yes, those humvees.
February 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
More to your point, why doesn't Chavez have a moustache?
February 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fifteen million people, not dollars.
Oh for an edit function.
February 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a great line, she knocked it out of the park. Now the media will spin it for its boy ofcourse.
February 21, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was the first debate where he clearly won.
I've to say she was N.Hesque in the final moments. But over all, she was playing a catch up.
I'm "Really" proud of supporting Barack Obama BTW.
February 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
To: The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Good point but Hillary can propose a mandatory national health care plan, and that plan will get destroyed if the argument is again as I described it, CONSCRIPTION.
And trust me, the forcing of the system enrollment and the difference of advocating of reducing costs, are two different things.
If I had to vote tomorrow, I would not vote for Hillary based on this core issue.
I support Health Care, but not an unfunded mandate.
February 21, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I thought you made a damn good point. It was one one I hadn't heard before, or thought about, before. I think you're absolutely right.
February 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
To: The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Good point but Hillary can propose a mandatory national health care plan, and that plan will get destroyed if the argument is again as I described it, CONSCRIPTION.
And trust me, the forcing of the system enrollment and the difference of advocating of reducing costs, are two different things.
If I had to vote tomorrow, I would not vote for Hillary based on this core issue.
I support Health Care, but not an unfunded mandate.
February 21, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Obama, but I wish all of you folks with your classless remarks about how phony Clinton is and etc. would listen to what Obama is saying.
I believe that Clinton is a devotee of the DLC triangulation approach, but I don't think that makes her insincere. I think it just means that she just a bit behind the public sentiment curve.
Lighten up. Obama's ahead and closing in on closing this thing out in Texas and Ohio.
February 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who claimed that HRC was phony? I see comments that claim she was scripted. One comment is an emotional response. The other comment is rationally gotten to.
Both candidates stump from scripts.
Obama's script gets to you emotionally by inspiring you.
HRC's script gets to you emotionally by making you feel sorry for her.
Which would you prefer as your President?
February 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess she sincerely believed that the clear language of the First Amendment and the decisions of the Supreme Court were less important than cracking down on the vast epidemic of flag burning.
February 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think her vote to ban flag burning, after the Supreme Court, including Attilla Scalia, had already told Congress it wasn't Constitutional was straight out of the DLC playbook.
None-the-less, what is it that Obama always says about ending the bitterness and uniting to change the USA?
February 21, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary should really not do one-liners. One-liners should have at least the appearance of spontaneity. Hers look like they were brainstormed in the war-room, polled, focus-grouped, polled again, approved by her advisors, and then rolled out for the cameras. I don't know if it's her delivery or because all this actually happened. Or both.
February 21, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I think the Xerox line and the reference to Kirk Watson's meltdown sounded forced and mean-spirited. Obama won both exchanges.
February 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonkette at 9:00:
Hillary: That isn’t change you can believe in, that’s change you can XEROX! Audible gasps and moans in the press room. “Michelle is going to be waiting for her in the bathroom,” says my neighbor.
February 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Clinton's closing remarks about whatever happens either candidate will be fine, they each have family to support them, and etc. sounded almost like a concession.
February 21, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary got booed on that stupid Xerox line. I think it was a stupid decision for her to keep the subject going after Obama pretty much slammed the door.
February 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary said, "Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words."
What a dishonest c*nt. SHE is the only one who has claimed that Obama's candidacy is about nothing but words. It's to his credit that he refused to smack her in the face for that slimy piece of crap. I would have bloodied her nose.
Obama's campaign is not about words. It's about being better than her. And he's succeeding. Her campaign has been a disaster. If she can't successfully manage her own campaign, what makes her think she belongs in the Oval Office? hHillary sucks. Totally.
February 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept the point you make in the next paragraph of your post, but this is really disgusting.
For the record, I'm also an Obama supporter.
February 21, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your passion-but man, we are going to need those votes after this is over.
I was dismayed to see how many Clinton supporters said they would never vote for Obama yesterday in one of Josh’s Blogs.
February 22, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your passion-but man, we are going to need those votes after this is over.
I was dismayed to see how many Clinton supporters said they would never vote for Obama yesterday in one of Josh’s Blogs.
February 22, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, let's leave the "c*nt" references to the RedStaters. Seriously, you sound like Bill O'Reilly talking about lynching.
February 22, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN is gushing over that closing. I found it pretty boring. Still, gotta give her some credit for the conciliatory tone.
February 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama crushed her tonight. What are these pundits talking about? It was even at all. This was by far his best debate. She had a few decent moments, but overall he elevated his game and won several very important moments.
This thing will be over on March 4. Obama vs McCain.
February 21, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Xerox" line was a bomb. Media people might like it becuase it soothes their 30-second sound bite mentality, Like Greg's here, but it was a bad line.
And it was a bad line becuase it was a bullshit accusation/premise to begin with.
February 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, hrenendorf, that's a nasty word, speaking of words matter.
But your point is valid. I think he handled it very well, I find his calmness in the face of these ridiculous attacks amazing and refreshing. I'm guessing, though, that you should probably not run for office!
February 21, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
February 21, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now it turns out HRC's closing comments were plagiarized from John Edwards in a Dec. debate and from Bill Clinton in 1992.
She combined are part from each.
February 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I took away from the debate:
The whole empty "speeches" argument falls flat. Her campaign is projecting Obama'as "speeches only," candidate.
So, whenever Obama even remotely- even in little detail- talks policy suddenly her argument looks baseless.
Hillary camp have tried to reduce him to such a low standard- set the bar so low for him- he leaps over it with ease, every time he is challenged. Poor strategy really.
I can't believe she is going to go back to stump speech and claim he has no substance.
February 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's closing: emotion you can xerox.
February 21, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I "staged" a N.H.esque moment- for women to come out like a tidal wave- and back her.
She manages to "be herself" whenever she seems down and dusted. She ducked the transceperancy and ear marks question, ducked the delegates question- and John "Kiss Ass" King threw her punch lines "where is the beef" punch line, She had a cheap "xerox" moment- but at the end she "paints a picture" of our vetrans that she send to a war and never admitted it was mistake, and she becomes the sweet heart.
She threw a bone at her core base (Older, Middle Aged Democratic Women) and asked them to fetch it.
Whenever, I want to believe her I get scared.
February 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Hillary only IS herself when she's down and dusted. If she were able to fake it, we would have seen a lot more of it because it obviously resonates with voters. But it's only at rare moments that we see a little Hillary in Hillary. It's unfortunate for her because she would have been a better candidate has she been able to be more emotionally honest more often.
February 21, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’ll bet you. She will again have a "human moment" in the Ohio debate- or in the days before the make or break primary- especially, if Barack takes the lead in the polls. Also get ready for her to throw more mud on her opponent, while wiping her tears. I think she has been in "calculated" politics for so long; she has lost her real self, mainly around the healthcare debacle in the nineties.
I live in New York and tracked her career long enough to question her motives. The way Clintons run their campaign: they'll carry you on their shoulders till the finish line and then throw you under the bus without a blink if politics suggest so.
It’s not an accident she was given time to think over on the question, and she chose to “Xerox” Bill Clinton and John Edwards on her final answer. Don’t you think she feeling emotional for the handicapped veterans directly contradicts her arrogance to apologize for her position on the war?
I’m not saying she doesn’t respect veterans- but for her “that’s the way life is- deal with it.” No sorry, No thank you.
She is a fighter with an iron fist- known behind close doors among her staff and democratic colleagues to stampede any weaker voices of dissent. She is any thing but emotional. It’s my way or the highway with Senator Clinton and that’s dangerous.
If she is genuine- I don't mind apologizing, but I genuinely reserve my judgment as of now.
I think Obama is more of a “woman” at heart than Hillary can ever be.
February 22, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not dispute that she's iron-fisted and calculating, but that doesn't make her inhuman. They're not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it's the fact that she's usually so self-controlled that makes the rare "human moments" stand out. Yes, they could be acts, but she's not that good an actor. Furthermore, it was clear since N.H. that her "human moments" appeal to voters. So why has it taken her a month and a half to produce another one? Strategically speaking, she should have been rolling out human moments hourly.
If I may speculate, I don't think she feels comfortable expressing her emotions in public, and it takes a great deal of stress (or maybe a great deal of pressure from her advisers) for that to happen.
February 22, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
. If you go back and look at the transcript from N.H. - it’s the same lines: “People always ask me what keeps you going…” and same Bill Clinton / John Edwards “Xerox” response.- to a palpable degree for me it was a manufactured response.
But I guess it’s a judgment call.
I’ll tell you this. If many viewers- especially uncommitted voters- felt the same way as you did- then she accomplished a measurable result.
February 22, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't so much what she said as how she said it, and it wouldn't stand out if it weren't so unusual for her. I think it's clear from the debate follow-up that the line did achieve a measurable response. I don't think that it will have much impact on the race, especially it as showed such a such a sense of resignation. It makes me empathize with her but not want to vote for her. Of course, I'm a white man who's been a strong Obama supporter for a while. Undecided female voters may feel differently.
February 22, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh says:
I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations to it back then. But TPM Reader CG found one example in this November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...
Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."
Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it.
SpiderPig says:
What's wrong is chastising your opponent for doing it in one breath and in your next doing the EXACT SAME DAMN THING! I believe there's a word for it... what is it? Oh, yeah, hypocritical.
February 21, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something I have not seen pointed out yet, I think Obama not only won this against Hillary but he also gave Bush and Bush Lite (McCain) a damn bloody nose over Iraq and the surge. Hillary was of course weakest on Iraq, and understandably would have preferred the whole 90 minutes to be on healthcare.
She also did not answer the question that Long put to here, whether she thought Barack was not capable of being Commander in Chief, but wandered off citing a number of things she did in the foreign policy area, once again being the wonk. Not at all sounding like a Commander in Chief.
By avoiding the question, this made her look weak. If George Patton felt another officer was incompetent, he would probably tell him, "Sir you are not worthy of command," and that is being polite. Hillary did not have the guts to say that to Barack in front of the whole country, yet keeps making that charge behind his back.
This gave Obama the opening and he made the most of it. What he did was give a rousing summation of how he saw the Iraq war is screwing the whole country. It was his global view against Hillary's wonky. It was his best moment in the debate, and he ended by pretty much challenging McCain to bring it on. He took out Hillary and McCain in one fell swoop.
I for one believe that if Obama had decided to go into the military, at his age of 46, he would probably have at least three stars by now, possible four. He is one of the most confident men to appear in public life in America for a while, probably since Bill Clinton.
He and McCain will be one hell of a fight to watch.
February 21, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rhetorically, I honestly don't get the phrase. If by Xerox she means cheap and easily reproduce a faithful facsimile, that would seem to be a good thing to me. Mass produce change? That sounds good to me.
Obviously she meant to imply a lack of authenticity. But the point about a Xerox is that it is a perfect paper copy of a another piece of paper. I think she would have been better off trying to evoke something hollow, cheap, a pale imitation, or the like.
In any event, she needs to get her money back for that line.
February 21, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary looked the fool with that rejoinder, "Xeroxed" from whatever overpaid speechwriter she's employing. What a sad way to end a campaign. Going out on a petty note.
February 22, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you would like to see a very stirring video of JFK, Bobby and Obama check out:
http://bravenewfilms.org
Scroll down the left side to #68:
Reflections of Kennedy: Sen.Barack Obama
Very moving-you youngins will like it and you boomers may weep!
February 22, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There probably aren't words to say it, nor does it really matter. I guess I'm not that shocked that someone would finally come out with "cunt", but what is truly pathetic is that it barely brings a comment from the assembled crowd. Wow. Did that really happen? Did all of you actually read that and not say a fucking thing? Now why is that? Nothing?
February 22, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, I personally did reply (see above), but in defense of those who did not, some find it the best policy to ignore trolling. They're often right.
February 22, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ofcourse it's offensive.
I agree. I thought someone pointed out. I'm guilty myself in the past using the F word- not against her- but the negative attacks from her campaign.
I agree.
Discourse doesn't have to stoop to the level unreturnable.
Please keep your "attacks"- clean and witty
February 22, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
To all those of you favoring mandates.
First understand that the plans these candidates are talking about are for INSURANCE, not health care.
HRC bases her whole plan on spreading risk for the existing INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
That's why she has to have mandates, otherwise the INSURANCE INDUSTRY would not participate.
So she's going to force most of us to buy private FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE.
We haven't touched health CARE.
It is no where akin to Social Security or Medicare. Those are direct pay for health CARE mechanisms.
Mandates to buy private for-profit INSURANCE will never fly in Congress or with the vast majority of the American people if they understand it.
February 22, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were at least three comments about it, which is probably enough. If I'd seen three comments I would not have added my own.
February 22, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not like Obama's comment about Hugo Chavez. I've been hoping for something better than the same old, tired, empire-building or empire-expanding or...
I didn't hear it as a knock against Chavez or China. I think he was saying that Chavez and China have been gaining influence in Latin America, while the U.S. has failed to play a big enough role in that region due to being too wrapped up in Bush's wars.
February 22, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall any other Dem candidate getting booed in any of the debates besides HRC. This might be the last time. I'm relishing the possibility that this is the end of an ill advised campaign.
February 22, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton08: We're in the 21st Century One-Liners Business
February 22, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary now does product placement to get campaign funding. First donor: Xerox
February 22, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second donor : youtube
February 22, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have to use the color or black & white setting?
February 22, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quote from John Gay:
How happy could I be with either
Were t'other dear charmer away
But while you thus teaze me together
To neither a word will I say,
But
Tol de rol etc.
From The Beggar's Opera, Gay
February 22, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like there's nobody in the entirety of TPM, editors and reporters included, who can observe the simple distinction between copying a portion of a line -- which is what Hillary has done -- and copying an entire passage, which is what Obama did in his "Just words" plagiarism.
It's nice to see how brainless you all have proved yourself to be. I'm so proud to think that you are fellow Democrats.
"Reality based"? Not so much.
February 22, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself wondering, How do I maintain any respect for a group of people who can't make out or acknowledge these basic distinctions? How are they different, at any cognitive/intellectual level, from the wingnuts I've always despised?
February 22, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
franklyO
What about Hillary's closing statement? An almost verbatim copy of Bill Clinton' lines!
But let me express something-this is not a contest for originality in speech-that is not the reason Obama is stirring people. Yes, the words are part of it; the more important issue is inspiration. Obama is brimming with inspiration-and that cannot be faked. When a human heart is turned on it shines out and touches people.
While it is possible to go out and fake it once or twice, or even a few times, in the end it cannot be faked. Obama's ability to inspire people comes from his heart not the words he uses-and that is why we are excited.
February 22, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, "An almost verbatim copy of Bill Clinton' lines"?
Get a clue. She copied a portion of a sentence from Bill Clinton, and then elaborated the rest in her own way.
Obama copied an entire passage. An entire passage. An entire passage.
I repeat because the point does not seem to be getting through.
February 22, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if it isn't the words that matter, but the "heart", why did Obama need to plagiarize? Why didn't he just use other words of his own making? Why did he feel the need to pass someone else's words off as his own?
When you fraudulently take credit for something someone else spoke, I assume there was a reason. Perhaps you or Obama could explain to us all what that reason is?
I know that when a student copies another student's paper and turns it in as his own, he's looking for a better evaluation, and we don't think that that is quite right. What is Obama's excuse?
February 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Frankly0,
Just wondering. Have you ever bought a card for the love of your life? Have you ever read one and found that it said exactly what you wanted to say but BETTER?
Obama writes most of his own speeches and wrote 2 books. Won a grammy because he read the thing himself (beat out Bill Clinton btw)
Campaigning is harsh. He does not have the luxury to sit in a quiet place and write all the time.
So he has some people to help him out. That's good leadership. Delegating jobs that are too much for 1 person to do.
February 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly0,
It comes down to judgement. Think about it. After Barack explained and said this is silly season, most people agreed. This is not policy decision, it is a petty attack. Hillary, hearing the cheers for the "silly season" line, should have had the judgement to gauge the crowd. If she did, she would not have gotten booed for the Xerox line.
One word JUDGEMENT. It just goes to show that she does not have a feel for the electorate, as much as she says she is working for us, she is not listening, and doesnt care what we want.
After the cheering for the "silly season" line, what candidate in their right mind totally misjudges the feelings of the audience and slams it? It is obvious people are tired of that.
February 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, can't any of you people see what obviously went on?
Hillary, in the "Xerox" line, presumed to criticize The Protected One. That portion of the audience that was composed of the typical rather venomous Obama supporter, immediately launched into boos and hisses. Now, the online segment of that same bunch of Protectors declares that what Hillary did was terrible, terrible!, because of the actions of their fellow Protectors in the auditorium.
It's all echo-chamber to echo-chamber, and everybody conveniently pretends its something larger.
You can play this ruse in the Democratic campaign. I guarantee you, Republicans aren't going to be stampeded by this kind of mob mentality. Then The Protected One will have his wings torn off.
February 22, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TPM Bloggers-let's get this question into the airwaves!
It is a question for Hillary.
FACTS:
Bill Clinton had 14 years elected experience and was 47 yrs old
Obama has 12 years elected experience and is 47 yrs old
HERE IS THE QUESTION:
"Hillary, if Bill Clinton was running for President right now would you say he was too inexperienced?"
February 22, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A pretty significant difference, I should think between being a Governor of a state, with all the executive responsibility that entails, as was Bill Clinton, and being a state legislator -- which Obama himself described as a "part-time" job. Really, who but a partisan imagines that being a state legislator is any kind of high powered experience?
And the reality is that Bill Clinton's inexperience DID hurt him at first. There were a number of things that he did that antagonized people at the beginning, though he was able to recover from them ultimately.
By any objective reckoning, Bill Clinton had vastly more relevant experience than Obama, and yet struggled.
For me, when I think of how Obama's own Presidency might play out, the example of Jimmy Carter always comes to mind (and yet he too had far more experience than Obama).
February 22, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole plagiarism thing reminds me of that old childs rhyme: I'm rubber, you're glue...
Barack seems to have that mystique that makes negative attacks almost always rebound, and without actually having to personally counter, everyone does it for him. Weird, and amazing.
February 22, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It works great when you have your rabid supporters in the audience booing and hissing every criticism that comes the way of The Protected One.
Don't think that's going to work so great in the general, though. No Republican is going to stop attacking a Democratic opponent because his childish followers decide they're going to throw a loud hissy fit.
February 22, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The republican attack machine is debunked. No one is listening to them anymore. It is not like the past, where FOX noise and Rush and Billo had credibility. They are debunked. The only reason Hillary is moderately successful in getting her attacks out there was because we never thought rovian tatics would be used by a dem.
Look at the republican voter turn out. Republicans are disgusted with their own party. Even they don't believe a thing the politicians tell them.
So that whole "if you think Hillary's attacks are bad, just wait for the GE" is just pure bunk.
The only thing that will wake up the rusty malfunctioning republican attack machine is a Hillary nominiation.
February 22, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delusional
February 22, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree, it's remarkable and I've been pondering it also. I am thinking think it has to do with his ability to integrate each idea, even negative ones offered by the opposition, into a larger context, thus trivializing the details and reinforcing his overall theme. He is a comprehensive thinker. For example, on the plagiarism charge, he dismissed it very effectively within the context of the silly season, an indictment of sound bite politics that everybody can understand. It is masterful and it makes him seem more serious and thoughtful than his opposition.
I also happen to believe this characteristic is one sign of great leadership...the greater good becomes more important than individual interests.
I heard several commentators last night remark that Hillary's policy statements sounded like litanies, and I think she has failed to bring her positions together around a single theme.
Certainly these two are differentiated more by style than by substance. I think it's pretty clear that Obama is the more capable leader, but I'm sure there are others who favor Clinton's style.
February 22, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm outraged!
I have not received compensation from either candidate for my word yet.
I registered "hope" 12 years ago.
Otherwise, this issue is a non-issue.
February 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been using A, along with the other articles of speech, for decades and must insist that you cease employing them to enrich yourself, or at least credit me when you use them.
February 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Xerox line came off as contrived and made Hillary look bad at that moment, but if you didn't watch the debate and glanced at the headlines this morning, it's out there without the boos and absent a certain pettiness many of us sensed last night.
Maybe it was worth it.
February 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, unless I am miscalculating, Obama has more experience in public office that Abraham Lincoln had when he was elected president. No, I'm not suggesting Obama is another Lincoln, just making the case that experience (much or little) is not necessarily a good indicator of presidential performance.
Besides, how much experience does Hillary have, really? If Bill Clinto had fouteen years of experience when he was elected and served eight years in the White House, that still puts him 12 years behing the thrity-five years that Hillary is claiming. Give him eight moreyears as ex-president, and Hillary still has him beat. It doesn't add up.
February 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was a response to frankly0, who compared Obama's experience to several others, including Jimmy Carter.
February 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink