02/18/2008
Barack Obama Lifts Speech from Deval Patrick: Just Words?
Barack Obama has been lauded over the course of this campaign for his beautiful speeches. On Saturday, in Wisconsin, Obama made a speech with uncanny similarities to a speech given by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick when he was running for governor in October 2006.
Both speeches also appear to be reactions against criticism that the candidate's platform is all rhetoric and no substance.
UPDATE: From today's NY Times...
"In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week. Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters. Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit. 'Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,' said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. 'It’s a transcendent argument.' David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate..."
UPDATE II: Obama responds..."'He has occasionally used lines of mine. I have occasionally used some words of his. I know Sen. Clinton has used words of mind as well. I don’t think that is something that workers here are concerned about,' he said, adding that 'I'm sure I should have' given credit to Patrick. Bottom line: 'I really don’t think this is too big of a deal,' Obama said."
Check out a comparison clip, AFTER THE JUMP...
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 7:49 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Deval Patrick, Election 2008, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Um, since when does quoting Martin Luther King and the Constitution count as "plagiarism?"
Especially when it's plain that Bush and all the Rethuglicans are trying to kill off the Constitution, we need as many people reminding us of what's in it as possible.
Posted by: bamjaya | Feb 18, 2008 8:19:07 AM
Yikes. Oprama cannot afford to have people attack his speeches...without those what does he have?? Nada....
Posted by: Mike | Feb 18, 2008 8:30:36 AM
Mike obviously hasn't done any research...
Posted by: John | Feb 18, 2008 8:32:57 AM
Please note that's not the first time Obama has borrowed Deval's speeches, and in fact, Obama borrows much of Deval's campaign.
There are some people who work on Obama's campaign that have worked on Devals, however. Not much of an excuse though.
Doesn't explain why his campaign thinks that they can lift someone else's Gubernatorial campaign for a Presidential one, though.
I foresee "Obama MadLibs" in the future.
Posted by: Jon | Feb 18, 2008 8:46:56 AM
John, actually I have. The candidates are so similar that the only edge he was, the only thing he has going for him, is his Tony Robbins, Preacher voice speeches.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 18, 2008 8:49:14 AM
Of course, Log Cabin Ex-Gays much prefer the stream of total lies passed around by the Rethuglicans, like there are WMDs in Iraq/Iran, and we will catch Osama bin Laden, dead or alive.
Posted by: bamjaya | Feb 18, 2008 8:56:45 AM
March 3rd, Tony Rezko trial.
Posted by: z | Feb 18, 2008 9:06:02 AM
Y'alls do know that Patrick was an early and strong Obama supporter, that Obama was an early and strong Patrick supporter, and that they have probably chatted a little bit and shared some tips for running a campaign?
This would be a big deal if Hillary did it, or if McCain did it, or if Obama had used the same speech / speech style as, say, Gov Spitzer gave while he was running.
What I'm trying to figure out is who had the better delivery.
Posted by: tjc | Feb 18, 2008 9:10:38 AM
From today's NYTimes:
[Friends Patrick and Obama] had anticipated that Mr. Obama's rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.
"Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is," said Mr. Patrick.
It's not plagerism if it's given to you ;-)
Posted by: Alex | Feb 18, 2008 9:25:36 AM
Andy,
I'm not sure why you posted this. Arent' all of those quotes some of the most famous political words in American history? Aren't they some of the most often quoted words, too?
This is a phony baloney controversy. Shock! Horror! BS! Why add to the hate? This is like the YouTube video of that knucklehead who accused Obama of having sex and using crack you posted.
Neither posting adds anything of reason to the political debate. They're just smear jobs.
Posted by: noah | Feb 18, 2008 9:26:59 AM
I won't listen to anymore Obama speeches. I have seen right through them from the beginning. Nothing more than idle chatter rephrased and blended from MLK and JFK with a slant to include in a very general way what is going on today. They solve nothing. They never will. When backed into a corner for specifics on any one subject, he is grasping for answers. Listen to his You Tubes. And if you listen closely, you will realize he is parroting scripts and clips. He has little to no understand of how to solve any of these monumental problems. All of this about to blow up in his face, starting in next Thursday's debates.
Posted by: Bob C. | Feb 18, 2008 9:27:05 AM
Bush-McCain, more of the same, hope you all like losing your health coverage and all your civil rights.
My God, don't Log Cabin Ex-Gays have some original thoughts besides parroting this week's right-wing smear and talking points?
Obama is going to START the war on terror, instead of funnelling the federal treasury to Halliburton and the anti-gay Christian right.
That's good enough for me.
Posted by: bamjaya | Feb 18, 2008 9:38:52 AM
If we are going to go there
Hillary plagerises speaches
From Kerry Healy "just words" speach
All you obma hatersneed to untwist your panties because it appears your girl also plagerizes
Posted by: Jimmyoyo | Feb 18, 2008 9:51:45 AM
Jimmyboyo, settle down. Your goldenboy is just beginning to show his true colors. He's just another politico-creep who'll say (Yes, He Does!!!) or do anything to get a vote.
He's put much of the stupid, gullible college-going population of this country under a trance, serving them the spiked Kool-Aid at those noisy concerts he calls Campaign stops. His rockstar status is sickening (and plain wrong).
He's just a politician with motives (like Clinton, McCain and Huckabee). He's no messiah who can lift this country of 300+ million and a shitload of a mess on its back out of the gutter.
He's going to be a learn-as-he-goes president who'll have an army of advisers behind him telling him a million things, that'll just make the mess we are in a lot messier.
Hopefully his supporters will wake up soon and smell the urgency in the air, that we need someone who's been there, experienced it all, weathered through it and is capable to lead.
Posted by: James, DC | Feb 18, 2008 10:10:08 AM
James DC
Per thesame NYT article
"In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.
Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.
“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”
Mr patrick has gien permision to oama to use his words. it isn't plagerism when you have perision.
:-)
try again
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 18, 2008 10:18:03 AM
Damn my typos
;-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 18, 2008 10:19:55 AM
A speech? OMG, a SPEECH is the best they can do to create "controversy/scandal" on Obama?! What a fucking grasp at straws!
Brush it off Barack. Full speed ahead, baby!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 18, 2008 10:21:39 AM
WHO CARES?!?
Seriously. Ok, so he used borrowed material, so what? It doesn't make the words any less true, it doesn't make the man any less appealing.
Why does it surprise people that those of us who've actually researched into Obama, who've gone through his 2000+ legislatures (vs Clinton's 20) and seen what he wants to accomplish, are voting for him for reasons other than Oratory greatness.
I think the reason people think that is because they've selected their candidate based on superficial reasons and so have to assume we all do. There's a reason that Obama has the 'intellectual' vote, catch a hint.
Posted by: Sphynx | Feb 18, 2008 10:29:13 AM
While it not the complete rip-off of a speech that Joe Biden did on Neill Kinnock's speech to the British Labour Party, it comes close to plagiarizing - that is, passing someone else's ideas (speech) off as your own.
If Obama had said, 'well Mr Deval was quite right when he said...' then that might have been ok. However, lack of originality is not something one might want in a Presidential candidate. While another commentator noted (above) that Mr. Patrick did not feel Obama should have given him credit, i would have thought it absolutely necessary as an ethical point of principle to give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: SeanR | Feb 18, 2008 10:34:55 AM
"Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit."
Of course Patrick didn't ... he endorsed him! Which was useless anyway; a whole lot of hot air. His constituents knew better.
“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”
At the request of the Obama campaign!! HA! 'Nuff said. The dude has a potato for a brain and needs to be instructed on what to do. They probably told him word-for-word what to say too. Obama's "We are the ones we are waiting for" rubbish was also 'borrowed' from that other useless gasbag, Maria Shriver.
Looks like his preachy rhetoric has grown old and exhausted, hence the need to adapt or borrow from someone else to spice it up for his cult-followers.
I'm done with this argument. It's old and exhausted too.
Posted by: James, DC | Feb 18, 2008 10:35:36 AM
James, DC
What about Hillary lifting speache from Kerry Healy?
You can't bash one for doing exactly what the other is doing.
Especialy since Kerry Healy hasn't given permission to Hillary to do so.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 18, 2008 10:59:40 AM
Hillary? "Capable to lead"? Really?
It would appear her handpicked advisers are just now getting a clue about how the primary/caucus game is played in their must-win state of Texas.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/competence.html
Better late than never, I guess. They still have a could weeks to spin...
Posted by: 24play | Feb 18, 2008 11:01:22 AM
I love Hillary. I love Barack. I like John McCain, but I hate Republicans. So, there.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 18, 2008 11:05:34 AM
I don't get what the big deal is. Barack is the best person to lead this country. I don't care where he gets his speeches.
Posted by: Roger Newcomb | Feb 18, 2008 11:27:28 AM
Everyone borrows rhetoric. Obama has nothing but rhetoric. Hillary will be ready on day one. Obama will be a nightmare.
Posted by: christopher | Feb 18, 2008 11:49:53 AM
I voted for Obama because I do think he will get the nomination, but what worries me is he is getting all this backing from college students who are all about his personality, but about what he stands for.
I am nervous that he represents change, but change for what. yes, no more republicans, at least not the George Bush kind, but by the same token we need a president who isn't afraid to go against the grain and show support for all Americans, not just the ones who are in the majority. us as gay people will not have anything better with Obama then we did with George Bush. it is one issue that he will not come out in support of us, whether it be gay marriage, or ending the miliary's don't ask don't tell...he is going to steer clear. He made that quite abundant when he wouldn't take a picture with Gavin Newsome. Hilliary is much more for gay rights. And it is because of the homos that she is running now. I am not saying she is a better choice, but I heard homos talking about her running for president right after the 2004 election of George Bush.
i don't know honestly who is going to be able to clean up the mess with Iraq, with the mortgage crisis, with the economy, health care and especially global warming.
I just hope someone steps up!!
before it is all too late!!
Posted by: Paul | Feb 18, 2008 11:56:21 AM
Yay, Massachusetts politics!! Go click my name for a blog about this - it's what my blog actually covers (bay state politics).
In any event, for the scoop: Obama uses Patrick's chief political message guy, David Axelrod, for his campaign. Obviously, that's where this comes from.
However, I don't think it excuses it at all! People go to speeches expecting them to be original to that candidate. Obama could definitely have used the "Just Words" speech that deval gave when he was running for Governor, but Obama should have prefaced it with the fact that it was coming from his good friend, the Governor of Massachusetts.
The funniest thing about all of this is I've been saying for months now that Obama's speeches don't hold a candle to Deval's rhetorical power. Seeing this speech-by-speech comparison shows that Obama's not only a plagiarist, but not a very good one at that.
Posted by: Ryan | Feb 18, 2008 1:26:01 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/the-clinton-cam.html
ABC news now reporting Clinton can not qurantee she has not lifted speeches from others.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 18, 2008 1:38:46 PM
Ryan's right about Deval's rendition blowing away Obamas. This isn't plagiarism. I've read Deval and Obama have a speech writer in common too.
Hillary's played the race card now she's playing the plagiarism card. She's SERIOUSLY DESPERATE.
Posted by: queendru | Feb 18, 2008 1:54:39 PM
The dynamics of the Electoral College trumps all (ask Al Gore). Some posters here ought to get outside the urban gay ghettos or leafy college town burbs for the kind of blue collar Catholic burb I inhabit.
Obama is the darling of college kids and NPR listening/PBS watching PhD. types. Blue collar whites, men in particular will NEVER vote for him, but might at least give Clinton a look. Obama is the left wings revenge for the Clinton's "triangulation", welfare reform etc.
Posted by: Brett | Feb 18, 2008 2:18:14 PM
The biggest problem for Obama here is that Deval Patrick delivered it way better!
Posted by: BrizzleBattyBoi | Feb 18, 2008 2:32:19 PM
What I'd like to know is if Obama will take credit for the bald-faced LIES he's told, or somehow blame Sen. Clinton for that, too?
Example 1: He told "The Advocate" he was a "chief cosponsor" of the LGBT rights bill in Illinois. LIE. He was not a cosponsor of any kind of the bill that is now law.
Example 2: He told "The Advocate" he passed" the LGBT rights bill in Illinois. LIE. He was no longer even in the Illinois senate when it passed; couldn't even vote for it.
Example 3. He's told numerous audiences that he passed a bill in the Illinois senate regulating the nuclear industry. LIE. The bill died due to opposition parlimentary procedures.
Has Sen. Clinton told lies? Probably. But the issue is that Obama is supposed to be a "new kind of politician," one we can allegedly trust unlike "Billary." Deval may have given him permission to quote him almost verbatim without acknowledgement but who gave him permission to lie to you Jimmy, 24, et al.? And, all the more disturbing because they are so EASY to disprove.
His wife told Larry King her husband's never had a problem of self-confidence. And now he's apparently starting to believe his own hype as a Saint and Saints don't have to answer to anyone I guess, or it seems he does.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 18, 2008 5:19:43 PM
Anyone know if Hillary's gotten a bump in the polls since Jane Fonda endorsed her on the Today show last week?
Posted by: 24play | Feb 18, 2008 5:25:17 PM
Obama is a naive, inexperienced hack. He couldn't even deliver Deval's speech decently.
Posted by: Stenar | Feb 18, 2008 6:29:51 PM
Um, not really seeing the controversy here, but whatever floats your boat. I can't wait for this election to be over, then all the dems can go back to pretending we are all one big happy family. A family of electoral losers, but still.
And yes Stenar, Obama is a hack and Hillary is the savior of the world. Here extra 4 years in the senate really have prepared her as president, and no one but no one can possibly top that.
Posted by: hal | Feb 18, 2008 7:40:45 PM
It would be nice if people on here who go on tirades about Obama, would back their accusations with links to some proof.
That way we can all read it in context and come to our own conclusions.
This "Chicken Little" crap is getting stale.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 19, 2008 1:58:35 AM
to SOULBROTHA and other forgiving and accommodating souls,
while the chicken little crap is getting stale for you, what never gets old to me is being able to tell the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad.
i used to teach argumentation as part of a two semester course on rhetoric and composition. one of the things i most warned my students about was plagiarism. what obama did was, part and parcel, plagiarism. that is unforgivable on its face, but even more-so when he delivers those stolen words and thoughts (indeed, the very concept) with the head wiggle and the conviction and the borrowing of attitude from black southern preachers as if he were one himself, and as if he owned those words.
it makes me ashamed for him. this is, after all, a man who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents and who went to the best universities. he is accomplished in his own right. he has absolutely no reason to feign legitimacy. his willingness to pander to southern blacks and guilt-ridden, liberal, starbuck's-coffee-swilling democrats makes me a little bit ill and more than a little bit disappointed.
to my mind, hillary is what she is. i prefer to go with the devil i know.
ANDY, thanks for posting this. honesty is the best policy.
Posted by: nic | Feb 19, 2008 3:50:43 AM
I know the Obama supporters don't want to hear this, but Obama has made his case to the American people about him bringing a new kind of polotics to Washington. It is not new if he is basically giving the same speech a Gov. from Mass. is giving.
What people need to realize is that we are in times where we need someone we can count on to deliver real change. Not nice borrowed speeches, and a church-like sermons on how everything will be fine if we believe.
This job really is the most important job in the world, and I'm not hiring on personality.
Posted by: daniel | Feb 19, 2008 12:56:34 PM
The Amurkan people seem to be buying, Daniel:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104407/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
Posted by: 24play | Feb 19, 2008 1:03:33 PM
NIC,
if you feel that this is shameful, inexcusable plagiarism on Obama's part, then fine. Go with God.
But I seriously do not think this is the "shameful scandal" that it's being hyped to be. And I'd say the same thing if Hillary had done it (and from what I gather, she has indeed.) And even if I thought it was a horrible deed, it will never trump Hillary's bullshit shenanigans. Unlike you, if I know for sure who the devil is, she won't get my vote.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 19, 2008 2:22:22 PM