Just Words: Did Barack Obama Plagiarize Governor Deval Patrick's Speech?

The fight for the Democratic nomination has reached its pinnacle of intensity and correspondingly, the mudslinging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (shown on the same stage to the left) has reached its height. When these attacks take place in a controlled forum such as a national televised debate, it’s easy for interested Americans to extract the arguments directly from the candidates in real time. At this stage relatively late in the primary season, however, mudslinging comes in the form of staggered headlines, as candidates make accusations in speeches, campaigns respond in press releases, and rebuttals are only are only directed at one crowd in one state. In these cases, we must be able to extract reliable information from second-hand sources in order to draw our own conclusions about these arguments and to separate fact from spin.

Today, Hillary Clinton likened a segment of Barack Obama’s speech delivered on Sunday in Wisconsin to one delivered in 2006 by Gov. Deval Patrick (shown with Barack Obama on the right) to a crowd in Massachusetts; a video has surfaced on Youtube with a side-by-side comparison of the speeches. The similarities between the two segments are unmistakable, and both sides agree that indeed Obama used Patrick's words and ideas; however, while the Hillary Clinton camp has cried plagiarism, Obama maintains that he simply borrowed the words with the Governor's consent. An attempt to make sense of the situation led me to the blogosphere, which has erupted with editorials on the subject. I have found two particularly persuasive posts, each with a unique perspective on the argument. Although the posts are in contention, I found valuable points on each which I have provided my own insight. The first post by Sylvia Welsh for The Huffington Post stresses the salience of this revelation and the implications on Barack Obama's character. The second post written by Sean Hackbarth on his blog The American Mind dismisses the plagiarism accusations with technical interpretations of the term. I have provided a link to my comments on both posts, and for your convenience I have also pasted them below.

Desperate Clinton Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism
Comment:

Thank you for your very informative and engaging post on the plagiarism battle currently ensuing between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is so important that we closely analyze accusations by candidates and your insight has built a powerful case against the use of ‘plagiarism’ in this context. I wholeheartedly agree that context is an vital component of this discussion and that plagiarism is a politically charged word that does not accurately characterize the use of Governor Deval Patrick’s words and ideas in Sen. Obama’s recent speech. Consent is a big player in plagiarism and Gov. Patrick has confirmed he did authorize the use of his words by his friend Sen. Obama. At the same time, I think ‘sharing’ is too weak of a word for what took place. At best, Obama was a very irresponsible sharer, not even hinting that part of his speech was borrowed, even from a consenting friend. I know that as a university student, if I had transcribed and used that segment of Obama’s speech in a paper, I would be very alarmed if I found later that these words were not his own.

Along this same line, ‘desperation’ fails to accurately characterize the accusations made public by the Clinton campaign. It is true that the stakes are very high and the climate is very hostile; Barack Obama has carried nine consecutive states thus far and Hillary Clinton desperately needs a win to build momentum in her campaign. Nevertheless, I think pointing out Sen. Obama’s use of Gov. Patrick’s words was not simply a petty, political attack. Personally, the ‘exposition’ of Barack Obama did not drastically alter my assessment of his character. I did, however, appreciate learning information—presumably discovered by a sophisticated opposition research team—-that I would have been unable to otherwise find; Gov. Patrick made his speech over one year ago in Massachusetts and Sen. Obama made his speech to a crowd in Wisconsin—-two places I have not been.

Overall though, in assessing this battle over words, your quote from Governor Patrick was the most consequential, “The point is more important than whose argument it is.” Despite my feelings that this event is worth at least some of the headlines it’s receiving, I do not believe that this should take away from the Senator Obama’s ability to invigorate and activate crowds with his speeches or be used as a cheap tool to chip away at his character.

Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)
Comment:

I want to thank you first on providing a valuable, distinctive perspective on Barack Obama’s recent trouble with plagiarism. I too believe that the media downplay of the incident is unfortunate and that Barack Obama’s misstep has some relevant implications in the campaign for the presidential nomination. I particularly liked that you isolated the event to focus on Barack Obama’s actions without getting your point diminished as being part of an empty, pro-Hillary Clinton and anti-Barack Obama mudslinging war.

You used children in your examples, but given the record numbers of young people participating in the campaign, I felt a discussion of college students in particular should be included. I have personally weighed the significance of Barack Obama’s uncredited ‘borrowing’ of Governor Deval Patrick’s speech. I know that if I had, say, transcribed part of Obama’s speech for use in a paper, I would have been shocked to learn that I had mistakenly credited the Senator with writing words that were only lent to him. As academic integrity is a major part of most university student's scholarly careers and we are taught from day one to always cite the words of others, I would be confused by the mixed message sent by Obama, who has hardly accepted responsibility for his failure to credit Gov. Patrick. After all, Obama could have easily -- especially since he had permission -- made a quick nod at Gov. Patrick without diminishing the value of his words.

I do however disagree with you about the potential of Barack Obama to be a role model in light of this event. While I agree that character is an important consideration of a candidate and this event opens up more questions about Barack Obama’s character, I don’t think it should tell the whole story. First, we know through history that our best presidents have not always upheld high moral standards and that excellent characters don’t guarantee excellent presidents. Furthermore, I don’t think Barack Obama’s failure to cite Gov. Patrick renders him indecent and unethical. Obama has written several inspiring, influential speeches which have energized people of all ages. He should be praised for these endeavors and as a response to concerned Americans like you, he should amend his actions in future speeches.

Superdelegates: How 796 People Will Vote For Millions

One year ago, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider forecasted that Super Tuesday would decide the nominees for the 2008 presidential election. For Republicans, this is somewhat true. Governor Mitt Romney's departure (pictured on the left) after a poor performance on Super Tuesday effectively narrowed the field of candidates to two. Though Mike Huckabee remains in the race, John McCain leads overwhelmingly in delegate counts and is on track to become the party's nominee. In the Democratic race, twenty-two states and one U.S. territory made their way to the polls, with 1,681 of the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination at stake. The results of Super Tuesday were much less decisive for Democrats, showing a relatively even split of support for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Chris Cillizza of The Fix points out that both the Clinton and Obama camps have released statements manipulating the data to highlight their triumphs and build momentum for the fast-approaching primaries in other states. Though Obama carried some of this through to Saturday, winning in Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington, the race is still up the air. As The Caucus reports, Obama and Clinton moved right along to Maine to court voters for Sunday's caucus with thirty delegates at stake; Obama won thirteen of the delegates while Clinton won nine. The battle will continue into Tuesday when the two candidates will battle for delegates in Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland.

Because Super Tuesday did not secure a nominee or force one contender to quit, it has shaped the primary into an extraordinarily democratic one, effectively mobilizing the nation in unprecedented ways. Whereas in past years the nominee could be named before some states even conducted primaries or caucuses, earning the nomination in a tight race such as this requires candidates to spend time actively campaigning across the country, reaching out to geographically diverse voters. Staggered primary elections afford candidates time to build up the massive funds and resources required to campaign heavily in each state and ultimately win. Every delegate has become crucial for victory, and campaigns have literally fashioned a mathematical equation for victory. The repercussions have been resoundingly positive; thus far, records have been broken for voter turnout in several states. In the immediate aftermath of Super Tuesday, the fund raising arms race between Clinton and Obama has inspired hundreds of thousands of small-donors to contribute. According to Hillary Clinton's website, between Tuesday and Friday night, Clinton raised $10 million from over 100,000 donors largely through online contributions. Additional debates are also scheduled to take place this month, further engaging, informing, and involving voters. Successful mobilization is undeniable. However, despite the numerous strides for democratic elections in the 2008 primaries, superdelegates threaten to render the 2008 Democratic nomination unfair and undemocratic.

If neither Senator Clinton, nor Senator Obama acquires 2,025 delegates by June 3rd, when South Dakota and Montana hold the final primaries, then the nomination will have to wait until the Democratic National Convention. At the convention, held on August 25th held in Denver, Colorado, 796 unpledged delegates from 50 states and U.S. territories will give one candidate the final push into securing the nomination. While pledged delegates represent the votes of millions of Americans, unpledged or superdelegates are unrestricted in how they decide to cast their vote. California, for example, will send 441 pledged delegates to represent the votes of 8.9 million people while 796 unpledged delegates will represent only themselves. Of the entire delegation, representing millions of votes cast in all states and territories, these unpledged delegates will make up an astounding 20% of all votes.

Some people might argue for the super moral character, super representational abilities or super judgment of these superdelegates. After all, they are Democratic governors, members of Congress, Democratic National Committee members, former presidents and vice-presidents, and other prominent party members. The problem is that they have no contractual obligations or guidelines for voting. Courting by quid pro quo arrangements with candidates is perfectly legal. In addition, these superdelegates may have strong personal ties to the candidates -- Bill Clinton is a superdelegate, shown on the right campaigning for Hillary Clinton -- and nothing in the DNC's rules addresses this issue. Even voting in an objective way is difficult. Should these candidates, as Barack Obama suggests, vote based upon their state and constituents' sentiments? Or, should they vote as Hillary Clinton argues just with their conscience? Either way, these 796 delegates could not possibly represent the millions of voters across the country. Especially in states like Utah with few Democratic elected officials, even if superdelegates voted with their constituencies, voters would be drastically underrepresented. And if we rely on the sound judgment of the superdelegates, we are still in essence privileging 796 insiders to make a decision for the entire nation. Some endorsements have already been publicly announced -- you can decide whether your state's superdelegates are representative of your vote -- and delegate projections from AP shows the impact of their inclusion in the delegate counts. Superdelegates are not bound to these endorsements and can reverse them at their whims. For unbound delegates who still remain unclaimed and unsolicited, campaigns have fashioned sophisticated plans to court and woo them with tactics such as highly persuasive phone calls from high-profile Democrats and close friends.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama may end up picking up enough delegates to secure the nomination before June, and superdelegates may not end up playing a significant role in the outcome. Democrats should nevertheless turn their attention to this system, which is chipping away at the value of votes in our democracy. Concerned Democrats should urge the Democratic National Committee to revise this backward system of unpledged delegates, or at the very least, impose restrictions on their impact in the nomination. It may be too late to salvage 2008 for voters, but with enough support, we may be able to prevent party insiders from taking the elections out of our hands in the future.