Blogs > HNN > Is Obama a Plagiarist?

Feb 19, 2008 3:01 am

Is Obama a Plagiarist?

With the glee of a conservative in the 1990s catching Bill Clinton with a new girlfriend, the Hillary Clinton campaign has accused the 21st century Teflon man, Barack Obama, of plagiarizing one of his speeches from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. As reported by the Politico’s Mike Allen, and others, the Clinton campaign publicized two YouTube links showing the two friends’ overlapping rhetoric.

On October 15, 2006, speaking of his female opponent Kerry Healey, Patrick said: “But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.’ [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!” Last Saturday night in Milwaukee, Obama said: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! [Applause.] ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!” In response someone only identified as “an Obama official” said: “They're friends who share similar views and talk and trade good lines all the time.”

Plagiarism is a serious charge, especially to those of us in the academy. But this is a confusing case. On the one hand, as historians familiar with the history of campaigning, we immediately think of Senator Joe Biden, who withdrew from the 1988 campaign in disgrace when the Dukakis campaign circulated a videotape of Biden stealing a biographical riff from the British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. (It turns out that Biden usually did acknowledge Kinnock but that particular time lapsed – and watched his campaign implode). Like Biden, Obama should be held to a high standard because so much of his political identity rests on his rhetoric. On the other hand, as historians who assess many speeches, we know that great oratory resonates because it builds on our collective memory banks, offering original twists on familiar phrases. Moreover, as lecturers, we know that when we speak spontaneously we cannot be as scrupulous about not echoing others as we are in our writing – and Obama’s riff was spontaneous, it was not written out in his prepared remarks.

On a personal note, I was particularly intrigued by the Obama defense that, in essence, this was part of an implicit collaboration, an ongoing partnership and brainstorming with a friend. Without mentioning names so as to avoid embarrassing the reporter yet again, I was once contacted by a reporter who accused another reporter of plagiarizing my work. The alleged plagiarist mentioned me twice in his article, but then had an unattributed riff that clearly echoed my work. I emailed the accuser, saying, that given the other citations, and the fact that I had been interviewed by the reporter numerous times, and was always mentioned in the ensuing articles, I was not offended, did not consider it plagiarism, and often gave journalists more slack considering their time and space constraints. The accusing reporter then called me up and asked me, “would it be okay if one of your students did not document part of a paper?” Cornered, I admitted that no, it would be “unacceptable” if a student submitted a paper without properly attributing a paragraph that was based so clearly on someone else’s work. With that, the accuser had his “j’accuse.” He ran the story, embarrassed his colleague, and the accused reporter never interviewed me again.

According to Peter Slevin of the Washington Post, Obama dismissed the plagiarism charges. "Well, look, I was on the stump," he said. Speaking of his friend Governor Patrick, Obama said: "He had suggested we use these lines. I thought they were good lines. I'm sure I should have. Didn't this time." All in all, Obama doubted "this is too big of a deal."

In thinking this issue through, I think it is a bigger “deal” than Obama concedes. His campaign – in fact the stolen riff itself – emphasizes just how important his words are to his campaign, and words are to American politics historically. Obama missed an opportunity with his airy dismissal. He could have said, “I’m sorry, that was wrong.” In so doing, he would have distanced himself from both George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton – two of the leading American politicians least likely to apologize. In one classy moment, Obama could have proven that his rhetoric is real, that he really is the candidate of change. Instead, the usually nimble junior Senator from Illinois gave us all the same old Washington shuffle. What a pity that he chose to imitate the ways of his new hometown when trying to defend his occasional penchant for mimicry on the stump.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jon Marte - 2/27/2008

It's the job of the politician on campaign to take other peoples' words and ideas and claim them as their own.

I don't see how it's disturbing.

Gil Troy - 2/27/2008

I think that the reason why it's a more complicated issue than Jon Marte suggests has to do with Obama's identity -- both his self-definition and the public perception. He has emphasized his singular rhetoric so much that when you seem him absolutely echoing someone else's words --and letting everyone think they are his own -- it is very disturbing. Watching the two videos back-to-back. And try explaining to Senator Biden why his campaign ended when he did the same thing, and Obama's only soared higher.

Jon Marte - 2/26/2008

I wonder if we should require proper citation in the written transcripts of speeches.

I don't support Obama for the Presidency, but I have his back on this. (I have amazing skills at shooting staples at standing paper targets, so I'd be a huge asset in this case)

Regardless of my political orientation, this issue is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. I've repeated what I've heard before many times- does that make me a plagiarist?

Arnold Shcherban - 2/25/2008

By all squeaks and deeds Hillary is
a "Bush-Cheney Lite", though 1990s were better than 2000s.
As far as Kennedy's story is concerned, there are no indications (at least the strong and verifiable ones) that something worse (or better) would happen to America, than it did under his postrunners.
If anybody knows such indications, please inform us.

Michael Green - 2/23/2008

For me, the real problem for Obama is actually a historical one: when those who claim to be different prove not to be as they claim. While no one with an ounce of thought or sensitivity would have wanted his life to end as it did, how disappointed would the world have been if John Kennedy had remained in office for eight years and been unable to follow through on most of his plans. Obama claims to represent a new politics but uses sexist language (as do the mainstream media, although they are far less subtle about it) and refers to his opponent as "Bush-Cheney Lite," and denies that the 1990s were better? Please! Win as what you claim to be or don't claim to be that way.