Democratic Debate: Plagiarism - Hillary Tries To Frame The Debate
Download | play 
Download | play
Tonight's Democratic Presidential debate in Austin was very focused on the issues that the two Democratic nominees had been discussing all along and they were very cordial to one another throughout, really a mild mannered affair until moderator Campbell Brown brought up the issue of plagiarism that popped up earlier this week after one of Senator Barack Obama's speeches.
The question went to Obama and he answered by saying the notion that he plagiarized the national co-chair of his campaign, who encouraged him to use his words, is silly and that we're now getting into the silly season in politics. Senator Clinton responded that if his candidacy is going to be about words, they should at least be his own. She went on to make a statement that didn't go over well with the audience:
Clinton:"Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in it's change you can Xerox."
She then turned right back into the health care issue. Obama dropped the topic also and joined her in the most discussed issue of the debate---health care.
John Amato: I thought they both did quite well tonight outside the line above. Debating is a very good platform for Hillary and she shined---especially her closing statement, but so did Barack. This used to be a weakness for him in my mind, but he's improved dramatically and is quite comfortable going one on one.
You missed the audience booing here between the statement and turning right back to health care.
Good...A new thread.
Well, the "xerox" line was one of the saddest moments in Clinton's campaign... A really shabby line half-heartedly delivered. She wasn't really behind the kick that could've come from the line - probably because she knew it was that shabby.
The joke here is that it was obviously prepared, thus written, and because she wasn't really behind the line, she probably didn't write it.
Just lame.
Senator Clinton certainly shined elsewhere in the debate, but that moment was just miserable.
the "xerox" line is so awful not because it was so nasty and didnt play, but because it was so obviously pre-written for her...
...and her big line at the end about everything being fine:
CNN is reporting it is almost word for word a repeat from an Edwards speech early in the campaign....
stick a fork in Hillary. she's done.
Too bad her closing statement was plagiarized from Edwards...
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=710
Luckily a President is only a figure-head.
Otherwise we'd be in deep doo-doo.
Then she went and plagiarized John Edwards in her closing!
A good debate, I think. But the plagiarism thing was low, and uncalled for.
The title of the thread should be Hillary Hits Home Run on Last Question. brought down the house, she really connected with me and everyone at the event. The polls are a dead heat right now, I predict they'll start going back her way. It was that good.
She also was great by not letting the moderators squash the health care debate. She made a great distinction, noting that her plan will have everyone covered in the same way that we all pay social security taxes. Well done.
All the pundits, with the exception of David Gergen on CNN, seem to be missing the significance of that last moment. As I'm typing, Pat Buchanan is picking up on it. We'll see what happens.
I am glad that people are finally getting to hear John Edwards messages being talked about in the media. It's just too bad that the words had to come out of the mouths of others before they were noted. Americans need a fighter now and the media and the DNC led to the sacrifice of the one real fighter for the historic first event of woman or African-American president. I just can't wait until I get to see Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh become blood brothers.
Clinton Tonight: “You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.” [Democratic Debate, 2/21/07]
John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” [Democratic Debate, 12/13/07]
...and she pulls a "change you can Xerox"
she deserved to be booed for that.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Hillary used John Edwards' lines in her closing
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/An_echo_from_Hillary.html
If Obama takes the high road and avoids smear like the plague, Clinton will only end up looking petty and superficial.
Hate to say it, but thats the way the people tend to vote, they dont like the ugly combative candidate.
She was petty and nasty. She's done. It's over
Obama campaign should of kept their mouth shut about the mirror similarities in Clintons closing statement. So bashing the "old style of Politics" is only okay when it's used against you. Let's look the other way when we are shoving it into our opponents faces right?
Let the Blogs and Media play in the mud with this garbage. The Obama campaign is better than that.
Spin Spin Spin. The same same same.
I saw these two in separate interviews with Tavis Smiley the other night. It was off the main stream tag lines and very refreshing. Both seem highly presidential, Hillary is not all shrill as many here like to believe, and Barack really is solid. Real talk for a change:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200802/20080218.html
An the whole debate this is what you want to highlight?
They both did very well and as democrats we should be proud we have excellent choices unlike the other guys. That said. Go Obama!
Funny, you don't ever hear about the outrageous
corruption in the Republican party. Nothing about restoring checks and balances, and accountability either. As if we don't need to be concerned about silly things like that. They do mention finance reform but very matter of factly with no passion. Not a thing about contempt of Congress by Harriet Myers and the shameful political corruption of the justice system. A dribble mention about pork barrel spending but none of the meat. How about investigations into practically everything quashed by the Bush administration? Nada. Seems like whoever wins, it'll be business as usual. As usual. Restoring Habeus Corpus and the Constitution? Nada.
Hillary’s ‘Nice’ Plagiarism at the Debate
Chris Gamble- I'm a Democrat first dammit. @ 16:
Oh come off it, they harped on this for days only to throw a scripted "Xerox" line (how ironic) and then use that ending. She wants to have her cake of throwing the mud and still play nice at the end and throw out a handshake line like that, thats so two faced.l
Meh. More of the same. How nice it would have been to have Dennis Kucinich there to blow them both away! But alas, the media wanted a Barack - Hillary battle, so that's what they set up. They even shoved Edwards aside to make it happen. Now I have the crappy choice of 1) writing in Kucinich; 2) voting for Obama so Hillary doesn't go on to lose the office for the Dems; or 3) sleeping with McCain and telling the NYTimes.
I'm leaning toward #1.
THIS JUST IN: OBAMA WINS TEXAS DEBATE
Well it's obvious that Hillary is on the ropes. Using cheap shots shows that she's obviously desperate. I kinda felt that she really didn't want to make that Xerox comment but that's all she had left and chose it to attempt to differentiate herself from Obamaa. When she said her closing line, what I heard in my head is "It's been a nice run but I know the chips will fall for Obama and I congratulate him". Artificial or not, the closing line doesn't win over anyone and just reflects her tepid performance ever since Obama started winning.
So long baby. Back to Congress for you. At least now we're guaranteed the run of the Bush/Clinton dynasties are over.
Gladys J @ 5:
It was nice to see Edwards included in tonight's debate, wasn't it...
snark!
Snore @ 26:
until chelsea runs for prom queen
Why all the Hillary haters? We know intelligent, competent, engaging and strong are all liabilities with the American voters so maybe she deserves to loose. OR we should stop believing the anonymous spam from Focus on the Family and such and look at someone who has over come obstacles and has been wildly successful (while raising an incredible daughter) She must be a loser.
Ryan @ 27:
Its so unfair that after that attack earlier this week that now she gets caught with something we're asked to just be polite. I'm not saying lets call her some Xerox Queen for several days, but pointing out that in politics this charge is easy to bandy about shoudl teach her and those that called Obama a plagiarist a lesson.
It's the way that Obama has brushed this charge of plagiarism as unimportant which makes it VERY sad. Ask Nora Roberts and Cassie Edwards if plagiarism isn't a theft. When even the romance industry has more standards and ethics that a presidencial candidate, this nation is in trouble. Now students will be able to defend charges of plagiarism by saying if a president can do it, why can't I? Isn't this a lovely example...
If Plagiarism is a theft, then Obama isn't change, he's just a thief. And the only thing he had to do was quote the source. Any student knows that. He's not about change. He has nothing to say. He "inspires" with words that are not his, so what is Obama about?
I know that nothing that Obama does can be criticized because the man walks on water, but come on, this is just wrong. Can't we just admit he commited at least a mistake? My son already said he's going to use this defense in college!
There are moments when I see her and, briefly, understand why she has loyal devotees. She is smart; the woman is good, I’ll give her that.
But what some of her fan club tonight is choosing to taunt Obama fans with — his occasional “uhms” — is truly nonsensical. She comes off as not very comfortable in her own skin and delivers canned speeches and lines. And that canned stuff is what makes her insist on talking past her time, and right over others; she can’t get closure until she delivers the whole spiel. Obama, you can tell, is actually thinking about what he’s saying. I think that’s why he seemed so much more, dare I say it, presidential tonight? She sat watching him with that smirk she does while he was speaking with a degree of seriousness and sincerity that is what makes this guy resonate so well with people. When she spoke he listened attentively, not acting like a wise guy.
I just don’t understand why someone doesn’t tell her to lose the canned goods, lose the smirk, and act like a human being. Frankly I’m not buying her thing at the end, particularly given its similarity to Edwards and her tendency to get weepy when she thinks it will help her. But even if it is sincere, it’s too little, too late. And for a lot of folks it will just not ring true. She’s toast.
Well shit, my TIVO quit recording before it ended. But what I did see it was not alot of substance and both candidates playing it safe. The forum of them sitting side by side is not right, they should be standing at podiums seperated from one another. And Obama's comments that they should not be arguing but working together for the sake of America is a cop out. These two should be allowed to go for the jugular. Just because Clinton is so direct and seemingly shrill at times does not make her anything but what she is, an aggressive, type A personality. Her questions about Obama are valid (if overstated and exaggerated for maximum effect at times) Her own accomplishments are not that impressive either, as her lack of judgement has been apparent, glaringly, in voting for Iraq and the Lieberman bill.
It's not about the "issues" with most Americans and Obama knows that (so does Hillary) it's about how you "feel" about a candidate. People "feel" better hearing Obama, that tips the scales overwhelimingly in his favor. Hillary would make a great leader but she is desperate to taint the Obama cult of personality, and it aint working like she hoped it would.
She'll be dropping out soon.
Deval Patrick says it's okay, the debate is over. What's the big deal? Man, can't Hillary get over it?
Deval Patrick approves of Obama using them lines!!
Xerox???? jeebus,
Andy @ 32:
if what Obama did is theivery, than Hillary is guilty of the same, her ending echoed Edwards, she has done an 'invisible americans ' speech lifted from Bill.
that you would continue this cheap line of attack seeing now that this accusation can apply to anyone if you're going to play so loose with political rhetoric's (un)originality... proves just how out of touch and lost the Clinton campaign is.
I can't believe she used that line. Obama gave an excellent answer, one which should have killed such an obviously scripted, petty shot. She was booed, and rightfully so. I think that may have killed her tonight.
She really bricked that one. I think I even heard Bill and Chelsea boo her that time.
Actually, she lifted a line straight from her husband. Like Josh/TPM says...this stuff happens all the time. To try and make this a big deal is ludicrous...especially four days after the story has gotten old.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php
Snore @ 26:
Don't be so sure. She could run in 8 years or 4 if Obama loses to McCain. Before you blast me for saying that-do realize this is the general population that voted Bush in not once, but twice.
As for her dumb comment, I'd bet sure money that the ogre known as Mark Penn "insisted" she say that. Boy do I despise that guy.
I have to say I think HRC came back a little - as a UK citizen I found the last lines a bit patronisiing. Why mention soldiers returning from Iraq when it highlights a negative?
Also I imagine that many folks wouldn't take to that sideways `i know it all oh what are you saying now` stare. Barack's higher head poise worked well.
Indeed I thought it peculiar how their head body language concurred to their birth signs astrologically - Her Scorpionic sideways look into the soul stare and his leonian raised head carriage.
Neither is better than the other - I just feel Barack played it better than her.
BigTobacco @ 38:
how the hell does anyone get the nerve accusing someone of not having their own words...
...with such a scripted comment?
Apphouse50 @ 33:
Good point. I've noticed that she tends to prolong answers with verbal filler, as if she's afraid to pause lest someone break in. If you took the filler and verbal fluff out of what she says, especially in impromptu answers, there's not much there. Obama, instead of using verbal filler, uses pauses. It's a different style of presenting himself.
Barrack has improved. Hillary techinally, in a classroom setting, would get a better grade with debate skills. However, she just comes across an inauthentic.
Overall, they mirror each other on policy so this really is about style and who has the best chance at bringing the country together and offering a genuine contrasting choice to McCain, his party, and his party's failed governance and dated ideology. He's more receptive to listening to the other side and is open to using Diplomacy at a higher level. Her war stance is a problem and indicates a stubbornness on her part. A character flaw we have had all too much of in the current President. Also, Clinton has a history of the "her way or the highway" approach. That approach didn't achieve much when she led the health care reform effort in the early 90's now did it? So, yes, words matter and hope matters. Obama connects with people in a way that demonstrates that he wants change as much as they do and will do what's necessary to actually things done while not repeating the old political wars. He gives hope of someone that whats to move beyond governing only half a country but a united country, not just a Blue America but a United States of America.
An Obama-Clinton ticket with Edwards as AG would be nice ... but it'll never happen.
From TPM:
Bill Clinton, 1992: "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."
It's a great line. But it rings really hollow when just moments before she was saying, ”Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in it’s change you can Xerox.”
It's like she doesn't believe in herself.
ok hillary, which one of your brilliant advisors wrote the xerox line for you?
as a zinger, it was awful
the entire plagerism episode has been bad for the clinton campaign
both clinton and obama are very close in their philosophies, and the campaign comes down to one thing
who is the better leader
and in that moment, it wasnt hillary
and please, dont cry over politics not being a game, use that line and then close the debate with the "but we will all be friends in the end and dont worry about me" bullshit
Campbell Brown is married to Dan Senor on April 2, 2006.
Dan Senor worked for the Carlyle Group from 2001 to 2003.
Senor served as a Senior Advisor to then-Presidential Envoy
L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional
Authority. I think he was the senior spokes liar for the Bush
adminstration in Iraq. Senor traveled to Baghdad in mid-April
in one of the first civilian convoys to enter Iraq following
the fall of the former regime. He advised Amb. Bremer on
a variety of policy and communications issues. During
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Senor was based at Centcom
Headquarters in Qatar.
Since Campbell Brown has no journalistic integrity, she
would try to ask a question to cause some controversy
and divisiveness among the Democrats. In the vein of
Noron O'Donnell and Susan Malvreaux (I might have spelled
he name wrong but who cares).
btw...the xerox company just kicked in 50k for that wonderful commercial plug
Goon @ 42:
Hey, it's not my fault if my feeble witticisms sound like they could be used as cliches... But I didn't lift that sad crack off anyone but myself.
John @ 41:
Astrology? Oh please; you may as well have said that he did better because he's a Baptist and she's a Methodist.
She simply can't talk off the cuff and doesn't have the charisma of either Obama OR her husband, who probably could have pulled off the "Xerox" line.
Goon @ 11:
Clearly Edwards invented the concept of reassurance, and patented the word 'fine.'
Thanks for the clarification.
Really, the person she paid to come up with that Xerox line should be flogged.
Hilldo went for the fence on that one... and hit a slow dribbler two feet in front of the plate. ooooooohhhhhhhhhh, so close!!
dharma pup @ 45:
How about Edwards as the next Supreme Court justice? (Although I'd love to see someone like Angela Davis selected, just to make neocons' heads explode)
Or even better - Hillary as the next SCJ!
dharma pup @ 45:
Why say that? I think that's exactly what will happen.
Matt in Texas @ 56:
Either one works for me.
Paul in LA @ 57:
It would be nice, but I really don't think Hillary would accept second fiddle.
dharma pup @ 28:
That's an odd comment, given her graduation with honors from Stanford in 2001.
dharma pup @ 59:
Of course she would. Most presidents were VP's first, followed by Senators. She would be very likely to end up President in eight years -- she would be younger than Reagan was.
mystic @ 21:
Strange huh?The truth is,there is very little difference between these two.
With Dems you simply get a little more emphasis on social issues.
Hey.Its a start.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 50:
haha nice one. That or they sued her for trademark infringement ;)
BigTobacco @ 47:
the thing that pissed me off about HRC was the context she chose to use that line. It was asked of her to relay which moment tested her the most, and she went on a tangent going on and on how Americans are tested every day much more than she is and blah, blah, blah.
I am sick these candidates deflecting things left and right, not only not answering any question... but using the plight of the common people to answer a question about her. It is a very disingenuous way of shielding herself by owning other people's struggle when it suits her.
I don't care about any candidate as far as I am concerned, however Hillary is way too much of a political animal IMHO.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but if she said it this way, "Like John Edwards has said, 'What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”
She had a chance to really nail it and she missed it.
Regardless of your position on Hillary, you must have some respect for her. She is the first woman to have a real shot at the Presidency in our patriarchal society - I doubt any of us who post on this site would be able to cope with the amount of shit she has had to deal with in her public life (she's a lesbian, too much baggage...). As a feminist, I see Hillary as one of my heroes - heroine I guess would be grammatically correct. You may say she is calculated or cold, but unfortunately that is what a woman must mold herself into to earn the positions that men have traditionally held in our society. Take yourself out from behind your isolated desk and take a walk in another person's shoes and maybe you will think twice before you type a negative message without a face - it took a Women in Politics course to bring me to recognize women's position in our society but ever since I have changed my life completely and will never regret doing it. I have to end by saying that I support whoever takes our parties nomination, but I will always look at Hillary as an American who inspired me in many ways.
BigTobacco @ 54:
Because obviously she could never ever have said something so callous and mean on her own devices, it must be some staffer's fault, that's the ticket....
Paul in LA @ 61:
Every president has been younger than Reagan was.......
It's interesting how people react. Obama is long on rhetoric, short on substance. Hillary (and Bill) point this out, and are demonized. Obama comes back with "Words matter..." speech, completely plagiarized. Clintons point this out, and are demonized. The bulk of the voters aren't interested in substance at all, thus it becomes a popularity contest. Just like when people were voting for Bush.
mystic @ 21:
Indeed, that is why I am not thrilled with the Dems. It is funny how now the GOP is framing the election as if the past 8 yrs never happened. I already got some chain mails from my wacko relatives going on and on with the Obama plagiarist talking point from the GOPers. Heck, I have even an email today that went off on social security and FDR for crying out loud. As if the current moron in the white house wasn't their creation.
It is amazing to me the capacity for denial in the conservative ecosystem. Screw things up so badly, and yet with a straight face act as if they were not the culprits of it.
And the main reason is that these spineless asshats at the Dem machinery lets them get away with it.
Gladys J @ 5:
Yeah, kinda similar, huh? Yes, but....LOL
Nate F @ 66:
Good for you-and I mean that.
Her candidacy alone is historic and inspiring as is Senator Obama's.
GE is buying the election for Barack Obama with non-stop hate for Hillary Clinton. I can't believe that the American public doesn't see right through all this non-stop bashing from the likes of Hard Ass and his Newsweek pin heads. GAD If the media doesn't STOP picking sides and then trying with all their might to sway the public not only with hate speak from their pundits but graffics and words on the screen that berate the peoples candidate. I'm so sick of the Media today I don't think I can watch them any longer. Now I get why people tune out and don't vote. The media picks the candidates with full court advertising and they call it "news" it's sick is what it is. SICK. If they win this one it's over - Barack Obama isn't the Democratic candidate and it will be proven too late. He is being propelled by the media and Republican votes. I know he has his supporters but nothing like Hillary has from the Democratic voters. Some nit wit on Hardball tried to say this is all over for Hillary??? WHAT??? This fight for the nomination has only begun and it's not against Obama it's against MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS and NBC. These people don't report the news they go out on hit jobs for the corporations. You have to ask yourselves why? WHY? is every news outlet and anchor on the side of Obama and against Hillary with everything they spew?
It's because they can beat him in the general or they think they can control him.
They don't want Hillary to win because they can't control her or she will stop McCain into the ground.
Be very careful what you wish for in voting for Obama you might get the nomination but you will not get what you have in mind or heart now.
Nate F @ 66:
Yes, the list of accomplishments is amazing, for starters she was born with an XX make up, roughly only 54% of the world's population are of that persuasion, wow!
HRC was born into a well heeled family, and has enjoyed plenty of opportunities rarely afforded to other people. So spare me the victimization bullshit...
dale18 @ 49:
Daaaaaaaaamn.. I kept wondering why she kept interrupting Hillary all night long. I just wanted to pop her in her puss.
I think Hillary has some poor staffers and consultants. She should fire Wolfson and Penn, they both undermine her. To be ready on day one, she has to show she can be a good manager, and if she has this much trouble controlling her own staff, then she has credibility problems.
This site and its compadre Kos are obviously Obamanations. They were both so wrong on the last two elections and I suspect they will be wrong again. Truth or not, yesterday's McCane-ing makes himvery beatable, which, of course, advances Clinton's chances. Folks who are enamored by Senator Obama are listening I fear to the Pied Piper. He's never crossed the aisle to the Rethugs and if he does they would mug him. All this dreaming about new directions in politics led by this Magic Negro (a Spike Lee term by the wa) are simply that: dreaming. I don't think he's a hollow suit just a callow one.
Tyler Durden @ 74:
Try to relax.
Those who are complaining that Hillary Clinton 'stole' lines from John Edwards really ought to consider applying for a job with the Drudge Report. It disappoints me that perspective has been lost to such a ludicrous degree. I've read both statements, and frankly, it's an obvious coincidence. Or at least, as much of a coincidence as can be expected when you consider the narrow amount of political buzzwords any given candidate churns out.
OK, full disclosure on this one....
It was my wife who got Hillary to commit to running. She (my wife, Tina) is a licensed DC tour guide, and happened to have been contracted by a NY school that had close ties to Hillary. At the end of the tour, the class met with Hillary in the Capitol, and just as the visit was ending Hillary was called back for a vote, other groups crowded the stairs and elevator. Hillary started for the elevator, but upon seeing the crowd, turned to Tina and said, "Maybe I should run for the far stairs." To which Tina replied, "Yes, I think you should run." Hillary then said, "OK, then I'll run."
And the rest is history....
Charlieboy @ 77:
Wow, smug with a hint of veiled racism... LOL!
Matt in Texas @ 68:
Well, that's true. It reflects the advances in medical tech.
She can easily run in 2016 as incumbent VP of the best administration in my lifetime.
Matt in Texas @ 80:
You had me going there for a sec..
Meat @ 79:
I'm not saying she 'stole', i'm saying they are similar enough that she should be wary of this... sorry, RETARDED, line of attack. it can be easily be pushed right back in her face, especially given the 'xerox' line was so scripted.
strawberrybitch @ 75:
OK all you sexists - I believe Strawberry is referring to Campbell's mouth with that comment.
Tyler Durden @ 81:
You are referring to your own post (@ 74) with more than a hint of veiled misogyny.
Tyler Durden @ 74:
Well Heeled. What the hell does that mean.? She was middle class and earned every grade and degree on her own. Nobody handed her anything. ELITIST MY ASS!
Kevin C. @ 25:
Huh? in from where? AmericaBlog? or as it is now called Obamablog.
Tyler Durden @ 74:
Actually, I was not aiming for the theme of victimization, but you can read into my argument however you choose.
pinkobait @ 83:
Yeah, just after Hillary left, Tina called me and "confirmed " that Hillary had confided in her that she had decided to run.
Had me going for a while....
Paul in LA @ 86:
"misogyny" being the operative word. *sigh*
Though, the words in question were not credited to the original author, they were used with his permission; they were not "stolen".
Are we to believe that every speech given by Ms. Clinton is of her own inspiration and composition and that she does not utilize speech writers?
If she does use writers, paid or unpaid, is she guilty of plagiarism for not crediting the true authors of the material while delivering it?
When Joe Biden was chase out of the race in '87 (by operatives in the Dukakis camp) for plagiarizing Neil Kinnock, even though he had credited Kinnock numerous times as the source of the "stolen" words in previous speeches, he failed to do so in the Iowa speech; which cost him Big Time. However, at no time had he received permission from Kinnock to "use" those words.
That I think is the major difference between that situation and this one; regardless of how much the Clinton campaign is trying to frame this as apples to apples and hoping for the same results. I think the response from the viewers in the room tonight reflected their perception of the same.
Matt in Texas @ 85:
Um sorry, yes it was Campbell I wanted to pop, and yes it was her mouth.....sorry, I'm not into girl on girl...ahem...I'm just gonna sit here til I stop blushing.
mystic @ 21:
I suspect all that will come about in the General Election.
Matt in Texas @ 90:
So you are not kidding?(be patient-I'm drinkin')
strawberrybitch @ 93:
I figured I'd make sure that was clarified. As a guy, I felt the "Heh, heh, I'D pop her in the puss" vibes oozing out over the "internet tubes" and wanted to head it off before we sexist pigs were off to the races with it. (Sigh.)
pinkobait @ 95:
No, I'm not kidding - that all actually happened!
pinkobait @ 91:
LOL, sure... anyone who doesn't like HRC must obviously hate women in general.
strawberrybitch @ 93:
but you look so good in red!
mudshark @ 99:
Ummm....still blushing.......
Tyler Durden @ 74:
strawberrybitch @ 87:
Well Heeled. What the hell does that mean.? She was middle class and earned every grade and degree on her own. Nobody handed her anything. ELITIST MY ASS!
You can read on well heeled if you understand the term, here: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-wel1.htm
Yeah, dad a successful business man, suburban upbringing, Wesley college and Yale law school, and president of the college republicans. Yup, a life long struggle for poor Hillary...
Those poor kids growing up in the ghetto have had it easy in comparison. LOL
There is a big fucking difference between earning your grades, and fighting for the opportunity to even get grades. One is expected, the other one takes actual struggle.
strawberrybitch @ 100:
lol,I was going to run with this,but nawwww.....
Tyler Durden @ 81:
Veiled? More like blatant. And you can tell he loves it.
fil @ 35:
The problem is not that he used it. The problem is that he used it as his own and did not acknowledge the author. Yes, politicians use and borrow from other works but those who don't reference them get in trouble. Just ask Biden.
Patriot Scholar @ 104:
HE...?
The Realist @ 101:
Tyler Durden @ 98:
LOL, yep, and anyone who thinks Jackie Mason is a tool must be an anti-semite - LOL
just compare this to 100 years or 10000 years of staying in Iraq.......
Tyler Durden @ 98:
Certainly not.In fact I (as a Canadian)would find it very hard to cast a vote in her favor.Having said that(here it comes right?)the unprecedented attacks on this woman (and her husband)make me sick to my stomach.The really weird thing is,these folks are not really LIBERALS.The right wing and their payed off media love to attack the Clintons as far left radicals,which on it's face is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, but isn't it only a problem when the originator of the words doesn't agree to them being used by someone else? It sounds like Obama asked for and received permission to use them. Is attribution really necessary in oration (as opposed to the written word?)
pinkobait @ 110:
That's the basis of my point upthread - both Obama and Clinton are actually moderates; the media would just not allow a true liberal like Kucinich get any air time, because he stuck it to the corporations (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox) and they don't like that.
William @ 55:
Im a Hillary supporter and i gotta say, I just blew coke out of my nose on that line.
Matt in Texas @ 112:
The Realist @ 113:
OK folks, watch your comments! Can we assume you just took a swig of a Coca-cola?
Darren @ 9:
The significance of the last moment was that she showed she's a drama queen and some gullible people somehow buy into that. Her eyes were tearing up when she saw the wounded and the injured vets. Well, gee wiz. Did it occur to her they wouldn't have been wounded had the Iraq war bill not been pushed forward by people like HER? How can someone be so gullible? She figured the tears worked in New Hampshire, they'll work again in Texas. Fake and dishonest.
Matt in Texas @ 115:
I think he meant {"Coke Classic*} :)
Matt in Texas @ 112:
Indeed, I always get a chuckle when Dems are labeled as left wing extremists by certain members of the media. In most parts of the world, the current crop of Dem candidates, with some obvious exceptions, would be considered center or center-right. I am sure, the FOX people would get a collective heart attack if they were to interact with a political ecosystem that had real left or center-left viable parties. That is why for the FOX pundits Europe is painted as some sort of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Fisher @ 116:
So...you don't feel you are reading too much into this?
That rang a little hollow to me, too. Why not bring in apple pie and baseball while you're at it?
After having watched the debate, I have to ask this question to a good many on this site "what the fuck were you watching?"
This is as bad as that bullshit that I saw today where Obama got a round of applause for blowing his goddamn nose!
I say that the media has fallen in love with Obama (with most of you falling in line) and I get jumped on.
Everyone on this site likes to say how they pay no attention to the MSM, but you are following like lemmings!
If it was Bill, you might give him a break, but Hillary, no fucking way. She commited the sin of staying with him after zippergate!
Having said the above rant, I like Obama, I really do, but I don't see him as being any great leader.
If he thinks after the election, that the Repugs are going to play nice, he's dreaming!
Obama credited the original author. all the rest is bullshit.
Obama showed himself more than capable. Hillary did raise her game and thankfully, did not go too negative. Her remark did not work in her favor. She and her husband can no longer knock Obama with false negatives. She also has gone on record that whe will support the nominee. We'll see if she give more than the tepid supoort she gave Kerry or the non-support she gave Gore. We'll see.
kevin @ 29:
Great. She can run for mother of the year award. Grasping at straws, are we?
Tyler Durden @ 98:
Anyone who makes XX jokes is a misogynist. A misogynist pretending to be angry about racism is pretty funny.
Andy @ 32:
For fucks sake, did you bother watching the debate? Obama has said over and over that the man he borrowed from has said that he can use his words. SO what's your problem?
This didn't play well for her at all. It was a a very awkward, obviously pre-conceived, line that she was waiting to roll out.
It's sad she's still trying to beat this drum. She's got so much more substance. And our base of both moderates and liberals are mostly tired, and hyper aware, of this crap. That's something I don't think the Clinton team has tipped to yet. Just how attuned our media-saavy electorate is to attempts at being manipulated by cheap lines of attack like this.
I think this will be Clinton's greatest failing in this campaign. She underestimates the intelligence and wisdom of her own base. That dumbing down works for conservatives and Republicans. It won't work for Democrats any longer.
Matt in Texas @ 111:
If you are using the "I have a Dream" speech, it is probably safe to assume that most of the world knows who the reference is. Deval Patrick is MLK. most people outside of the eastern seaboard don't know Deval Patrick from Patrick Duffy. You can't just use someone else's words as your own when you are known for your words.He should have referenced.
Speech writers are different. This is a lame argument at a dead end road. One has to assume that the words from speech writers are not words used elsewhere, such as another campaign. And those that are from other works are likely referenced in the speech.
Tyler Durden @ 118:
Traveling in Europe a few years ago (my first time,) I was amazed how certain things (i.e. medical care) that were standard, accepted fare there would have been perceived as far-left stuff here. They usually just grinned at my astonishment.
GonzoD @ 121:
Good post. I disagree with the leader comment but I'll give ya high five on the Repug comment. People need to wake up and realize that Repubs and Dems won't be holding hands just because Barack Obama is President. Once the General Election campaign starts, he's just another "tax and spend" liberal to the Right.
Tyler Durden @ 102:
That's hilarious. So she never actually earned her grades, because she didn't have to grow up black, is that it?
pinkobait @ 117:
Yeah, like the Iraqis facing American weapons of mass destruction are going to give a damn whether our politicians write their own platitudes...
King of Kings @ 6:
by whose definition if that was true george bush could not have done as much damage as he has if he were just a figurehead.
Goon @ 4:
Which CNN are you watching because I am watching CNN also and they never said such a thing!
Edwards finally gets his second round of media attention. The first was just a few weeks ago when he dropped out. Both of them had some "Edwards" in their words, but especially Hillary at the end with the "we'll be fine" statement. The debates were so much more interesting with John in them. I give this one to Barack. I think he cleaned house on Hillary but it's nothing like how he will humiliate McCain.
Paul in LA @ 124:
Not as funny as a Pelosi shill trying to deflect any criticism on Hillary and try to use the umbrella of misogyny as a shield.
... so I must run to the lab downstairs. All those geneticist who tell me plenty of XX, XY, etc. jokes must be full of self hate.
The Realist @ 131:
INTEGRITY OR HOGWASH?
After watching tonight's democratic debate,
First, Senator Obama, brushed-off the issue of plagiarism, citing that the line was given to him by a co-chair in his campaign, giving the matter an air of credibility, which it did not have.
This is a very flawed stance to take involving this issue. The President of the United States is scrutinized and every document and official statement is a part of the public record, thus making it historical and a reflection on this country.
One of the first and most important rules a student learns in academia, is the rule against plagiarism and source attribution. This keeps the status quo of dishonesty at bay and maintains the integrity of the academia and journalistic processes. At the very least, Senator Obama should have attributed his statement to the source and incorporated it eloquently into his speech. This is simply not honest or credible.
The United States of America should expect no less from its president than it does of its students, but above all, we should expect and preserve honesty in "words," especially when spoken by a future president or nominee for president.
Words not only represent ideals of the human condition but also express the integrity or dishonesty of the human condition.
This issue must not be overlooked or tread upon lightly and should beg the question of a candidates integrity, posture, and readiness to lead this country.
Paul in LA @ 60:
Bush went to Yale.
The Realist @ 137:
O.K. We'll go with that
Barack Obama is the flavor of the month, he's on a roll. I get it.
But whenever I hear him speak, I can close my eyes and picture myself in a big tent and someone is passing the collection plate. There's something about him that bothers me. Is he just too smooth or??
Paul in LA @ 130:
Keep it building tangential arguments and straw men arguments and we may end up with burning man in Manhattan.
There is a difference between being a good student and being a person who overcome adversity through a life long struggle.
gmsingh @ 69:
Fanboyism tends to cloud one's judgment. If you thought Hillary presented more substance than pure rhetoric, then my heart goes out to you.
Tyler Durden @ 136:
So you have run out of defense for your misogynist jokes followed by complaints about racism. Your bigotry goes along with your opinions, and yet you want anyone else to think they're objective. That's hilarious.
We saw who is more qualified to be President tonight in that moment:
One the one hand, we had Hillary Clinton, half-heartedly following the dictates of her advisors, trying out a lame line that got no laughs...
One the other hand, we had Barack Obama, who, with a mumbled "That's not what happened," without even looking up from his notes, basically encouraged the audience to do what their hearts were already telling them to do... boo Clinton for her lame attack.
Who was more in command? It's pretty clear. Note that Barack made the booing happen with the tiniest of responses. He in no way dignified her pre-packaged "silly" talking point.
In my mind, that 30 seconds decided who's getting the nomination. When you're down and need to strike a direct hit on the opposition, and you end up getting booed when you try it, it's time to pack it in.
Fisher @ 116:
I watched the debate in the laundry with some non-bloggers who worry about their jobs and their cousins in Iraq. They do not trust Hillary. That feeling is stronger than the dislike. Her last statement in the debate did not change anyone's mind. They want to stop being tired and angry and worried. They don't buy the hate-based fear the repugs sell, either. They want to lift their heads and look forward to SOMETHING! Obama works well for many people for those reasons.
I also know some people who won't vote at all if Hillary is the candidate. I try to tell them to USE and not waste their vote. They won't budge.
And compared to McLame's criminally corrupt conspiracy of a campaign, it is obvious that either of the two should blow the repugs and help do some damage in the House and Senate as well. We'll see.
Tyler Durden @ 142:
Yes, but being a woman in a patriarchal society doesn't involve any sort of struggle. Only poor blacks struggle.
The Realist @ 88:
EXACTLY - America, er, I mean Obamablog! YUCK!
Funny how Hillary keeps saying "Obama has speeches. I have solutions." Hillary, you keep saying those words in speeches!
She's basically saying "The other person is making promises. *I*, on the other hand, am *promising* you things!" Gee, thanks! What's the difference again?
Charlieboy @ 77:
You're both a racist and an ignorant troll. You obviously have a short attention span, or you just plain did NOT watch the debate tonight. Obama has crossed the aisle and has worked with republican senators. He even said that tonight. Better luck next time.
Paul in LA @ 86:
Actually he isn't. I think you're high or drunk on Hillarax. lol
Oregon democrat @ 141:
As opposed to Hillary Clinton. You're right to present that contrast. Surely nobody has ever accused Hillary Clinton of beiing smooth. Calculated, yes. Scripted, perhaps. But never good at it. Never smooth. What's your point again? That Hillary's not a politician, despite a lifetime in politics?
If Hils is so concerned about the wounded Iraq veterans she saw, maybe she shouldn't have voted to send them there in the first place. And btw, everyone caught the news yet that her closing speech was lifted...er, "plagiarized"...er, "Xeroxed"...from an earlier John Edwards debate closer?
You know what? Republican authoritarian scum are such zombies, it's hard to tell who in here is actually a right-wingnut attempting to sow dissension by coming in here and saying stupid things. They're like rats, these right-wingers...
Comments are closed on this entry