Hillary's Closing

I've avoided commenting on the ubiquitous YouTube comparisons to similar evocations from John Edwards and Bill Clinton for one reason: the charges of plagiarism in this context are just silly, as they were, quite frankly, when the Clinton campaign made them about Barack Obama.

The news value of the comments come from their common origin, actually. They're generally uttered when the subject recognizes the existential reality that they are mortal and that they could lose whatever contest is ahead of them.

It's kind of the opposite of saying: "I'm going to Disney Land!"

Check out these examples:

Laura Bush: 'Whatever happens will be fine' [El Paso Times, 5/19/00]
NBA Star Shaquille O'Neal: ‘We'll be fine, no matter what happens.’ [AP, 10/8/03]
Actress Lindsay Lohan: ‘No matter what happens, we're going to be fine.’ [AP, 4/19/07]
Former Redskin Dexter Manley: 'Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Washington Post, 7/26/98]
Former Redskin Gus Frerotte: 'I look forward to whatever happens. We're going to be fine.' [Washington Times, 12/22/98]
Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski: 'Whatever happens, we're going to be fine back there.' [Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski, 4/22/07]
Angels GM Bill Stoneman: 'Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Los Angeles Times, 2/22/03]
Former Giant Christian Peter: 'And whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Asbury Park Press, 1/29/01]
Chicago Cub Larry Rothschild: 'I'm not worried about that. Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [St. Petersburg Times, 4/1/01]

Comments

Come on Marc, did you really pull something from HillaryHub? The point is that Edwards ended two debates in that fashion, and all those quotes miss the meat of the quote, and that is the pivot to "the real question is are the American people going to be alright." Also, doesn't account for the almost word by word borrowing from her husband.

Posted by Ben | February 22, 2008 8:29 AM

No, Ben, you don't understand. See, her campaign isn't about words. It's about solutions. That's why she can plagiarize awkward slogans. Because she needs other people's sound bites to counter the idea that words matter. And that's change you can Xerox!

Posted by Craig | February 22, 2008 8:31 AM

You know, what you said is fair but for some reason you felt the need to post that Clinton campaign oppo insinuating that Barack Obama stole and annecdote from John Kerry in 2004, when he was JUST in Youngstown. And that the things he heard, similar to what Kerry heard, constituted plagarism. You just put the charge up and bam it was another Obama gotcha kinda momment.

Whereas when Clinton has had several momments that called to mind what others have said, it's brushed aside. The way she's appropriated Obama's campaign themes and slogans - brushed aside. In an effort to make her substantive and him a lightweight: when in reality he has offered so many proposals and similar proposals on a host of issues so that it is hard for them to find daylight.

I think you should consider how you've just essentially defended her and a bit down this blog, you simply plonk down the oppo research the Clinton team provided with no context and therefore apparent agreement.

JMHO

Posted by Rhoda | February 22, 2008 8:36 AM

How incredibly lazy. Her signature moment is stolen from her husband and Edwards. And then her stooges try to say it's okay because everybody uses that cliche. If it's such a common cliche why should we care how she uses it, Marc?

Posted by Paul | February 22, 2008 8:37 AM

Of course it's silly -- that's the point. If it hadn't been for her campaign's efforts to pin plagiarism on Obama and her feeble efforts to continue the farce last night, no one would have thought twice about her picking up themes (and words) from Edwards and her husband.

It's not her plagiarism that is sticking in cyber-craws last night and this morning, it's the sad hypocrisy that gave us the pathetic xerox line and those stunning final moments of hers in the same debate.

Nice if those final moments really do suggest a turnaround in tone, but I'll be surprised if she doesn't revert to form before the next couple of weeks are out. As comfortable and gracious as she sounded at the end of the debate last night, she also sounds full of glee and venom when she is on the attack.

I think you wrote one of the most touching tributes to her last night that I have read. I enjoy your blog, but have long noted that you have more sympathy for her than I do. I wish I could see the Hillary Clinton you see, but I have struggled to do it and I cannot.

Instead, after last night, I am caught between the sad recognition of what might have been, maybe, but also the head-shaking irony that this candidate never did find her voice.

Posted by Christine | February 22, 2008 8:41 AM

The issue is not plagiarism but hypocrisy and MSM double standards. The Clinton campaign pushed the plagiarism story and the media more than willingly ran with it. That's bad enough, but I would expect the media to hold her to this standard. It CLEARLY was a scripted moment!

Posted by Dawn | February 22, 2008 8:46 AM

Dawn,

Exactly, look how quickly Howard Wolfson sent out the press release saying this was the defining momement of the debate.

And look this stuff is silly, but:

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."

Posted by Jon | February 22, 2008 9:01 AM

Marc, Marc, I just defended you yesterday against the most extreme of the Obamavangelists, and now I feel foolish. As others have pointed out, it's the pivot to "the question is - will America be fine?" that she stole from Edwards. The argument that it's just a cliche others use when they are worried about losing applies nearly as well to Obama's line. Most candidates don't come under fire for being too good with words, but any candidate worth his salt who is pummeled for being all about words would, in some fashion, invoke the "nothing to fear" line by Roosevelt, and the Declaration of Independence, as the most concise and important examples of wordsmithing.

Posted by RaymondA | February 22, 2008 9:05 AM

On second thought, let Ambinder, Wolfson et al keep alive the argument that Obama borrows lines from friends, while Hillary's best moments don't involve plagiarism but the spouting of cliches. By my reckoning, every time Hillary acts as if the Obama YouTube is the equivalent of that 1990 DC-Mayor-Marion-Berry-Smoking-Crack-with-a-Hooker tape, she loses one more point in the polls and one more blow to her credibility as a smart and substantive person who's in politics for the right reasons.

Posted by RaymondA | February 22, 2008 9:09 AM

You know what bothers me? These words: [Obama on Cuba topic] "Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time."

I almost like Obama, but I have a deep sense that he's not really a patriot. Sound strange? I wonder about this. Truth be told: I want my President to say...we DO stand above the rest of the world. Why? Because it's our responsibility to stay there and lead the fight for national and individual freedom. This guy never says that. He's going to be too naive to handle the job internationally because he doesn't quite get it. If our President doesn't fully believe America stands above all other nations in terms of freedom, then get rid of him. The very fact that we're having this wonderful election and have the freedom to debate openly--makes me proud.

Obama--America does stand above and I hope it always will. If you want to talk about the world, go to the UN and be Secretary General (not a bad idea, actually).

Posted by Leigh | February 22, 2008 9:26 AM

I will vote for Obama in the fall, but the unending nastiness and self-righteousness of his supporters is just disgusting.

They completely overlook the fact that Hillary effectively took one for the team last night and ended all the damaging speculation in the media that her campaign will try to destroy the party in order to secure the nomination.

She had her chances to jump all over Obama's butt yesterday and took a pass.

Learn to be a little gracious in victory. Hillary looks a thousand times better than any of you.

Posted by Teresa | February 22, 2008 9:32 AM

I've avoided commenting on the ubiquitous YouTube comparisons to similar evocations from John Edwards and Bill Clinton for one reason: the charges of plagiarism in this context are just silly, as they were, quite frankly, when the Clinton campaign made them about Barack Obama.

But that didn't stop you from commenting on the "silly" charges against Obama, did it.

Posted by TIGHT | February 22, 2008 9:36 AM

I will vote for Obama in the fall, but the unending nastiness and self-righteousness of his supporters is just disgusting. They completely overlook the fact that Hillary effectively took one for the team last night and ended all the damaging speculation in the media that her campaign will try to destroy the party in order to secure the nomination. She had her chances to jump all over Obama's butt yesterday and took a pass. Learn to be a little gracious in victory. Hillary looks a thousand times better than any of you.

Fundamentally, the issue I have is with Marc Ambinder and how he didn't hold Clinton to the standard that she has held Obama. And while I thought Clinton had a great close last night that I think , actually, was really effective in pulling support to her, her team is the one that pushed the plagarism idea. And it was remarkably false argument with little basis and was widely reported as credible - a standard which a lot of politicians would find issue with frankly. I don't think it's petty to point this out. HRC is STILL in this campaign and still fighting the good fight.

I don't think pointing out this double standard is nasty.

Posted by Rhoda | February 22, 2008 9:45 AM

As others on this thread have noted, the point was that after pushing the b-s plagarism charged HARD all week (and in the debate), to close on a statement that effectively borrowed HEAVILY from John Edwards and her husband is the height of hypocrisy.

This campaign, unfortunately, isn't happening in a vacuum. And a candidate demanding purity in public speeches and statements, must adhere to the standard they've articulated or be called (rightly so) a hypocrite.

Posted by Keith | February 22, 2008 9:47 AM

This is getting ridiculous. I need to take a break from Ambinder. He's obviously having a hard time dealing with the reality that she's lost the nomination. While he's always tried to keep his bias in check, it's clearly too much for him at this point and he just can't help himself.

Posted by evie | February 22, 2008 9:47 AM

Why the hell would she plagiarize Gus Frerotte? It doesn't MAKE ANY SENSE.

Posted by norbizness | February 22, 2008 9:48 AM

Other posters have said it more ably than I'm able to, but you utterly miss the point, Marc.

Of course the charges of plagiarism are silly. But gosh, that didn't seem to stop Hillary and her minions (paid and unpaid) from pressing that charge with great gusto. Thank god the Xerox line bombed utterly, or I have a feeling we'd be hearing much more about it going forward.

After Hillary's spent a month, or longer, intimating that she'll win the nomination at any means necessary, I don't see why 45 seconds of borrowed words, and evident emotion (albeit not only on cue, but set up with the same words as the last big emotional incident) means that Hillary is prepared to go gracefully into the night. I, quite frankly, don't buy it.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 10:03 AM

Noone said the issue was the plagiarism. It was silly when she accused Obama of it and it is sill to accuse her of it.

THE ISSUE IS HYPOCRISY ! And the extent to which her quote is similar to Edwards' is much more extensive than just the "Whatever happens I will be fine".

Posted by Benjamin | February 22, 2008 10:08 AM

The only reason it is an issue is because Hillary brought up the plagarism issue herself in the debate, only to then 10 minutes later do the exact same thing she accused Obama of doing. If hillary never brought up this plagarism stuff then I wouldn't have cared, but now she's just looking like a hypocrit.

Posted by michael | February 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by FOR THE LOVE OF OUR COUNTRY | February 22, 2008 10:20 AM

It's the hypocracy, stupid.

Posted by brad | February 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Look, if I want to listen to yet ANOTHER Clinton apologist, I have so many more places to go.

Hypocrisy is not classy, neither is slandering your opponent to their face. I'd rather we as a party can rise above GOP-type tactics, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

In any case, I think I'm done listening to Marc. Your objectivity is gone and so am I.

Posted by John, Las Vegas, NV | February 22, 2008 10:34 AM

I'm pretty horrified to see Obama supporters jumping on the attack bandwagon over this.

These plagiarism charges are ridiculous and petty. I felt a lot better about our side (I'm very much for Obama) before I began reading all these vitriolic comments from my fellow supporters. Let's take the high road on this, fellow Democrats.

Political speech works in and through common themes. Did people cry "plagiarism" when Jesus quoted Davidic psalms when dying on the cross? ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" is a quotation from the beginning of Psalm 22.)

Let's drop this pettiness on both sides. Remember: we're going to be part of one coalition very soon.

Posted by Nate | February 22, 2008 10:54 AM

Both my wife and I are strong Obama supporters, but watching the debate last night we both looked at each toher and said, almost simulataneously, that we would be happy with either of them in the White House.

We also said her last statement was great. I know that it has been pointed out that she lifted some of it from Bill and some from Edwards. And maybe it does represent some hypocrisy. I just hope that nobody from the Obama campaign staff makes it an issue.

However, and I have been trying to verify this, at some point last night, sorting through many different threads, someone pointed out that s/he was at the event Clinton alluded to and said that Clinton and that all the wounded soldiers were already in place so she could not have seen them enter. Since this was the real emotional part of her statement, I am wondering, if this is true, why she didn't just talk about being at an event and seeing the wounded, but had to make a special point about seeing them enetr when she really didn't.

Granted it can just be for effect, and I am not slamming her for it, but I am curious so if anybody can figure out a way to confirm what I read please let me know.

Again, that being said, neither my wife nor myself will have any problem supporting her for the Presidency if somehow or other she ends up being the nominee.

Posted by John but not from Las Vegas | February 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Nate, I agree with you entirely. This whole plagiarism thing was a non-issue from the start, and it needs to stop now, starting with Obama supporters.

A commenter above, Teresa, said: "They completely overlook the fact that Hillary effectively took one for the team last night and ended all the damaging speculation in the media that her campaign will try to destroy the party in order to secure the nomination.

She had her chances to jump all over Obama's butt yesterday and took a pass.

Learn to be a little gracious in victory. Hillary looks a thousand times better than any of you."

I would simply note that Hillary Clinton held a press conference this morning making it clear she still intends to fight tooth and nail to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. So no, I am not convinced she took one for the team. Rather, I am even more convinced that she made a conciliatory gesture during the debate, only to get back to the scorched-earth tactics this morning.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php

Posted by south side | February 22, 2008 11:04 AM

Let's just see if the Clinton camp drops plagiarism from their talking points. If they dare bring it back up they deserve to be hoisted on their own petards.
The same goes for her saying that Obama is not qualified or ready to be president. She didn't have the nerve to make the claim to his face so she needs to drop the charge.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 22, 2008 11:32 AM

This site's up for an award?

Hmm.

Posted by Kevin | February 22, 2008 11:33 AM

Here's the difference.

If a politician is going to deliver a speech defending the power of words and defend his use of rhetoric as a substitute for experience, then perhaps those words ought to be original. At least that one time. Or if not original, at least not a verbatim quote without attribution.

I've said before I don't think it was "plagiarism"... he clearly had permission from his own campaign co-chair to employ those lines. The question it raises is more about his authenticity as a candidate. Could we just as well be nominating Deval Patrick for the nomination?

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:16 PM

"Solutions you can Xerox, ready to plagiarize on Day One!"

Posted by J Norman | February 22, 2008 1:39 PM

I'm glad that slowly people are comming to realize that John Edwards was and still the best candidate to be presdent. both hillary and obama are fly by nights that can't think, speak or look like a president. Obama vs McCain, McCain goes to the White House, and 2012 the fight begins with Edwards and Clinton, and this time Edwards wins.
I cross my fingers.

Posted by tony sacco | February 22, 2008 3:38 PM

tony:

Do you think Clinton will run again if Obama loses? She may not have the support since a lot of people are saying she ran a terrible campaign this time around.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:55 PM

Tim K, I think she'll have an awful lot of trouble running again. The revelations about her spending is going to hurt her with donors, and what looked like her main assets going into this contest (air of inevitability, large African-American support, massive institutional support) are not going to be there on a second go-round. If she couldn't win this year, it's just hard to see how she could ever win.

Of course, she hasn't actually lost quite yet....

Posted by NoahB | February 22, 2008 10:32 PM

"I am honored to be here with Barack Obama ... whatever happens, we're going to be fine. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people." -Hillary Clinton

Again, Hillary Clinton will be fine. She’s just worried about us, the American people. Without her, what does happen to us? According to Hillary, the American people are down to their last Clinton. Well, their last chance to nominate a couple of Clintons, again. The problem with Hillary is that Hillary, is Hillary. She's got balls as big as your head. I’ve got no problem with being ready on day one, it’s what happens on day two that worries me: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 22, 2008 11:00 PM

I don't think Americans care if politicians lift lines, but they care if they’re hypocrites about it.

Hillary stressed the importance of using one's own words and then she lifts lines 30 minutes later! Howard Wolfson, Hillary’s communication manager, considers it's OK for Hillary to lift lines because she is selling action not words. I think her action was hypocritical, but America will be the judge on March 4th.

The positive takeaway from these lifting incidents that we all should be emphasizing is that people immediately recognized Hillary's Xerox moments tonight, which indicates they are listening to what all the candidates are saying.

Posted by Nancy Watson | February 23, 2008 12:41 AM

So everyone thinks we should elevate the conversation here...in light of the *great moment* by HRC? Sure...

How about we get some fact checking on the so called universal health plan the Clintons will fight to the death for?

Their plan is about health INSURANCE, not health care for starters.

Their plan is based on evening out the risk pool for PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES so those companies can retain their PROFIT margins.

They will force us to buy a private FOR-PROFIT product or they'll fine us or garnish our wages?

Is that even constitutional?

There is no comparison between government programs like SS and Medicare and their plan. The government programs collect taxes to direct pay retirement income and health CARE providers.

The government programs cut out the FOR-PROFIT middleman.

Mandates to ensure FOR-PROFIT companies a return will never fly with Congress or the American people. We will not get health care system reform so long as the Clintons are stomping their feet that they will FIGHT for it tooth and claw, and it will be another 20 years before we get resolution.

They also DO NOT bring anything close to universal insurance, let alone universal health care.

You want that, expand Medicare for all and eliminate all the other health programs the government offers.

So please...let's not talk about this stoogy * plagerism nonsense.

Let's DO talk about the candidates words and examine what it is they are advocating.

Or is that to tough a job Marc?

Posted by G Davis | February 23, 2008 2:21 AM

This post is in direct response to the previous post by Leigh on patriotism (or Obama's lack of it). Many Americans fail to see the distinction between patriotism and ethnocentrism and, thus, the message Obama is trying to send. What exactly entitles an American to think that the U.S. stands above the rest of the world and it has the right to impose its values and beliefs upon others? Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Democracy and individual freedom, as well as many other principles, are esteemed to such an extent in this country that it has been taken for granted that every other country simply should observe it, as the Americans do, without question. That's called ARROGANCE. Who is to say that, for example, demoracy is superior to sovereignty on absolute terms and it will work and should be enforced in any culture, any religious beliefs, and any ethnic groups? Christianity superior to Islam? How would an American like to be told what to do and how to live? The desire to do so to others would be an act of HYPOCRICY.

Foreign policies which are not based on respect and the willingness to treat other countries as equals will NOT work. Unfortunately, Clinton, McCain, and most politicians are too arrogant and blinded by their own ignorance to even understand it.

Posted by Joy | February 24, 2008 5:22 AM