When Plagiarism Isn't Plagiarism

Our political conversation is not subject to a copyright, thank goodness, and the controversy over whether Barack Obama borrowed a phrase or two from his friend, the governor of Massachusetts, is silly. (It was silly and unfair to Joe Biden in 1988, too. History, and John Sasso, have wronged Mr. Biden here.)

Using the standard that finds an objection in what Obama did, every politician owes residuals to the corps of political pollsters who created the library of platitudinous phrases that so often comprise the average stump speech. "In the end, it's about the children." "This election is about the future, not the past."

The best speakers tend to appropriate and expand; Obama's speeches pay tribute to the entire Kennedy family (and to the Sorensenian/Shrumian influences on their rhetoric); to Martin Luther King and to Barbara Jordan, ("Are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation?"), to Calvinist preachers; to Jesse Jackson, to Cicero and Aristotle.

Nonetheless, Obama's speeches are more original, more authorial, more persuasive than any of his competitors.

The Clinton campaign seems to have a different motive. Obama, as Howard Fineman had said, occasionally seems to be "caught up in his own words" -- forgetting his mortality and ascending, briefly, to the heights of messiahdom . His appeal in such instances is very narrow.

By pointing the laser at Obama's words, and by pointing out how they aren't perfectly original, they are making an argument about the distinction between rhetoric and government. A benefit accrues to Clinton when the political conversation turns to whether Obama is real or not; that raises about questions about the substance of an Obama presidency, something the media has begun to, however gingerly, obsess over. (Does Obama privilege "style" over "substance," Matt Lauer asked this morning in his Today cold open.)

Having essentially conceded the argument that Obama is more inspirational than Clinton is, Clinton is asking, here, what, in the end, does inspiration (which is ephemeral and borrowable) have to do with solving problems?

Clinton might well (but would never) make the point that Deval Patrick's gubernatorial tenure has not been a smooth ride on I-93.

Comments

Of course, if Clinton hadn't appropriated some of Obama's turns of phrase, as well as his overarching 'change' theme, she wouldn't appear so hypocritical here.

Posted by Michael J. | February 19, 2008 8:41 AM

But didn't Biden appropriate someone else's personal stories about his family as his own? That just seemed bizarre at the time. While I agree with your broader point, I thought Jame Fallows had a better discussion on this here:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/on_plagiarism.php

Finally, what makes you think that Clinton won't play up any problems with Patrick's gubernatorial tenure, or is the hope in all this that you will?

Posted by Kevin Miller | February 19, 2008 8:47 AM

I agree with Marc. Or to put it more pithily, the Clintons want to portray Obama as all talk and no walk. This plagiarism allegation is a neat way of keeping the media focused on Obama's words, and thus the perception that he's just a cloud of rhetoric. In my view he shouldn't still be embarking on riffs about how wonderful words are. He should leave that stuff behind.

This little trick might swing last-minute deciders behind HRC in Wisconsin. Though in my view, a Clinton win there might not be bad for Obama at all:

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | February 19, 2008 8:53 AM

I agree with Marc. Or to put it more pithily, the Clintons want to portray Obama as all talk and no walk. This plagiarism allegation is a neat way of keeping the media focused on Obama's words, and thus the perception that he's just a cloud of rhetoric. In my view he shouldn't still be embarking on riffs about how wonderful words are. He should leave that stuff behind. It's self-indulgent now.

This little trick might swing last-minute deciders behind HRC in Wisconsin. Though in my view, a Clinton win there might not be bad for Obama at all:

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | February 19, 2008 8:54 AM

When will the media stop rewarding BS as a political tactic?

And, please, please find the recent video of Hillary saying "politics is not a game... It's not about who's up and who's down..." Lines lifted even more directly than the examples the Obama campaign cited yesterday.

Again, when will the media stop rewarding BS as a political tactic?

Posted by Vermonter | February 19, 2008 9:09 AM

I agree that the Obama/plagiarism thing is overblown -- but I can't even _begin_ to understand your assertion that the Joe "I think I have a bigger IQ than you" Biden/plagiarism thing was overblown. I think your colleage Fallows called that one out exactly right. Why do you think the media was unfair to Biden on plagiarism?

Posted by Sanjay | February 19, 2008 9:31 AM

And Hillary was cribbing from Edwards speeches. ABC News even admitted as such last night(though with clenched teeth). In the past few weeks, Hillary has been stealing lines from Edwards' speeches of a few months ago.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 19, 2008 10:00 AM

I don't think it means he'll be a bad president. But I also don't think its so overblown. It's completely ridiculous. It's embarassing. I'd sure as hell feel embarassed if I was taking words from a famous recent speech from another politician and deliverying them in front of an audience while letting the audience conclude those were his thoughts.

I watched the side by side video. He practically quoted (butchered actually) the Gov's word for word, but was happy to let everyone assume he thought it up. The Gov did a much much better job of delivery.

Posted by sam | February 19, 2008 10:50 AM

If Hillary is going to push bogus charges such as this, Obama needs to start hitting her where it hurts, starting with the whole competence issue. Hillary is right. It's not just words that matter. And the way she has run her campaign -- not planning at all for a fight post Feb. 5, not understanding the rules of Texas, and screwing up the Pa. delegates -- speaks to an administration that would be chaotic. My question to the Obama campaign is, where are your surrogates?

Posted by NHCt | February 19, 2008 11:32 AM

Thank the lord, Marc. It is silly. VERY silly. Beyond silly.

Posted by Russell | February 19, 2008 11:42 AM

First of all, Duval and Barack are friends and Duval suggested the phrase. Second, he has credited Duval with the words in other stump speeches.

Third of all, letting Clinton create this false dichotomy between "words" and "action" lets her camp paper over the fact that she is worse on BOTH.

Posted by dbt | February 19, 2008 11:44 AM

Clinton talks about getting Real as she hurls False Charges at Obama. Just because Obama used a few lines from a political advisor and friend for a speech, something that is common in the Senate and in Political Discourse, Clinton Camp hollers Plagiarism, which by definition means you are stealing someone else's words or lines without their knowledge, which is a very serious Charge. Is that her Solution to make this false charge and minor issue into something it's not, to offer more Spin and Illusion, when they know full well exactly what it was and and what it is, and because they too are guilty of the same thing, this borrowing of lines, which in political discourse is common practice.

Her get-real solution to this simple act, is to insult the intelligence of everyday average, citizens by these FALSE CHARGES, distorting the situation, which is total Hypocrisy, because they too have done the same thing and are doing it NOW.

They should apologize to the Country, for turning away from being so-called Real, as she likes to say, to throwing out these kind of false charges of Slime, Distortion and Illusion into the public discourse, trying to muddy the waters, cloud the issues -- to Change Reality! If you are going to raise doubts about an opponent, it should be about real facts and not about illusions -- about truth and not about falsity. And Words Do Matter, Words are Not Cheap!

Clinton says she has Solutions but the Solution she offered, when it really mattered to millions of lives of young people and to our country, was the Solution and Authorization to go to War --the Iraq War, which was the most Important Policy Decision of Our Times. Her 35 years of experience didn't get it Right then, and that speaks Volumes.....

They say Barack has no experience in public service and does not offer solutions. Here are a list of some of Barack Obama's accomplishments: During first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included: **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all Barack Obama has Over 20 Years of Public Service and has offered many solutions on health care, global warming, the Iraq War, college tuition grant to students, education reform, the re-building of our infrastructure and much more.

Posted by Angellight | February 19, 2008 11:44 AM

As a school teacher I fail to see the difference between what Obama did with Deval Patrick's speech and what we try and try and try to help students understand is wrong.
Patrick's speech was not an idea but an actual passage already delivered and attributed to him.
it was not a catch phrase such as Obama lamely know suggests Hillary has taken from him (getting fired up? that's not original enough to be anything but an existing cliche)
Moreover, it is the rhetorical flourish that Obama's remarks were built around, it was the passage meant to persuade and dispute. It was the part meant to get on the news, and win the news cycle.
The answer from Obama amounts to, 'what is a little plagarism between friends?' does not excuse unattributed borrowing. When kids do this with papers and school work the excuse is often the same but it is still actionable and it is very wrong. he mislead his audience. He took without attribution. he misrepresented himself with the borrowed structure of someone elses words. and he did it very nearly word for word.
Kids fail for this same kind of plagarism.
And only biased people would excuse away such behavior.

Posted by Michael C. | February 19, 2008 11:54 AM

I think Clinton is reaching for anything she can go after Obama on. I also feel there is a little envy involved as well.
Afterall, isn't her husband a known inspirational speaker who basically inspired voters in the early 90s?
She was never more than a passable speaker at her best and then, she tends to sound much like all politicians.
Aside from that, it's sad she has gone to the silly on her attacks. Maybe if she expended as much time on just campaigning and selling her candidacy to the people as she does on scheming and attacking she might be doing better.

Posted by vwcat | February 19, 2008 11:56 AM

How many permutations does the structure allow?

1. You can (1) walk the walk and (2) talk the talk.
2. You can (1) walk the walk and (2) NOT talk the talk.
3. You can (1) NOT walk the walk and (2) talk the talk.
4. You can (1) NOT walk the walk and (2) NOT talk the talk.

Hillary is presenting Obama as #3. She is presenting herself as #2. But, judging from his legislative record and the quality of his campaign, Obama is a #1; and judging from Hillary's record and her campaign, she is a #4.

Posted by wj | February 19, 2008 1:09 PM

Good post, Marc. Just one minor point: our political conversation IS subject to copyright. While most cases of appropriation in a political context will never in a million years reach litigation (and would likely be a strong case for a fair use exception), they are still subject to copyright law. For instance, the MLK "I Have a Dream" speech is still copyrighted, and has actually been vigorously protected by the MLK estate.

Posted by Andrew | February 19, 2008 1:41 PM

The media gave Hillary a huge pass on her NH election-eve "Night of Tears" speech. And rightly so, since no one at that time was stooping so low as to call a borrowed phrase "plagiarism."

Hillary needs to apologize. Whether the tears were real or orchestrated, we now know one thing:
The words she uttered and teared-up to were NOT her own words, but those of John Edwards from the day before.

Now that Hillary made plagiarism a major issue, the media has found several instances where she swiped whole sections from her husband's professionally-written speeches.

But once again, the rules are for everyone but Hillary. Her campaign spokesman "...dismissed that comparison. 'Husbands and wives, sharing similar ideas, is a far cry from two politicians using the same poll-tested rhetoric of the same political consultant.' "

EXCUSE ME??? When Hillary "borrows" the key elements of Bill's professionally-written inauguration speech, aren't Hillary and Bill "two politicians using the same political consultant?" Or, as her campaign spokesman is now implying, we really are expected to accept them as the one-person Billary? Pick one, but not both.

Posted by David Martin | February 19, 2008 2:01 PM

To the school teacher above: use this as an opportunity to teach your students about acceptable use. Patrick was an advisor to the Obama campaign, and had a hand in writing speeches, and the language was used with expressed permission, hence, it wasn't wrong or unethical. You could contrast this with Biden's inappropriate use of Kinnock's personal stories without knowledge or permission. In this way, your students will gain a nuanced understanding of copyright laws. You could also explain that if a student steals another's paper it's plaigairism, but if one student openly works with another it's collaboration. These distinctions are key to understanding intellectual rights.

Posted by also a teacher | February 19, 2008 2:37 PM

To the school teacher above: use this as an opportunity to teach your students about acceptable use. Patrick was an advisor to the Obama campaign, and had a hand in writing speeches, and the language was used with expressed permission, hence, it wasn't wrong or unethical. You could contrast this with Biden's inappropriate use of Kinnock's personal stories without knowledge or permission. In this way, your students will gain a nuanced understanding of copyright laws. You could also explain that if a student steals another's paper it's plaigairism, but if one student openly works with another it's collaboration. These distinctions are key to understanding intellectual rights.

Posted by also a teacher | February 19, 2008 2:37 PM

The audacity of the Clinton campaign on this issus is breathtaking, and infuriating. She was the one who, only last month, spoke about campaigning in poetry but "you govern in prose." That line turned out to be Mario Cuomo's, from years ago. She passed it off as her own.

Posted by EW | February 19, 2008 3:09 PM

I second the post by also a teacher.

When questions concerning quotation, attribution, and plagiarism arise it's more intellectually rewarding and morally serious to look at specifics and not generalities. The lines that Obama and Patrick are using in common amount to a line of argument for a particular candidate (Obama in this case). Political arguments and causes have used common rhetorical flourishes and tag-lines and slogans for centuries. To apply the standards and criteria of a school term paper to a political campaign is just an error in thinking; a common line of political argument/case-making is not the same as a term paper written for a class. Contexts, particulars, and nuances matter; indignation against an abstraction called "plagiarism" doesn't seem particularly helpful or clear here.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | February 19, 2008 4:00 PM

should be 'than any of his competitors'', no?

recommended reading: chapter on plagiarism in Christopher Ricks's Allusion to the Poets; various essays by Kenneth Burke.

Posted by M | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM

To another teacher and Mortimer Peacock:

I can borrow words from a friend with his permission or an understanding can exist between him and I and that agreement can be spoken or unspoken AND YET that is not a valid excuse to those I speak those words to. He mislead us. He failed to make the attribution to a pre-existing speech to us who he is trying to persuade that he is different. Patrick can't give him permission to not be honest to us. A speech is fixed in a moment in time and must be properly mentioned, Deval is not a paid speech writer here and this isn't a clintonesque theme: its the packed punch of a previous speech by someone else spoken by a candidate for political gain: it is not different than what drives plagarism in schools by students at all. It was built to mislead the intended audience and gain merit for the plagariser.
Political speech is not different. We can reference famous themes, we can respond to them, we can update them but we can't claim them as our own without attribution even if it's our friend's work, even if we wrote them for our friend and let the words be publicly attributed to him.
Remember he used these words to win his race in Mass.

Posted by Michael C | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM

Oh, baloney! Obama PERFORMED a whole speech (at least -- if the Democratic "leadership" is corrupt enough to nominate him, the Republicans will let us know the rest LATER).

Call it "channelling", if you don't care for "plagiarism" -- either way, in his speeches AND in his writing, Obama's a made-up "phenomenon", a roadshow. The most attractive thing about him, aside from the coffee-colored birthday suit, is that he appeals to rich white liberals' self-congratulatory substitution of "diversity" for actual politics.

The Kennedys' incomprehensibly-mawkish merchandising aside, why a "post-partisan" should be running as a DEMOCRAT is a bit of a mystery anyway, along with why non-Democrats have been drafted to vote for the Democratic Party nominee.//

Posted by @T | February 19, 2008 5:46 PM

Michael C,
Once you understand that all national politicians use uncredited speech writers, and that Deval Patrick and Obama are old friends, who have credited each other in previous speeches, then it becomes not a matter of plagiarism (there was permission) but, at worst, a lack of attribution. If you're teaching students that there is no difference between this and plagiarism, you aren't teaching copyright law. Finally, since Obama credited Patrick just one week before in another speech, there's no case for dishonesty, or attempting to mislead, and no ethical lapse, only a lapse of memory at worst.

Posted by another teacher | February 19, 2008 9:44 PM

Kennedy said it is okay if Obama uses anything from this speech:

My fellow citizens;

I have requested this opportunity to talk to the people of Massachusetts about the tragedy which happened last Friday evening. This morning I entered a plea of guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. Prior to my appearance in court it would have been improper for me to comment on these matters. But tonight I am free to tell you what happened and to say what it means to me.

On the weekend of July 18, I was on Martha's Vineyard Island participating with my nephew, Joe Kennedy -- as for thirty years my family has participated -- in the annual Edgartown Sailing Regatta. Only reasons of health prevented my wife from accompanying me.

On Chappaquiddick Island, off Martha's Vineyard, I attended, on Friday evening, July 18, a cook-out, I had encouraged and helped sponsor for devoted group of Kennedy campaign secretaries. When I left the party, around 11:15 P.M., I was accompanied by one of these girls, Miss Mary Jo Kopechne. Mary J was one of the most devoted members of the staff of Senator Robert Kennedy. She worked for him for four years and was broken up over his death. For this reason, and because she was such a gentle, kind, and idealistic person, all of us tried to help her feel that she still had a home with the Kennedy family.

maryjokopechne.jpg (4066 bytes) Mary Jo Kopechne

There is no truth, no truth whatever, to the widely circulated suspicions of immoral conduct that have been leveled at my behavior and hers regarding that evening. There has never been a private relationship between us of any kind. I know of nothing in Mary Jo's conduct on that or nay other occasion -- the same is true of the other girls at that party -- that would lend any substance to such ugly speculation about their character.

Nor was I driving under the influence of liquor.

Little over one mile away, the car that I was driving on the unlit road went off a narrow bridge which had no guard rails and was built on a left angle to the road. The car overturned in a deep pond and immediately filled with water. I remember thinking as the cold water rushed in around my head that I was for certain drowning. Then water entered my lungs and I actual felt the sensation of drowning. But somehow I struggled to the surface alive.

I made immediate and repeated efforts to save Mary Jo by diving into strong and murky current, but succeeded only in increasing my state of utter exhaustion and alarm. My conduct and conversations during the next several hours, to the extent that I can remember them, make no sense to me at all.

Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either in the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.

Instead of looking directly for a telephone after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, I walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin, Joseph Gargan and Phil Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me -- this was sometime after midnight -- in order to undertake a new effort to dive down and locate Miss Kopechne. Their strenuous efforts, undertaken at some risk to their own lives also proved futile.

All kinds of scrambled thoughts -- all of them confused, some of them irrational, many of them which I cannot recall, and some of which I would not have seriously entertained under normal circumstances -- went through my mind during this period. They were reflected in the various inexplicable, inconsistent, and inconclusive things I said and did, including such questions as whether the girl might still be alive somewhere out of that immediate area, whether some awful curse did actually hang over all the Kennedys, whether there was some justifiable reason for me to doubt what has happened and to delay my report, whether somehow the awful weight of this incredible incident might, in some way, pass from my shoulders. I was overcome, I'm frank to say, by a jumble of emotions, grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion and shock.

Instructing Gargan and Markham not to alarm Mary Jo's friends that night, I had them take me to the ferry crossing. The ferry having shut down for the night, I suddenly jumped into the water and impulsively swam across, nearly drowning once again in the effort, and returned to my hotel about 2 A.M. and collapsed in my room.

I remember going out at one point and saying something to the room clerk.

In the morning, with my mind somewhat more lucid, I made an effort to call a family legal advisor, Burke Marshall, from a public telephone on the Chappaquiddick side of the ferry and belatedly reported the accident to the Martha's Vineyard police.

Today, as I mentioned, I felt morally obligated to plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. No words on my part can possibly express the terrible pain and suffering I feel over this tragic incident. This last week has been an agonizing one for me and for the members of my family, and the grief we feel over the loss of a wonderful friend will remain with us the rest of our lives.

These events, the publicity, innuendo, and whispers which have surrounded them and my admission of guilt this morning raises the question in my mind of whether my standing among the people of my state has been so impaired that I should resign my seat in the United States Senate. If at any time the citizens of Massachusetts should lack confidence in their Senator's character or his ability, with or without justification, he could not in my opinion adequately perform his duty and should not continue in office.

The people of this State, the State which sent John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner, and Henry Cabot Lodge, and John Kennedy to the United States Senate are entitled to representation in that body by men who inspire their utmost confidence. For this reason, I would understand full well why some might think it right for me to resign. For me this will be a difficult decision to make.

It has been seven years since my first election to the Senate. You and I share many memories -- some of them have been glorious, some have been very sad. The opportunity to work with you and serve Massachusetts has made my life worthwhile.

And so I ask you tonight, the people of Massachusetts, to think this through with me. In facing this decision, I seek your advice and opinion. In making it, I seek your prayers -- for this is a decision that I will have finally to make on my own.

It has been written a man does what he must in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, and dangers, and pressures, and that is the basis of human morality. Whatever may be the sacrifices he faces, if he follows his conscience -- the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man -- each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of the past courage cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.

I pray that I can have the courage to make the right decision. Whatever is decided and whatever the future holds for me, I hope that I shall have been able to put this most recent tragedy behind me and make some further contribution to our state and mankind, whether it be in public or private life.

Thank you and good night.

Posted by blake | February 20, 2008 1:54 PM