Tuesday, February 19, 2008

How Original is Obama?


You've heard the talk about Obama lifing entire passages of a speech from Deval Patrick. We know he's been parroting talking points from the Clinton campaign for a while now. But there is a new wrinkle to this story. It seems Obama has also been "borrowing" ideas from John Edwards.

From Taylor Marsh:

No doubt John Edwards can sympathize with Clinton today. Obama's ripoffs are real.

Just recently, Barack Obama was accused of "stealing" Hillary Clinton's economic plan.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."
Sun-Times: Obama takes hit on economic policy - Campaign's a ripoff of Clinton's, her supporters, McCain adviser maintains.

It's hardly a first.

Edwards said Obama was using stolen ideas:

Edwards’s campaign also blasted Obama for parroting the former senator in a foreign policy speech he gave Tuesday in which he said he wanted to work towards ending nuclear proliferation. They said the senator has followed Edwards on a number of issues this campaign year, including healthcare, poverty and now nuclear proliferation.

“If you need any more proof that John Edwards is shaping the race for the Democratic nomination, you don’t need to look any further than Senator Obama, who has followed Edwards’s lead on healthcare, poverty and, today, eliminating nuclear weapons,” Murray said in an e-mail to The Hill. “Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels.”

Obama copies line from Edwards 2003 announcement speech. "For months, Obama has been telling crowds, 'I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.' Edwards gave a similar spin to his short political resume when he announced his candidacy in September 2003, declaring, 'I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change it.'"

Obama borrows from Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards on Obama:

In the Aug. issue of Progressive magazine Elizabeth Edwards goes so far as to call Obama an outright copycat, accusing him of "lifting her husband's best lines." E. Edwards: "You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it. They've moved from 'hope is on the way' to 'the audacity of hope.' I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone."

... ... Edwards: "We are not the party of Washington insiders. We are the party of the people, and so from this day forward we say no -- no forever to the money from Washington lobbyists."

The only difference -- Obama beat him to it that day, towing the same anti-lobbyist line at an earlier event that day in central Iowa. Obama: "We've got to have a president in the White House who sets bold targets and sets broad goals and isn't intimidated by the barriers and the roadblocks and isn't driven by those who already have an investment in the status quo - somebody who can overcome the lobby-driven, divisive politics that characterizes this issue."

Meanwhile, back at the labor forum, Obama used another token Edwardian statement: "We need a president…who is not afraid to mention unions."
Would "borrow" make the Obama fans feel better?
Good grief ...

21 comments:

Sue J said...

Good grief is right! Is ANYthing about this guy sincere?!

Mary Ellen said...

It doesn't matter because his supporters will give excuses for everything he says and does, just like the Bush supporters who think he's still doing a good job. Remember all the times we heard excuses about the economy? They blamed 9/11...Bill Clinton's so-called recession that he handed to them...you name it. It will be the same with Obama supporters. In fact, they'll probably blame Clinton instead of Bush. I feel like I'm living in another universe where up is down and down is up.

Anonymous said...

There's an expression that was in vogue a few years back to express my reaction to this news:

"Oh no you didn't!!!!"

Of course it sounds better coming from Wanda Sykes's lips, but you get what I'm saying.

Thanks for posting this....

dguzman said...

I'm working on a post on the very idea that ME expressed in her comment. All I'll say here is that I still don't understand why people are supporting this empty suit they call Obama. The guy has NOTHING but a nice speaking voice.

Mary Ellen said...

dguzman

The guy has NOTHING but a nice speaking voice.

Now that's not true...he also has a mansion in Chicago that he got a sweet deal on from Rezko. That's something isn't it? ;-)

The scary thing is that I'm afraid his cult following may be too strong to reverse. They don't want to hear the facts or criticism, they only want you to chant his name and cry when he speaks. I think it may be too late. :-(

John J. said...

Where are the quotes he took from Edwards? Sharing ideas is going to happen - they share the same party so I would expect them all to share the same general plans. Obama beat Edwards to the lobbying reform by about 12 years, he started it in his time in state legislature.

I have already addressed the economic plan, but just to drive it home - IT IS NOT CLINTON'S PLAN EITHER. It is a Hagel/Dodd bill. Did she steal it from them?

Again I want to point out that he had many of these policies on his site for the past 6 months and greater (depending on the policy). He started work on mortgage fraud protections TWO YEARS ago.

THERE ARE NO NEW IDEAS. Clinton was completely anit-"change", until Obama started winning on that message. Do you criticize her for moving her message to that? I don't. I will say she doesn't know what she is talking about when she parrots about change, but I don't think she is stealing it from Obama.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing good ideas. Many of the problems we face now are due to the fact that our current president won't use a better idea because the other party came up with it first. Is that what we want from our next president too?

Should Clinton and Obama both cite each quote in their speeches?

What the real question needs to be is, who will better be able to get these things accomplished to the betterment of the American public? Someone who has worked for decades both on the streets and in the halls of power and has been able to work closely with people on both sides to get jobs for the jobless (during his time as an organizer), health care for those without(Illinois state legislature), and reduce the voice of lobbyists(state and national Senates), or someone reviled by Republicans who has a history of back room deals (HillaryCare), drug plans that amount to a hand out to pharmaceutical companies (Medicare Part D - no negotiations on drug prices), and regular bowing to other special interests like AIPAC (Iraq, Iran)?

If you want to talk about facts Mary Ellen, you need to start looking at them yourself. In the Rezko thing, Obama bought a mansion from a third party that was selling a neighboring piece of land at the same time. Rezko, who happened to already have property in the area, bought that neighboring piece of land. This is nothing compared to the closeness the Clintons had during the White Water stuff of the 90s.

Cult following is exactly how the fundamentalist feminist movement has been treating the Clinton campaign from the very beginning. They are unwilling to accept a single negative truth about Clinton and are more than willing to believe and spread the most obvious lie about Obama, no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. I have seen these people go to Obama's site, look at all the policies he has there and still say he doesn't have a single policy. This is the fundamentalism that you, Mary Ellen, have been spreading as long as I have seen you commenting, and it makes me sad to see you, BAC, slide into the same mindset.

BAC said...

John - I'm kind of busy at the moment, but will say that I've heard Obama parrot Sen. Clinton's comments from one debate to another. SHE didn't say anything while he was doing it, but I CERTAINLY noticed.

The point is there is nothing "original" about this guy. He can give a good speech -- that's the extent of his talent.

While Sen. Clinton has done some things I wish she hadn't, she has accomplished a whole lot more than Obama -- and is MUCH MORE QUALIFIED to lead from day one. Who is Obama going to parrot if he happens to win the nomination/general election????


BAC

John J. said...

What HAS she accomplished?

Clinton has parroted Obama just as much, this is a case of pot vs. kettle. As for being able to be original. He has PERSONALLY written one book, and most, if not all, of a second (I have not read Audacity, so I can't speak to the quality, but reading Dreams helped lead me to vote for him).

Again, on policies, they share a lot of them - THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME PARTY. Obama is the more capable leader - Clinton is a better legislator by all accounts. And Obama is better at working with both Democrats and Republicans.

I, and many others, am not voting for Obama on where his and Clinton's policies converge, but on the critical points where they differ. I don't believe people should be FORCED to pay insurance companies for crappy coverage; I don't believe Iraq was exclusively Bush's mistake - everyone who voted for it shares some responsibility and should take that responsibility instead of just passing the buck; I don't believe corporate and foreign lobbyists speak for the normal American; I believe that EVERYONE's civil rights need to be fought for. These are all key issues Clinton differs from Obama.

Mary Ellen said...

If you want to talk about facts Mary Ellen, you need to start looking at them yourself. In the Rezko thing, Obama bought a mansion from a third party that was selling a neighboring piece of land at the same time. Rezko, who happened to already have property in the area, bought that neighboring piece of land. This is nothing compared to the closeness the Clintons had during the White Water stuff of the 90s.

Maybe you should do some fact checking yourself, john j. If you did you would see that Obama is back peddling again after he's been caught lying ...again, about the deal on his house. He first claimed that Rezko just mentioned it was a good neighborhood while they were at "some meeting or something", he said Rezko had nothing to do with it. Then he got caught..and admitted that Rezko actually did a walk through on the house and gave him suggestions on how much to bid on the place. This all happened when Rezko was under investigation and Obama knew it. He also knew he was under investigation when Rezko was giving him huge donations to his campaign. Get YOUR facts straight, john. The only reason why Obama finally admitted to this was because he got caught. He can't sweep this under the rug like he would like to.



Cult following is exactly how the fundamentalist feminist movement has been treating the Clinton campaign from the very beginning. They are unwilling to accept a single negative truth about Clinton and are more than willing to believe and spread the most obvious lie about Obama, no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. I have seen these people go to Obama's site, look at all the policies he has there and still say he doesn't have a single policy. This is the fundamentalism that you, Mary Ellen, have been spreading as long as I have seen you commenting, and it makes me sad to see you, BAC, slide into the same mindset.

Don't make me laugh! So, if I support Hillary it's because I'm a fundamentalist feminist? How does that explain that I was a John Edwards supporter before he dropped out? So, anyone who is a woman and supports Hillary is a feminist? I guess because I'm not supporting a black candidate, I'm a racist, too? This is the ridiculous mindset of the Obama supporters and idiots who think that women who demand equal rights and equal pay are "fundamentalist feminist", a term surely meant to be an insult. Really john, you're showing a strong lack of brain activity. I expect more out of you than that.

Mary Ellen said...

BAC- the answer to your question....

Deval Patrick 6/3/06

"I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

Barack Obama 11/2/07

I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me. I'm also asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

He's not very original. LOL! It looks like the Obama supporters are backing the wrong guy...Mr.Inspiration is really Deval Patrick!

John J. said...

"Rezko actually did a walk through on the house and gave him suggestions on how much to bid on the place." That doesn't make him directly involved in the sale of the house. Rezko was involved in real estate, so asking him for advice would make sense. Rezko did not influence the price of the house in any way. This is not sweeping something under a rug, this is blowing off BS.

"So, if I support Hillary it's because I'm a fundamentalist feminist?" I did not say that you were a fundamentalist feminist, nor that all women who support Clinton are. I am saying that the rhetoric you have been spreading has led me to believe that the main reason you are supporting Clinton over Obama is that she is a woman, and that no matter what facts are presented, you will accept anything negative said about him, but ignore anything said about Clinton. Your tone has been similar to many of the other radical feminists I have heard, and I apologize if I have been incorrect.

I do not believe that you are racist, you have not said anything to lead me to believe it. I personally demand equal pay for women and men as well and believe in equal rights for everyone. I support the feminist agenda, but I do not let my desire for that equality to blind me to everything else.

John J. said...

And as for your quotes, thats two sentences very core to Obama's overall message. Patrick is a close supporter of Obama. It is no wonder that they would use some of the same rhetoric. These are two sentences out of how many speeches?!

Clinton has no room to speak either; she uses speech writers as much as (probably more than) Obama does. Again, pot, please meet kettle.

Obama hasn't run as a great speech writer. He has run, in part, as a leader with the ability to inspire. Something that Clinton, even were she to repeat the same speeches, could not do in the same way.

BAC said...

John - Obama got into bed with someone UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR FRAUD. How stupid was THAT??? What other connections to Rezko are lurking out there?

And if you think the Congressional Health Plan is "crappy coverage" you're just wrong!! Do you HONESTLY think Congress would give itself a terrible healh plan? Geezzz

Your guy clearly knows nothing about negotiation. You never start a negotion asking for less than you want, you start by asking for MORE than you think you might be able to get, to have a CHANCE of getting what you want!! Anyone with any sense knows that.

And John, Obama can give a good speech ... THAT'S not LEADERSHIP. The guy was ready to bomb Pakistan without alerting the government first!! A nation with a nuclear weapon. How stupid was THAT answer.

And he should be president because he wrote a book? A fellow I work with has written THREE books, maybe we should elect HIM president. Geezzz

As for Iraq, Obama has voted the same way as Clinton since he came to the Senate. And he didn't even bother to show up for the vote on Iran. Where was his courage??

And finally, what's more important ... that someone can make a good speech, or that someone can get results?

The next president needs to be able walk in the Oval office on day one, roll up their sleeves and go to work. My fear is that Obama will need help finding his desk.


BAC

John J. said...

I don't know why we are talking about health care in this topic, but here goes:

Do you know what the Congressional Health plan is? It is VOUCHERS. You buy coverage from local companies using vouchers. It isn't some miraculous coverage that will cure all ills.

You also don't ask for something that is sure to kill any plan you propose. Telling the American public that you will either fine them (without giving coverage, like Massachusetts does) or chose a plan for them and take the premiums out of their paychecks is a beautiful way of killing health care reform before we even begin.

The guy that is ready to bomb Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even when Pakistan isn't notified so that we can be sure to hit our target was vindicated last month when we took out a top Al-Qaeda operative.

I don't want to vote for him because he wrote a book. Your question was how original is Obama. This, along with his days worth of self written speeches should more than answer your question.

We do need a president who can get things done. The best way to get things done is to make the American people want to get these things done; not with back room deals.

As for Iraq, yes, Obama has voted to fund the troops when the votes came up. He had the choice of leaving the troops in Iraq without funding or giving them funding - these are the votes both Clinton and Obama have faced. I have not criticized Clinton, nor will I, for those votes. I do criticize Clinton for voting for war with Iraq and when asked about it just saying it was a mistake that Bush made, not her.

The Iran vote, I agree with you on, I wish he had voted against it. I understand why he didn't, but I will not defend it. He did, however, immediately put forward a bill limiting what Bush could do with that original bill to prevent military action - Clinton is nowhere to be seen on that and has said to the effect "We can trust Bush this time."

Anonymous said...

Though it is certain that either Hillary or Obama will lead the Democrats in November, it's a sure thing Obama would lose to McCain,

Obama's wife is quickly becoming a liability. She said today was the first time she was "proud to say she was an American."

If Obama is nominated, McCain will hammer him with that comment. The majority of Americans will not accept a first lady who has publicly stated her disapproval of the US over the first 44 years of her life.

Then there is Obama's link to Louis Farrakhan by way of black-supremacist preacher and Obama's friendliness with Al Sharpton. And he will not escape his middle name.

BAC said...

Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. Calling it "universal" is either misleading or an out-right lie.

When it comes to the issue of healthcare, I trust Sen. Clinton.

Obama simply doesn't have the foreign policy experience needed to do the job! Even McCain sounded more knowledgable tonight, than did Obama.

You think Obama writes his speeches? John, you are very young, indeed.

John, the American people voted in 2006 to get things done. So how did that work for you? It's highly unlikely that the Democrats will get to 60 seats in the Senate. Without 60, the Republicans can continue to filibuster as long as they like. Clinton, who has built bridges across the aisle, is in a much better position to actually get things done.

And make no mistake about it ... it was George W. Bush who send troops into war, not Hillary Clinton.

I did something tonight that I haven't done in a while ... I actually listened to Obama's entire speech. I must say, he sounded scared. I think he is beginning to realise that he is going to be the nominee -- and it scares him a little.

John McCain will be a formidable opponent. And the bottom line is that he wants it more than Obama does.


BAC

John J. said...

Obama doesn't write all of his campaign speeches. He does write his own Senate floor speeches. He did write his 2004 DNC speech. He did write Dreams and most of Audacity. These are facts.

How has Clinton built bridges? The only times she has been able to do that were on things the Republicans wanted and when she was not in the limelight. She is a good legislator. But as president, she will be constantly in the limelight and will have to fight the right wing slime machine constantly, not only during the campaign.

Obama has gotten things done that very few senators/representatives wanted, but he was able to convince them that they needed to vote with him. If the people resoundingly support him, because of his inspiring leadership, the Senate won't be able to stand with these filibusters.

I don't think McCain wants the presidency more. They are both (all three) fighters, this will be a long, difficult fight to the presidency. I watched the speech and didn't catch the fear myself, but if it was there, good! It would worry me for a person not to be respectfully intimidated by the prospect of the presidency. It is a huge job and very VERY few people have lived up to it; I could probably count them on one hand. He, probably more than anyone running, knows that as a constitutional lawyer and professor.

That does not mean he will be a weak candidate - he has fought for almost 14 months against the second toughest fighter in the political sphere (Rove being the only one I can think of stronger) and is leading.

I have made a point of watching both candidates' victory/concession speeches (among others), especially since SC and for the first time tonight she stopped (momentarily) talking about what she will do and started trying to involve her supporters as more than just voters. This is something Obama has been doing from the very beginning and is why he has such ardent supporters.

And about Obama's health plan - it isn't that 15 million are left out, it is estimated that up to 15 million people will CHOOSE not to be covered. It is almost unheard of for the people of this country to want their government to remove the right to choose how to live their lives.If this is the health plan that Clinton will be trying to sell, we may wind up with NO health reform - which will hurt the Democrats for years to come.

KELSO'S NUTS said...

John:

If you like the idea of not having national health care so you can be free to spend your money the way you see fit, why go for these half-measures of Obama's? Just bite down hard and become a Republican. There's nothing inherently WRONG with being a free-marketeer. I see some merit in classical economics, too. Just don't tell me that you're saving the world and bringing the races together while you're espousing that philosophy, OK?

But if you're into saving the world and bringing everyone together, why are you alienating the elderly, the Latinos, and the partisan Democrats? That's not very uniting. In fact, I find it downright insulting.

Comrade Kevin said...

If voters in Wisconsin, Hawaii, and in at least twenty other states mean anything, their response was a collective yawn.

C'mon! It's the new thing, BAC.

It's called Let's go beat up John McCain.

It's far easier and he's a far better target. He just stands there and doesn't try to get out of the way. And he's been around long enough that we know his habits and where his breeding ground lies.

Join us!

John J. said...

Kelso, I have very strongly come out against both plans as half measures. My ideal health care plan is a government paid safety net, not government forcing me to buy health insurance from private providers with long histories of screwing their customers. This is why Obama's plan is better than Clinton's in my opinion, even if both fall woefully short of what we really need.

We cannot have a working health care plan if the core goal of the providers (both insurance and actual care) is profit and not results. None of the candidates likely to get elected in November go far enough.

How exactly am I, or Sen. Obama, alienating those groups you mentioned? The fact that his support among those groups is increasing primary by primary contradicts that statement. Just as the people who are voting for Obama in these primaries aren't necessarily (there are some that are) actively voting against Clinton, many of the people voting for Clinton aren't actively voting against Obama. It's a false dichotomy.

BAC said...

Kevin - the challenge in this particular contest is that the swift boaters will be on McCain's side of the fight. We've seen how much damage they can inflict. They crushed the campaigns of TWO WAR HEROS ... making each look unpatriotic!! I'm not sure Obama could stand up against that machine.

The fight the Clinton campaign has waged against him looks like child's play by comparison.

I think the guy may very well be the nominee, but I think it's equally likely the Republican slime machine will run over him.

There isn't anything left for them to throw at Sen. Clinton, and she's still standing!!

It appears that the media might finally be taking a look at Obama. Let's see how he fairs under their scrutiny. It's about time!!


BAC