Obama '08?

Quote:

RULES OF ATTRIBUTION FOR THEE...

I'm with Cernig on the Clinton campaign's "plagiarism" charge against Obama: I think they take at least as big a hit on this as he does. TPM has more, and points us to this from Jake Tapper:

In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them. I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him. They would not. In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language. "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.
That's some quick thinking, Howie.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

That's some quick thinking, Howie.

I'd also add, re: bias, that I think Hillary gets the shortER end of the stick. I think there's more bias directed her way than Obama's way. But I do think there is some bias directed Obama's way, especially since Iowa.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

There is most definitely anti-Hillary bias, too. My main beef is with the idea that the media is giving Obama a pass. After having done a heck of a lot of reading of mainstream media in the past six months or so, I wouldn't say that at all.

I dont think the media, collectively, has given Obama a pass, altogether; just like it's not true that all of the media has always hetzed against Hillary. It's just a too many-headed beast for that to possibly be true; there's always going to be some pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, pro-Obama and anti-Obama voices.

But yeah, count me among those who think that on balance, Obama's had little to complain about. He's been reported on overwhelmingly favourably; "overwhelmingly," at least, in comparison with the scepticism and aversion that the media has beamed towards Hillary, outside at most a brief 'inevitability honeymoon' last autumn.

And of course you've read as much of the media coverage as anyone here, no doubt there. But this is just my take, and I doubt I read less :wink: . And while as Edwards supporter I might have felt strongly ambiguous about the coverage lavished on Obama, as ardent Obama supporter you will also of course have done all that reading from a specific disposition.

The thing is, when an extensive monitoring report surfaced that showed up in detail the massively disproportional and favourable media coverage Obama received back when he first started campaigning, the response here was, well, maybe thats just because they had a point! Maybe, if the media wrote so much more often and favourably about Obama than about either Hillary or Edwards, it just shows that, you know, he's an exceptionally gifted candidate, and has something to offer that the others dont. But if that is the case, then any turn away from Obama in media coverage now (and I do see one looming!) cant be dismissed as just bias either; that, too, then would need to be taken as signalling some substantive deficit of Obama's own.

Mind you, thats not my take; I thought the response at the time already was misguided. A hype is a hype is a hype; and even independently wholly deserving candidates can still also benefit from an unreasonable hype. I think Obama has greatly benefited from being the media favourite, on balance, and also from Hillary being so strongly disfavoured by much of the media.

But just like he's ridden that bubble, so is he in danger of crashing through it when the fickle media gets bored with him. He's partly been the media's favourite just because he offered the more exciting story in terms of horserace coverage - there were no papers to be sold on a Hillary coronation. Now that Hillary got to be all but counted out after the Potomac Primary, I am sensing a turn-about in the media tone, perhaps disappointed at what would be the loss of a good running story. There's good business in stoking the tight race till the end, and if that means turning against Obama now, a number of journos and media will surely do so.

And if the media will turn against him in anything like the way they've written about Hillary, the examples you cite will pale into insignificance, I think...

0 Replies

Not much to disagree with there. (And I did almost add something after saying how much I've read about how I know you've read quite a lot too!)

Especially, I share the fear that a backlash is looming or maybe has even started.

Part of why I'm really nervous about WI. I think a loss could fuel a backlash -- "everyone was counting Hillary out and coronating Obama but not so fast...!" I think a win wouldn't necessarily halt a backlash already in process -- I've just skimmed Brooks' column today but it seems to be another in the vein of that Slate (Salon?) article from the person who "broke up" with Obama on Valentine's day because everyone likes him and it's not cool anymore. But I think there is ballast in a series of convincing wins, especially in contested places like Wisconsin. Gives Obama more heft.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

in anything like the way they've written about Hillary

See this post I just wrote in the Hillary thread for some examples...

0 Replies

There really are reasons for serious, fair-minded people, both within the journalistic community and outside of it, to prefer candidates other than Obama, and even (gasp!) to suspect the wisdom of the ideology which this candidate has applied during his political career; to doubt his (or anyone's) ability to deliver on the sweeping rhetorical promises he has made; and even to criticize some of his specific actions.

I find the doublethink of many Obama supporters somewhat baffling. What, for example, is in a word? We have heard from their hero that words do have meaning and are of fundamental importance - this in a defense of critiques of his rhetoric. I generally agree with him on this.

The word plagarism means the use of the words, phrases and arguments of another - in a specific enough way to leave little doubt about their origin - without attribution, however brief, of the source. There are many human evils far worse than plagarism, and I certainly don't think the borrowing of some good phrases and a particularly effective metaphorical argument from Governor Patrick during a heated political campaign is a thing of lasting importance (particularly since, unlike Sen Joe Biden's case, they don't involve any lies about himself). However plagarism is a word with real meaning, and it does indeed apply in this case.

Obama himself didn't attempt to deny the fact, and apart from a little (evasive) 'yes, but she (Hillary_) does it too', was fairly forthright in dealing with it. The Obama critics in this case do have a point and it is at best silly for Obama supporters to waste any energy defending the matter or (far worse) castigating the characters, motives, and intent of media (and other) commentators who take note of it all.

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

0 Replies

Quote:

But just like he's ridden that bubble, so is he in danger of crashing through it when the fickle media gets bored with him. He's partly been the media's favourite just because he offered the more exciting story in terms of horserace coverage - there were no papers to be sold on a Hillary coronation. Now that Hillary got to be all but counted out after the Potomac Primary, I am sensing a turn-about in the media tone, perhaps disappointed at what would be the loss of a good running story. There's good business in stoking the tight race till the end, and if that means turning against Obama now, a number of journos and media will surely do so.

Sure, no doubt there. The news is about making money, more then anything else.

But part of the problem is that he's a clean guy running a clean campaign. There just isn't as much to criticize!!!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The word plagarism [sic] means the use of the words, phrases and arguments of another - in a specific enough way to leave little doubt about their origin - without attribution, however brief, of the source.

It appears that you invented your own definition of plagiarsim to fit what Obama did i.e. borrow words and phrases with authorization and permission without representing them as his own original work. (Politicians routinely use speech writers and don't announce, for example, the following words were created by Pat Buchnanan.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
pla·gia·rism /ˈpleɪdʒəˌrɪzəm, -dʒiəˌrɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Especially, I share the fear that a backlash is looming or maybe has even started.

Part of why I'm really nervous about WI. I think a loss could fuel a backlash -- "everyone was counting Hillary out and coronating Obama but not so fast...!" I think a win wouldn't necessarily halt a backlash already in process -- I've just skimmed Brooks' column today but it seems to be another in the vein of that Slate (Salon?) article

Yeah, I know what you mean..

Did you see this doozy? Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

What's in a Meme?

On Larry King tonight Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway declared that Barack Obama "refuses to talk about substance."

Oy.

Update: From the transcript:

What Clinton could have done is she could have said, gee, all he does is repeat words that originate with Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King -- repeated by Deval Patrick -- when Barack Obama refuses to talk about substance that is either new or relevant to the average voter. KING: Yes. CONWAY: She missed that chance.
That's right, Obama has really put his foot down on this. Don't even try making him talk substance--he'll simply refuse.

--Michael Crowley

0 Replies

Apparently you have drunk the Kool Aid. The event in question so obviously fits the definition you offered - I am perplexed to find the reason you offered it.

The speech writer defense doesn't survive a moment's thought. Moreover, no speech writer who routinely did the same would long survive in the employ of any serious politician, even the sainted Obama.

Repeatedly attempting to defend the indefensible is a hallmark of a fanatic.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Especially, I share the fear that a backlash is looming or maybe has even started.

Part of why I'm really nervous about WI. I think a loss could fuel a backlash -- "everyone was counting Hillary out and coronating Obama but not so fast...!" I think a win wouldn't necessarily halt a backlash already in process -- I've just skimmed Brooks' column today but it seems to be another in the vein of that Slate (Salon?) article

Yeah, I know what you mean..

Did you see this doozy?

Quote:
What's in a Meme?

On Larry King tonight Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway declared that Barack Obama "refuses to talk about substance."

Oy.

Update: From the transcript:

What Clinton could have done is she could have said, gee, all he does is repeat words that originate with Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King -- repeated by Deval Patrick -- when Barack Obama refuses to talk about substance that is either new or relevant to the average voter. KING: Yes. CONWAY: She missed that chance.
That's right, Obama has really put his foot down on this. Don't even try making him talk substance--he'll simply refuse.

--Michael Crowley

If that's the best they've got - bring it on. Seriously.

Look, the Republicans - both elected and in our media - are going to do their best to trash EITHER candidate. The idea that there are nebulous attacks out there waiting to attack Obama is ridiculous when you look at the amount of ammo, that is not nebulous, waiting to be used on Hillary. At the very least Obama is harder to attack then Clinton. At most he's much, much safer from smears and character assassinations.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

Indeed, and it can be viewed as a rather lazy approach, reacting to the media or to Obama's supporters, instead of taking a deep breath and reading through rhetoric (an inevitable and often effective part of political campaigns) and deciding, for example, whether you prefer Hillary's proposed tax credit package or Obama's across the board cuts. Or, as in your case I imagine (but don't presume), neither.

Words express IDEAS. Flippant as you are in regard to Obama's words, you will no doubt react to this post, words from some stranger with a Kool-Aid avatar. I think candidates' ideas are important. I think imagination is important. I think policy begins with ("gasp" (annoying, isn't it?)) ideas.

Is there merit to experience. Of course. But what kind of experience? And at what cost? As I've mentioned to Bear, there has become a symbiosis between the Bush and Clinton machines that is more "unsettling," as Obama detractors like to say, then someone who is well spoken. Know what's uncomfortable? "Nuk-u-lar." And, "They misunderestimated me." And it's this relationship between machines that also makes Hillary, in my opinion, a liability as the Democratic nominee.

0 Replies

A fundamental strategy of any effective campaign is to isolate the opponents strengths and work to turn them (in peoples' minds) to the opponent's detriment.

In the case here, "Obamamania" is increasingly being targeted. Krugman's blog (not as indictment but as an alert) this morning points to this piece.

And there's David Brooks this morning.

A quick survey of the rightwing sites shows that this will be a tool they'll attempt to use to make his positive (charmisma) a negative (mania).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The word plagarism means the use of the words, phrases and arguments of another - in a specific enough way to leave little doubt about their origin - without attribution, however brief, of the source. There are many human evils far worse than plagarism, and I certainly don't think the borrowing of some good phrases and a particularly effective metaphorical argument from Governor Patrick during a heated political campaign is a thing of lasting importance (particularly since, unlike Sen Joe Biden's case, they don't involve any lies about himself). However plagarism is a word with real meaning, and it does indeed apply in this case.

Yes, words have real meaning, so it would be cool if you stuck to existing definitions of words rather than make up your own (again)..

The definition Roxxanne posted from Dictionary.com says it all, really: "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Doesnt apply. Borrowing a phrase - on the suggestion of the person who originally uttered it, even - does not fit the definition.

Or take the Brittanica Encyclopedia - it says "Plagiarism is the act of claiming to be the author of material that someone else actually wrote." Again, doesnt apply.

0 Replies

I don't buy the 'Obama bubble' meme at all. It's bullshit. There's no actual evidence to back it up, other then that those who have been attacking him all along will continue to do so.

From a poster at Openleft:

Quote:

I gotta admit, its innovative. The attacks on Obama in recent days,
from the "cult" meme to the "purloined word" attack, to the "bubble's
gonna burst any moment now" conjecture, all boil down to one thematic:

"Obama is winning, therefore he shouldn't win."

If the field was reversed here, and Clinton was ahead in the popular
vote and the delegate count and everyone was agreeing there was
little way Obama could catch up in pledged delegates, he would have
been hounded out of the race by now.

This is not unfair, it's simply a sign that Clinton played the
inevitability game quite well early on. Narratives are like rubber
bands, they stretch, but very seldom break. So, the press and pundits
are constantly pulled back to the foreshadowing of the early
chapters. Hillary will win, because we said so back when.

But that begs an explanation for Obama's lead. And that's what is so
interesting: Obama's lead is turned into a vulnerability. Because
he's ahead, he will fall behind.

By the way, this is not a common phenomena for a frontrunner. Only,
apparently, an unexpected frontrunner. And usually the suspicion of
vulnerability is pegged to some issue or negative quality. In this
case, the negative is that Obama is doing well, that he's
charismatic, that he has a command of the language, that he
emotionally engages voters, that he promises hope.

It is damned hard to counter-attack, granted. Imagine the long-
distance runner, attacked for being fast, strong, and ahead. "Because
you are so fast and strong, you will no doubt falter before the end."
Huh? How do you answer that?

Keep running, I guess.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Nonsense. The universal standard requires the explicit acknowledgement of the source. The failure to do so is taken as a tacit claim of originality.

Take a look at the definition Roxanne offered - it fits the circumstances perfectly. Obama himself acknowledged 'borrowing' it after the fact.

I don't think it is a big deal - precisely as I explained in my post.

However I remain bemused at the energetic reactions of the Obama claques here. You are doing a great job in demonstrating my point.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nonsense. The universal standard requires the explicit acknowledgement of the source. The failure to do so is taken as a tacit claim of originality.

Take a look at the definition Roxanne offered - it fits the circumstances perfectly. Obama himself acknowledged 'borrowing' it after the fact.

I don't think it is a big deal - precisely as I explained in my post.

However I remain bemused at the energetic reactions of the Obama claques here. You are doing a great job in demonstrating my point.

George, let me ask you. Is there any point to your posting here other then to constantly and continually attack those who support Obama?

I understand that ya don't like the guy, but your constant use of demeaning terminology when describing those of us who do is insulting. And it gets old.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Nonsense. The universal standard requires the explicit acknowledgement of the source. The failure to do so is taken as a tacit claim of originality.

Take a look at the definition Roxanne offered - it fits the circumstances perfectly. Obama himself acknowledged 'borrowing' it after the fact.

I don't think it is a big deal - precisely as I explained in my post.

However I remain bemused at the energetic reactions of the Obama claques here. You are doing a great job in demonstrating my point.

George, let me ask you. Is there any point to your posting here other then to constantly and continually attack those who support Obama?

I understand that ya don't like the guy, but your constant use of demeaning terminology when describing those of us who do is insulting. And it gets old.

Cycloptichorn

Insert Bush and you know how some of the rest of us have felt.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Apparently you have drunk the Kool Aid. The event in question so obviously fits the definition you offered - I am perplexed to find the reason you offered it. [..]

Repeatedly attempting to defend the indefensible is a hallmark of a fanatic.

Either that or there are just sensible minds out there who disagree with you on this one. I certainly dont fit the "Obama fanatic" profile - just ask Cyclo, Snood or Soz how often they've been annoyed at my relentless criticisms of the guy - and I dont see your point here.

In general, also, please cut the crap with the kool-aid drinking fanatic zealots stuff already. Come on. Sure the Obama supporters are passionate here, but if you look at what Soz or Cyclo or Freeduck or who not are posting here, they are opinions no less nuanced as yours. Cyclo or Snood will sometimes venture into a sweeping generalisation yeah, but then you're no stranger to those either, and I dont call you a fanatic or a kool-aid drinker.

For me, if anything, the pendulum seems to have turned the other way now. It's getting to be so that people like you who post criticisms of Obama will follow up with an indignant howl of, "see, those Obamaites just cant take any criticism!" as soon as someone dares to offer a rebuttal. It's facile, and getting tired quick.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Nonsense. The universal standard requires the explicit acknowledgement of the source. The failure to do so is taken as a tacit claim of originality.

Take a look at the definition Roxanne offered - it fits the circumstances perfectly. Obama himself acknowledged 'borrowing' it after the fact.

I don't think it is a big deal - precisely as I explained in my post.

However I remain bemused at the energetic reactions of the Obama claques here. You are doing a great job in demonstrating my point.

George, let me ask you. Is there any point to your posting here other then to constantly and continually attack those who support Obama?

I understand that ya don't like the guy, but your constant use of demeaning terminology when describing those of us who do is insulting. And it gets old.

Cycloptichorn

Insert Bush and you know how some of the rest of us have felt.

Fair enough; my only defense being that Bush brought much of the criticism upon himself through his incredibly poor choices and actions, and turned former supporters of him (such as myself) away. Obama has done nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know