some of us still remember the NH mailers about "present" votes that even HRC's own NH supporters in the NH legislature said were 'dishonest'.

Some of us still remember the IA staffers that got shitcanned for forwarding the Obama muslim e-mail around.

Some of us still remember Shaheen, Kerrey, and plenty of others.

A Clinton supporter, back in the 1st week of January -- gave me some sage advise:  Get over, politics is tough business, you need thicker skin.

Well... we learn quickly.

Man, this sure gets me jazzed for a HRC general election campaign:

Keating 5- See, John Mccain's just as a corrupt as I am!

Iraq, Torture etc., man I can't imagine how a strategy of being the same as your opponent, but basically concedeing that your oppoent is more likable could backfire.

Hillary Clinton consistently gets large amounts of grief for doing the exact same things every other politician does.  I think Obama must be finding out what it feels like.

It is hard to tell, but that won't stop multiple articles on it per day.

I don't think it is plagiarism, and I didn't think it was a big deal when I first heard about it.

However, it does apparently reveal that Obama really is just another politician in an effective way.  

It also invites people to have a look at Deval Patrick's success or lack thereof after getting elected in Mass. using a strategy similar to Obama's.

Yes, Todd.

This is exactly right.

It goes straight to the heart of Obama's argument for why he should be president.

That is why it is more damaging for him than for Clinton, and why this seemed like a "scandal" to me yesterday.

If Obama is just as poll-tested and pre-packaged as Clinton...then why again is he a better choice?  To combine cliches...pulling back the curtain shows the emperor has no clothes.

If this is a real issue for voters, then Hillary Clinton should win in Wisconsin tonight. The polling average only had her down about 6 points, and given the number of undecideds heading into election days so far this cycle, a supposedly damaging story should be borne out in actual results.

My guess is that this issue will take a backseat to the narrative of Clinton not performing too well in a state she should be extremely competitive in.  

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!

This again, huh?

Don't you guys have pledged delegates to steal or something?

Yes, it is and here's why. We are seeing a pattern of this kind of behavior from Obama. I posted this comment earlier today here on myDD on the same topic. But, I'll repost it here:

This "speaks" volumes about Obama and his character. He's a liar and a fake. Obama has been engaging in this type of behavior for quite some time. In the August issue of Progressive magazine, Elizabeth Edwards almost goes so far as to call Obama an outright copycat. What also troubles me is that Obama has copied both Edwards' and Clinton's policies, not just modeled, but copied sections of them. It was so glaring that Obama copied Clinton's economic plan, that the Clinton camp raised the issue, but the MSM didn't listen. Even McCain's economic advisor, Kevin Hassett said, "Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen."  Hassett went on to say that "he [Obama] basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own." Obama, Patrick, and supporters can keep spinning this, but facts are facts. Obama has based his entire campaign and candidacy on "just words" and, in the end, his words are someone else's. Obama is little more than a neatly packaged parrot. Shame on him.  

The whole argument revolves around the classic strawman of Obama as some sort of "messiah".

FDR was no messiah - few folks realize it, but the New Deal actually did very little to right the US's economic ship in the 30s.

JFK was no messiah - in fact, I've always hated the lionizing treatment he gets because he was a warmonger and escalationist.

Lincoln was no messiah - in fact, every political historian worth his or her salt would readily admit that Lincoln was a MASTER politician.  He was Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan 100 years beforehand.

No serious person thinks Obama is 'magic'.

We simply think he's a better candidate and a better president.

He's a politician -- he just happens to be very good at politics and many of think he would also be a great President, based on his resume and voting record.

You guys are so desperate that it's funny. Is this all you have? A little preaching to the choir going on.

No one cares.

Free advice, stop playing "gotcha" politics and start organizing. This is why you guys are losing.

You know what everyone will be talking about tomorrow?

They'll be talking about Obama beating Hillary in yet another primary.

It is really about authenticity.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/19/ 161742/967/872/459839

Really?  

Do you really think this is a big deal?  

Does it actually give you pause about whether BHO would make a good President?

Maybe most important, is this Obama's biggest weakness?  If so, he's in good shape.

It doesn't matter to his supporters if Obama is proven to be a liar and a fake. Nobody takes longer to see the light than someone who has been duped. They aren't going to lose faith that easily. Believing in Obama makes people feel good about themselves. After making the leap to follow, it takes maturity and self-awareness to accept that you've been fooled. If Obama is really a poser, then those who follow him are fools. So called progressives admitting they are fools? Not likely.

How dare you say that Obama may not be pure and innocent! That makes me so angry!

hm.

Progressive Blue

Hard to quantify but the steady stream of negative narratives from the Hillary campaign, while it may occupy the media for a few new cycles, is having two other collateral effects, firstly it is reaffirming the 'old politics' and 'win-at-all-costs' message which Obama's campaign is consistently using to respond to these tactics and secondly it is starving her policy positions, the solutions which she has been emphasising as the justification for her campaign, of much needed oxygen.  I am not sure this is a win-win for her.

It seems credible that Wisconsin is being used as a test case for this style of campaigning against Obama.  Personally I think she is framing herself the way the Obama campaign has been trying to frame her for some time.  We will know in a few hours.  If she loses Wisconsin by a significant margin I'm guessing her campaign will, yet again, go back to the drawing board.

but I don't think it's a campaign ender.  It obviously had it's desired effect and brought Obama down a few pegs.  However, I don't think it's a dealbreaker or that it should be an issue of trust.  I think anyone who thought he was anything more than a politician is a fool.

it causes great gnashing of teeth -- but we might soon have to start talking about "teflon Obama".

For better or worse, the thematics around him have already been built.

I'm reminded of Mondale in 1984 - dumbfounded because so many middle America union members and Democrats were voting against their interests.

It may be incredibly unfair - but thematics matter.  It's a mindset - one that we Democrats would be wise to toss aside as yesterday's losing strategies should be.

For better or worse - Americans vote their heart.

We need to quit pretending that we can change that mindset and back candidates who can get Americans to vote their heart, but for progressive, liberal, Democratic candidates.

Clinton, in remarks to the ABC affiliate in Honolulu that were reported by the Chicago Tribune, asserted: "Look, it's not us making this charge. It's the media."

But on Monday, the Clinton campaign announced a conference call "to discuss a recent speech delivered by Sen. Obama" and included a YouTube link that showed Obama remarks side by side with similar comments by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

On the call, Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director, said: "When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader."
------------

PATHETIC. Do we really need someone so detached from the truth as our nominee?

How pitiful this is being discussed...All you folks...making judgments...
At any point in time did you not believe the Cheney/Bush lies?

At what point in in time did you choose to force any level of your govt to arrest you for your opposition? If not, why not?

If you truly oppose the madness, at what point in time will you force your govt to arrest you in opposition? If you are not committed enough to do this....after 7 years of Cheney/Bush...is there any time you are willing to commit to the front you create?
...ah no...this takes a  degree of courage beyond feeble posting...

My arrests for CD are no greater nor less than anyone...but it does bring about a simple question...What are You prepared to do?

This is not a big deal. The thing many Clinton supporters miss is that obama is more than just speeches.

He shared some rhetoric with a close friend. Its just another attempt to bring him down a few pegs.

any one who has read any of his postilion papers or his books understand that this "change" and "hope" is based in returning to a time we follow the constitution on those policies that have moved this country forward for years.

some one mention fdr and the new deal. it did alot to help protect the social policies we need to have the market that allows us to be america. social security was the stepping stone to removing tons of Americans from poverty and protecting the elderly.

its those values as well as plans laid out in that in the world of a new economy based on the globe we need a change to move to that economy. we need spread the wealth as we have done many time including under clinton in the 90's.

he calls for a return to "paygo" to not leverage our children's futures with more debt. Lays out plans to improve education including ideas for how to improve an issue that can't just be fixed with more money yet needs more money all the same.

A foreign policy that has us talking with those who are friends as well as enemies. Reagan ended the cold war with no bullets. Just his words.

Improving infrastructure and using community to improve the inner cities. Look at plans that are doing well to help poverty and workers losing jobs and improve those and fund them fully while cutting programs that aren't working.

and so much more. so if the clinton campaign wants to attack obama's rhetoric let them. it looks foolish. cause behind that rhetoric is a intelligent individual who ha swell though out plans and observations on where this country need to go. His movement is to give him POLITICAL WILL to get those plans done.

and i have left ton of is great ideas out. i suggest reading his books and his papers. It really would show how foolish many are when they say he has no substance. The president of the Harvard law review, teacher of the constitution, and a lawmaker for many years. He is full of substance.

And this is why alot of us vote for him and support him.

I'm pretty sick of hearing about this garbage claim.  Voting PRESENT in the Illinois Legislature does not mean the same thing as voting present in the US Congress does.  It's essentially a no vote.

I realize it's a heated campaign and all, but c'mon, really?

...watching you grasp for straws.

This is SO not an issue with ANY sort of staying power. It's just not that interesting. Beyond that, it doesn't even rise to the level of "character-revealing anecdote." It's a small side-note that tells us, just maybe, a bit about politics. Ever read about the process of presidential speechwriting? To make the following claim:

"It really pulls back the curtain on the Obama candidacy and raises the question of whether Obama really is the savior from "politics as usual" that his campaign has so effectively offered him up to be."

is just the worst sort of wish-fulfillment fantasy I've, regretfully, seen mydd devolve into over the past 2 months. To the degree that this shows us how "entrenched" Obama is in "politics as usual," it really is a relief. I mean, if his version of politics as usual is speechwriting as usual, then, shit, I'll take that any day of the week.

Let's see......if we try to figure out the degree to which Clinton is politics as usual (Hillary now, not Bill....oh ya, I guess there's a small issue there, since we've had them for 16 years. But let's table that) and compare it to this supposed "revelation" about Obama, indeed, he begins to look vastly different. Your word, used to tap into the frame that is all over the wingnut blogs, is "savior" from such politics. I'd prefer "change." Wait....didn't Hillary vote for the war.....hmmm. Maybe change is a good thing sometimes.

Anyone that has read The Audacity of Hope would dismiss the current plagairism charge as pure nonsense. Look at earlier writings and you can see the genesis of these ideas over even longer periods of time.  Anyone with a familairty with hs body of work would certainly appreciate Obama's explanation and admission to being an ideological kindred spirit with Patrick. For those with this familiarity, of which I would expect at least someone from MyDD to be included, the attacks by the Clinton camp are even more disingenuous.  The "idealized image" is in no way tarnished by this charge when contrasted with the larger body of work.

Tonight's margin of victory can be viewed, at least in part, as evidence that the public rejects the plagairism argument and the Clinton tactics.

This one is even more obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgctsiois Jg

I think the speechwriter needs to be fired.

Two rock star African-American politicians who are friends, who face the same types of questions about their ability to govern, who represent profound political change, who share the same campaign manager, also share some of the same talking points and actual language.

I don't see why there should be a problem with it. If Obama was lifting whole sections of MLK's speeches -- or something like that -- then he would seem damn inauthentic. This is nothing like that, nothing near like that.

The best part of this whole thing is how ALL of the "words" referenced in that bit involved rampant "plagiarism."

"...it is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for the country in return?"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1884 Memorial Day speech

"That's exactly what we mean -- from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia -- let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth -- may the Republican Party, under God, from every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!"
-Rev. Archibald Carey Jr., 1952 Republican National Convention

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
-George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 6/12/1776.

Raymond Moley and Louis Howe wrote the "fear itself" speech, Howe the actual "fear" line.  FDR only got involved when he hand-copied the final draft, complete with fake corrections, and then leaked a story to the media about how he'd written the whole thing by himself in one night.  Admittedly that one might have been a little bit unethical.

The problem for Hillary is that Obama has successfully framed this whole debate as authenticity v. "will say/do anything to win." I have to admit that it's a bit unfair, because she is who she is also, and he's obviously out to win as well. But the fact is that over the past several months, the campaign dynamics have continued to reinforce this narrative. He says/does what he thinks, and comes off as authentic, while we really haven't seen him or his campaign saying a whole lot about her personally, yes, her positions on various topics, but not her personal character, competence, etc. On the other hand, she seems to have a new message every week, and much of what we've heard from her and her campaign has been negative stuff about him personally -- he's not been vetted, he's all talk and no action, Rezco, Jesse Jackson, he's not a manager, etc.

This latest spat will come off as more of the same. He cribbed a few words from a close political ally and friend, and she goes all out trying to attack him for it. Again, he's the real guy who made a very minor real guy mistake (who hasn't copied someone's notes after class before?), while she's seen as trying to expoit every little thing to "bring him down a few notches," with nothing new to say about herself. Just fits the narrative, the same as every other attack so far.

Soon enough, we'll Patrick and Obama on the campaign trail together joking about stealing lines from each other.

Obama is not doing the framing here - the MSM is.  I think they are waking up to this stuff, and the Republicans will hit him hard with his karaoke.  BO doesn't have legs on the national stage - this kind of stuff will kill him once the MSM banks right again in the general election.