While I was doing my usual blog surfing to catch up on what I missed over night, I came across a blog entry by Ezra Klein about Eliot Spitzer that struck me as warning for all those would be reformers out there, including Barack Obama.

...what we're seeing here is not the fall -- if indeed he does fall -- of a high-flying governor. It's the final tumble of a crushed reformer. Spitzer, for reasons both structural and personal, has been utterly humbled by Albany. The new capitalism he promised, the age of transparency he spoke of, the national ambitions he harbored -- all have broken before the obstacles he faced in the governor's mansion. When you think of the hype he was getting only a couple years ago, that's a rather remarkable fact. I don't care about the prostitution. But the capacity of the system to stand against those who would reform it, and who come into office with a broad mandate to do so, is really quite sobering.

As you know Survey USA has been one of the more reliable pollsters out there. In Massachussetts, before Super Tuesday, SurveyUSA had Hillary Clinton defeating Barack Obama 56-39, and the actual results were 56-41. SurveyUSA's latest polls have Obama doing well in head to head matchups against McCain. Although Hillary does better than Obama in states like Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, its pretty clear that Obama runs better overall. However, one thing that concerns me is that Obama has consistently performed poorly against McCain in Massachussetts.In the latest poll, he only leads 48-46, and last month he was down 50-45. Massachussets is supposedly the bluest of blue states, and despite the endorsements of Deval Patrick, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry, coupled with the fact that its an electorate that should have been favorable for him even in last month's primary, Obama continues to struggle here.

Could Obama's struggles be related to Deval Patrick's struggles as Governor? Deval Patrick basically ran the same campaign that Obama is running now, as Deval also relied on Obama's current campaign manager. The similarities between their campaign became apparent when it was learned that Obama borrowed heavily from his speeches.

The Massachussetts electorate has seen this same style of campaign and has even voted for it, yet once the hype died down, and reality set in, they have been disappointed with the results. I guess the larger point I am trying to make is what happens to Obama when the hype dies down?

Although he currently polls extremely well, I'm a little skeptical right now because Obama has largely been able to define himself. When outside parties jump in to define him negatively, and regardless of how you feel about Clinton, she has not attacked Obama the way the GOP will attack him,  will his current poll numbers stay the same? I'm a little worried about what his number s might look like once everything settles down.

Obama has "xeroxed" more than just the speeches of fellow David Axelrod client Deval Patrick. He has lifted entire lines from Malcolm X (ironically, to deny that he is a Muslim), Maria Shriver, Alice Walker and "borrowed" the famous slogan of Cesar Chavez ("Yes we can!") This video shows that Obama's disturbing pattern of rhetorical photocopying extends further than we previously knew:

This is just getting hysterical now.  Totally manufactured candidates.  Prescripted speeches and themes that David Axelrod keeps reusing for candidates that fit his formula.

"He's the one who wrote those ads, framed that shot and came up with the "Yes We Can" tag line. "I don't bring these messages to candidates," Axelrod says when I point out the similarities. "I look for candidates who exemplify and reflect those messages."

From the Loewe Political Report,

[*Note to those MYDD posters who don't like candor (and there seems to be quite a few of you): Stop reading, because you won't like what I have to say.]

When Barack Obama first faced the criticism that he has no experience and that words are cheap, he answered words give hope.  Many agreed and ran to Obama's defense. His supporters maintained that Obama's rhetorical skills were noteworthy and trumped his lack of experience. More to the point, they argued that Obama's rhetorical skills trumped the life and political experience that any other candidate brought to the race. They maintained that he, like Martin Luther King, spoke from moral authority.

We knew Obama borrowed his "audacity of hope" phrase from his preacher Reverend Wright. We also understood that Obama used the words of JFK, FDR, and Martin Luther King freely. Yet,in their hearts, most Americans believed that the rest of Obama's words were authentically his; rhetoric was his strong suit after all.

It is why so many came to hear Obama speak. He awakened the yearnings of a citizenry hungry to hear a leader who understood the greatness of America and who would help us transcend the  duplicity of Bush/ Cheney. We were led to believe that his rhetoric came from the inner crux of his soul, not the contriving machinations of a political machine. He would lead us to the Promised Land after eight long years under a less than honest man.

Now we have learned that much of Obama's rhetoric was first used by Deval Patrick to win his campaign in Massachusetts. It seems both men hired the services of David Axelrod,so Obama's supporters argue that the campaigns inadvertently melded. Patrick's words are now Obama's.

Obama's supporters tell us to turn the page. Purists of course aren't buying it. Since Obama never gave so much as a nod to Patrick, they are calling him a plagiarist.

Both Aristotle and Quintilian argued the value of ethos in public speaking. A speaker's ethics they argued was paramount. Quintillian stressed the point that rhetorical excellence was "the good man speaking well," because a speaker's ethics affect his/her credibility and often speak more loudly than words. Emerson echoed this sentiment when he wrote: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say."

I cannot turn the page. I cannot forgive Obama's campaign for playing political games with an electorate yearning for change after the moral lowlands of the Bush presidency. Our young follow Obama like the Pied Piper, because we crave hope. Compatriots chant Obama, because we want our reputation in the world restored, our soldiers home, our homeland safe, the dollar restored,and most of all the lying and lack of ethics of elected leaders to end.

All the while, Axelrod and Team Obama have been playing us like fools. We now must face the consequences. We are at a crossroad; it seems Obama lacks both substance and the ethos necessary for moral authority. Where do we go from here?

Check this out on wikipedia. I researched Deval Patrick's first year in office. Words alone cannot govern; experience is absolutely necessary. This is Barack Obama's friend. he is the governor of MA. now I understand why his endorsement backfired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patri ck

Keep on accusing Obama of plagiarism.

It just makes the Clinton Campaign look stupid.

Obama stole from Patrick! OMG!

Not really.