by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:05 p.m. EST
An American Unoriginal
This is our favorite kerfuffle of the campaign season so far, because it makes both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama look ridiculous. From Politico:
Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, today accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of committing "plagiarism" in a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday night. . . .
On [a reporters conference] call, Wolfson said: "Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he's breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn't his own."
"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," said Wolfson.
The words in question come from Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. When he was seeking his current office in 2006, he responded to complaints from Republican opponent Kerry Healey's campaign that there was little substance behind his words in the following way:
"But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words--just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.' [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words--just words! 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words! 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words! 'I have a dream.' Just words!"
There's no question that what Obama said Saturday was similar (videos of both speeches are here):
"Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream.' Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words! [Applause.] 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words--just speeches!"
But isn't it a bit heavy-handed to accuse Obama of plagiarism? This is a serious charge in academia and journalism, professions in which words are the final product. By contrast, language is a mere instrument for politicians. They hire speechwriters to put words in their mouths, something that would also be frowned upon in academia and journalism. Are voters really going to be dissuaded from backing Obama because as a politician he failed to adhere to the ethical standards that would have applied if he were a professor or a reporter? Not likely.
Wolfson's comment is a striking example of the Clinton campaign's clumsy aggression. Obama's use of Patrick's rhetoric actually does bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument against him, but in a more subtle way. How ridiculous is it that Obama is borrowing someone else's empty rhetoric in order to defend his own?
And empty it is. Although the other two examples are arguable either way, "We hold these truths . . ." and "I have a dream" were anything but "just words." They were words that held enormous meaning because of the historical context in which they were, respectively, written and uttered. Can the same be said of Obamanalities like "Yes, we can," or "Change we can believe in"?
Mrs. Clinton is right that Obama has a talent for speaking that leads him to think he can get away with having nothing to say. It's too bad her advisers lack the mental dexterity to make this point effectively.
Ickes Flips His Lid
Oh, this is rich! "Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass," reports the Associated Press:
In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised--before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.
Different hats, eh? As another famous flip-flopper once said, "They gave me a hat. I have the hat to this day. I have the hat."
Inside the Smoke-Free Room
The New York Times reports that Democratic "party elders" are concerned that the presidential nomination "could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates" rather than by voters and are "weighing whether and how to intervene":
The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee's chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.
So they're trying to strike a backroom deal in order to avoid the perception of a backroom deal? Good luck with that.
Who Was Fidel Castro?
Fidel Castro, who died in 2006 (give or take three years), "said on Tuesday that he will not return to lead the country as president," Reuters reports.
What kind of leader was Castro exactly? Reuters doesn't say, but it offers us some clues:
[Castro is] retiring as head of state 49 years after he seized power in an armed revolution.
Seized power in an armed revolution, check. Then there's this:
"To my dear compatriots, who gave me the immense honor in recent days of electing me a member of parliament . . . I communicate to you that I will not aspire to or accept--I repeat not aspire to or accept--the positions of President of Council of State and Commander in Chief," Castro said in the statement published on the Web site of the Communist Party's Granma newspaper.
Hmm, Communist Party. That may be relevant. The story goes on:
A charismatic leader famous for his long speeches delivered in his green military fatigues, Castro is admired in the Third World for standing up to the United States but considered by his opponents a tyrant who suppressed freedom.
So he was a "charismatic leader" and was considered "a tyrant who suppressed freedom"--but only by his opponents. In contrast:
The bearded leader who took power in an armed uprising against a U.S.-backed dictator in 1959 had temporarily ceded power to his younger brother after he underwent emergency surgery to stop intestinal bleeding in mid-2006.
So the fellow Castro replaced was definitely a dictator. As for Castro himself, who knows?
And it isn't even just Reuters. The Associated Press calls Castro an "unchallenged leader," while the New York Times characterizes him as "one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world." (That fellow in North Korea--he's all-powerful, but not as all-powerful as Castro.)
The free press in the free world is bending over backward not to call Castro what he really was: a communist dictator. Why? Perhaps this is an artifact of the Watergate-era notion of the "adversarial press." Journalists see themselves as standing in opposition to their own government, and since Castro was an enemy of the U.S. that put him on the same side. The enemy of my country is my friend, or at least my "unchallenged leader."
Democracy Triumphs in Pakistan
Pakistan's parliamentary elections, delayed more than a month by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, were held yesterday. The result was a big win for democracy and a defeat for both Pervez Musharraf's dictatorship and radical Islamists. Here's how the New York Times reported it:
Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections on Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.
Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers. . . .
The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed him for more than six years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote.
The Times is awfully eager to paint this as a defeat for America, which it equates with "the Bush administration." But is it really? It's not as if the U.S. was allied with Musharraf out of some personal loyalty or question of principle. The alliance was pure Realpolitik, a necessity (for Musharraf as well as for Washington) when the U.S. had to go to war with al Qaeda following 9/11.
Another Times piece quotes an expert who sees the result as beneficial to America:
The emergence of a Parliament of moderation should be good news for the United States, Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani military analyst based in Washington, said. "If Parliament will now have a stronger hand than before in national decision making then the United States should be pleased, since it will not have to beg and cajole Pakistan to act in its own interests against the terrorists," Mr. Nawaz said.
Seems right to us. In any case, the idea that Pakistanis voted against Musharraf because he was allied with the U.S. strikes us as another bit of American journalistic parochialism. Isn't it possible Pakistani voters had other things on their minds?
Wannabe Pundits
What follows is the first two paragraphs of a column by one Dana O'Neil:
For all the foibles of superdelegates, hanging chads and George W. Bush over Al Gore, we generally understand how this country chooses its president.
The waft of smoke out of the chimney is a bit medieval, but we also get who can and can't be the pope (gotta be a man, gotta be Catholic).
Can you guess the topic? No, you cannot. It is the selection process for the college basketball tournament.
Remedial Writing
If you can diagram this sentence from an Associated Press story, you have a higher IQ than this columnist:
A woman reported missing for several days was found stabbed to death in a minivan by family members who were called by police to pick up the vehicle because it was illegally parked near Pomona Superior Court, authorities said Monday.
One thing we're wondering, though: Since no one has been convicted yet, shouldn't that read "allegedly by family members"?
Riotously Happy
• "Denmark Named Happiest Place on Earth"--headline, Internet Broadcasting System, Feb. 18
• "Danish Youths Riot for Sixth Night"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 16
That Explains O'Reilly, but What's Olbermann's Excuse?
"Fox Tested Positive for Rabies"--headline, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Feb. 18
Who Says He Isn't Self-Critical?
"Whitehouse Says Bush Takes 'Stubborn Approach' on Eavesdropping"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 16
Life Imitates 'South Park'
• "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls"--"South Park" episode title, originally aired Aug. 19, 1998
• "Robot Chef Makes Tasty Octopus Balls"--headline, LiveScience.com, Feb. 13
'Something Tasted Fishy, but Not Fishy Enough'
"Salmon Products Tainted by Diesel Recalled"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Feb. 16
Especially if It's True
"Woman Says Being Declared Dead Ruins Life"--headline, WSMV-TV Web site (Nashville, Tenn.), Feb. 15
Help Wanted
"Gas Station Robber Sought"--headline, Kansas City Star, Feb. 16
Too Much Information
"Toilet Break to Last Five Days"--headline, Baltic Times (Riga, Latvia), Feb. 19
Someone Set Up Us the Bomb
"Old Clinton Ties and Voters' Sway Tug at Delegates"--headline, New York Times, Feb. 17
"Amazon's Cloud Storage Hiccups"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 16
News of the Oxymoronic
"Midlife Suicide Rises, Puzzling Researchers"--headline, New York Times, Feb. 19
Breaking News From 1066
"Vikings Go on Rampage at Lodge"--headline, Post-Journal (Jamestown, N.Y.), Feb. 15
Breaking News From 1927
"Radio Problem Delays Lindbergh Departures"--headline, San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 15
Breaking News From 1962
"Police Investigate Monroe Suicide"--headline, Hartford Courant, Feb. 18
News You Can Use
• "Want Higher Returns? Don't Take Prozac: James Saft"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 14
• "Top 5 Reasons Why You Should Call-In Sick to Work"--headline, FoxNews.com, Feb. 14
• "Killing Bosses: Learning Strategies Key to Advancement"--headline, Pacific Daily News (Guam), Feb. 20
• "Anger Makes for a Deadly Bed Partner"--headline, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 17
• "How Come: Flatulence, or How to Clear a Room"--headline, Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.), Feb. 18
Bottom Stories of the Day
• "Kathleen Turner Saves Cash by Riding Bus"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 17
• "Fish Dinners Served at St. Thomas Church"--headline, Herald-Standard (Uniontown, Pa.), Feb. 19
• "Sharon Stone Laments US Policies on Iraq, Afghanistan; Feels Pain Over Iraqi Deaths"--headline, FoxNews.com, Feb. 18
Saving Your Change
One recurring--and, needless to say, creepy--theme among followers of Barack Obama is the idea that he is a Christlike figure. "Is Obama a (or the) Messiah?" is the title of a recent WashingtonPost.com item by religion blogress Claire Hoffman.
Blogger Edward Morrissey notes that Obama's wife, Michelle, in a recent speech, described her husband as a savior: "Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And Time's Joe Klein quotes a leading political operative: " 'We know he can walk on water,' Democratic stalwart Donna Brazile told me, presciently, a year ago. 'Now he's got to produce the loaves and fishes.' " (Granted, Brazile was probably speaking tongue in cheek, and her remark is reminiscent of Chauncey Gardner in "Being There" as much as Jesus.)
But consider this quote from Bill Clinton, reported by MSNBC.com's First Read:
He told voters that the contest was "the power of speeches against the promise of solutions by a world-class change maker."
The reference to Mrs. Clinton as a "change maker" calls to mind Matthew 21:12:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.
Isn't Mr. Clinton just playing into Obama's hands here?
No comments:
Post a Comment