Xerox This!!!!
Obama screwed up by not giving Deval Patrick credit for his words, but Hillary has got to be kidding accusing a fellow candidate of cribbing someone else's words. It's part of politics, they all do it. She needs for brotha Bill to start flipping through folks old speeches to find a way for her to get back in this race or looking for some brilliant phrases to concede to Barack!
6 comments:
Professor Tracey,
Shame on you! LOL
The plagiarism argument isn't a fair one. Especially since there wasn't plagiarism. When Patrick came in to defend Obama, they shoulda let it go.
I liked his argument about how his 20 million supporters aren't delusional. I couldn't stop SMH over that prolonged argument on healthcare.
He didn't screw up by not crediting Patrick for his words. The dude is national co-chair of his campaign...
It's a non-issue. But oppo-research is so threadbare on Obama that that is all they had to go with..
I'm not mad at her for exploiting it...but he's real good at deflecting such criticism...she's gotta find something else...
But it may already be too late.
It isn't about fair or whether Mr. Patrick is okay with it. Plagerism is plagerism. You don't take credit for someone else's words or written work, period. That's not even up for discussion here. It's just a plain simple fact.
If I catch someone using my words or written work without permission or credit, I will sue their ass. Just like I would fail a student, so I would prefer that folks in politics would use their own words or give credit where it is due! Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. got in trouble "borrowing" words from others and it became a big deal later.
With that said, the point of my post was the fact that cribbing from one another is done in politics on a regular basis, so it's a big deal about nothing. I'm not going to excuse the cribbing because they do it though.
U're assuming he didn't have Patrick's permission. Or Patrick didn't know...
And rules on written and spoken word aren't exactly the same particularly in politics.
The attack was to discredit his authenticity...but the application was flawed...attack in authenticity is a good line of attack but the plagiarism criticism just had no there there.
If he had his permission, he would have given him credit. The point is you NEVER use anyone words or written statements without credit. Period!
I really don't care what the circumstances are. That is the golden rule and a completely separate issue. If Barack Obama had simply credited the words he used, he would not have been open to anyone's to attack. It's a simple matter of ethics.
And I have already stated twice that in politics they play fast and loose with other people's words, but that does not make it right or a non-issue. Let's hope that Obama will not do it in the future now that he has been attacked about it. He doesn't need to steal the words of others to make his points. Otherwise, whose really speaking?
Post a Comment