Now plagiarism? I'm getting tired of her...

This latest plagiarism attack on my boy reeks of desperation. Obama, in responding to attacks that his campaign is "just words," replied:

"I have a dream - just words? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - just words? We have nothing to fear but fear itself - just words? Just speeches?"

Well, it turns out that the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick had said something virtually identical in one of his speeches in October 2006, so the chief spokesman for Hillary's campaign comes out with this statement:

"Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises, because he doesn't have a long record in public life. When the origin of his oratory is called into question, it raises questions about his overall candidacy."

I have to say that although this statement seems to focus on the authenticity of Barack's speeches, hidden in plain sight in the premise of the question is an attack on him that I keep having to reject: Senator Obama's campaign is largely premised on the strength of his rhetoric and his promises. His promises are no more "untested" than Hillary's.

Okay, but back to the question. What did Obama say back to this?

"Deval and I trade ideas all the time. He has occasionally used lines of mine and at the dinner in Wisconsin I used some words of his. On occasion, Senator Clinton has used words of mine as well." When asked if he should have attributed the words, he said: "I am sure I should have. I am happy to give Deval credit."

As a former teacher and tutor, I have a plagiarism button that can perhaps be pushed too easily. I also have an ear for good rhetoric that I will play back, often without attribution. But so often, when I have been writing an essay or blog entry, and been emailing my friends about it for feedback or just to develop more coherence on a matter, my dear friends will say things like, "my words are yours," or "feel free to use that." Sometimes I cite them, sometimes I don't. It really depends on if the citation diminishes the punch of the message, rhetorically.

If Obama's friend says: here's a good answer to these empty rhetoric nay-sayers, use it, can't he just use it? What I wonder is if the Hillary camp called Mr. Patrick's office to get his take on how it feels to be ripped off. If they didn't, they certainly should have.

But whatever Mr. Patrick did or did not have the chance to say in Obama's defense is, I am sure, besides the point. Hillary's campaign was looking for a chance to puncture a hole in one of our boy's most unique and memorable qualities, his ability to stir a crowd. Funny how the point of the supposedly plagiarized passage was how words are more than just words. But the opportunity to cast doubt was too good to pass up.

If that's not empty rhetoric, I don't know what is.

One more thing to think about on this point: on more than a few occasions, when Hillary and her camp (Bill!) have tried to pull a cheap trick to discredit Obama, what happens? The public relations debacle falls on her, not him. (Barack: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.) Hillary's failed attempts at humiliating him are actually demonstrating a turning point in how to play public political games: unlike past campaigns, it's better to play clean. Dirt, it seems, doesn't throw as well as it used to. I just hope that today's Wisconsin voters prove me right on that.