"Unattributed inspiration"

This from today's New York Times:

The accusation on Monday by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that Senator Barack Obama recently plagiarized a passage from a speech delivered two years ago by a friend has opened a door to charges and countercharges about borrowed phrases and unattributed inspiration in the 2008 campaign. (From an article by Sam Roberts, called In Politics, Inspiration Or Plagiarism Is a Fine Line)

I hate this plagiarism controversy--it's a sideshow crafted to distract us from the real event of political discourse--but I do love that it threw the phrase "unattributed inspiration" into the mix. Nice one, reporter Sam Roberts, whoever you are.

The phrase is not only cute. It summons what's tricky about a term like plagiarism in this business of inspiration and oratory. When do we routinely attribute inspiration? I mean, besides the thank yous on Oscar night and when we're on e. Do we diminish how inspiration actually works by demanding it be footnoted? Okay, okay, I'll be more specific.

A day has not gone by since superTuesday that I haven't overheard a compare and contrast discussion about Hillary and Barack. I have heard the same arguments with the same phrases again and again. People are summoning the same phrases, without attribution, not because they are trying to get away with something, but because the wording stuck. We muddle our way through articulations of this contest in the hope of gaining some clarity, from our own words and other people's responses.

These conversations are literally one string of unattributed inspiration after the next. Arguing at a bar is not the same as speech making, but I mention this to point out that phrases that work come into the fold and, if they are useful enough, if they are memorable enough, cannot remain copyrighted. They belong to everyone. Hillary and McCain are now added to the list of people claiming to be "fired up and ready to go." Good for them. It sounds a tad silly coming from them, but it's a good phrase, and that's why they took it. (What are they gonna say, "And as Barack Obama says, I, Hillary/McCain, am fired up and ready to go!"? I mean, attributing him would kinda step on the message, and no one's mad at them for that non-citation.)

So let's move a little further down the spectrum of official words and appropriate citations, from arguing to speechmaking. Twice Barack has used distinct wording originally used by Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, with Mr. Patrick's blessing.

Question 1: Is delivering the words of your speechwriter plagiarism? No. Clearly. In general, we don't expect a speechmaker to have authored every word that escapes his lips. In fact, we generally don't expect him or her to have authored any of it. As a society, we are familiar with the job "speechwriter" and we assume that the big dog politicians pay good money for the best ones.

Question 2: What, in effect, is the difference between a politician delivering a speechwriter's sentence and a politician delivering another politician's words? One difference is that a speechwriter is paid to put words in Obama's mouth, whereas Patrick, in essence, made a word-choice donation. Another difference is that Patrick previously delivered the words he gave Obama, and, presumably, the speechwriter did not. The big non-difference is that both original authors said to Obama: here, use this, and go win.

Plagiarism is a really serious charge. Taking something that's not yours, taking credit for work you did not do--it offends me deeply. And when we read an author's words in a book, we reasonably expect that the person whose name is on the cover came up with every single one of those printed words, unless she or he cites someone else. But when a politician delivers a speech, we never have the expectation that the politician came up with every single one of those words. Plagiarism is a crime of deceit. Our expectation here is, therefore, highly relevant.

The Times' story points out that the Clintons have invited a glass-house scenario by throwing stones at Obama. Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural address contained this beautiful passage:

Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring. A spring reborn in the world's oldest democracy that brings forth the vision and courage to reinvent America.

It turns out that this and other parts of the speech were based on a four page outline provided by Bill's friend, Father Tim Healy, former president of Georgetown University and then president of the New York Public Library. He died shortly after Clinton's election, but when his friends went to his home, they found in his typewriter a letter to Clinton, including the suggestion to talk about forcing the spring. Clinton in his autobiography said "I wanted to use it in his memory," and he did, unattributed.

Of this incident, the original voice of the plagiarism accusation, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson, said: "Tim Healy helped President Clinton write the speech by offering suggestions for it. That doesn't fit any definition of plagiarism I'm familiar with."

EXACTLY! So what is your problem, people? Enough with this sideshow, it's making ya'll look bad... as the good people of Wisconsin so clearly demonstrated last night!