Are Those Your Words, Sen. Clinton? : Dispatches from the Creation Wars

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Get Your Flu Shots | Main | Confessions of a Failed Standup Comic »

Are Those Your Words, Sen. Clinton?

Posted on: February 22, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

So I was watching the debate between Clinton and Obama last night and I was just stunned to see Hillary Clinton still trying to push that idiotic plagiarism argument. Could they possibly believe it's helping their campaign at this point? Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument he should have made. When she delivered that stupid line that "if your candidacy is going to be about words, they ought to be your own words", Obama should have immediately said, "Do you write all your own speeches? Do you not employ speechwriters and polling companies that help you craft your message and frame issues for the public?" There is no answer to that. She either says no, which everyone knows is a lie, or she says yes and it becomes obvious that she's full of shit on this issue. When she delivered that pathetically obvious line "this isn't change you can count on it's change you can xerox" he should have immediately asked which one of her campaign advisers wrote that line.

Comments

Thats interesting. How many Christian creationists write campaign sound bites for Hillary and Barack? Please advise us so we can be informed as to who is influencing our great American culture these days.

Have creationists or Christians made news by jerking Hillary around? We know that she got into trouble for publically embracing a Palestinian? We know that she traveled to Israel and praised the Wall as a good thing.

We know that Hillary and Barack got into a fight over Jews in Hollywood and their money. Jews who once backed the Clintons gave contributions to Barack.

What influence have Creationists had in this presidential election? INquiring minds want to know.

How much influence does Rupert Murdoch have in presidential elections and in forming American culture? Is Murdoch a Christian creationist?

Posted by: Barbara | February 22, 2008 9:56 AM

Meh. Clinton's plagiarism charge doesn't seem to be getting much traction against Obama and is opening up Hillary to similar scrutiny, as seen here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php

Posted by: carlsonjok | February 22, 2008 10:07 AM

Barbara, I'm scratching my head here. What does any of this have to do with creationist Christians? What am I missing?

Posted by: Rob | February 22, 2008 10:08 AM

So let me get this straight: if Ed writes about creationists, Barbara calls him an anti-Christian bigot who ought to be focusing on more important issues. And if Ed writes about something other than creationists, Barbara starts badgering him about creationism.

Fascinating.

Posted by: MartinM | February 22, 2008 10:14 AM

Re Barbara

Ms. Barbara seems to be becoming the antisemitic troll on this blog. Apparently, her meme is that the Jews are controlling Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. She keeps ignoring the fact that the born again Christians she seems to admire are the most ardent supporters of the State of Israel.

Posted by: SLC | February 22, 2008 10:14 AM

Rob - get Head and Shoulders and shampoo daily. This BLOG is about CULTURAL WARS. Duh.

Who exactly is involved in these wars? Who has all the political power that forms our culture today.

Who is the whipping child and who gets scapegoated for what others are doing to our country.

Was our country better off before the immigration laws were changed by Jews and Jacob Javits which allowed immigrantants to come here from places other than Western Europe and therefore ignite the wars?

Are we better off today under the influence of those opposed to our tradtional culture, religion and history.

If diveristy is a good thing then how do we justify our support for Israel?

What purpose does political correctness serve other than to silence white people and keep differences simmering beneath the surface?

Why can you call me a redneck or a hillbilly but if I say nigger or hymie then I'm a bad person?

I report. You decide.

Posted by: Barbara | February 22, 2008 10:21 AM

I hereby nominate Barbara for a Farfarman Award. First prize? A slap upside the noggin with the Ban Stick! She adds nothing, derails every thread into incoherent Jew-bashing, and is barely readable. Maybe Larry has a sister? Either way she's making it difficult to wade through the comments or hold a comprehensible discussion.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 22, 2008 10:26 AM

Oh buddy is this your idea of logic, rationality and scientific reasoning! Wait just a minute Mister. This blog is about cultural wars. Are you saying Christians and Creationists are fighting with themselves and thereby creating war over American culture! Obviously obsurd.

The wars have to be between different groups within the culture don't they? Jews are a powerful influence upon our culture from the media, government, Hollywood and they are the richest segment of the population and I insist that you reseach how much campaign money comes from them.

Not to mention they are different from Christians wouldn't you agree. They attempt to take Christ out of christmas in addtion to every other way they can bring about the Israslization of America and change our culture.

Are you saying we are only allowed to talk about ONE group in these cultural wars? The Christian Creationists? What do you use to do your thinking.

When I first posted here you said you would have a lot of fun with me. Are you having fun yet.

Hint: Perhaps you people are not as smart as you think you are. Which rasies another question.

Who has more reason to be adamently certain that they know everything and can therefore be cocksure?

1. Rightwing Rush Limbaugh dittoheads?

2. "Scientific" geniuses and Ed Brayton fans.

Posted by: Barbara | February 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Jeff, I was thinking the same thing. I mean wow - I thought Larry was off his noggin.

Maybe it's some kind of joke.

Posted by: Dave S. | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM

"Are we better off today under the influence of those opposed to our tradtional culture, religion and history."

You wanna bring back lynching, misogyny, religious bigotry, child labor, machine politics, etc.?

Posted by: uncle noel | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM

Hillary copied whole "Obama is a plagiarist" thing from the right wing, so how can she possibly criticize someone else for lacking originality. Even if Obama is guilty of more than homage - and Deval Patrick himself says otherwise - I'd rather have someone in office who copies good ideas than someone who copies bad ones. If I say "all men are created equal" does that make me a plagiarist or someone who appreciates a noble sentiment?

Posted by: Jeff Darcy | February 22, 2008 10:45 AM

Re Barbara

1. Ms. Barbara invokes Rush Limbaugh. Apparently, she is unaware of the fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a strong supporter of the State of Israel.

2. "Jews are a powerful influence upon our culture from the media, government, Hollywood and they are the richest segment of the population"

The last I heard, neither Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are Jewish. But then maybe Ms. Barbara knows something we don't. The more Ms. Barbara comments on this blog, the more she warbles the Josef Goebbels music.

Posted by: SLC | February 22, 2008 10:51 AM

Why can you call me a redneck or a hillbilly but if I say nigger or hymie then I'm a bad person?

You've got this backwards. Using the N-word and the H-word doesn't make you a bad person. Rather, the fact that you're a bad person inspires you to use the N-word and the H-word.

Thinking you're superior to an arbitrary demographic group is a serious character flaw. Hating all members of that group is a worse flaw. Using the N-word or the H-word (or the R-word or the other H-word) is a symptom of that flaw. (But it's also possible to use those words affectionately or thoughtlessly, and a person who does that isn't necessarily bad.)

Posted by: chaos_engineer | February 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Anyway, Hillary does not have the political instincts of her husband. To pursue this attack after it has backfired is political suicide. My support for her is being erroded, not by Obama's successes, but by her own mistakes. She seems out of touch, all of a sudden.

Posted by: uncle noel | February 22, 2008 11:07 AM

On Hillary:
I am not one of those with an irrational, visceral hatred of her, but I don't much like her. If she is full of shit on this issue, that is small surprise.

On Barbara:
At least she is consistent. Her incoherent posts have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: BaldApe | February 22, 2008 11:09 AM

Ed, making this into a moral issue is disingenuous: Obama has already "gone there" by attacking Clinton for her position on health insurance with Reagan type scare tactic adds. But you're right to point out her poor judgement here.

Posted by: uncle noel | February 22, 2008 11:21 AM

I have to disagree here. Obama did well not to say anything that could be interpreted as conflating plagiarizing someone else's words with using someone else's words with permission. Paying a speechwriter really isn't in the same class as plagiarizing, and I think Obama was wise not to imply a comparison between the two. Asking a question about paid speechwriters would have allowed H. Clinton to say, not just "yes," but "I paid; I didn't steal." Better for Obama to leave it alone at this point.

Posted by: JuliaL | February 22, 2008 11:25 AM

Not to mention that Hillary is doing some "borrowing" of her own. Josh Marshall at TPM pointed out that she closed the debate last night by adopting a line from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php

Posted by: chezjake | February 22, 2008 11:28 AM

This actually made the morning news on the CBC. Get a clue, Hillary: when even the Canadians are laughing at you, it's time to try a different strategy.

About Barbara: she's so damn incoherent, it took me a while to figure out whether she was being pro or anti-Jewish.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 22, 2008 11:30 AM

I think Obama did all right by more or less ignoring her on this one. The xerox comment was sufficiently lame that she was hurting herself without his help.

Posted by: Doug | February 22, 2008 11:33 AM

Okay, the Barbara troll is history. She was amusing for a while, but playtime is over. Buh bye.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 22, 2008 12:09 PM

> Okay, the Barbara troll is history.

Dammit! I was just about to bet cash money on how long before you kicked her off... :-)

Posted by: David Durant | February 22, 2008 12:51 PM

I think it would be funny if Obama said, "As my good friend says, I like Chicago" "As many people have said, it's always darkest before the dawn" "As someone probably said, we need to fix our government" through an entire speech.

Posted by: The Ridger | February 22, 2008 3:17 PM

Not to mention that Hillary is doing some "borrowing" of her own. Josh Marshall at TPM pointed out that she closed the debate last night by adopting a line from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

And, of course, her "we'll all be fine line" was used by John Edwards, among others, before her. That only shows how ridiculous the whole issue is. All politicians lift lines from one another, and it makes sense. If someone who agrees with you states a common belief really well, why wouldn't you end up adopting the language?

Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

"Rob - get Head and Shoulders and shampoo daily. This BLOG is about CULTURAL WARS. Duh."

Nice, Barbara, especially the "duh" part; you really got me there. Just to show there are no hard feelings, here is my George W. Bush impression (You'll have to imagine his voice. Duh.)

You are stupid, and you are a bitch. You are what I call a stupid bitch. Heh heh. (Now imagine the self-satisfied smirk)

Posted by: Rob | February 22, 2008 3:47 PM

"if your candidacy is going to be about words, they ought to be your own words"

Tsk, tsk, Ed. How could you be so obtuse as to miss Hillary's point? Only candidates whose campaigns are solely about words are obligated to use their own. Her campaign is about substance, and you know how much harder that is to come by. Obviously its completely OK to grab it where ever you can get it.

Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | February 22, 2008 4:07 PM

Obviously [it's] completely OK to grab it where ever you can get it.

Huh huh...you said...

Posted by: Leon | February 22, 2008 5:43 PM

Wow, that Barbara person...is off the deep end, isn't she? Not to state the obvious, but she really does need help. Or maybe an education (or re-education).

Who is the whipping child and who gets scapegoated for what others are doing to our country

That really is rich coming from someone in the process of doing some gratuitous scapegoating (Jew-baiting, in this case). I'm no fan of Israel myself and its lobby's influence in Congress is disgraceful, but this "Jews are in control of Amurrika" stuff is really out there.

Posted by: Leon | February 22, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm in favor of negative campaigning. I'm not in favor of ridiculous personal attacks. When Sen. Clinton persists in things like the plagiarism smear, she makes it seem like she doesn't have any valid criticisms of Sen. Obama's policies or, for that matter, his experience and qualifications. A negative campaign can highlight what it is that makes a candidate the better choice (from one perspective). But, there's a fine line between going negative and going stupid.

Posted by: zy | February 22, 2008 6:40 PM

I think he was probably about to say something to that effect, but then the boos started, and he realized that he didn't have to say anythine else--he had already won the argument.

Posted by: Hyuga | February 22, 2008 7:49 PM

Man, I thought the blog post was a race to the bottom in stupidity. And then I started reading the comments.

Posted by: Falks | February 22, 2008 9:54 PM

testing

Posted by: testing | March 10, 2008 1:58 PM