I think you mean they all "plagiarize" from each other, and that maybe "this raises questions" about her candidacy.

oh noooooo. the attack of the footnotes.

This kind of low, petty bullshit is Hillary's domain. Bamsy, please don't go down that route.

Another lifted line on TPM: talkingpointsmemo.com/.../179614.php

yeah, that's totally the same as lifted whole passages verbatim...

not that it doesn't make the plagiarism charge incredibly dumb, but still.

She thanked her family and her friends?  PLAGIARIST!

Look, obviously her "change you can Xerox" line was dreadful, and her entire "plagiarism" line of attack in recent days  was completely stupid.  She deserves flack for making it, but we also need some outrage about this outrage.  The fact that her dumb line of attack could maybe-sorta be turned against her does not cancel out how nice a moment she had at the end of the debate, unless one literally can't envision giving her credit for *anything*.

I agree with huntlib, besides didn't politico.com catch that first? Let them field it.

What was that about Xeroxing?  

Yes, yes, I am sure that she will say something polite about using powerful words in her own way.  It matters little.  Plagiarism isn't the issue, someone could quip, hypocrisy is.

Hilarious

When I saw the headline, I thought it meant that Hillary's best moment was really *Obama's*.  It sounded, as the pundits are saying, "valedictory."  Like she's getting ready to make an exit.

Well...I think it's true that it was conciliatory. But the first thing that popped into my mind was "New Hampshire." She even started off the same way ("people ask me how I get up in the morning & do this...") And Obama looked caught off guard in the end, not sure whether to stand up, how exactly to react to the audience which was obviously applauding Hillary, not both candidates as some pundits had it. But otherwise, I think it was his debate. She was stronger on a few points, but overall I thought it was the first one where he actually came out stronger. I think the reason the status quo helps him rather than her is that these days he's the front-runner. Her spin has actually become true: she's the underdog at this point.

I criticized Edwards for that line which he repeated over and over again during the campaign.  It's a line that only an elitist would make, because the American people, people who work for a living, don't want to hear about how fine you're going to be regardless of who becomes president. I couldn't believe that no one in Edwards camp clued him into a how out of touch such a statement was.

It's amazing that Hillary would poach this losing line, but I guess that's been the story of the whole Clinton campaign, ready to lose on day one.

Does anyone believe that the xerox line was actually something she thought of herself, versus something written for her by someone else?

And given the reality that they all have speechwriters, why does it matter so much to her that Obama "use his own words"?

Gathering good ideas from all the players is the reason why democracy works, as haltingly and creakily as it does sometimes.  Come to a consensus, credit the contributors, and then move ahead, don't waste time on finger waving.

Actually Anderson Cooper said that about the xerox line, "I wonder who wrote that for her" - something like that, ouch! But I agree with huntlib that because she obviously impaled herself with that, there's no point in sticking it in further.

In case you missed it, debate No. 19, held in Austin, TX, came and went this evening. (Transcript.) My...

You guys here who are worried that this is beneath Obama, relax.  I don't see that his team made this point because they think it important that HRC paraphrased a line of Edwards's without attribution; they just want to make the point that her whole plagiarism charge was and remains petty and absurd.

What I find really disturbing was that she used this imagery of this experience with these wounded vets and pulled on my heart strings and I had these thoughts about "where has this woman been?" "Wow, beautiful."

But then later, I thought, "But she wouldn't have had to be in that place honoring those vets if she led others to vote against the damn war they were in. They've been used twice by her for her own political ends." And I felt used. Needed to take a shower.

I'm not surprised the Obama people were able to locate the source so quickly. This sort of emotional abuse is pure Edwards. It's the reason I couldn't stand his candidacy.

Forget about the plagiarism issue, my guess is the whole moment was tone deaf re the Texas electorate, especially the white male demographic that Hillary needs to win back. With that kind of misty-eyed "we're all family, let's hold hands" stuff, she just doesn't seem like commander-in-chief material.

Hillary botched the plagiarism topic in the debate, and Obama made great points in his defense but said he wanted to talk about issues not this silliness. This coming from his campaign was more than just more silliness, it was a ill spirited attempt coming from the leader, to detract from the one good moment his opponent had all night, one that may very well have been "valedictorian".  At least we're learning he doesn't walk on water.

How is a trumped up plagiarism charge her one good moment?

I saw this dismissing of these ridiculous distractions as a demonstration of sound leadership.

asnevitt, spot on about using the soldiers twice for her political gain. She should never be let off that hook, ever. In large part because she's never admitted a mistake on it.

my favorite part was where O got to rattle on about the stuff he's done, after she "found it amusing" that his surrogate froze when asked about that on MSNBC. As though that meant O hadn't done anything! Hopefully she's going to shut up about words vs. actions now, and find something else to say. God what a loser argument that has been, in more ways than one.

You know, give her credit, it was a good ending speech. I agree the Obama reax was just to point out that anyone scrubbing any speech can find cribbed portions. She gets some deserved flack for cribbing a lot of it from others becasue of the context she built in the last week, but hopefully that will put it all in the tank.  She got appropriately booed for the Xerox line, but a standing o for the ending, so I guess TX was ok with it.  

But more than anything, she showed, hopefully, that she's going to stop playing by the Rove playbook here, about time, since it was working so well, but good for her.

I really thought last night that Hillary would distance herself from the plagiarism charge -- just laugh it off and agree with Obama that it really was silly.  Then hit him again about his not-so-universal health care plan.  That she couldn't or wouldn't do it really disappointed me.  I am supporting Obama but I have always admired Hillary, until this campaign.  She has really shredded a lot of goodwill since the run-up to South Carolina. What a pity.

Neil

'That she couldn't or wouldn't do it really disappointed me.  I am supporting Obama but I have always admired Hillary, until this campaign.  She has really shredded a lot of goodwill since the run-up to South Carolina. What a pity.'

My thoughts exactly.  For weeks now. I would vote for her in November; I'm not going to allow the GOP to have four more years of judicial nominees, if I can help it.  But I'll be holding my nose if I have to.

You missed the better one, Isaac - look what Josh Marshall found :-)

Hillary Clinton, last night: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Bill Clinton, 1992: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

I agree with a lot of the sentiments above like Neil, and one other thing isn't "solutions not soundbites" a soundbite itself?

Could Mark Penn be arrested for fraud for his complete disaster of a campaign strategy for Hillary? I have only liked her 3 times, the last two debates and Letterman, the rest has been a parody of Rove (at least he won) I read he wanted her to come out swinging last night, given the audience and the complete disaster of her Xerox line she would have gone down in flames. Luckily she didn't listen to that pig the xerox line notwithstanding. She was really good, but unfortunately so was Obama. I think his most presidential performance yet.

You guys need to rethink your opposition to Hillary. All she has done to Obama is perfectly acceptable in the rough & tumble of politics. Remember when she said that MLK efforts would have been in vain, were it not for LBJ? Well she was perfectly correct of course. Only a kooky leftist would interpret that to be racist

Inspiration & idealism are all very well and good. But can Barack deliver? The jury is out on that. However, we know that Hillary can deliver.  Fed-Ex has nothing over her

BTW if Barack thinks Hillary is unfair, wait until the right wing sinks their teeth into him. He will have to endure having his character dragged thru the mud. If he is this sensitive about Hillary's attacks, I  fear what will happen in the general election. The guy needs to evolve beyond being a the political equivalent of Bambi if he is to triumph over the Hard Right

The plagiarism issue is both silly and serious. It is silly to bash candidates for copying lines or paragraphs or sentiments because the point is that they are making an argument for a policy or approach or vision -- it doesn't matter if the words were someone else's.

Plagiarism in political speech does matter when you deny that you borrowed the phrases or words and deny the original speaker his or her due. Then it reveals an arrogance and ego that is unhealthy for sound leadership and judgement.

tembrach, I am not saying it was unfair, but as Obama said, it is silly. Hillary would be a lot better off if she didn't hire that idiot Penn. He wanted her to come out swinging, that would have been a disaster, and would have ruined her closing, evocative speech which most people find wonderful (myself included, and I hate her) But she hired idiots. That has to be a reflexion on her. The only person I know on Obamas campaign is Axelrod (Patrick as co-chair is honorary, and i only heard that last night) but I know far too many names in Hillary's camp.

tembrach:  I'm not sure Hillary can deliver.  When has she?  You assume that going to the mattresses is how to get things done.  No.  it's a way to survive.  It doesn't accomplish anything, because in the absence of 60 solid votes in the Senate (which there will never be on any major reform), *you have to work with the other side*, you *have to appeal to the American people*.  Everything about the record and disposition of these two candidates suggests that Obama will be better able to do that.

As far as the right's sinking teeth into someone, I think that argument works a lot better against Hillary than Obama.  I don't know if I buy Peggy Noonan's comment that Obama is "bulletproof, not Bambi," but we're seeing him beat the Clintons now in a brilliant campaign, and my bet is that he will do even better against a Republican where the policy differences are more stark.  Is beating Hillary the same as beating McCain?  No, but Obama is being tested right now in a pretty big way, and he's coming out on top.

jhildner, I appreciate that Obama does not enjoy the enmity of the Right the way that Hillary does. Having said that,  if  elected president, he quickly will

He is smart enough such that he will adapt, evolve, and fight back.  But that will take time - and time is precious. We have a limited window of opportunity to achieve our goals, and we can't spend it having Obama evolved into a battle hardened politician..

Time to take off the rose colored glasses, and soberly asses our challenges both in the general election, and after victory.

I am afraid this children’s crusade for Obama will have the same result as the crusade for Dean and Ned Lamont. At worst, it will crash and burn cause of the candidates political inadequacy, hard right attacks, and a limited base. At best, it will be a so-so presidency, as the Republicans practice effective gridlock.

With Hillary, we will get results, even though some of us won't feel Kennedyesque inspiration

Tembrach, I disagree that Hillary has the ability to get results.  In fact, I find that it is the ability to govern that has always moved my thinking on the election.  She will forever face a direct, concerted assault on her agenda, merely because her last name is Clinton.  She won't be able to get a darn thing accomplished because there are enough Republicans who will willing sacrifice their own political careers to thwart her plans.

You will argue that she has been effective as a Senator.  That is true, and getting pork for the home state is a necessary and important part of being a Senator, but it is still all very small bore.  The parochial nature of a Senate position removes the reality of who she is, and her political pedigree, or at least diminishes that reality.  As President she would have to shape the agenda and get people to do what she wanted in an atmosphere of partisan warfare that has worsened over the past 16 years.  She represents a continuation of that partisanship.  When she steps to the microphone to announce some iteration of the health care reform, the Republicans will hoot her off the stage, play every tape of the last time she gave it a go, and the country will move not an inch on the issue.  This will play out time and again, and soon, like her husband, she will drag the majorities in the House and Senate into the mud.

Governance has always been the key to this election, and frankly that is where Clinton fails miserably. Her disastrous campaign is the warning sign of a lack of ability to move anything.  This should have been a walk in the park for her, and she finds herself on oxygen, hoping that the other side absolutely self-destructs.  Not a good sign.  Not a ringing endorsement for her chances of actually getting anything done at all.

kgrant1054, I appreciate polite & well reasoned response. So many  who oppose Hillary are frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics. I have been roundly abused by certain folks for my support of her. So I am grateful for your civility

I concede your point  rabid right wing base that hates her. But it would hate whoever we put in there. Their hatred of liberals is  irrational and venomous. A bit  like anti-Semitism - though not being Jewish, I don’t want to take that analogy too far.

So that vitriol will be there, stoked by the demagogues like Limbaugh et al.. Given that this is the case, I just as soon have Hillary. I think she can handle it. I think it will shock Barack, and may even break him

But if  Barack is our nominee - then of course I will support him. I just hope that we quickly dispense with the Euphoria, and batten our hatches for what promises to be a bitter and terribly partisan four years.  We can’t have any illusions about the Right, and their viciousness.

Tembrach, as long as we're in the land of gut feelings, I think you majorly underestimate Obama's ability to fight smart and majorly overestimate Hillary's ability get results.  On the latter, I don't know what specifically you have in mind, if anything, and you don't answer my point that a partisan style (which you seem to favor) is surely bound to accomplish not a thing, even if a consensus style is not a surefire path to success.  At least there's a chance.  Keep in mind that accomplishing goals like health care will rely in large measure on winning over *the public.*  This will be a very public debate, moderated by the media, and whether health care reform fails as it did when Hillary was in charge of it will depend on the salesmanship of its proponents and how effectively scare-tactics will be countered.  I trust Obama -- the candidate who hasn't apparently somehow pissed off half the country, the candidate who is the stronger speaker, the candidate who is not proposing an adult mandate, the candidate who didn't mess it up before, the candidate who isn't distrusted by the media moderator -- more than I do Hillary to successfully make that pitch and get results.

Tembrach:

Believe me, I understand that doing anything will be tough.  But I don't think our side is well-served by a tired sort of cynicism that leads to comments like your "children's crusade" remark.  I don't think that you're facing reality -- a fact underscored by your comparison of Obama to Dean.  It's far too late for such comparisons.  Dean's candidacy had no legs and was undone by an awkward noise.  Obama, if he wins, will have won the toughest, longest, most memorable nomination fight many of us have ever seen, against a very strong opponent, against very long odds, and he will have done it without firing a single cheap shot, without damaging his opponent, without getting in the mud, without blatant interest-group pandering, and without class war rhetoric -- in short, without most of the tools in today's political toolbox.  If he succeeds in this round, and in that way, it will be hard to escape the conclusion that he is simply, and already, *the better politician* and that's who I want going into the general and after.

This may be off the mark, but I have a scene from Gandhi in my head regarding how to deal with the Republican slime machine:  the gripping scene of Gandhi and his group at the salt works, willing to get pummeled by the British, all the while the journalists recorded each blow, and the moral authority that was gained by such 'action' by Gandhi.  

This isn't a perfect analogy, but Obama seems to have sharpened the ability to draw his opponents into hitting him with dubious attacks (the Xerox line, the Weather Underground foolishness), and then not hitting back, but mocking the attempt.  Perhaps Ali's rope-a-dope strategy is the better analogy.  

Either way, he tends to draw the other side into a fight, and then proceeds to allow people to see how desperate the attack actually is.  His little head-shake and muttering of 'no, no' during the debate as Hillary uncorked her canned Xerox line was that kind of manuever.  He had just explained that the story was silly, and yet she continued to flog the talking point, not really realizing that the point was already lost.  

I think that the Republicans will wade into the cesspool, but find that their target doesn't respond as Kerry or Gore did, allowing themselves to get whacked, and not providing any kind of response.   Obama will absorb the blows, having guarded appropriately, and then return a subtle shot across the bow that renders the argument moot.

Will this work each time?  Probably not, but it will be effective enough that the standard Republican attack won't work, and they have no other arrow in their quiver.

Hmm, rereading this, I clearly should go to bed, because I am well beyond mixing metaphors, I am producing mash-ups.  Yeesh, from Gandhi to bad archery metaphors.  Good lord.

Good night.

kgrant, hah. good ending.

tembrach: "Given that this is the case, I just as soon have Hillary." My main argument against Hillary won't be her governing style, I actually think if it had been her and not Bill who had been President the second term, we would have been a lot better off. But we can't appoint her there, she has to win the election. And as she is not even showing the ability to win the nomination, against a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, I just can't see her beating McCain the war hero.

To be honest, I think Obama and Hillary would be both very good good times Presidents, that is people who can take advantage such opportunities present to make genuine societal gains. But I am worried about both since we are heading into bad times. I can only hope for the best.