Carol,
   A number of the pundits afterward thought her line "change you can 
xerox" (which she got booed for) sounded insincere, that it was probably 
a line someone gave her, but she didn't believe. They may or may not be 
right, but they weren't talking about plagiarism, just acknowledging 
that speeches are not penned by an individual candidate, but worked out 
carefully through advisors and speech writers and so on. Candidates are 
often "on message" precisely because the whole campaign works on these 
things and tries to choreograph them. As Obama pointed out, Patrick is a 
national co-chair who offered the lines to him. The lines themselves 
were a fine reply to her challenge to him, that he was fine with words, 
but words don't matter much. He thoughtfully pointed out examples of 
words ("all men are created equal") that could never be dismissed as 
"mere words." She raised the plagiarism attack, but also shifted her 
criticism to acknowledge the value of words, but is now saying they are 
"not enough." I think Obama is right, that plagiarism is a "silly" 
objection, a distraction from the real debate. If anyone wants to 
withhold support because he used those words without saying so, go 
ahead. He isn't denying it. He probably will be more careful in the 
future. But he certainly didn't pass off someone else's work as his own 
as a scholar might or a student might. He wrote a speech, pulling in 
suggested elements, as they all do.
   Every time a politician or candidate gives a speech, they are 
probably using the words of many other people. It is the nature of the 
beast. Either Obama is a much better speaker or is much more capable of 
assembling a fine speech writing team.
   It's interesting, too, that a few people pointed out how much 
Clinton's final words echoed what John Edwards said at the end of his 
last debate--that whatever happens, he would be OK and that what matters 
is that America will be OK. It was almost word for word. But she said it 
well and it seemed very pertinent and appropriate. Should she 
acknowledge Edwards? I think so, but would hardly call it plagiarism.
   To the extent that the debate is legitimate, candidates will be asked 
questions that may surprise them, so they may not have rehearsed 
responses ready made. To the extent that they do, it may seem insincere. 
I know I sometimes grope for words when my students ask me questions, 
and they probably prefer it to a prewritten lecture. I thought he did fine.
   I also think it is fairly silly to think about "who won the debate' 
or "who did damage to their opponent." In the best of all possible 
worlds, candidates will put their positions side by side and let us 
choose for ourselves. The ultimate test is who will bring the country in 
the right direction, in harmony with our values and interests.
   What I have come to dislike about the process is that many candidate 
seem to need to distort the issues to gain points. At the moment, 
Hillary Clinton is behind and therefore more negative stuff has been 
coming from her side. The polls say it cost her in Wisconsin, and the 
tight race in Texas may mean she is losing support there as well. The 
Hillary Clinton at the end of the debate seemed to rise above that, to 
say it is "an honor" to be on stage with Barack Obama, and the crowd 
responded very warmly. I think that's what we want, and the candidates 
who take that high road should be applauded.
   Our job, I think, is to point out how dysfunctional the process has 
become and how hard it might be for a candidate of conscience to 
function in that environment without being pulled into it in response.
   Personally, I think Obama is running an astounding campaign, but 
someone who voted for another candidate because of policy differences or 
a different evaluation of how he might fare in the general election or 
as President is a fellow citizen, doing what he/she should be doing, 
weighing it all, I hope throwing out the pettiness, and voting their 
conscience. My wife and I voted differently in the primary. Good for her.
   As teachers, our job can't be to spin it for one candidate or 
another. We have a trust of our own to fulfill.

Craig


Carol Morrison wrote:
> I'm sure many of you saw the debates last night; I only saw part of 
> them, but from what I saw, I think that Hillary Clinton was more 
> effective. Obama seemed to fumble over his answers and even in his 
> speech. Clinton was very direct and to the point. I do believe that 
> Obama wastes words or at least, last night, he had a lot of empty 
> rhetoric in his replies. I teach my students to avoid "fluff" and 
> "padding" in their essays, and I felt that much of what he said was 
> hedging or evading the answer. As to the charges of plagiarism by 
> Clinton, Obama's reply that his friend "gave him permission" to use 
> these lines does not exonerate him from the responsibility of giving 
> attribution for the borrowed phrases, does it? I mean, even if I'm 
> friends with Bill Clinton (which I'm not), I can't just "lift" entire 
> passages from his previous speeches and then give them without 
> attribution, with or without his permission. Or can I? I'm interested 
> in what other's perceptions are. I have not heard Obama speak in the 
> past, so I'm only going by what I heard last night.
>  
> Carol
>  
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> To join 
> or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: 
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or 
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/