Plagiarism, Commonplaces, and the nonrhetorical Clinton Campaign

Submitted by rhosa (not verified) on February 20, 2008 - 12:14pm.

"call it what you will...":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/opinion/20dowd.html

Submitted by J. K. Gayle on February 19, 2008 - 12:43pm.

2) "Not running on the strength of rhetoric" is some kinda rhetoric.

1) "Plagiarism" is so 1990s; it was the late charge of one Theodore Pappas (and a few over-eager white supremacists rallying around like flies around Ron Paul's campaign) against the late and brilliant rhetor Martin Luther King, Jr.

(So I blogged: http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2008/01/martin-luther-king-jr-is-no-ari...)

J. K. Gayle

all aboard the politics of hope express

Submitted by johnm on February 18, 2008 - 11:34pm.

the real idiocy of this whole thing is twofold:

(1) EVERY politician uses speechwriters, and never quotes his/her writers while speaking. Even when a speechwriter isn't used, every politician has a team to help with the speechmaking process that will make suggestions.
(2) This attack will, unfortunately, still probably work for some people. The 'P' word has "uh-oh" connotations everywhere, and it's sometimes unclear where those boundaries lie (as you pointed out Jim).

This smacks of the same thing that happened with the race-baiting comments right before S. Carolina. The Clintons fight dirty. And notice that Hillary has kept her own hands out of it (publicly, anyway) both times - first it was her husband, this time it's an advisor.

the "p" word

Submitted by slewfoot on February 19, 2008 - 2:30pm.

Johnm says "the 'P' word has 'uh-oh' connotations everywhere." To which I would add, everywhere except among students (and apparently politicians). Two stalking plagiarisers in as many years has taught me better: many students see plagiarism as a contemporary variety of (musical) sampling. If I "mix it up," it's my creation. Weird science, indeed.