To paraphrase Alanis Morisette, it's ironic that the speech in question is about the power of words. In response to Clinton's disparagement of Obama's Rhetoric, Obama gives speeches about Rhetoric, asserting its primary value. But then the authenticity of Obama's words becomes a question.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said yesterday that plagiarism is particularly troubling because rhetorical skills are a key factor in Obama's appeal.
"It raises questions about the premise of his candidacy," Wolfson told reporters in a conference call
Verily, as they say in the hood where Harrogate used to roll, that there Howard Wolfson is Harrogate's Dawg. Highlighting Rhetorical Skills and Appeals and Premises and such.
What say you all?
8 comments:
There are a few issues with this:
(1) Why did Obama not cite his friend with whom he shares material? When presidents speak they are not held to the same standards as a student in Public Speaking. President Bush (and other presidents) often incorporates Bible quotes, directly, and the ideas of others without citing sources, which is terribly problematic to teach a public speaking/debate class, have students watch, and then have the students ask why they have to cite sources.
(2) While Senator Obama helps to write his speeches and drafts of his speeches, he relies on speech writers. Is this act alone unethical or is it fine because it is behind the "curtain"?
Should Clinton be held to the same standard in all of this? Howard Wolfson stated the Clinton camp could not deny that her campaign has used the words of others...
(3) What is the meaning of invention in the rhetorical process? In classical rhetoric, invention refers to "finding the correct argument" to use in a situation not creating an argument. This may be a division in rhetoric between Communication and English since in debate classes (as well as public spekaing classes and history of rhetoric classes) we teach students topoi (commonplaces or common arguments) to apply in speaking situations. In this light, Senator Obama used a series of commonplaces or use one long one from a friend, which would make sense if they share the same "language" or the same arguments.
If we attack Senator Obama on this, then we should attack Thomas Jefferson since the Declaration of Independence is modeled after an obscure Declaration from Denmark and is not "original."
Senator Obama will lose some votes for this, but overall, this seems to be a non-issue on a slow news day (it was President's Day yesterday.)
It is also a very weak attack. If we are to take Senator Clinton seriously, that words do not matter, only solutions. If that is true, then she should be asked:
(1) why does she campaign?
(2) How does she reach decisions? How does she attempt to persuade?
(3) How does she develop a sense of community with her listeners, which is based on epideictic rhetoric and needs to occur before policy considerations?
This is a non-issue, unless your a Clinton supporter who cannot find any other dirt on Senator Obama.
If she attacks him on this, then she should lay out a theory of composition, which would apply to her.
Harrogate agrees with you that it is a non-issue in terms of voting. If you were going to vote for Obama, and then now this comes along and changes your vote, then that's pretty freakin' strange.
But your response reveals that this Situation provides us with a wealth of discursive materials. Harrogate would like to see you field questions from students about why they cannot do, for oral or written assignments, what Politicians do in their work.
To be clear. As far as Harrogate is concerned this is NOT plagiarism. Topoi, and the fact of speechwriters, applies to them all, and such things do not bother Harrogate in the slightest.
At his or her best, a speechwriter's work would be inspired by the candidate and what he/she stands for. This is obviously what is happening both in the case of Clinton and Obama.
Still, you gotta love Wolfson breaking out some pop-Rhetorical Analysis, however obvious his motives.
Good for the community to think about such things.
Along these same lines, you deserve an academic-pop blogger of the year nomination, for this comment:
"If she attacks him on this, then she should lay out a theory of composition, which would apply to her."
Yay! When was the last time we had a Presidential election around which such arguments swirled?
Further, I would object to Wolfson's point and the negative connotations about Obama's rhetorical skill: he is just making the same-old, tried point that Obama is just style.
Again, this is all to divert attention away that Obama has more elected experience 1997 - 2004 (Illinois) and 2004 - present (Congress) to Clinton's (2000 - present).
An interesting defense of Obama from Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:
Our political conversation is not subject to a copyright, thank goodness, and the controversy over whether Barack Obama borrowed a phrase or two from his friend, the governor of Massachusetts, is silly. (It was silly and unfair to Joe Biden in 1988, too. History, and John Sasso, have wronged Mr. Biden here.)
Using the standard that finds an objection in what Obama did, every politician owes residuals to the corps of political pollsters who created the library of platitudinous phrases that so often comprise the average stump speech. "In the end, it's about the children." "This election is about the future, not the past."
The best speakers tend to appropriate and expand; Obama's speeches pay tribute to the entire Kennedy family (and to the Sorensenian/Shrumian influences on their rhetoric); to Martin Luther King and to Barbara Jordan, ("Are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation?"), to Calvinist preachers; to Jesse Jackson, to Cicero and Aristotle.
Nonetheless, Obama's speeches are more original, more authorial, more persuasive than any of his competitors.
The Clinton campaign seems to have a different motive. Obama, as Howard Fineman had said, occasionally seems to be "caught up in his own words" -- forgetting his mortality and ascending, briefly, to the heights of messiahdom . His appeal in such instances is very narrow.
By pointing the laser at Obama's words, and by pointing out how they aren't perfectly original, they are making an argument about the distinction between rhetoric and government. A benefit accrues to Clinton when the political conversation turns to whether Obama is real or not; that raises about questions about the substance of an Obama presidency, something the media has begun to, however gingerly, obsess over. (Does Obama privilege "style" over "substance," Matt Lauer asked this morning in his Today cold open.)
Having essentially conceded the argument that Obama is more inspirational than Clinton is, Clinton is asking, here, what, in the end, does inspiration (which is ephemeral and borrowable) have to do with solving problems?
Clinton might well (but would never) make the point that Deval Patrick's gubernatorial tenure has not been a smooth ride on I-93.
I propose from this point forward that all candidates for public office be required to submit final drafts of their speeches to Turnitin.com at least one hour before their scheduled delivery times.
As to whether we, as a community of voters, should use this detection tool as a teaching opportunity or a "gotcha" devise, I am, as of this moment, still undecided.
When my students ask why they have to cite sources even though the President does not, I tell them as soon as they become President, then they can stop citing sources.
We reach an agreement on this and then move foreword.
I second Oxymoron's comments.
Maybe it wouldn't be necessary to make ALL candidates submit their essays to turnitin.
Maybe the thing to do would be to require submission Only of those who claim their essays represent 'paradigm-shifting' in the public square.
After all, we're talking about Rhetorical Situations here.
Post a Comment