No, I mean this really isn’t an issue.

I can save everyone a bunch of keystrokes with two words.

David Axelrod.

He worked for Edwards. Then he worked for Patrick. Now he works for Obama.

Nothing has been plagiarized. Nothing has been stolen. Nothing needs to be attributed to someone else.

Axelrod writes speeches, Obama repeats them.

Poorly Manufactured Controversy.

My goodness……..who in the hell that has any sense would actually vote for this empty suit!

Winebabe on February 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM

The Obama-nation! That’s who.

Debbie Schlussel on February 21, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Nicely done.

When does Obama get accused of having plagiarized himself?

I think Coulter had that happen. Oh and being accused of it for throwing in a cliche or two.

- The Cat

Debbie, who made the video?

DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I don’t know him or anything about him/her, but on YouTube, his/her name is “lalucha1m” and just joined yesterday. Could be a Hillary campaign person.

Give the choice between Cankles & B(Hussein)O for Dem nominee, I’d much rather have Hillary. We already know all her scams and schemes and so many people hate her, she’d be blocked a lot even by a Dem Congress. He has so much goodwill because he’s seen as Mr. GQ, plus he’s a minority, that he could wreak a lot of havoc. Plus, there are those many Nation of Islam employees he has that will probably come with him to the White House. The guy is frightening. Jimmuh Carter times 1,000, and his wife is Billy minus the beer.

There are only so many ways to say nothing

lorien1973 on February 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Hammer, meet nail.

If you went over every speech given by any of the candidates and compare every sentence with every sentence spoken by other candidates before them, you’ll find the same words being used. Somehow I doubt that Obama is pouring over Spike Lee movies and John Edwards speeches looking for stuff to steal.

I’m sure as hell no Obama fan, but this barely moves the needle on the Outrage-O-Meter. Obama is an empty suit who speaks in platitudes and little else. We get it.

I don’t think the Matrix references are out of line at all. Especially given the fact that Marxist dirtbag Cornel West was a script consultant on the movies.

You’re allowed your opinion, of course, but you would make an embarrassingly incompetent media strategist if you think its wise to dilute your message and waste valuable time by including some obscure, just barely arguably related reference to some movie which happened to use a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very commonly used and non-specific word/phrase–”the one”–which an Obama supporter (Oprah, not even Obama himself) used.

“I think he’s the one” (or whatever she said) had nothing to do with the Matrix. That’s stupid, and I’m embarrassed that I’m even discussing this with you, because I can feel my own IQ trying to escape through my ears. More likely, it was Oprah appealing to a female audience which would strongly associate “the one” with a soul mate.

There are only so many ways to say nothing

lorien1973 on February 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM

To be precise their are only so many ways to dress up his neo-socialist populist message (but seriously no one can come up with some new anti-pharma jokes).

There are only so many ways to say nothing

lorien1973 on February 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM

…and Obama won’t stop until he’s exhausted them all.

DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I don’t think the Matrix references are out of line at all. Especially given the fact that Marxist dirtbag Cornel West was a script consultant on the movies. (He even appeared as a council member in the third film)

rivlax on February 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Pocket fisherman?

One day we’ll probably find out that some advertising execs made a bet that they could take an unknown politician of no achievements and package him in a way that millions would buy him. It would make a good movie, anyway.

Obama is the political equivalent of a Pet Rock. Or maybe a Chia Pet, or the Topsy Tail, or the Cap Snaffler. You pick the product.

Bigfoot on February 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM

That is an interesting observation. The only thing I would say in response is that I would be interested to find the relationship between African-American communication styles in general to African-American preaching styles from the time slaves were brought to America to the present. I have the sense that the movement was from religious to secular rather than the other way round. But, that would take some research, and it bears little on the overall conversation. I am quite interested about such things because I study religious communication, preaching in particular.

Hey Debbie,

Nice stuff. Thanks. How’s things in Dearborn?