Whether or not Obama "plagiarized" isn't the issue. Since it's obvious that David Axelrod wrote the speeches for both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama, the real issue is that Obama--like any politician--did not write the stirring words himself, but relied on his high-paid speechmeister/political advisor. Nothing wrong with that, unless you're running as someone who is completely new, completely authentic, totally different from the Old Guard --heck, a prophet, if not the Second Coming of the Messiah. So Obama's another politician who mouths words that he pretends are his.

The second point of this is that Obama's explanation is in fact a lie. He says it wasn't plagiarism because he spoke with Deval and Deval recommended that he use the lines, just as Deval did in his campaign for governor. Turns out that Obama actually used the same lines in a speech before he claims to have spoken to Deval. It seems highly unlikely that Obama and Patrick discussed what words Obama should use in a speech. Rather, Axelord just gave both clients the same words to use. So Obama, again like most politicians, just lied wen caught doing something boneheaded.

This isn't a pro-Hillary rant or an anti-Obama screed. It's just a plea to look at the facts, and stop treating Obama like he's God rather than treat him like a normal, ambitious politician who speaks well but has faults like anyone else. His biggest fault is hubris. And as the Greek dramatists repeatedly warned in their plays, and as we learned from 7 years of Mr. Bush, that is the worst fault of all for a leader to have.

His speech writer says that he did not write those lines, but that Deval Patrick did. Obama actually credited Patrick when giving the same speech in December.

Obama created the fundamental message and platform of his campaign, one based on hope and inspiration. He wrote his own book, "Audacity of Hope," while Clinton hired a ghost writer for her "It Takes a Village." Whether or not he has a hired speechwriter is utterly irrelevant. Even JFK's line "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was borrowed from a Catholic bishop's comment, "Ask not what your church can do for you, but what you can do for your church."

Does this mean that his candidancy was a sham? I think not. He chose those words because he believed in them.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, and fail to comprehend why this is even an issue.

"This isn't a pro-Hillary rant or an anti-Obama screed. "

Yes it is.

Hillary doesn't use speech writers? Not only has Hillary used speech writers but her staffers even write questions for people in the "townhall" meetings and then tell her who to call on. What could be more perfidious?

She even has the temerity to occasionally wear pantsuits that are properly pressed. And her voice isn't masculine enough. And occasionally she says what she thinks her audience wants to hear.

The Horror!!!

And this has what to do with her acussations of plagiarism?

Or is this another "you pick on her because she is a woman" whine?

I don't care whether she is a woman or not. I do care what she does and she is definitely found lacking presidential character.

and how often things go over your head.

No, I wasn't accusing you of being against her because she's a woman. I was suggesting that your critique of her over the town hall issues is just about as silly as criticizing her for her wardrobe or voice.

The only people that find her lacking in presidential character are folks like you that would never vote for a Democrat, no matter how crazy, stupid, or corrupt the Republican nominee is (thanks again for Pretzeldunce Bush).

And since you'll never vote for a Democrat, I must ask again, why the hell we should care what your opinion might be?

I don't care if she is color blind and tasteless in fashion. I do care about issues that speak to her integrity. Want to talk about the Obama email issue? The TWO incidents including the chair of her campaign committee? I didn't think so.

So keep on focussing on the creases in her pants suits.

So the actions of two mid-level state staffers are somehow indicia of the character of Senator Clinton herself? How about we look at McCain's lobbyist friend? Shouldn't he have distanced himself from her when she works on the very issue that he's the chairman in the Senate?

So Clinton fired the idiots that passed on that chain letter. And McCain keeps going out with the lobbyist.

Seems that McCain comes out on the short end of that measurement of character.

I don't know which is worse:

Hillary not knowing what was going on

or

Hillary was involved in it

The I didn't know line wears a little thin when she turns around and uses it when there was a planted question in a meeting who Hillary just happens to call on. Random chance three times in a row. Maybe we should let Hillary pick lottery numbers.

"So Clinton fired the idiots that passed on that chain letter."

And so who hired these "idiots"? Hillary or the people Hillary picked to hire people. And who was watching the store after the first incident?

McCain associates with a lobbyist? Name a beltway boy or girl who doesn't. At least McCain didn't go out with Norman Hsu. Oh yeah, Hillary knew nothing about Norman either.

That's four in a row. Imagine the odds.

So Hillary ought to know about every email sent by every mid-level staffer in her employ in all 50 states? Really?

That sort of accountability is ridiculous and demonstrates how desperate you are.

So President Hillary ought to know about every nuke sent by every mid-office in her army not just in all 50 states but all over the world?

Really?

Absolutely. Executives (that is what she is running for) set policy and see that it is carried out by those underneath them. When an executive does not seem to know the laundry list not just about emails but of what is and is not allowed in the campaign strategy, who they take money from, and how town meetings are conducted, there is a legitimate question of who is in charge and what the policies are. And that question does not mean the executive needs to watch every email. However, it does mean that the executive picks underlings who will carry out her agenda and not their own. That is what being an executive is ALL about; getting what you want done through other people.

And when an underling oversteps their boundaries, they're fired. And that's exactly what happened.

Every chain of command has the occasional member that slips up. You can't command perfection in your staff. We're only human, and so we make mistakes. If those mistakes are recoverable or fixable, then that's what takes place. If they're fatal to the teammember, they're booted.

Hillary had two individuals that were either stupid or too fanatical in their support of her. When she found out what they'd done, she booted them.

Pretending that the actions of her lower level flunkies somehow reflects poorly on her is ridiculous. It's just too bad that this is all you've really got.

Now the Clinton campaign knows nothing about who leaked the pictures of Obama.

Hillary = Sgt. Schulz

"I know nothing."

Drudge is full of shit like usual?

Just because Drudge posts it, it must be true? Right.