Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumRand Paul Plagiarized Speech From Wikipedia (Rachel Maddow)
&feature=youtube_gdataPlucketeer
(12,882 posts)thru and thru - why bother to hide it???
Mass
(27,315 posts)speech or not.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)marble falls
(57,063 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html<snip>
The incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race have drawn little comment since his selection as Barack Obama's vice presidential running matejust as revelations of plagiarism by Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin scarcely hurt their book sales. In 1987, before Biden quit the race, he called the incidents "a tempest in a teapot." Although most reporters disagreed then, at least enough to pursue the story, they seem nowperhaps jaded by two decades of scandal-mongeringto have come around to Biden's view.
But Biden's exit from the 1988 race is worth recalling in detail, because his transgressions far exceeded Obama's own relatively innocent lifting of rhetorical set pieces from his friend Deval Patrick, which occasioned a brief flap last February. Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect. In some ways, the 1988 campaignin which scandal forced not just Biden but also Gary Hart from the racemarked a watershed in the absurd gotcha politics that have since marred our politics and punditry. But unlike Hart's plight, Biden's can't be blamed on an overly intrusive or hectoring press corps. The press was right to dig into this one.
In the 1988 race, Biden began as a long shot. But after Hart dropped out in May 1987 over the exposure of his affair with Donna Rice, none of the remaining "seven dwarves" in the Democratic field pulled away from the pack. Biden's youth and vitalityas well as his tutelage by Patrick Caddell, the pollster-consultant considered a veritable magician by insidersmade him a decent bet to reach the front of the pack. Over the summer, the rival campaigns of Michael Dukakis and Dick Gephardt became concerned as Biden ticked upward in the polls.
Biden's downfall began when his aides alerted him to a videotape of the British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock, who had run unsuccessfully against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The tape showed Kinnock delivering a powerful speech about his rise from humble roots. Taken by the performance, Biden adapted it for his own stump speech. Biden, after all, was the son of a car salesman, a working-class kid made good. Kinnock's material fit with the story he was trying to sell.
At first Biden would credit Kinnock when he quoted him. But at some point he failed to offer the attribution. Biden maintained that he lapsed only onceat a debate at the Iowa State Fair, on Aug. 23, when cameras recorded itbut Maureen Dowd of the New York Times reported two incidents of nonattribution, and no one kept track exactly of every time Biden used the Kinnock bit. (Click here for examples of Biden's lifting.) What is certain is that Biden didn't simply borrow the sort of boilerplate that counts as common currency in political discoursephrases like "fighting for working families." What he borrowed was Kinnock's life.
Biden lifted Kinnock's precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideasa degree of plagiarism that would qualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn't apply to Biden. Unlike Kinnock, Biden wasn't the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock's words. Once exposed, Biden's campaign team managed to come up with a great-grandfather who had been a mining engineer, but he hardly fit the candidate's description of one who "would come up [from the mines] after 12 hours and play football." At any rate, Biden had delivered his offending remarks with an introduction that clearly implied he had come up with them himself and that they pertained to his own life.
<snip>
And I prefer Biden to Paul.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)I get a 404 from your link.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)Its from
"Aug. 25 2008 1:35 PM
The Write Stuff?
Why Biden's plagiarism shouldn't be forgotten.
By David Greenberg "
I don't think there should be a specific punishment. I do think we need to know about this stuff when we consider who we want for our leaders. And this was one reason (minor) why I preferred Bill Clinton to Joe Biden.
You do raise an interesting question: should there be a statute of limitations for plagiarizing? Or for racism, or what other kind of ethical or moral failings?
My point is there are so many reasons why I will not be voting for Rand Paul that plagiarizing Wikipedia isn't one of them.
All I am saying is checking politicians for plagiarism would catch a lot of the good ones, too, including - according to some - the POTUS.
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/20/the-obama-plagiarism-scandal/
blackspade
(10,056 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)Of course, the fact that the movie showed the DNA being taken after the baby was born didn't factor into his warning about abortion.
$175,000 a year to read Wikipedia! Nice work if you can get it...
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)zebonaut
(3,688 posts)Did you see their scared faces?
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Change the plot summary so it's different from the speech
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The first edit after Paul's speech changed this text:
to this:
The plot summary is currently pretty much as Rachel quoted it. Later in the article, information has been added about Paul's use of the article.
The article has been semi-protected so that it can't be edited by unregistered users or by users registered within the past few days. The semi-protection will probably be lifted when the excitement dies down.
pam4water
(2,916 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A couple sentences I wrote to explain the Democratic Party's superdelegate rules were lifted almost verbatim, without attribution, for an article on the CNN website.
For future reference: Wikipedia content is copyrighted but is made widely available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which lets you use anything in Wikipedia without paying -- but you must meet some minimal conditions, including attribution.