Experience in Washington Means One Thing: Dirty Politics as Usual

Clinton: "Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think...

...Because, you know, if you look -- if you look -- if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions."

It raises questions? What are those questions? No more than 30 seconds before this statement, Obama said this:

"Well, look, the -- first of all, it's not a lot of speeches. There are two lines in speeches that I've been giving over the last couple of weeks.

I've been campaigning now for the last two years. Deval is a national co-chairman of my campaign, and suggested an argument that I share, that words are important. Words matter. And the implication that they don't I think diminishes how important it is to speak to the American people directly about making America as good as its promise. Barbara Jordan understood this as well as anybody.

And the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who was one of my national co-chairs ... who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think, is silly, and ... you know, this is where we start getting into silly season, in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it..." (Source: CNN.com)

Sounds like Senator Obama put any possible questions one could have about his speech to bed if those people who actually had questions about is were listening. And if the Democratic party leaders and super delegates or the media pundits were listening, they would have heard the key argument about this whole ridiculous conversation about "plagiarism". That one line is this: "... people start getting discouraged about it."

Words matter. Deval's words being echoed in Obama's speech doesn't change the truth in the statement: Words Matter. In politics we se where very complex ideas are often dumb'ed down and polarized with choice wording meant to drive a wrong impression. "War on terror" "Pro-Life" "Pro-Choice" "Death Tax" "Welfare State" "Socialized Medicine" "Liberal Elite". Words are used to push buttons and polarize the political landscape. They have been used for decades to drive people left, right, or simply out of the process.

Unfortunately for Clinton, Obama's words are resonating with Democrats, Republicans, and people who would prefer not align themselves with the party system. He has brought a message of inclusion that Americans from all demographic groups, age ranges, walks of life, etc. are latching onto because it is a message of the change Americans are looking for after the last 7 years of Dubya's divisive politics. His words and speeches are inspiring a movement in politics in this primary and, I believe, could grow in the general election if Obama gets the nomination. His words are actually bringing people back into the process ... and this is scaring those who are best poised to benefit from old school politics as usual

This is where Clinton fails as a candidate. She fails to plug into where America really is at this time. She touts her 35 years of experience in a system that the majority of Americans (right, left, and center) feel does not work. Hillary points to her non-accomplishments as First Lady and the few thing she's done as a Senator as a reason why she has the ability to move the country in a new direction. But when people move away from her partisan "I can defeat the Republicans" platform to a message of Hope, Change, and real inclusion, Hillary and her folks begin to fight back. Yet they fight with a strategy that stinks of business as usual, same old DC political games. They fight with the arsenal of mud that the American people are sick and tired of seeing from their government leaders. We are facing down a quagmire occupation in Iraq, an ongoing struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and a government that is so far into debt that we spend nearly $430 billion just in interest on the debt annually (source: TreasuryDriect.gov), and the Clinton campaign is wasting our time trying to win votes by discounting Obama's "words"? She's trying to fling mud because a speech he gave was given to him by his one of his campaign chairmen? Regardless of the truth in his words, we are blowing news cycles on whether or not its appropriate to use the words given by another person? And we're curious why voter turnouts have so low before?

This is the ridiculous garbage that plagues our country and stops real change. This is why Americans are looking to Obama and why almost a million people have contributed to his campaign. Despite Clinton and McCain's belief, Americans actually do want to be inspired, not sold on a 12 or 13 point plan. Americans want to know that their President will be a real uniter. Not in the GW Bush way in which the leader says he wants to unite and then proceeds to divide the country, but a real uniter who will bring all people to the table to make real change happen. People see that in Obama. Unfortunately, Clinton's arsenal of political weapons does not include this one important virtue ...

... and that is why she fails.