Hillary Clinton's accusation that Barack Obama's near-verbatim use of a section of a speech by another politician implicated Obama's honesty and integrity has the whiff of desperation politics about it, particularly coming from a candidate whose own rhetoric has often been riddled with clichés. But the New York senator did raise an interesting ethical issue, if not a valid campaign one. What constitutes plagiarism in a political speech? Does borrowing words uttered by another speaker require acknowledgement, as Clinton's camp contends? What are the rules, and when do they apply?

We can begin by identifying what is clearly plagiarism in a political speech: what Delaware Senator Joe Biden did in his first attempt to get nominated for president, in 1988. Biden lifted an entire stump speech given by Neil Kinnock, then head of Britain's Labour Party, a speech that was deeply personal and made specific references to Kinnock's family history. Biden, in essence, represented another politician's personal life story as his own, and when the campaign organization of his rival (and eventual winner of the Democratic nomination) Michael Dukakis exposed the source of Biden's speech, it effectively ended Biden's quest for the White House. And it should have.

Grasping at flotsam to rescue her sinking campaign, Hillary Clinton decided that what worked for Dukakis might work on Barack Obama. But Obama's alleged offense is very different. When Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, like Obama an accomplished orator, was running for the office in 2006, his opponent argued that Patrick was all about words, and not action. Patrick effectively and eloquently countered the attack by declaring,

" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' -- just words?"

Confronted with the identical criticism by the Clintons, Obama gave a speech that included Patrick's retort with only minor variations:

"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?"

Is this plagiarism? Plagiarism is unethical on two counts: it constitutes a dishonest representation that the words and thoughts being expressed originated with the speaker or writer, and worse, it is theft of another's creation or work product. The difficulty is that the concept of plagiarism doesn't apply neatly in the context of political speeches. At least two of the famous lines referenced by Patrick and Obama themselves were snatched from other uncredited sources: FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is clearly a thinly-disguised adaptation of Thoreau's "Nothing is so much to be feared as fear," which itself echoed Francis Bacon's observation in 1623 that "Nothing is terrible except fear itself." JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" not only is very close to what Lebanese writer Kahlil Gibran wrote in 1925--- "Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country?"--- it also came from Gibran's work entitled "The New Frontier," which is what Kennedy called his administration's new policy philosophy. In a term paper, such uncredited similarities would guarantee the writer a flunking grade and a suspension.

But a political speech is not a term paper, a scholarly work, or even a document published for profit. It is a tool of persuasion, and well-turned phrases and inspiring images from past speeches are traditional, legitimate and accepted components for adapting and borrowing, with or without attribution. The argument contained in Patrick's original speech fit Obama's purpose perfectly, and nobody owns an argument. Senator Obama could have noted its source, but that would have lessened its impact and cluttered the speech. Moreover, Patrick later declared that he gave Obama the portion of his speech. "The point is more important than whose argument it is,"Governor Patrick told The New York Times. "It's a transcendent argument."

So the words weren't "stolen," and nothing in the tradition of political speech dictates that orators must reveal their sources and inspirations. Senator Obama did not commit plagiarism. But did he commit hypocrisy? This was the suggestion of several commentators, including MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who argued that because Obama's campaign is based on his authenticity and determination to be a different kind of politician, it is especially inappropriate for him to be using the recycled rhetoric of others, even with their permission. If "words matter," Matthews asked, shouldn't Obama use his own? But the criticism is both unfair and naïve. Political speech has a tradition centuries old, across cultures and languages. To insist that a candidate is bound to reject the proven devices, turns of phrase and imagery that have been used, adapted and perfected over time by the greatest and most eloquent writers and speakers makes as much sense as requiring him to invent his own language. This isn't a case of arguing that something is right because "everybody does it." This is the only way political speech can be done well. Nobody is harmed or deceived when the words and ideas of other speakers and thinkers are endorsed, embraced and adapted in the course of persuasion and advocacy.

[Special thanks to Thomas D. Fuller, one of the contributors to the excellent "Yale Book of Quotations" (2007,Yale University Press), for his assistance in researching this article.]