Many new ideas and new catchphrases are created to win voters’ support. In this year’s U.S. presidential campaign, for example, “change” is the name of the game. In Taiwan, “referendum for U.N. entry” is the dominating theme.

“Change” is the battle cry of Sen. Barack Obama from Illinois, who is ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton from New York in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama, young and black, has electrified the campaign with the magical word “change,” and has changed the tone of the campaign. He has forced his rivals, in both parties, to embrace change.

It is interesting to note that Obama could not claim a copyright to “change,” because the word has been used widely, directly or indirectly, in the United States and the rest of the world. Bill Clinton, Sen. Clinton’s husband, while campaigning for president in 1991, used the theme against the Republicans which had held the White House for 12 years. He told voters that the country should not try the “same old things over and over and over again” and expect a different result. You may say Obama has stolen Bill Clinton’s idea to create a theme of his own. Obama is smart enough to catch on to the nation’s mood, which is a thirst for change. His trademark slogan, “Yes, We Can” has been turned into a music video that has touched the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.

But “Yes, We Can” is not Obama’s invention. The copy-right owner is the late Cesar Chavez, a Mexican-American labor leader and human rights activist, whose “Si Se Puede!” slogan had fired up millions of Mexican farm workers in the United States.

Small wonder that Mrs. Clinton, who has lost 10 primary caucuses in a row since the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday, is attacking Obama for plagiarism. “If your whole candidacy is about words, they should be your own words,” she said after her defeat in Wisconsin Tuesday. Not only she, but also John McCain, the Republican’s shoo-in for nomination, also opened fire on his most likely rival in November. “I’ll do all I can to defeat the eloquent cheat of change,” he said this week. “Yes, We Can” may not be Obama’s own words, to be sure. But Hillary is shrewd enough to put these words in separate slogans, “Yes, We Will,” and “Americans still have that can-do spirit.” These words are not original, either.

As the front-runner in the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama is now in the bull’s-eye for both the former first lady and McCain — the only candidate supporting the war in Iraq. McCain, 71, is the opposite of Obama, not only in age and skin color, but also policies. McCain represents exactly what Obama is campaigning against: the same old, same old in Washington.

Unfortunately, Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were young in the early 90s, have become “the same old thing” that is Obama’s target for change. The Clintons, plus McCain, are attacking Obama over another weakness: inexperience in politics and unsuitability to be commander-in-chief at a dangerous time of war. Hillary touts her 35-year experience as first lady and senator, while McCain boasts his reputation as a war hero.

The attacks on Obama by Senators Clinton and McCain are an ominous sign that the campaign may go negative. But accusations of plagiarism are unlikely to stop Obama’s juggernaut, as the electorate loathes “the same old things” and welcomes change.

Plagiarism in politics is not so much a big deal as in academics or journalism. Many politicians, including Obama, say “I have a dream” without attribution. So are such sayings as “all men are created equal,” or “the worst fear is the fear itself.”

In Taiwan, the hottest issue in the coming presidential election is “referendum on U.N. entry.” This is the brainchild of the President Chen Shui-bian’s Democratic Progressive Party. But the opposition Kuomintang co-opted it. Neither Chen or the DPP has charged the KMT for theft. On the other hand, the KMT did not accuse the DPP for co-option of its tax cut idea. Plagiarism, especially in election campaigns, should best be ignored, because, as President Chen once asked in his trademark question: “Is it so serious?”