Hillary Campaign Official Says GOP Will Target Obama For Drug Use
Woah -- the Dem primary's getting pretty vicious now. Billy Shaheen, the co-chair of Hillary's New Hampshire campaign, has just raised the specter of Obama's past drug use in an interview, arguing that it will give Republicans an opening to attack him, raising questions about his electability in a general election:
"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year.Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
A top Hillary campaign official attacked Obama for candor and contrasted that unfavorably with Bush's handling of such questions? Seems like an unorthodox approach in a Dem primary.
No word yet from the Obama campaign -- or Camp Hillary headquarters -- on this.
Late Update: The Obama campaign hits back.
Late Late Update: The Hillary campaign says it does not condone the remarks in any way.
Still Later Update: Shaheen himself disavows the remarks and confirms they weren't authorized by the Clinton campaign, saying in a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."
Comments (197)
loki wrote on December 12, 2007 3:24 PM:Billy Sheehan is an idiot.
seanh wrote on December 12, 2007 3:27 PM:President Bush should be all the evidence we need to scuttle this argument against Obama's electability. When even values-focused voters are willing to move beyond a candidate's history of substance abuse, it should be clear the issue doesn't especially matter to voters.
LJ wrote on December 12, 2007 3:30 PM:Is the Clinton playbook really this empty? They're going to attack Obama for being honest about youthful indiscretions, in stark contrast to both Bill Clinton and George Bush?
Um, okay. The guy's honest and candid. How horrible. You really nailed him on that one. Score one for Hillary Clinton?
brewmn wrote on December 12, 2007 3:31 PM:Frankly, at this point in my life, I think any baby boomer who hasn't smoked a little pot or snorted a line or two is the one who should be disqualified for running for office.
I hope Hillary pulls out all the Rovian stops. It will only ensure her defeat.
Derek wrote on December 12, 2007 3:31 PM:...So Hillary still believes Bill didn't inhale huh? Wow. That man is amazing.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:31 PM:I think it's one thing if he used drugs in his thirties or forties. He was a high school/early college kid.
This is going to backfire big time on Clinton.
John Maki wrote on December 12, 2007 3:32 PM:
It sounds like Sheehan has been smoking a big bowl of desperation.
yawn
jimijazz wrote on December 12, 2007 3:32 PM:The Hillary camp has nothing left. Pretty hypocritical. Remember when Bill Clinton was asked about marijuana? "I tried it but I didn't inhale."
raincntry wrote on December 12, 2007 3:33 PM:What a moron Sheehan is for those comments! Where exactly will the R's go with their "attacks"? Obama owned up to prior use and that's it. It's not like W who essentially hid his use and did his best not to address the rumors of drug use. What Sheehan sees as a weakness in Obama is actually a strength in that he had the courage to admit and address the situation.
Boy HRC's goons are really grasping now. It's pathetic.
JubleJohnson wrote on December 12, 2007 3:33 PM:Wouldn't you know the Repukes will attck you for telling the truth you had better lie than tell the truth.Conerstone of triangualting,not telling the truth.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 3:34 PM:This is vile, but, even worse, stupid.
Billy Shaheen and the Clinton people are making me mad. That's not good.
Al Gore what are you waiting for? The country needs you!
waka waka wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:THis incident serves as the perfect juxtaposition between the two candidacies.
Obama appreciates the fact that Americans like to be treated as adults and appreciate honesty. What a concept!
Hillary is still in the 90s, where it's fudge the facts just enough to squeak through and tell everyone what they want to hear. Then, when it's time for some action, you have no mandate because you've never staked out an actual position.
It is time to leave that m.o. behind once and for all. Obama 08!
juan wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:"i didn't inhale."
glennpdx wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:Huh? Really, Senator Clinton, what exactly was your experience with drugs in your youth? I thought so. (They both inhaled, a lot...) Now move along. Some adults are trying to get things done...
bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:Wow...I'm actually shocked this time at how small Clinton is getting. I would expect this from, yes, Rove...but from a Democrat? Wow. Especially given her husband's past, how dare she. Obviously it didn't hurt his chances, or Bush's.
I'm also shocked because I would think she is the last Democrat who would want to bring us what past dirt the GOP is going to use against the eventual nominee, given that they have had years of practice demonizing the Clintons.
Pathetic..
modmom wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:This is the sound of desperation in the Clinton camp.
I appreciate that Obama truthfully stated his past errors instead of lying (as in bush's missing records or Bill Clinton's pathetic "I did not inhale". Honesty is something I admire in a candidate. Personal growth from mistakes is another important virtue I hope our next president will espouse.
AC Slater wrote on December 12, 2007 3:37 PM:This would be disgusting if it weren't so hilariously stupid.
The Clinton campaign's attacks just keep getting worse and worse. From attacking Obama's kindergarten essays, to staffers spreading ridiculous "Muslim" smears, to attacking his teenage drug use? Gimmie a break. I hate to say it, but it's this type of nonsense that really would make it tough for me to support Hillary in a general election. I'm sure I'd still hold my nose and vote for her over a Republican, but I sure wouldn't enjoy it.
Gnopple wrote on December 12, 2007 3:39 PM:Ha ha. Wait, has anyone asked hilary about her youthful indiscretions? Did she inhale?
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:40 PM:Operating out of fear. That should be the cornerstone of Obama's response to this and HRC's whole line of electability....
It deflects these allegations and puts him on the offense (if he elects to go that way) against her for taking positions not because she truly believes in them, but because she's anticipating how Republicans or others will respond.
Good example: retroactivity on crack/powder sentence disparaties.
RSchewe wrote on December 12, 2007 3:41 PM:I hear crickets.
Not a peep about throwing mud now huh?
This is the point where a finger goes up in the air to check which way the wind is blowing. Then you get a response.
Yawn indeed.
Dave D wrote on December 12, 2007 3:41 PM:Obama's support in the past for banning handguns completely is a HUGE issue the Republicans will NAIL him with. He is a loser candidate for the Dems.
dajafi wrote on December 12, 2007 3:42 PM:Can't wait to see how the HillBots spin this one: "Another tactical masterstroke"?
Keep in mind also that every time she links her experience to Bill's, she brings Bill's bad judgment and recklessly irresponsible behavior back into play.
I continue to look for signs that the Clinton campaign is back on track and has figured out how to come at Obama. Nothing so far.
richt wrote on December 12, 2007 3:43 PM:When Romney attacked Obama for prior drug use universally--among Democrats and Republicans-- it was viewed as one more example of the mittster's sanctimoniousness. I guess the Sheehans thing he should give an absurd answer like bill or do the Bush how dare you routine. What can I say? it worked for the old politics, but the American people have had enough of that hypocritical jive.
Why do you think they would not use that and race whispered quietly and Muslem, comeone now....thats how the GOP play.
fillphil wrote on December 12, 2007 3:43 PM:The Repubs want Obama as the Demo candidate. That party is one of the most racist in this Country. They will slaughter Obama with their Slime Machine. That's what Shaheen is talking about. Obama is a sheep in a pasture full of salivating wolves and the drug thing is nothing to what else they will say. The Clinton Machine knows what they are talking about and can can go toe to toe with these sleeze merchants. Hillary is the Repubs worst nightmare. Why do you hear people like ASullivan and others pushing Obama. It's a setup to avoid Hillary. This is war. Don't be surprised with what is said and happens between now and Nov'08.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 3:44 PM:Not only is this a terrible idea, it is a terrible idea that Romney already tried out, and predictably it failed.
keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:44 PM:Kefa:
And that's apparently how Clinton plays as well.
Simon, Scottsdale, Arizona wrote on December 12, 2007 3:44 PM:"No word yet from the Obama campaign -- or Camp Hillary headquarters -- on this."
What???
Bill Shaheen is testing this line of attack as a staunch Hillary surrogate. Don't tell me he's not directly linked to the Clinton Camp strategy machine.
I knew Clinton campaign would stoop very low, but this??? Unbelievable.
Senator Obama did not conceal it. He wrote about it in his book.
He did not try to con the voters about his past experience, unlike Bill, I Did Not Inhale, Clinton.
The Clinton camp better be careful about going down that road.
They are sitting in that big glass house that exposes their 'I did not inhale' and 'I did not have sex with that woman' matching baggage set.
I guess they think that the Republicans would not use that against Hillary.
Sounds like they must be inhaling now!.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 3:45 PM:See, this is old news. Obama defused it with his book. He didn't try to hide it. He dealt with it properly, unlike what the clintons do. I don't think the drug issue will mean a hill of beans in the general or in the primary. It also is good for obama that the clinton II people are trying to raise this. It will get people desensatized to the issue. Good for clinton II, in her desperation, she is actually helping obama. I think she is imploding. Will she be able to come in a distant third in iowa? After the kindergarten garbage, trying to prevent students from voting and now this? She will be lucky to come in a distant third.
On the other hand, clinton II's baggage is still in the closet and hasn't been aired. All the garbage during the clinton years hasn't been even brought up. I'm sure the republicans forgot about it and will be singing kumbaya if by some chance she gets the nomination.
NH Dem wrote on December 12, 2007 3:45 PM:Billy Shaheen is a clown. Everyone in NH knows it. A well-connected clown, but a clown nonetheless. People like his wife. People tolerate him.
Michael's Mom wrote on December 12, 2007 3:45 PM:If this is what they're going with-the kindergarten essay, the questionnaire, the drug use (detailed in a book he wrote)-then this is all they've got. YEAH! I feel no remorse whatsoever now for the schadenfreude I feel as HC flames out. This is getting to be ridiculous.
First, Iowa's not going well because Billary never campaigned there. Now NH's not going well because...well... just because. This proves that Democrats are far too often afraid of their own shadows; if we could get the fact that Repubs aren't campaign geniuses, we'd have never lost in 2004.
keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:45 PM:The Clinton Machine knows what they are talking about and can can go toe to toe with these sleeze merchants
They can dish sleaze with the best of them. Got it. Vote Clinton in '08, she knows how to dish sleeze!
linda wrote on December 12, 2007 3:46 PM:christ, i would have held my nose and voted for her. absolutely no way in hell will that happen now. yesterday's revival of the censorship bill already had me rethinking; this drug bullshit is insulting. leave that shit tactic for the reichwing. unbelieveably stupid and screamingly desperate. man, that campaign has really imploded these past few days...wha' happen?
Kefa wrote on December 12, 2007 3:47 PM:finally.....amen fillphil....anytime
beck/rush/hannity are pulling for Obama something stinks and I ain't eating it.
Man can the attacks get any more desperate from Camp Hillary?! And let us not forget who "Tried it but didn't inhale"...yeah perhaps Sheehan should ask if Bill Clinton was qualified for the presidency too.
Personally I will take a candidate who is candid and honest (Obama) over one who is scheming and shrill (HRC).
bbln wrote on December 12, 2007 3:47 PM:Obama-ites commentators - besides just looking at this as a two person Dem race...let's look at the forest for the trees.
If Obama gets the nomination, are you all saying that the Republicans are going to capitulate and not fight - that they're basically going to say, 'awww, Obama's such a nice guy (and he has Oprah too!), we agree that he should be President!" c'mon; you are naive if you believe so. this is just one line of attack that could be possible from the Republicans -
mehitabel wrote on December 12, 2007 3:48 PM:John Edwards would do well to take a page from Russ Feingold's election play-book. When Feingold was first elected, the Republicans in the primary were duking it out--like only a Wisconsin Republican can (remember Tommy "Stick it to 'em!" Thompson?) and he sat back and did not enter the fray. When the election came up--he came out as the only one on the ticket who didn't go negative, and he used the mud slung between the Republicans to his advantage--and won. By a bunch.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 3:48 PM:Kefa,
Of course the GOP will try these lines of attack. We don't even need to speculate, because they already have tried these exact same lines of attack.
But they haven't worked. And that is all you really need to know about how desperate the Clinton campaign is becoming: they are trying to use attacks which have already failed.
fillphil,
Well, the good news is that we are in the process of seeing whether Obama can stand up to an expert "Slime Machine". Interestingly, so far it seems to be completely backfiring.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 3:49 PM:I doubt that marijuana use would hurt Obama's chances much.
But I think that the cocaine use is a real problem.
I remember a few months back getting a look at the statistics. Only a pretty small percentage of the American population has actually used cocaine (I believe somewhere in the teens). The point is, it's not a mainstream drug, or just a rite of passage, like marijuana.
Like it or not, cocaine is considered a hard core drug. Yeah, I'm sure Bush used it too -- but consider to what lengths he went NOT to admit to it, precisely because he and his advisers knew how it would damage him.
Really, people should consider how horrified they'd be if their own kids were to use cocaine. Do you think the average voter has a more favorable impression of it? Don't you think that having the President himself openly acknowledging use of it might be perceived by some kids as implicit legitimizing of its use? Don't you think that many voters would not favor a candidate who might seem to engender that effect?
I have no idea of course about just how much damage Obama's cocaine use might inflict on his electability, but I can easily imagine it would be quite real.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 3:51 PM:bbln,
Again, we already know the Republicans will try to use these lines of attack, because in fact they already did. But we also know for that very reason that these lines of attack won't work.
So what are you afraid of?
twirling fartknocker wrote on December 12, 2007 3:52 PM:bbln, this argument is disengenous. there are things about all the dems that repugs can poke at, including HRC
besides, the last two presidents admitted using drugs and it didn't stop them from "winning" first and second terms (quotes are for bush's "wins")
cms wrote on December 12, 2007 3:53 PM:I'm not all that outraged or surprised. Clinton is not going down without a fight, and she'll throw anything she can at Obama. After kindergate, lies and insinuations had to be next.
I find it very difficult to believe he said these things without HQ approval. Andrew Young Shaheen is not. Obama will have to deal with the drug thing at some point in the GE, just as he is having to deal with it now. I'm quite sure he is up to it. The bit about "selling" drugs is particularly outrageous, not to mention being this side of race-baiting. But it's nothing he won't see in the general.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 3:55 PM:frankly0,
That was Romney's argument (that kids in particular couldn't handle hearing this sort of thing). It didn't work.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 12, 2007 3:56 PM:
President Bush should be all the evidence we need to scuttle this argument against Obama's electability.
I wish that were true, but I do not think that line of thinking is reliable. There are still two standards in this country, one for white men and another for women and non-whites. That Bush got a pass on this does not mean that Obama will too. That said, I guess that I am not terribly concerned about the effect of this. The host of folks who will not vote for Obama because of drug use in his distant past is largely composed of folks who would not vote for him or any other democrat in the first place. That is to say, I think that this fact will maybe tip a few republican leaners into the hard and fast republican category, but I doubt that it will have much currency among genuine swing voters.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:57 PM:Frankly0:
I recall the poll you were referring to and I think your general recollection is correct. However, I believe the questioning was much more directed at an adult who used cocaine, not a high school/college kid in the 70's early 80's.
The great thing for Obama is that he's on top of this . . . he disclosed it . . . he explained, all when he wasn't running for office. So there's not a whole of explaining left to do. Secondly, I think it gives him a natural counter-attack about the politics of fear.
Just my opinion though, I definitely could be wrong on both points.
Kefa wrote on December 12, 2007 3:57 PM:Dtm.....you have not see anything yet.....no Beck /Rush/Hannity Fox attack no Matthews attack 24/7 attack. Every gun has been on HRC and you know it. Your man has benefited from it and thats cool , she can handle it. She has been thru the wars, he hasn't, but it is naive to think he can withstand the hits he's gonna take from the right wing. Bill and HRC have withstood impeachment hearings for christsakes, how can you compare Obamas expererances with hers? This is war and he is not gonna be ready and to think he is is not smart it's quite dumb.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 3:57 PM:DTM,
So who was it that Romney was claiming had used cocaine?
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:59 PM:Frankly0:
He was talking about Obama: recall that this issue came up when Obama talked about it to students in New Hampshire.
bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 4:01 PM:@ fillphil
You are wrong. If anything, Republicans want Clinton. Although, I believe that any of the frontrunners will be able to beat the Republicans, and all of the polls (although they aren't that reliable 1 year out) back up this claim. There is no evidence that shows Obama would be an easy target in the general election. In fact, Obama appears to have the best independent and Republican appeal out of any of the Dem frontrunners.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 4:02 PM:Oh man...Iowans will not respond to this. Check that, actually they will definitely respond to this, and that's not good news for Hillary.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 4:04 PM:Keith,
I don't think that Romney's mention of Obama's cocaine use in that venue can really compared to its being used as a major, concerted campaign attack.
These things have to achieve a real salience before you can assess their real effects. Candidates, pundits and people have to bring it up as a significant topic of conversation.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 4:04 PM:Keith,
I don't think that Romney's mention of Obama's cocaine use in that venue can really compared to its being used as a major, concerted campaign attack.
These things have to achieve a real salience before you can assess their real effects. Candidates, pundits and people have to bring it up as a significant topic of conversation.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 4:04 PM:Kefa:
So far, he's handled everything HRC's campaign has thrown at him with flying colors. What makes you think he won't deal with this as well?
Your candidate runs the risk of alienating the entire Democratic base, which isn't going to help her with those of us who are not supporting her candidacy now, to do so at a later date, if she's the nominee.
Politics of fear at its finest....
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:05 PM:No word from Camp Hillary quarters? What have YOU been smoking, Greg?? And the picture and teaser from the frontpage of TPM for this story is so unfair it's not even funny. A picture of Obama with his finger to his lips, as if HE IS SOMEHOW HIDING SOMETHING. Despicable. Awful. Just awful. So irrepsonsible of you. Greg, Eric, and all of TPM, for that matter, come forth and disclose any and all affiliations you have with the current candidates. Disclose any and all contributions you have made to their campaigns. The TPM readers deserve to know. What you are doing... what you have been doing for several months now... is a threat to our democracy. The impartiality and objectivity of the fourth estate, or the lack thereof, in its political reporting has been a subject of discussion on this very site. How shameful that this site has now become part of the problem.
FIRE GREG AND ERIC!!! Give us more Spencer, Paul, Steve and Co.!! Or we walk. And I friggin' mean it this time, too.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 4:05 PM:Ah yes, those awful Republican dirty tricks. Funny, they look just like Hillary's dirty tricks. Thank God Hillary wouldn't stoop as low as they would.
Since her campaign raised the issue it's now perfectly legitimate to ask Hillary about her past regarding drugs. And while we're at it Shaheen can answer as well, along with his wife, the future candidate for senator. Wouldn't want any candidates or spouses to run our government if they ever took drugs, now would we?
Rhoda wrote on December 12, 2007 4:05 PM:This is good for the Obama campaign: every time Hillary has attacked and failed his numbers have gone up across the board as people watch HRC's campaign flicker out. They thought they had a huge firewall in NH - and that is gone now. If Obama wins Iowa he'll proabably sweep NH and definitly win SC.
He's got the money to blitz the Feb. 5th states and he'll have the mommentum by then too.
HRC has to get dirty to win; and they don't mind it so much in NH which means they've consceded Iowa and are hoping for Edwards to pull it out if she can't.
But they're at the stop Obama at all costs bandwagon right now.
opulent wrote on December 12, 2007 4:07 PM:Because when you strip us all down, when you take away our race, our ethnicity, our backgrounds, our sex, when you strip us all down, we are American at our core. We are American in our hopes and our dreams...what we really have is an abiding faith that life can be better for all us...Many colors, religions and languages with one Congress and one President.
And because we only get to choose one, I came out to tell you why that choice
needs to be Barack Obama.
(Oprah Winfrey, Iowa, 12/8/2007)
And what about Bubba's 'didn't inhale'? Wasn't he Hillary's boyfriend then? And there's so much stuff with Hillary -- and the Republicans -- that Obama just has to pick a number any number...
pam wrote on December 12, 2007 4:08 PM:If Bush can play the "young and irresponsible" card with success, there is no reason that Obama can't as well. And probably with more success, since his candor about his past has in no way given any opposing message. Rather, Obama seems to be saying that _not_only_ was he young and irresponsible, but that he fully recognizes it. That sort of recognition of mistakes is EXACTLY what we need: Bushes incapacity to recognize his mistakes, in terms of the war in Iraq, for example, has only gotten us into deeper problems.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:09 PM:I'm concerned for Hillary that Republicans will use this mealymouthed backchannel kind of suterfuge that she does to portrey Hillary as a coniving little bitch. I'm afraid she just isn't electable for that reason. It's so unfair, because I myself would never say something like that...but...sigh...those darned Republicans!!! OOOOOOO..... They make me mad. Oh well, I guess I'll have to vote for Barak.
pkoso wrote on December 12, 2007 4:11 PM:hey kefa...
it's "experiences." and apparently you haven't had any in education.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 4:11 PM:Kefa,
Again, what makes you think any of that will actually work?
frankly0,
I am a little puzzled by your question. Romney doesn't have to claim that Obama used cocaine, since that is in Obama's book.
Rather, Romney attacked Obama for being honest about his past drug use. Specifically, Romney, like you, argued, "It’s just not a good idea for people running for president of the United States, who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people, to talk about their personal failings while they were kids, because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, ‘Well I can do that too.’"
The problem, as we are seeing here, is that such an attack reflects poorly on the person making it (it implies they do not value honesty). It also happens to be bad child psychology--kids are not, in fact, complete idiots.
In any event, it didn't work for Romney, and I doubt it will work for Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:13 PM:OPERATING FROM FEAR
OPERATING FROM FEAR
OPERATING FROM FEAR
OPERATING FROM FEAR
OPERATING FROM FEAR
Exactly keith. Are you listening big O?
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Obama's admitted support for completely banning handguns is a HUGE problem if he were to be the Dem general election candidate. The Republicans will nail him on that issue, BIG TIME.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM:Frankly0:
Like I said, I may be wrong, but in most instances, it's the cover-up that gets most pols in trouble. Bill Clinton is infamous, because of his "I didn't inhale line", Guiliani and Bush (take your pick).
Obama has been upfront about all of this. What would be truly damaging is if he were doing it RECENTLY (i.e., while seeking public office). High school was a LONG TIME AGO. And the fact that he discussed on his own terms, at a time when he wasn't seeking office, means that it has ZERO shock value.
Again, just my opinion.
cmh wrote on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM:Bets on how long Shaheen's comment stays out there until the Clinton campaign says it was really "a joke". With those 100 new staffers they've hired, you think they could do better than this.
CalD wrote on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM:Well, duh.
If the Christian second coming happened this year and Democrats nominated Jesus Christ himself as their candidate, it really doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture the Republican attack ads -- weak on national security, anti-business class warrior, coddler of the poor, advocates socialized medicine, dubious relations with a mysterious woman not his wife, won't disclose who his real father is, Jewish, drinks a lot of wine, homeless drifter, possible gang leader, probably schizophrenic -- has "visions" and talks to people no one else can see...
Big Baby Jesus wrote on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM:Enough Clinton drama, I'm voting for Obama.
vena wrote on December 12, 2007 4:17 PM:I was hoping that Hillary would put the brakes on this skid she's been having, but it doesn't look like it'll be happening today. She's described Obama as attacking the issues from the right, but here a representative of her campaign is attacking Obama's character from where else? The right. The irony of it. As if it couldn't get any worse for her camp, they try to use the republicans as an excuse, instead of just coming out and saying that they feel Obama is unelectable.
TIA wrote on December 12, 2007 4:18 PM:Dave:
You know what would be cool? If that weren't an outright lie.
The thing that HRC's campaign is trying to nail Obama on is that in a survey in 1996 (he claims filled out by a staffer, but either way, it's his responsibility), he supported handgun registration.
OOOOOOHHHH! Scary!
Not even HRC has tried to go quite as far as you, Dave; at least try to get your talking points synced up, okay?
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 4:19 PM:DTM,
I don't know what you mean when you say that Romney's attack on Obama "didn't work".
To begin with, they aren't running against each other at this time. Secondly, it was presumably just a one time, rather than a concerted, attack. So in what sense can you conclude the attack did not and will not "work"?
I don't see how you can possibly extrapolate from those very limited circumstances into how effective an attack it might be when conducted in earnest.
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 4:19 PM:once again I find myself asking, "how stupid does Hillary's camp think we are?"
it is beyond low for them to try to use an honest confession of youthful indiscretion against Obama like this. what a bunch of weak little pansies.
Liam wrote on December 12, 2007 4:20 PM:Reality Check:
The Republicans will smear who ever the Democrats nominate. If they can not come up with something that actually happened, they will make some thing up. Can you say: Swift Boating, Boys and Girls?
It is such a lame claim by the Clinton Camp. Isn't Hillary the one who has often said that they were the constant target of a Right Wing conspiracy. Sounds like, by her own words, she should not be the Democrats' nominee, since the Republicans have so much experience in how to attack her, and after all she loves to tout how much experience counts.
Bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 4:20 PM:Ah the politics of fear. Nothing like a battle scarred, traumatized biddy to tell you it can't be done and you better just go hide.
Gawd wrote on December 12, 2007 4:22 PM:The only Democratic candidate less electable than Obama is Clinton. Please, someone save us from these two.
biff diggerence wrote on December 12, 2007 4:22 PM:Vagina candidate disses NWA-Dope candidate.
All framed in terms of later GOP attacks.
These two novelty candidates have a short shelf life.
Edwards remains the pragmatic choice.
fillphil wrote:
The Clinton Machine knows what they are talking about and can can go toe to toe with these sleeze merchants. Hillary is the Repubs worst nightmare.
That's what I keep hearing from Clinton's campaign and her supporters. But what I see is a machine that can't even handle fairly mild mannered criticism from generally mild mannered Democrats.
I keep hearing about a well oiled machine, but I keep seeing a well oiled floor instead.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 4:26 PM:Keith,
Well, you're right that sometimes it's the coverup that kills the politician, and not the "crime".
But I certainly don't think that's always true. Suppose a politician running for President had as a youth been caught shoplifting. While it might on some level seem great that he could be candid about that, I think that he'd be better served trying to, say, have that juvenile record expunged if at all possible. That's just the way it is.
Cocaine use is pretty similar in this respect in my estimation. I'd judge it as less of a problem than shoplifting as a youth (unless the shoplifting had some really extenuating circumstances), but it would be a lot, lot better not to admit to it.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 4:27 PM:DAVE - You sound exactly like that Steve Douchbag guy on Fox News when he announced that Obama had attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child. His exact words were, "This is HUGE!!!!!"
Or maybe not.
Anyhow, not as huge as Hillary's negative numbers. And those will not just go away.
Franklyo
Cocaine is no more of a hard core drug than alcohol is. The only difference is that alcohol is legal. Both substances are addictive and both are used recreationally without folks becoming addicts.
Perhaps, making this a major campaign attack will provide an educational opportunity for families, given the meth epidemic nowadays.
Then there is the entire evangelical/christian dynamic where the basic tenet is to express sins/transgressions, repent and you will be forgiven. That is a basic tenet of Christianity expected of all followers/believers. Obama has done all those things that folks who believe in faith beleive are possible through faith. He is a testament to the power of faith. All of which will score points with that group of supporters not to mention parents who want to know their is hope for their kids should they go astray and be tempted by drugs. It makes Barack even more of a hopemongerer.
What this is going to do is backfire on Hillary. She will never rebound from the low mean spirited kindergarten attack. NEVER. It was so beneath the belt that it diminishes her credibility on any future attacKs as simply being vindicative and polarizing which affirms her existing negative traits.
I am glad that Hillary is bringing this up as it makes it that much less of an issue in the General Election.
I hope that someone checks out Hillary's student days at Wellsley and Yale and ask her whether she used alcohol or any other drugs recreationally. Cause I just don't think Bill was alone when he 'didnt inhale'.
Lastly, I beleive that one of the strengths that Obama has going for him is that he is human and he understands humanity and the foibles of human nature as well as the challenges of the human spirit. That is one of the things that account for his being authentic and genuine. A very positive attribute that people who meet him respond to and that is causing Hillary with her calculated poll driven answers to come across as insincere and insensitive to folks.
Our democracy is to be of the people, by the people and for the people.
Barack, with his drug use and other human frailties exudes the quality of being OF the people.
Hillary doesn't.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:31 PM:Mr. Obama needs to realize that when you have some kind of potentially damaging item from your youth you need to be hypersensitive about it and cover it up with a big fat lie. That way the scary republicans will leave you alone, as long as you promise to not raise the payroll ceiling or anything crazy like that.
Take Bill for example. He "never inhaled." You see. That's how you do it, youngster.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:31 PM:Prequalifier: I am not an Obama supporter.
He has done a better job handling this issue than the nitwit currently residing in the White House. It shouldn't be a factor unless there is some current use or fabrication, which there doesn't seem to be the case.
Of more concern is the ham-fisted machine tactics by Clinton. She is coming across like the party boss in "Mr Smith goes to Washington". If this is the way she responds to crises, we are fortunate to see it now. Unfit for the job comes to mind.
Hillary is a republican in case you'all hadn't noticed.
Elijah Trotsky wrote on December 12, 2007 4:32 PM:I don't care about attacks, they're part of the game. Look at the comments on here. Obama lost me when he started sucking up to Oprah, who answers to her advertisers...like Obama does and will have to even more now...another empty suit with money sticking out his...like the rest.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:34 PM:"I keep hearing about a well oiled machine, but I keep seeing a well oiled floor instead."
Perfectly put.
Katie wrote on December 12, 2007 4:34 PM:Clinton is pissed because she thought she was on her way to the coronation and this pesky guy has been in her way.She and her despicable team only practice a scorched earth policy as they sling their mud. Bring it on lady and more of it ---it will be your defeat and rightly so, and not soon enough.And please please get Bill out there more and more---he is such a benefit as he goes all Freudian on you.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 4:36 PM:frankly0,
Sure, anything is possible in politics. So, it is possible that somehow if Clinton or someone else keeps trying this line of attack, or somehow does it in a different way, it will eventually work to blunt Obama's support.
But that is theoretical speculation. In practice, we know that since Romney tried it, Romney has been dropping in the polls, and Obama has been going up. Of course, those dynamics likely have almost nothing to do with Romney's attack. But that is the point: as far as we know, this is simply not a significant issue for voters.
"Edwards remains the pragmatic choice"
you forgot to say "for people who feel they either want or need to perpetuate second hand racism and sexism."
NWA indeed. Get the ?#!@ out of here scumbag.
M wrote on December 12, 2007 4:41 PM:Wow. I read most of these comments, and by a margin of about 20 to 1, most think this line of attack is ridiculous, disingenuous, and likely to backfire. Interesting to see how it plays out.
MSNBC aired a bit of this after the GOP debate today. No mention that Obama has openly admitted it, and the MSNBC specifically aired a few weeks back that "conversation" Obama had with those students.
Again, the drug thing really didn't do anything to Clinton (thanks primarily to Ross Perot's help in splitting Indies and Republicans) and most certainly didn't do anything to Bush.
Any Indies out there opposed to elected leaders who, at one time, used drugs?
To me, who gives a crap. I mostly ignore attack ads anyway.
NEOhioGuy wrote on December 12, 2007 4:44 PM:O-B
biff diggerence wrote on December 12, 2007 4:45 PM:bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 4:41 PM:
If you don't think that the American electorate is sufficiently brain damaged to elect one of the GOP whack jobs over Hill or Barack, you're out of your freakin mind.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 4:48 PM:A-M-A
(and go Bucks too!)
When I read this article, the first thing that came to mind was that he just lost Hillary another percentage point.
Bill Clinton must have went bug-f*** insane when he heard about this one.
unpoetaloco wrote on December 12, 2007 4:49 PM:Bush was addicted to Bourbon (and probably snorted an eight-ball or two), and look how effective he has been.
matt wrote on December 12, 2007 4:50 PM:And the Washington Post headline is, "Drug Use Could Haunt Obama," amplifying the dig. What tools. In any case, this will backfire. It's insulting.
Liam wrote on December 12, 2007 4:51 PM:I am not convinced that Edwards is much of a candidate. He did not prove that he could carry any of the States in the 2004 Democrat primaries. I know, he won as favorite son, and some other meaningless state, but he was not really able to use his surprise finish in Iowa, to gain momentum.
He sure did not bring in any additional support for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. They even lost in places that Gore carried.
He has done nothing since. He looks very weak.
If one is looking for an alternative to Clinton or Obama, then it might not be a bad idea to give Richardson and Biden another look.
DM wrote on December 12, 2007 4:51 PM:Wow.
First, the Hillary campaign arguing against the right of college students to caucus if they happen to have come to school from out of state, and then trying to attack Obama for being candid about drug use in high school.
This coming from a candidate who has out of state college students in leadership positions in her campaign, who probably voted in college, and whose husband "didn't inhale."
You can't make this stuff up.
CornBred wrote on December 12, 2007 4:51 PM:Q: How do you spell "inevitablity"?
A: O-B-A-M-A
"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
Correction. It would be hard to overcome for a frigid candidate that spends her whole life parsing the "truth" and quaking in fear of that horrible VRWC.
brewmn wrote on December 12, 2007 4:54 PM:"Really, people should consider how horrified they'd be if their own kids were to use cocaine."
They'd be alot less horrified once that kid graduated from Harvard Law School and got elected US Senator, I'm willing to bet.
fillphil wrote on December 12, 2007 4:54 PM:I have been surprised at some of the comments that have been posted. Some seem to have concluded that this was a "hit" on Obama sanctioned by the Clinton Campaign. That Shaheen's remarks were intended to "smear' Obama. I went back and read the article again and see that Shaheen was giving his opinion of what the Right wingers would do to Obama about the drug issue. It in no way criticizes Obama. If you think Shaheen's
comment is without merit you've been drinking too much kool aid.
Liam @ 4:51 PM:
Richardson is more qualified than the lot of them, and it's possible he could come around.
I'm calling Edwards the pragmatic choice now based on the rough numbers.
bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 4:56 PM:
"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
Correction. It would be hard to overcome for a frigid candidate that spends her whole life parsing the "truth" and quaking in fear of that horrible VRWC.
Truth be told, I'm starting to have some sympathy for the VRWC. Someone sick this inevitable woman before she damages a valuable iceberg.
Kefa wrote on December 12, 2007 4:58 PM:pkoso ....you sure added alot to this conversation.
Gus wrote on December 12, 2007 4:59 PM:All along I'd hoped that Clinton would invest so much time, money and energy in Iowa and NH that even narrow losses there would sink here nationally. I take this latest idiocy to be proof that we've reached that point.
I look forward to the Clinton camp pinning this debacle on an underling. Who's to blame for her flameout? Mark Penn? Howard Wolfson? Ickes?
By the way, for those counting, thats 2 primaries in a row that the Clinton team has run a solid candidacy into the ground, since many of these same folks worked for Clark in 04.
bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 5:01 PM:"Some seem to have concluded that this was a "hit" on Obama sanctioned by the Clinton Campaign. "
Bwaaaahahahaha. Oh no. It certainly couldn't be that. The chair of Hillary's campaign in the state she just fell behind in just wants us all to realize how nasty those republicans are!! We need to be afraid. Hill's just doing us all a public service.
Shorter Hill: "Geeze, this uncivilized brute doesn't even know how to lie! You better vote for me."
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 5:06 PM:brewmn,
Swishhhh! Very nicely done. You forgot to mention that he graduated magna cum laude and was the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. Yea, I think they'd get over it.
Dan wrote on December 12, 2007 5:07 PM:I find Obama's candor refreshing, but like it or not cocaine's a drug that freaks most people out, even if it's mostly used by affluent whites. If the Repubs run a squeaky clean family man like Romney or Huckabee I expect it to be an issue.
And don't underestimate how hard the GOP would play the race card against Obama in the general, even if the attacks come from their 527s or other unaffiliated groups. We've already seen the "intellectually lazy" meme pop up a few times, which is a nice way of insinuating that Obama's nothing but a hustler. And would anyone be surpirsed if the line of questioning that Shaheen mentions spins off into some kind of "did Obama deal coke during his youth?" narrative that sticks in the media? Like anyone would ever ask that question of a white candidate. The GOP is going to play dirty as hell like always.
That said, the fact that Hillary's floating this around to undermine the idea that Obama's the most electable Dem in the field is kind of sickening. This is a low blow... let's make the GOP make the racist arguments, all right? We're better than that.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 5:10 PM:fillphil -
What Nonsense.
Of course they're bringing it up to raise the issue. It's the oldest gag in the book: "My opponent will have to answer to the countless rumors about her secretly being a [fill in the blank]. I, of course, do not care. But the Republicans will make it an issue and I wonder if she's electable because of it..."
That's exactly what they did and it's contemptible.
Evadt wrote on December 12, 2007 5:10 PM:A predictable act of political desperation.
Obama’s up against the Democrat establishment: very capable of fratricide, and suicide.
Shaheen lives in a glass house: those without sin should cast the first stone.
I know it is tough for Hillary, Shaheen and her other handlers to understand, because Hillary is so urgently trying to transform herself into somebody and something she is not---Presidential material. Stories like this make it crystal clear that those who don't know who they are (Hillary) will always be terrified by those who know precisely who they are (Obama, Biden, Dodd, and a few of the other Dems). The choice becomes clearer every day.....and it is not a pretty picture for Hillary.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 5:11 PM:Again, arguing based on fear of what Republicans will or won't do is admitting defeat. If you concede that power to them, you've already lost the race. This is the same nonsense argument that gave us John Kerry. Clinton is hoping to scare Dems into voting for her . . . at least that's the only thing that makes sense here.
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 5:12 PM:Americans would find it somewhat shocking if Obama was currently using coke and stating that he'd proudly do so as President, but not, they do not give a flying crap that he tried it nearly 30 years ago. Par for the course, everyone's been through it (except for the super-prudish and completely unadventurous).
Clinton's people, and she herself, are lying sacks, and everyone can see through what they're doing here. They are passive-aggressively bringing this up, and then claiming they 'had to' because they're *so concerned* about how the GOP will use this (silly) information (which they already have, and failed). Every day I think I can't respect Hillary any less, and then there we go.
If Obama is unelectable because he tried coke in his late teens or early twenties, then Hillary is DOUBLY unelectable because she hasn't gotten laid in at least as long.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 5:13 PM:Call me crazy but I actually think Obama being black will help him in the general. The only states in which a black man can't win are states in which no democrat can win anyway. And if the republican's even inch down that road, it'll backfire. And I don't think a candidate can do it by surrogate either. First, most people would be afraid to run an ad or any other medium of attack that could be characterized as racist and possibly attributed to them, and even if they did, it would still get attributed to the candidate by association - whether they approve or not. I honestly think a lot of people will be afraid to go after him because he's black.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 5:14 PM:I like Edwards fine but has everyone forgotten how weak he was in the 2004 debate against Cheney? I spent the whole time waiting for him to work Cheney over like the great lawyer I'd heard about - but he never did. Never laid a glove on him. I'd suuport him but I have a hard time getting past that.
bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 5:15 PM:"Obama's admitted support for completely banning handguns is a HUGE problem if he were to be the Dem general election candidate. The Republicans will nail him on that issue, BIG TIME."
WTF? Since when do we support candidates based on their acceptability to militia members? This is sheer cowardice. Since when do we vett their attacks for them?
I'd rather have someone that the Republicans want to attack BECAUSE HE DISAGREES WITH THEM than someone who tacks right to please them, but who they desperately want to repay by ripping to shreds and serving as bloody casserole at their next charismatic jesus freakout.
This is the attitude that brought us the dem approved torture policy. Wake up!
Simply put, on issues, there is no one closer to the Republicans than Hill, and yet no one they hate more.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 5:15 PM:They'd be alot less horrified once that kid graduated from Harvard Law School and got elected US Senator, I'm willing to bet.
What kind of argument is this?
And I'm sure they'd be a lot less horrified if he shoplifted or stole cars but still managed to graduate from Harvard Law school and get elected US Senator.
But I don't think people would want to vote for such a person for President.
Really, what are you arguing? That absolutely nothing a candidate might have done could do them harm as a Presidential candidate if they managed to go to law school and were, say, elected Senator?
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 5:18 PM:"Clinton's people, and she herself, are lying sacks, and everyone can see through what they're doing here. They are passive-aggressively bringing this up, and then claiming they 'had to' because they're *so concerned* about how the GOP will use this (silly) information (which they already have, and failed). Every day I think I can't respect Hillary any less, and then there we go."
This is the exact same thing Obama supporters do when they say Hillary can't be elected because she's too polarizing, because of Bill's womanizing, because of Whitewater, because of Travelgate...it's a valid concern that Obama was into cocaine (not that I care), but that the Repugs would make mince meat of him because of it.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 5:21 PM:Frankly0:
What's problematic with your argument is that it is arguing in the abstract about an actual person. We know exactly how Obama has turned out, how he's lived his life since high school. Again, unless there is evidence of some intervening slip ups or malfeasance, that reinforces the earlier knuckle-headness, you are left with who he is now.
So this isn't a question about some hypothetical person who did 'x'. It's about Barack Obama who experimented with drugs in high school, went to college (graduate magna), went to Harvard Law, became the first African-American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, married a beautiful, educated woman and has two children, wrote two books, and had a storybook trajectory to the national scene.
Kind of gets lost in the shuffle don't you think?
Helter wrote on December 12, 2007 5:21 PM:Republicans can't make hay out of youthful drug use when Bush the cokehead all but admitted to the same thing. Drug use as a political issue is dead with all but the voters who were never, ever going to vote democratic anyway.
Liam wrote on December 12, 2007 5:21 PM:Senator Obama's Mother is white, and Dick Cheney is a distant cousin of his.
If the Republicans play the race card, tell them to stop attacking a member of Dick Cheney's extended family, and a person who is as white as he is black.
Senator Obama is also descended from an Irish Immigrant. He should play that up, around St. Patrick's day. How about some green O'Bama buttons and bumper stickers.
Can St. Barak O'Bama banish the Neo Con Snakes out of Washington!
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 5:23 PM:damn frankly0, you're really, really out of touch, aren't you? people don't think that someone trying a bit of pot or coke is that big of a deal anymore. and they thought so EVEN LESS back in the late 70s/early 80s. taking a stimulant recreationally is, in your opinion, comparable to stealing? your brain is messed up. are you sure you're not on any drugs yourself?
Joe Buck wrote on December 12, 2007 5:23 PM:The Republicans won't get far bringing up Obama's past drug use, because of George W. Bush's past drug use, which he effectively admitted (by carefully avoiding saying he never did drugs, but putting out a series of statements that he didn't do drugs after certain dates).
The politico.com article states that Obama has supported a complete BAN on the "possession" and "sale" of handguns. The article states: "When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns."
The Republicans will KILL Obama with his position on this issue because even millions of Democrats own handguns.
"We've already seen the "intellectually lazy" meme pop up a few times, which is a nice way of insinuating that Obama's nothing but a hustler. "
Right. An intellectually lazy president of the Harvard Law Review and tenured professor of Constitutional Law at Chicago. Yeah. That should stick.
At some point I think we will get over our fear and realize what we have here. Obama's the powerhouse the dems simply have not seen in a generation. And whoever we put up, the general is going to be a relative cake walk with these clowns on the right. I am so far from being afraid of this losers it's hard to express.
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 5:27 PM:gee, BlueDog, wonder why that's your alias? could it be because you're one of the 'Blue Dogs' - who aren't really Dems, but switch over to that side every once in a while because, a Bob Dylan said, "...you just want to be on the side that's winning..."? why yes, I believe I'm right.
You are typical. So afraid of how powerful and competent the Republicans are. How they will "make mince meat" of this or that. You give them way, way too much credit. Probably because you're one of them.
Amber wrote on December 12, 2007 5:27 PM:The Obama camp anticipated such a jab almost a year ago when he came clean, so the Senator wouldn't have to bob and weave like Hillary (and that other dodger whose war she supported, Señor Bushie). Billy Shaheen and the Clintons are the punch drunk George Foreman to Barak Obama's Muhammed Ali...the knockout's on its way.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 12, 2007 5:30 PM:Just cuz Clinton got high on the AuH2O . . . How stupid does one gotta be to bring this shit up after seven years of a booze addict and a cokaholic as commander in theif? Is there anyone who thinks that the Dark Sith Lord wasn't sauced when he plugged his attorney buddy?
Her Royal Crownship is heading towards clownship. Is it any wonder that folk are saying Bill is mightly ticked off at Hill?
Just cuz Clinton was to uptight to experiment with the weed and the kinky sex in the sixties and seventies . . .
When will Clinton finish imploding and disappear into obscurity like all the rest of the Republicans?
Dave wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:The politico.com article says that Obama has supported a complete ban on the possession and sale of handguns. The article states: "When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns." The Repubs will NAIL Obama on this issue. Numerous independents and many (millions) of Democrats own handguns.
frankly0 wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:people don't think that someone trying a bit of pot or coke is that big of a deal anymore.
I know you'd like to pretend that using coke is the same as using pot. It just isn't -- and the numbers reflect that. According to one survey, only 14% of adults have used cocaine. Acting like it's as mainstream as pot is way, way out of touch with reality.
For most people, it's perceived that there's a major step from pot use to cocaine use.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:Uh...
'A top Hillary campaign official attacked Obama for candor and contrasted that unfavorably with Bush's handling of such questions?'
No. Mr. Sargent.
He said REPUBLICANS will attack Obama for his candor.
Which, they will.
I'll spin this issue in an entirely different direction:
Obama said his past drug use was when he was 'young and dumb'. Fine.
What is his position on medical marijuana? (can't find it on his site)
What is his position on decriminalization? (can't find it on his site)
What is his position on the 'War on Drugs' re domestically and internationally? (can't find it on his site)
On another note:
the original article says these comments were made during the course of an interview, wonder what else he had to say? Any idea what 'interview' that is?
Sloppy. Mr. Sargent. Sloppy.
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 5:32 PM:I'm not an "Obama supporter" in particular, although I certainly prefer him to Senator Clinton. I just hate fake-ass bullshit and lying. Obama pisses me off sometimes, but I've never seen him lie, or even come close.
Damn, Hillary's really got nothing, does she? I forgot about the hilarious "intellectually lazy" comment from yore as well. Ha! Obama's the one guy in the race who is more intellectually accomplished than she is! And then she charges "inexperience" when his time spent in actual politics is longer. Next she'll decide he's a woman too, and tell us all we shouldn't vote for him/her because of that.
DM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:34 PM:Blue Dog,
"This is the exact same thing Obama supporters do when they say Hillary can't be elected because she's too polarizing, because of Bill's womanizing, because of Whitewater, because of Travelgate."
I've never actually heard an Obama supporter say Hillary is unelectable because of Travelgate or even Whitewater for that matter.
I do think there is evidence for the polarizing issue, though, with close to 50 percent of Americans saying they won't vote for her.
Hillary's negatives are very high. There's no getting around that. But for her to GO negative to this degree of desperation will probably make that number go higher.
Let's see, first it was what Obama wrote in Kindergarten and now this. I hope she's not actually paying people to come up with this stuff. Not only is it absurd and classless but it reflects poorly on her political judgment.
bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 5:35 PM:"This is the exact same thing Obama supporters do when they say Hillary can't be elected because she's too polarizing, because of Bill's womanizing, because of Whitewater, because of Travelgate...it's a valid concern"
The difference, friend, is that the Obama campaign isn't pushing this stuff. This drug thing would be odd even coming from a clown on the street, because it simply isn't an issue, but coming straight from the campaign, it's flat nasty. Honestly, Mitt already went after this and his version was WAY WAY WAY less nasty than Hillary's.
How about if Obama responds that he thinks Hillary would have a liability that she and her husband seem to have lied about their drug use, and that he's concerned that the Republicans might ask her tough questions about Vince Foster's "suicide."
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 5:38 PM:"How they will "make mince meat" of this or that. You give them way, way too much credit. Probably because you're one of them."
What did the Republicans do to McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? That's right, they made mince meat out of them. I don't give them too much credit. I fear their lust for power. Oh, there's a name missing there. The only Democrat relected since FDR. I trust winners, and I'm afraid Mr. Obama would be destroyed by the Repub attack machine. See mydd.com's Armstrong's take on Obama and the fact that he has never faced serious opposition.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/11/13220/987
Dave,
Why are you trying to change the subject?
But just to humor you, you might think about something. I'm SURE that gun-owning Republicans are going to be lining up to vote for Hillary because of her strong support of the right to bear arms. I'm sure gun owners just LOVE Hillary, so we'd better nominate her instead of Obama.
If you're really serious about this one, I would note that Dean had a compelling argument that makes sense for a national candidate: he supported gun laws as governor of Vermont but argued as a national candidate that gun laws should be addresed at the state level.
London In NY wrote on December 12, 2007 5:43 PM:BUSH has lowered the bar for Presidential candidates. Now you can be a closeted homosexual drug using alcoholic as long as you have powerful and influential friends who will cover this stuff up for you while branding you as a compassionate conservative family man; all while they have you as their bitch in the White House serving as a cheerleader for a radical agenda. Hillary's sexuality is at least if not more relevant than Obama's admission of cocaine use. Americans have a right to know whether Bill and Hillary's marriage and family values are nothing but a sham perpetuated for the sake of governing. Why do Washington insiders cover this aspect up? Private lives are relevant if it shows that they have fabricated the essence of who and what they are to the American public. The Clintons either have a sexually open marriage or Hillary is bisexual. As someone once said, everything that you have heard about the Clintons is true. The corrupt in America rise to power through influential friends that cover up the private lives of those that they OWN politically. We do not hear a lot in this campaign about what went on in Mena, Arkansas with the Clintons in the 1980's but you get the sense that deals with the devil were made. The Bushes and Clintons have so many scandals in their closet--their historical connection is interesting. GOOGLE: MENA ARKANSAS CLINTON COCAINE. If nothing else, the Clintons have had a hand in the abuse of drugs themselves.
DM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:45 PM:BlueDog,
Obama seems to be handling "serious opposition" right now pretty well, doesn't he?
It's Hillary who has never faced serious opposition. And now that she is facing a challenge, look what's happening.
It's a meltdown bigger than I would have guessed, given her long "experience" in politics.
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 5:46 PM:Thanks London In NY for proving my point.
dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 5:47 PM:My take one this: Bad move by the Clinton camp. It is a losing issue because it is a cheap shot and would make people remember the "I did not inhale" Clintonism...
I sympathize with Obama on this one. What he might have done with respect to drugs is immaterial today as long as he kicked the habit and got his life back in order, which, by all appearances, he has.
DM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:49 PM:London In NY,
That comment is a little off-topic and doesn't make much sense.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:49 PM:Strangely enough, I think the Clinton campaign wanted credit for this. They certainly hinted it was coming quite a bit.
So they may now try to back away from it, but I suspect the press is in no mood to let them get away with that.
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Good post dc. Now, what on earth is going on at camp clinton? I don't get it. They have made dumb move after dumb move. The kindergarten thing, trying to prevent students from participating in the political process and now this? What's going on? It really seems bizarre.
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 5:52 PM:I wouldn't call a 30 point lead over Obama a meltdown
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=3983729&page=1
The Clinton folks are raisng valid doubts about Obama's viability as a candidate...just like Gore did to Bradley.
DM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:56 PM:BlueDog,
By meltdown, I was referring to what Michael A just mentioned:
"The kindergarten thing, trying to prevent students from participating in the political process and now this? What's going on? It really seems bizarre."
But if you want to talk polls, Hillary is down in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, all in the last week.
dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 5:59 PM:This was simply dumb. The "liberal" party does not care that much about that! We are not the "moralizing" or "family values" party! How ca anyone in their right mind believe that such an attack would succeed in a Dem primary race? I would not be surprised if this backfired in a major way. It will make Obama into a sympathetic figure, and enhance the preception of desperation in the Clinton camp.
One more time: This race is hers to lose and she'd better regain her composure or kiss it good bye. Accusations of drug use would not go too well in places like CA, NY and other deep blue states that are her real firewall...
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:07 PM:Once again, excellent post dc. Are you on your meds? Just kidding. You actually made an incredibly good point, which all these "attacks" by clinton II have been doing. They are making obama into a more sympathetic and likable figure. It goes all the way back to the "naive and inexperienced" attack. It made her look bad and made him look better, because it was untrue. I still can't get over the kindergarten thing and then they tried to play it off as a joke? They really are trying very hard to lose this one. It is amazing. The way it is going she could wind up a distant third in iowa or worse and be in really bad shape.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 6:21 PM:The notion that Hillary has endured everything they (Repugs) can come up with is silly (or as Rudy says, "Thilly"). The attack machine will come at whoever the candidate is, especially HRC. And once everyone starts re-living the same controversies and finessed answers they're going to have a relapse of "Clinton fatigue" - remember THAT phrase? Add to that the new controversies they'll drag out (don't worry, they'll have 'em) and it won't matter how well she handles it, everyone will be burnt out on Clintons.
As long as we're all being pragmatic...
It goes all the way back to the "naive and inexperienced" attack. It made her look bad and made him look better, because it was untrue.
Au contraire, that is where they should be hitting Obama because people do know that he is "naive and inexperienced." It was after those "attacks" during the summer, with Obama helping, that Clinton actually took off in the polls. Her camp must return to such "attacks" to reinforce the perception of Obama's naivete and inexperience without seeming vicious or desperate. Going after a clearly successful and intelligent guy like Obama for his self-reported past drug use was simply dumb. It looks like they have realized the stupidity of the move and are trying to distance themselves from it but the damage (no telling how much) has already been done... (fortunately, much of the electorate would probably miss this story too because of its low "entertainment" vale; it is not like Oprah coming to IA!)
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:44 PM:At this point, it seems that the "experience" thing, which has been clinton II's mantra, is all they have to run with. I get that.
Also, I'm not going round and round with you about obama's experience. I think he has enough and probably as much as clinton II and you disagree and think she has all this wonderful experience.
The point was the way she presented it in that debate. It didn't come off right and I think it didn't make her look good. She really didn't have to say it, because people understood that was her point. By saying it, she sounded really condescending and it just didn't come off right. The polls kind of flat lined around the time of that comment and started to dive after the philly debate if I recall correctly. She was high or rising before the comment, based probably on the experience argument, among other reasons. I believe it was a mistake for her to say it and it really was unnecessary.
Fe wrote on December 12, 2007 6:44 PM:Below the belt from beltway insiders is that camp's gasping for air. Team Clinton's losing traction and its just getting worse.
How many more Penn-Shrum trial balloons between now and Christmas before the self-implosion becomes publicly evident?
Oprah coming to the party must have really HURT!
simple mind wrote on December 12, 2007 6:58 PM:Well I'll be Highly Selassi! So now HRC says he's Barak "Scratch" Obama?
Jim H wrote on December 12, 2007 7:18 PM:Very clever jiu-jitsu from the Obama campaign and his operatives, including in the press. Official makes a pretty common-sense remark. In the general, this may be a negative. Is there a DUI somewhere? Believe me, the GOP is working at finding anything, and ready to invent the rest. But this remark provokes the tender outrage of the Obamamanics, who play the victim card as if this was a smear, forcing the Clinton campaign to backtrack.
So, you get the nomination, be prepared for the onslaught of Obama-coke-addict stories. No? Maybe not. Take your pick. It's not a smear. He did smoke and do coke. Thought of doing heroin. He said it himself. You think no one's been listening? You want a "there, there" from the entire electorate? It's maybe, maybe probably not fatal, but it's there.
jslo wrote on December 12, 2007 7:26 PM:"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'"
That's a new twist. Looks like using isn't damaging enough. Sounds like a racial jab for the twofer.
Dave wrote on December 12, 2007 7:37 PM:As Harry Truman would have said, if Obama "can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen" -- he can always try again in 2016.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 7:40 PM:Who's using Republican talking points now?
Evadt wrote on December 12, 2007 7:48 PM:London IN NY...
Right on! Right on! Right on!
Whippy wrote on December 12, 2007 8:02 PM:Republicans can't make hay out of youthful drug use when Bush the cokehead all but admitted to the same thing.Of course they can. Pretending that you've been born again washes all that away. Besides, as with so many other things, It's Okay If You're A Republican. Clayton wrote on December 12, 2007 8:23 PM:
I don't know what all this is about, I mean, the man is right. Obama's admission and candor about his drug use opens a lot of doors for questions that the GOP WILL ASK.
This is just a fact, do you really think the Reps are not going to probe this issue?
Are you mad at Hillary because of how the Reps will act? I swear this site is a bunch of blind Obama supporters. You are so easily impressed by his razzle-dazzle that you forget that he also has his weaknesses.
Do not underestimate the Republican Slime Machine, they took down John Kerry, and he was a WAR HERO. They took down a soldier IN A TIME OF WAR. They are people who can say "support the troops" and also swiftboat a guy.
We need a candidate who can deal with this, not just one with a nice smile.
CornBred wrote on December 12, 2007 8:28 PM:In my view, two lines are THE only story here, and anyone who doesn't think so does not understand African Americans.
the 2 lines are obviously: "Did you ever give drugs to anyone?" and "Did you sell them to anyone?"
There's NO way those two lines were in the plan. Bill must have went absolute ape-s*** when he heard the full quote.
My guess is Shaheen was supposed to just bring up the fact that Obama did some drugs, but somehow forgot his lines and rambled. In my view, that's the ONLY only story here, and it's all bad for Hillary. Anyone who doesn't think so does not understand African Americans.
This will be talked about in South Carolina sermons on Sunday in black churches. Take off 2-3 more percentage points from Clinton's numbers in SC.
Gotta believe it hurts her in NH too. I would bet undecideds in NH must be embarrased by Shaheen. No better payback than go for Obama.
tpmfan wrote on December 12, 2007 8:41 PM:You don't have to alert Drudge- the Clinton people already did. Check out his headline:
"Clinton Camp Targets Obama's Drug Use."
Clayton wrote on December 12, 2007 8:23 PM:I don't know what all this is about, I mean, the man is right. Obama's admission and candor about his drug use opens a lot of doors for questions that the GOP WILL ASK.
That is beside the point. There is a race for the nomination going on right now, and it was simply stupid to bring up the issue of Obama's past drug use to try to sway Dem voters to support Hillary because Dem voters do not care that much about that. I certainly don't care about that: It did get in the way of Obama graduating from two Ivy League schools and being a successful young man who won a Senate race and could even be POTUS. He's done just fine regardless of the past drug use. The smear might work in the party of "family values" but not in the "liberal" party. Can we expect the GOP smear machine to raise the issue should Obama be the Dem nominee? You can bet on it (they'll throw everything at who ever is nominated), however, that will be then; this is now and you won't get any brownie points by peddling that silly smear. It won't stick and could even backfire. They Clinton knows it and will be trying to bury the story.
dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 8:48 PM:I am dcshungu and authored that last post...
cwnidog wrote on December 12, 2007 8:52 PM:"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use,"Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 8:58 PM:I'm glad to hear that the Clinton campaign would never use it ...
Greg Sargent reports "The Hillary campaign says it does not condone the remarks in any way."
How many times is a Clinton campaign official going to trash Obama and Hillary claim ignorance. There is a major pattern here folks.
Hillary's campaign is DESPERATE and showing it. She can't win as Mrs. Bill, she can't win on her own merits, she can win by attacking Obama in public, so her surrogates surry around and whisper, and Hillary claims it not a campagin strategy? Very Bush-Rove.
The funniest thing in this thread is Dave desperately trying to gain any attention and traction with his "gun ban" militia looney horse-shit.
I literally laughed at seeing his second, then third and subsequent repeated posts with nobody really biting.
Too funny.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 9:12 PM:dcshungu, like a good Hillary sleaze-monger advances the Whisper campaign:
"as long as he kicked the habit and got his life back in order"
Habit? Life back in order?
Once again dschungu is exagerating and distorting facts.
The Hillary campaign and her supporters are very low, especially their attack-dog mercernaries like dcshungu.
Clayton is right! He must have read the article. Other than that , all I have read are a bunch of comments from holier than thou Clinton haters. There has been everthing from corruption, drug use, murder and sex. What the hell is the matter with you haters. I think I know what. You love Bush. Now there is something you can really get your teeth into-if you have mind to.
fou wrote on December 12, 2007 9:26 PM:The main point many of you seem to be missing (full disclosure: I haven't read all the posts) is that Obama's drug use is old news; and therefore that the Clinton campaign is bringing up Obama's past drug use to imply that he *sold* them. This implication will resonate with the moderate-to-conservative white Democrats and Republicans she's courting.
It's funny but I think there would be no contest if he were white, or she were male.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 9:59 PM:Clayton,
Well, it seems Obama has been dealing with it just fine.
So maybe one can be both likeable and tough. Who knew?
brad wrote on December 12, 2007 10:28 PM:Good point fou. I can't wait for a surrogate of the Hillary machine to rhetorically ask when he stopped selling drugs (a la "when did you stop beating your wife?").
My admiration for his candidacy has only grown as I watch Hillary's meltdown, and judging from the polls I'm not alone.
global citizen wrote on December 12, 2007 10:35 PM:There is no way this was not decided or approved by the Clinton campaign. Some good could come of it if Clinton is now beaten badly in the primaries signaling that after more than a decade of it the American people have had it with sleazeball politics and want to focus on real questions like getting out of pointless wars and not starting any more at least for a while.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 10:57 PM:Clinton fatigue.
Charles Zigmund wrote on December 12, 2007 11:03 PM:Yes, fillphil, Hillary will know how to handle the Republicans better than Barack. If you want to defeat a pastureful of wolves, elect a wolf. A self-righteous robopol who has never made a mistake that she can remember, who panders, who hides her intentions on many issues, and is as conservative in foreign policy and military matters as any right-winger. And is beholden to enough big corporations to make her an honorary Republican. Who oves globalization, who worries about the poor slobs earning 90+K a year who can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes for a full year to rescue Soc Sec; a hack whose dedication to Wash-business as usual comes thru very clearly. If she is the Dem nominee, I'll puke, making sure to first position myself on a balcony right above her fundraisers and donors.
Shrillary wrote on December 12, 2007 11:10 PM:Desperate times lead to desperate measures. Maybe Hillary's camp needs to do drugs to think straight.
She's going to lose Iowa and New Hampshire and then Bill's going to get caught again with his zipper down. Just watch....
West wrote on December 12, 2007 11:15 PM:as my father so eloquently put it... if you went to college and didn't use drugs, you don't have any business being president!
EH wrote on December 12, 2007 11:36 PM:LOL...Is it just me or is this thread rife with shill-sounding comments? Hillbots? That's some new slang that might just come out of someone's campaign, no?
Ferruge wrote on December 12, 2007 11:51 PM:Can someone please clarify what the narrative is supposed to be here? That Obama is a secret gay-hating Muslim who'll surrender to al-Qaeda and then go on a cocaine-snorting bender the following weekend?
I'm just trying to keep track, that's all.
Mike timmons wrote on December 12, 2007 11:52 PM:Hillary went to a liberal college in the 1960's, and didn't smoke the ripper?
What was she, a Republican?
Oh yeah, she was.
jbentlwy4 wrote on December 13, 2007 2:16 AM:This is a total non-issue. So what if Obama blue a joint back in the day?!ooooooooooooHJHJHJHJ?! At least he is honest about it. That's more than j'McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary (don't hold me accountable for billey), inesert any rublican that you believe in - george o'eisenhower, hello you reouhlicans!!!!!!
>Well, it seems Obama has been dealing with >it just fine.
Obama has not yet begun to endure the bile the GOP will throw at him.
Remember, they accused Hillary of MURDER.
They are not above accusing Obama of drug-dealing.
And like it or not, there are a lot of voters who will hear DRUGS and be turned off. The only way GWB deflected that was by playing the Jesus card, which Obama has not done yet.
Electability is a real issue, lets not toss this one like we did last time.
Thing is, there is nothing they can dig up on Hillary, because its all been done, and her and Bill came out of all of it smelling like a rose.
And to be clear, I don't support Hillary because I think she can win, I support her because I think she will be a better president. Obama is idealistic, but I think he lacks the intellect, EXPERIANCE, and power to implement his policies. Not to mention his healthcare plan, which Krugman has pointed out, is financially intractable.
Desider wrote on December 13, 2007 2:44 AM:First, I think it was a really stupid thing for Sheehan/the Clinton campaign to open up.
Second, I think it's really stupid of Obama supports to assume this issue is dead and gone. Perhaps if it were a Republican it would be (how many people really care that Huckabee actively campaigned to release a guy to murder someone, vs. those who know who Willie Horton is). You can bet Rush will come up with something like "Dope Smoker in Chief" to recite to his faithful daily and there will be the distorted or mostly false emails that will make the rounds, and there will be the "Harald, call me" ads, and there will be Tim Russert asking about it in a national debate, since he's a Republican talking head in practice.
The worst thing is that our national drug policy is a disgrace, but it continues to be too hot to talk about sanely.
But in any case, score 5 stupid points for the Clinton campaign. Not how they needed to control the next media cycle.
radlib1 wrote on December 13, 2007 3:25 AM:So, the New Hampshire co-chair of the Hillary Clinton campaign (the hubby of Democratic ex-Governor Jean Shaheen) thinks that Obama should somehow be disqualified from the Presidency because he admitted smoking marijuana (even, God forbid, "inhaling") and trying cocaine as a teenager.
You're going to say that someone is disqualified to be President because they "experimented" with drugs as a teenager? What planet do these moralistic morons live on? The planet where Bill Clinton didn't "inhale" or the one where George W. Bush didn't (allegedly) snort coke off the ass of a Mexican hooker?
After those "youthful, irresponsible" years, Bill Clinton went on to be a pretty good President ("NAFTA" withstanding) and George W. Bush went on to be, undoubtedly, the "Worst President Ever."
Drugs had nothing to do with it. It was their basic political intelligence. Clinton was a once in-a-lifetime political genius and George W. is a total mental and moral midget.
I personally favor John Edwards in the Democratic primaries because I like his populist stance, but I would also be happy to vote for Obama. At least, for a politician, he's relatively honest.
Grant wrote on December 13, 2007 6:58 AM:Obama’s drug use is a legitimate question. Shaheen shouldn’t have apologized. Obama has never met the Republican attack machinery. His will be a rude awakening and cost a lot of votes if we are so unlucky that he gets the party’s nod.
Will “black man dealing in drugs” be a part of the Republican attack machinery? You bet your sorry asses. And where they will descend from there is anybody’s guess.
Rob Wagner wrote on December 13, 2007 7:21 AM:We moved beyond the "did he inhale?" era and now experimental drug use among candidates for high office is not that big of an issue. I rather vote for someone who has had some life experiences than one who goes door to door selling Jesus and what-not. This was a deliberate move by the Clinton camp, and a sad attempt at smear politics.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 7:55 AM:An excellent piece on Shaheen and Obama this morning by mhinds01 over at the DailyKos.
Desider wrote on December 13, 2007 8:08 AM:Rob,
Unfortunately there are many in America who disagree with you. And they've been largely carrying elections these last 7 years.
Radio Head wrote on December 13, 2007 8:14 AM:Not calculated in the slightest. An off-hand remark. Not authorized. Not speaking for the campaign. Not something Hillary would ever, ever say.
(Did we get it out there sufficiently or are we going to have to have the candidate say it? And what about those madrassa stories, which were totally not unauthorized, too, by the way?)
These people want to be our overlords again. Time to move on.
mdana wrote on December 13, 2007 9:52 AM:What a bunch of sheeple disguised as independent thinking Democrats. It's really not much different than reading LGF at their most incoherent.
There are three candidates that can win the nomination and they are all fine candidates, if a bit DLC for my taste. If any of them get the nomination we the Dems will be in a good situation. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have thousands of supporters and they can't be held accountable for every single utterence each one has on the campaign trail. I am sure sometimes they use these surrogates for trial balloons, but you can't assume everything negative about a candidate that is not your first choice. There is so much misinformation and downright false information written in these responses.
Facts-
1. Obama in his book "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" stated he used Coke while in college, not in high school like many posted.
2. He also stated he hasn't used illegal drungs in the past 24 years not the 30 or more that many posters stated.
3. Coke is not as prevalent as marijuana use, a majority of Americans have tried Marijuana, approx. 10% have tried Coke once.
4. Coke is not used mostly by upper class whites, maybe it was in the late 70's. Way to keep up with the times Woody Allen. 2.5% of Caucasians and 2.6% of African Americans used coke in the past year according to NDSHU.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/cocaine/cocaine.htm
Obama's coke usage will come back to haunt him. There is a different standard for Dem nominees than Republican. On Obama's Coke use, although it is nice to see his candor, it will be a liability in the general election. Along with his name, his race, and his lack of experience. Also, can anyone mention anything Obama has accomplished during his time in the Senate or in the Illinois legislature?
I find it amazing that people think Obama will do great in the general election considering when he ran for the Senate in Illinois he basically ran unopposed in both the primary and general election.
I apologize if I sound critical of Obama, he would be 2 or 3 times better than Romney who will win the Republican nomination. He is just not my favorite Dem at the moment, mostly due to the fact that he is repudiating his own beliefs with Repbulican talking points in trying to slime Clinton. I think he and we can do better than that. For some reaons, Josh never bothers to mention it, which is odd since Josh is always so tough on Social Security bamboozlers. Bob Somersby knows why Josh stays quite.
Obama is the one the Republican want to run against, just like Kerry was the one in 2004. Give them what they want lemmings.
DougMN wrote on December 13, 2007 10:44 AM:Sorry guys (the Obama bots in the earlier part of the comment thread), mdana is right- Obama's cocaine use will hurt him bad. I personally don't care, but I learned long ago that 100 million DougMN are not voting in November of next year, so what I personally care or don't care about is somewhat immaterial. Lots of folks will care that Obama's a coke head and it will cost him a significant amount of votes if he makes it to the general. You folks need to not be naive.
mdana: Obama is the one the Republican want to run against, just like Kerry was the one in 2004. Give them what they want lemmings.
What?!
Firstly, Obama beats ALL three leading GOP candidates in head-to-head comparison according to a poll out this week (CBS?).
And Kerry is not the one they wanted; Howard Dean is the one the GOP wanted. Rove was even on video smirking and saying that. The GOP did not win 2004, Kerry blew it with his second-rate campaign based on the same fear that's holding us back right now.
What won in 2006? Hitting the Republicans hard and on the issues of the day, not this sniveling "don't talk about the war even though it's the biggest issue" cowardice.
Secondly, clearly Clinton is the one they want. Goodness, haven't you seen every right-wingnut media outlet claiming Clinton has already locked up the nomination and everyone else should just quit?
The Wingnut Noise Machine is so ready to launch Clinton II it's practically drooling.
Lastly, when it comes to drugs, some people have to get their heads out of their butts. For a long time majorities of this country have favored decriminalizing pot and finding more constructive ways to deal with illegal substance control.
Having done a line of blow 24 years ago doesn't means squat with the public.
you just got shaheened, baby wrote on January 13, 2008 10:24 PM:Somebody coined a word about ya, Billy!!
