Photo by Daniella Zalcman
There is no doubt now that the Clinton campaign has decided to make a major campaign issue of Obama’s decades-old personal behavior. Robert Johnson, the founder of BET, said this at a Clinton rally in South Carolina Sunday:
I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.
So first you had Billy Shaheen basically calling Obama a drug dealer. Then Mark Penn sleazily dropping the c-word on "Hardball." Now Johnson. This is obviously not a series of accidents. This is the strategy.
Here’s the irony: by making Obama’s personal life a campaign issue, the Clintons are giving aid and comfort to the Richard Mellon Scaifes of the world, who for years have played the same dirty game. And in doing so, Bill and Hillary are spitting right in the face of those of us who defended them against those tactics. Every Democrat who has for 16 years insisted that personal behavior has no place in political debate is now made a fool. Unforgivable. Here’s Hillary just last February:
"I sure don’t want Democrats, or the supporters of Democrats, to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction," said Clinton. "I think we should stay focused on what we’re going to do for America."
I guess getting knocked off your inevitability perch in Iowa, barely squeaking out a win in NH and blowing most of your national lead makes the politics of personal destruction okay. Because I can’t see what Obama did as a teenager has to do with anything. This is very, very depressing.
Related posts:
- Two States
- Early Morning Swim: Rachel Breaks Story about Obama Extending Benefits to Same Sex Partners
- What We Learned from the Supplemental: If Obama Wants a Public Plan, the Blue Dogs Will Do It
- Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option
- Not Just Sebelius; Obama Told Reporters He’d Compromise on Public Health Plan Option
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
‘ere…
Good morning fellow Texan.
Hello, Blue Texan!
Good morning, BT!
What a chipper group. And on a Monday, and after such a pissed off post.
How many times have I seen people talking about Shrub’s drug and alchohol abuse in these threads? There is no proof that he relapsed, but many people complained that a dry drunk was just as dangerous.
How many times have I heard people say that it is a sign of a character flaw?
Moreover, a president is not just a CEO, he is a role model for our children.
I’m sorry, but the double standard offends me. And I think it is patronizing. Love yah, BT, but totally disagree with you on this one.
If she’s really determined to hurt Obama, Clinton should just drop out of the race and throw her support to Edwards.
I hate to be a pessimist, but if this shit keeps up the Dems are going to hand this race over to the wingnuts. Again.
I also distinguish –very much between personal behavior and criminal behavior.
Illegal drug use is just that–illegal. How can you have laws enforced by people who have shown a willingness to break them?
Oh, Lordie. So every teenager who drank — which is like the entire country — is officially disqualified from the presidency in your book.
Great.
And about this:
“Moreover, a president is not just a CEO, he is a role model for our children.”
If you go into the personal lives of every president, they’ll be no good role models except for maybe Jimmy Carter.
The Clintons must be getting some really bad polls to be sinking this low this soon. I’m very disappointed in them. It tends to confirm suspicions that, despite Bill’s exceptional ability, it was at bottom ’always about me’.
can Barrak and Hill slug it out so…..John Reed Edwards barrels through to victory….pretty please?
Sure hope no Democrat ever drives over the speed limit. What would we tell the children?
all you have to lok at is who ALWAYS funded him…Pam Harriman…Presscots partners
Strike three?
Look, the republicans haven’t touched this up to now. Do you really believe they would leave it alone if he got the nomination?? I think this issue needs to be vetted. If you want to hate the Clintons for that, go ahead, but I think it serves all of us to get it out of the way. If the Clintons make enough of it now, it’s less likely to hijack him later. I believe this is better for all of us. I’d rather see him put this to bed now, than later against the republicans who will absolutely be using it later.
Hillary and Co. are exactly like Bush, Rove, and Co. The only difference is which set of insiders benefits. Does anybody really think she will do anything other than maintain the Fox News, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Battle of Mediocre Management and Hyperbole?!?! It’s the same line of thought, or lack of actual thinking that gets the fundies ripped off every four years by the neo-cons. It’s as if we are funding a celebrity Texas Hold-’Em Tournament that we cannot profit from.
Underage drinking is not a crime, it is a violation, That is a a big distinction. Also alcohol itself is not illegal only regulated for age.
Cocaine is illegal at every age. Unlike marijuana, there is no medical use for it and it illegal to the general public under all circumstances
I assume you have started a Mothers Against Cell Phone Driving chapter
in your community?
There is a huge difference: The talk about Bush is his current behavior. It has been specualted that Bush has started drinking or using drugs again and that is affecting his behavior and actions. The talk about Obama is about his past bahavior. Nobody is claiming that Obama is currently using drugs.
Shades of hypocrisy on this site? No, it can’t be!
Also a violation, not a crime. Apples and oranges.
Edwards is the most vetted,and the PLUTOCRATS HATE HIM and his populist mantle
This stuff didn’t always work against Bill Clinton (in fact it often backfired) so I don’t see why Hillary thinks it’ll work against Obama (a similarly teflon candidate).
One extra note…I would be thrilled if this knocks both Hillary and Obama out. Edwards speaks my concerns and will know exactly how to fight the corporatists. I am an Edwards fan. I don’t think Hillary is evil for this, I think she is doing all of us a favor. I have been very concerned that the republicans have barely gone after Obama. They will, you know they will. They have been saving it.
Who always funded which him? Obama or Edwards?
That’s a really scary photograph, congratulations.
My Clinton Fatigue has kicked in quite quickly. I was not that fond of the 90’s anyway.
If Bill Clinton had done the honorable thing and resigned when caught canoodling with one of his employees, we’d have had Al Gore as President going into 2000, the terrorism task force would have read the August warning, and 9/11 might have been forestalled. Life would be quite different. Bill was selfish then, and the two of them are being selfish now.
Blue texan, thank you so much for this post…..I though I was just crazy thinking all of this was happening
You just rationalized every right wing scumbag who ever went after the Clintons’ — or any other pol’s for that matter— personal lives. Because getting it out there and getting it vetted is okay, right?
In the early 90’s I had a bronchoscopy procedure at Stanford Hospital. Just before inserting the ’scope, they painted the back of my throat with a cocaine solution to reduce the gag reflex. I don’t know if they still do this, but they definitely did then.
I detest Bush as much as anyone, but I find this “speculation” abhorrent. I think the notion of pre-senile demetia is more likely.
Why in the bloody hell can’t we stick to the ISSUES instead of dragging up years-old muck on the candidates and flinging it around.
Frankly, I thought FDL was better than this.
Pam Harriman with Averell(Brown Brothers Harriman) Nazi war machines bank(Bush Grandpa) funded Bill Clinton…i read her biography…Life of the Party
Also a violation, not a crime. Sheez!
And further, I hate that law and would love to see it repealed. When my damn phone rings when I’m in the car, I have to fish around in my purse to find the Jawbone, have to turn the Bluetooth feature on on the phone and try to answer, all before it goes to voicemail.
That’s a lot of time I am NOT looking at the road. Before that stupid law was passed I had no problem driving and talking (except when I dropped the phone–which was embarrassingly often)
I didn’t say it was okay. I said it was going to happen. Radical acceptance. I want to know how Obama fights this stuff. I need to have some facts about how effective he will be against the republican attack machine. I wish I had known this about Kerry when he got the nomination. It’s unfortunate, but since as far back as Carter, the attack machine is a reality and the republicans do it as dirty as they come. A viable candidate has to have the skills to fight it…or we lose.
It’s not black and white and just because I say we have a right to know how a candidate will stand up to the inevitable attack machine does not mean I think it’s okay. I hate it. I’ve hated it since Carter. I did a paper on how Reagan used Power and control (abusive speech) against Carter.
It’s the way it is.
I agree. I was just responding to LHP regarding the issue of the timeframes of the supposed usages.
Cocaine is # 1 for use in facial plastic surgery
You don’t trust him…. do you LHP?
I think this distinction you’re making is pretty silly. So since pot is illegal, you’re saying Bill Clinton shouldn’t have been president? What about every kid who’s ever used a fake ID? That’s a crime. What about driving after a few too many? How many of us have done that?
Come off it.
au contraire First of all “speculation” is all it is. Second, I have seen many many comments about how Bush’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse–PAST abuse– was a sign of a deep character defect.
The very first time I ever heard of the the “dry drunk” was one this blog and talking about Bush’s PAST behavior and how the personality type doesn’t change just because the behavior does.
What’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. If we get to slam Shrub for it, we are then obligated to treat everyone else the same way.
I’ve come to think recently that what we should take into account is, as much as a candidates strengths, is their weaknesses. And select the candidate that has the fewest holes in their armor.
Of course, the republicans will attack anything that they can think of, anyway. They attacked Al Gore for intelligence (remember fuzzy math) and Kerry for his war record. Still, we should avoid handing them bullets. Edwards, now that he’s learned to get regular haircuts, is least likely to present weakness, and most likely to mount a vigorous counterattack.
I wasn’t aiming at you, Spacefish. I am unhappy with the tone of this post.
And I am not an Obama supporter, either, but let’s stick to the issues and quit digging out 20/30/40 year old crap.
I tried to post the link to the pre-senile dementia video of Bush, but the link function isn’t working for me. It’s here, if anyone wants to paste it into their browser. Or just google the term.
and since chimpy holds the nukes…his behavior is ALWAYS proper to speculate about imo
Like it or not, the press plays favorites and will overlook the transgressions of its favorites. I wouldn’t have been so bold to say this eight years ago, but either the press has gotten bolder with this or the evidence is just so much more immediate and overwhelming now with YouTube and sites like Crooks and Liars.
Primaries are a good test of how candidates will fight. That said, personal attacks on Democrats will be taken more seriously by the beltway elite than personal attacks on Republicans (with the possible exception of Huckabee). I’m not liking this turn one bit.
I have one other thing to say…now that I am thinking about it.
Addiction is a mainstream part of our world. I think the Clintons have addiction in their lives, and I think Obama has addiction in his life. It’s clear to me that Bush has the disease as well. What does this mean for all of us. Maybe we ought to be careful about “hiring” another addict. I honestly, don’t see it with Edwards. Maybe that’s why he can’t win. We are a nation of addicts voting for addicts.
OOPS. Sigh. http://www.informationclearing…..eo1019.htm
I’m going to ask a question which I’m sure will be interpreted as sexism, but what the hell:
If Hillary Clinton were a man–let’s call him Henry Clydon–and he engaged in this sort of sewage, would he enjoy the same level of support with liberals?
Wrong!! Marijuana is the only one of the two classified as a Schedule 4 drug which means that it has “no medicinal value”. Part of the whole idiocy behind our pot policy is that is treated the same as heroin, LSD, and meth. Go into any hospital today, right this minute, and you will find cocaine in the pharmacy.
[Mod Note; Edited by mod. Please do not insult fellow commenters. Thank you.]
I don’t think there are many of the “undecided” participating in FDL. It’s unlikely that supporters of one of the candidates is going to convince any great number of readers to change their views. So, it would probably be best if we all think of the worst things we can contrive about the other candidates and just keep listing them over and over. At least they’ll all be “vetted.”
his alcohol and drug abuse HAS CAUSED his OBS (organic brain syndrome) medical term for dementia,the combination has killed off too many of chimps neurons for him to ever recover
The post is about Hillary’s campaign refusing to do just that.
What sewage has Henry engaged in?
Hmmmm, who has the most to gain from alienating Clinton from her african-american supporters? Answer that question and you’ll find out who is behind turning every utterance a comment on race.
This is not rocket science.
I’m sorry, I thought my “general Public” limitation made it clear. I know that Schedule Z narcotics (including cocaine) can be used in a hospital setting–same as morphine, but unless they have changed the law (and I know there was an update recently relating to crack, but I have not done narcotics prosecutions in a VERY long time and had no reason to review the changes) schedule Z narcotics cannot be made available to the general public for self administration.
That is they can’t give you a prescription to take to your regular pharmacy. It has to be administered by (or in the presence of) the medical facility.
That’s why addicts on methadone maintenance have to come each day and take their dose in the view of the clinic staff.
Which always seemed very harsh to me. I’m not advocating a drug policy here. I’m just not buying into a double standard where a guy waits until after the Statute of Limitations has expired on his crime, confesses to the crime and we are supposed to condone the criminal behavior?
That’s not a message I want to send to my child.
Imagine if John Edwards had his surrogates implying Obama was a drug dealer. Would liberals approve?
Good morning everyone.
I hate seeing Dems beating up on Dems. But one looks back over past campaigns, and there are precious few that don’t eventually involve some roughhousing.
Wasn’t Obama the 1st one to raise this issue, in his book? Seems to me we’ll always wonder if the Clinton campaign might have adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy if the issue weren’t out there in the first place.
With regrets all around – because I don’t expect any winners from a campaign spat like this, and I think both candidates are superb measured against ANY repubble – I stand with you on this, LHP. We’re not talking about a mere parking ticket here. Oh woe.
The way this is going…Edwards will be the last man standing…
cocaine combined with the sauce
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..062446.htm
I understand that. I’m just sorry we’re dragging all of this stuff up and arguing about it.
Maybe that’s a good reason I shouldn’t be reading blogs at my desk during the work day. And I’ve just about OD’d on this campaign, and it’s only January.
ooops, I really had the wrong “him”.
Dope Nation, eh?
Have a look at any corporation’s “most prescribed drugs” in its medical plan.
I agree. It’s as if the hillary campaign has decided to divide the Dems. Their encouragement or negligence is making things worse and worse.
And yes, it’s very, very depressing.
YES,YES,YES pretty please with sugar and nutzzzzzzzzzzzz
Screaming EDWARDS at the top of my lungs I am still being drowned out be gender and race. Fu**, F**k, *uc*.
pretty picture ,aint it
Can’t say that bothers me.
I can only hope that this bloody knife fight between Obama and Clinton helps strengthen Edwards’ position.
At this point I don’t trust either of them–to get elected in the general.
I want a Dem in the WH. Both Hillary and Obam seem to be spiraling out of control.
But, that is not my reason for disagreeing with BT.
I really do think we have to have consistency otherwise we are no better than hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh.
No…you are right and it is not sexist to say that,
I am full of hope right now, that a major Dem, Howard Dean or SOMEONE will call the clintons on this and just make them stop it!
Accident statistics have established cell phone use causes as many
accidents as alcohol, impaired driving skill results. Good rationalization though. The dry drunk syndrome results from neurological
damage from long term, heavy, alcoholic lifestyle drinking, not from
occasional, social, apperitif use.
The Clintons are working hard to make sure that the next President is again from the Republic Party.
That’s a lot of time I am NOT looking at the road.
Yes, I know. Just a violation. ;) But seriously, pretty damned dangerous.
What I didn’t like was the election fraud stuff aimed at Hillary. We ignored it when the republicans did it in 2000, and 2004. Their are plenty of computer scientists who have made it clear that this could have occurred in every election since 2000. And when I brought it up on these sites and even linked the discover magazine article written in 2003 predicting that this is what would happen in 04, I was ignored and called crazy.
Now, we have Hillary win an election and many dems including lots of you on this site, accuse Hillary of cheating. It’s all the same b.s, can’t you see? Obama’s campaign helped that one along and none of you took offense to that!! We didn’t call the republicans…just the democrat!!
I hate this, I don’t like Hillary, I want Edwards to win but I am amazed at how blindly folks follow Obama. It truly does remind me of the way people followed Bush. Folks who follow Clinton seem to do it warts and all, but people act as if Obama were the Messiah or something.
This low blow stuff is going on in both camps. Obama has been sexist and condesending in his approach to Hillary, as well. When he made his little “we like you Hillary” during the last debate, it was very patriarchal and sexist. He smirked when he said it. I am tired of both sides pointing at the other and acting innocent themselves.
The Obama camp has and will play dirty, they do it indirectly. Clinton is playing dirty as well. Edwards pretty directly went on the attack, but folks didn’t like his directness.
We get what we get, but the black and white, all or nothing, cogntive distortion crap is driving me crazy. No body is innocent, and nobody is evil. The candidates are human beings with flaws and are we.
I am interested in seeing how each candidate handles the attack machine, because I know the republicans will fight dirtier than anything we have seen up to now. I think it’s interesting that we are all blaming each other and not focusing on facts. Don’t let emotions decide this race.
“The Clintons are working hard to make sure that the next President is again from the Republic Party.”
Exactly, and MOST of their supporters are on the Clintons or NO ONE meltdown express!
Pam and Bill and Brown Brothers Harriman money
http://www.ishipress.com/pamela-h.htm
I agree that it is just speculation. However, most of what I have seen (admittedly not all there is) relates to his current actions based on his past and possibly present use.
From other things you have said, I think I understand your position.
If HRC dropped out and and asked her followers to support Edwards, does anyone think that black Democrats would just say, “Oh, okay. I’ll be real happy to just vote for another white male.”
Actually, there is at least some limited medical use of cocaine but not by average citizens. When I had four impacted wisdom teeth taken out by the USAF in early ‘77, they sprayed a, yes, seven per cent solution up my nose prior to administering a general anesthetic.
But that is a very limited legal use under control.
They need to vote for the best candidate on the issues, not based on race and gender, don’t you think? They are not that shallow.
if he speaks truth to power,and tells them EXACTLY what they can expect of him
Can’t we all just get along?!?!
Really. I’ll be glad when we can all turn our sights against a common enemy again.
I am dropping this RSS feed from my information providing list. I want information not caterwauling. There are some responsible contributors to this list but the hate mongering is a waste of my time, and frankly yours.
Don’t all you lawyers types *g* always say that lawyers shouldn’t raise questions they don’t already know the answers to? That’s my impression in any case.
debating the qualities of our canidates is good…LET THE BEST PERSON/CANIDATE win
You keep bringing up instances of trivial behavior and comparing to to something serious.
You know one of the first times I went up to Harlem to Manhattan north Narcotics for “federal Day” a Cocaine addict (she very proudly told me that she had NEVER done heroin) threw up on my foot while I was interviewing her.
Naturally I took and interest in her case after that. At one point there was an issue because the name and Social security number she had given us was for a 27 year old woman, she looked like she was in her 60’s.
My boss thought she was lying about her identity and was not grooving on the plea deal I was trying to get approved. Then her fingerprints came back.
She was telling the truth. You cannot believe what that drug did to her body. She had open weeping sores on her skin, she would shake and tremble in withdrawal. She haunts me still.
I spent a year going up to Harlem in the middle of the night to rite narcotics complaints. I have seen up close what that drug can do to a population. This is NOT a trivial thing
So what’s the best anti-cocaine policy? The Drug War?
Are you really saying that what drug use in your teens should disqualify one from the presidency? Pretty stringent standards don’t you think.
Also, the Republicans are splintering. The ONLY candidate that will you united them is HILLARY.
LS and sadlyyes: Look, I like Edwards, but that is not going to happen. If “truth to power,” as you see it, were his issue, he would already be leading in all the poles. This race/gender stuff is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and give us President McCain.
it is a horrible disease,to be treated as one,as well as alcholism
I agree, but as a child of divorce, I hate to see so much fighting among family, especially when that family ultilately has a common goal.
Ohhh.. So she’s just doing her part to be a good democrat. I get it.
Everything’s ok then.
i cant give up yet,i just cant let the media WIN
it’s hard not to see both racism and gender-bias in your comment.
you didn’t mean it that way, did you?
and while i’m grumbling, i think comments by others about a “nation of addicts” are way over the top.
in a word, NO!
LHP – what you’re missing is that Obama talks about his use in the context of realizing he was wrong and stopping – after which he went on to considerable success. It is a message to young people, esp young black people – that change is possible.
The Bush approach to his previous drug and alcohol use is simply denial.
And the Clinton approach to Bill’s clear difficulties with sexualty has also been denial.
I’m not supporting anyone (my two candidates are gone) but I applaud Obama’s forthrightness on this – and yes, the resulting message of hope for young people who feel hopeless.
That would be Edwards, in my book.
we need to fight SMARTLY…thesis ,antithesis= synthesis…its ok..really it is lol
She became an addict, not someone who tried a drug a couple of times and
moved on. Big difference there as well. What you saw did not come from
trial use.
I agree on this being depressing. Predictable, but depressing. I think, however, that it won’t work this time. I think we’re at a new stage, and these old tactics will only backfire on those who use them. This won’t hurt Obama.
The times HAVE changed.
me too…our country need a populist now,and a smrt lawyer to boot
I don’t see how you see that in my comments. I’m a Democrat. I believe all three Democrats are superior on every issue, including race and gender, to all of the Republicans. But using those issues against each other is deadly. I’ve seen Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush beat better men because of splits in the Democratic party. This would be the most needless split of all.
I’m worried about that too, believe me. The one thing to remember is that early results and polling historically changes dramatically as time marches on.
I want the best candidate to win on their merits, not “because” everyone else is “ruined” by rumors and dirty politics.
I would agree that one could perceive McCain as a “threat”, however, his position on endless war and endless occupation is not going to sit well with the American people even if his other policy positions are moderate…dirty politics or not. The country wants out of the Neocon war mongering or anything remotely resembling it.
Like I said, Edwards will possibly be the last man standing, and I hope he hangs in there all the way.
JMHO.
Don’t fear Hegel?
LOL !!
hahahahahahaha
debating is good
we cant be afraid to fight fairly,and decently
Has okk said anything bad about Hillary yet? He promised lahoma he would not, at least until midnight last night.
I could feel his frustration all day yesterday. .g)
That is what happened in Chicago 1968, the democrats gutted each other
and elected Richard Nixon. Say it out loud, Richard Nixon.
There are a number of corporate-produced anti-depressants available.
Available by prescription only, of course.
Today ought to be a doooozy!!
I say a pox on both their houses. As for pressing the drug issue, it is certainly Rovian. Hit him where it will hurt. But two evidently can play the game. How about deliberately misinterpreting a comment and then using the deliberate half quote to attack a candidate? Ask Obama about what Pres. Clinton really meant when talking about the ” Obama fantasy”. Obama turned a perfectly cogent argument against Obama’s war record meme into a racially charged attack against Clinton. Rove would be proud.
Let’s go with the real progressive instead of the two pretenders — Edwards.
Agreed, but this is not what I see happening. It’s getting ugly and the end result will be that many people will be turned off of the race because “it’s all just politics.” When you fight dirty within a family, both sides loose.
OT on substance abuse by Bush. I’ve noticed that he’s gained weight and his face is fatter. Is this recent?
I was pretty sure you didn’t mean it that way; it’s just that the wording grated enough that I was reluctantly speaking up – some could have taken it wrong.
Thanks for your explanation. I couldn’t agree more. The dangers of a split worry me almost as much as possibilities of election fraud.
I’m still fuming over DeLay’s henchmen not being sent straight to jail for storming Miami Dade BOE during the attempted recount. THERE’s thuggery for you!
Bingo. And you could watch it happen with the partisans of Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Eugene McCarthy. Maybe they thought they were just having a healthy discussion and vetting each other.
Edwards campaign!!! If any of you are reading this post…Stay out of the conflict!!!
keep it clean and on point….the eonomy.the war,healthcare…desperatly need debating….we NEED to know where they stand…and senators track records are fair game…get it out there before McStain does
MSM is smacking HRC down over this.
You wouldn’t think that people who live in glass houses would be inclined to throw stones. This just bring to mind, screamingly, the old “but I didn’t inhale” bit Clinton used to tell. It was ludicrous then, and it remains ludicrous now. Nobody has ever questioned Mrs. Clinton, but it seems the time has come to ask her that question now. BTW, remember what Joe Wilson said when asked that question. It went something like, “I went to Berkley. Back then, if you didn’t smoke dope you were a nerd.” I think that would go for Mrs. Clinton if she says she never.
The more they try this route to smash Obama’s rep, the more it’ll backfire. And it won’t be him playing the race card. It’ll be the opposition camp. Shameful behavior for a Presidential hopeful.
i believe one can say anything …it is HOW you say it..frame the debate OUR way and dont get down and dirty
Hill will have to get rid of Johnson.
I will NOT vote for her if she allows this nonsense – it makes her look verrrrry bad if she cannot stick to the issues.
For the last 4 days of her life, we administered morphine to my mother, legally, at home, no nurse or doctor. So that’s not true, either.
We slam Bush because of his utter hypocricy on these issues. Obama has been forthright.
And lets not forget Cuomo’s “shuck and jive” and basketball references.
The Clinton camp is baiting Obama – trying to get him to look like an Angry Black, and evoke the Jesse Jackson reaction in white America. It’s vile.
bravo
Vetting is not sliming. Its being used as a euphemism to engage in ad hominem under the guise if you can’t take it, you can’t run in the general. But is it not vetting. It hitting someone to see how they take a punch. Not vetting. At least call it what it is.
Well said!
I don’t have a Drug Policy to offer. I don’t claim to have all the answers.
My whole point on this is that CRIMES are not “personal behavior”. And a double standard will not protect Obama from being Slimed by the Republicans and only robs us of authenticity.
I try not to be too much of a hypocrite. Sometimes I succeed better than others.
this of course,takes preparation and hard work,hahahahaha
DIPLOMACY a dying art methinks
Once a nasty meme like this gets fed to the MSM, they frame the contest
with it until another comes along… this race/gender setup for the SC
primary is a perfect example. Somewhere KR is grinning ear to ear.
I have said it once, and I’ll say it again. Attacking is attacking. It uses power and control not truth. It takes advantage of identification errors in thinking, cognitive distortions that are black and white. I don’t like any candidates pointing the finger at others. I believe the healthiest form of communication is to focus on the self, our own side of the street. That said. Obama has done it, Clinton has done it, Edwards has done it. We are all human and we all do it. WE feel strongly about something so we look for judgments that support our feeling.
My point is that we could all benefit from being able to recognize judgments from facts and today, the judgments and emotion are flying.
Wouldn’t it be cool, if we dared each other to engage in political discussions only using factual statements. No judgmental statement allowed. I would absolutely love to see a post making this challenge. I think we would all learn something from the experience.
A fact is something a room full of a thousand would agree. A judgement is anything stated that can be validly challenged.
Who would be willing to take up such a challenge. I think it would be fun and I think it would help people realize how much emotion vs facts is going on.
Which is why I hate that law. My “legal” behavior is much more dangerous than the violation would be. I actually know the guy that wrote that law in NY. I threatened to strangle him when I found out he was the culprit.
Having a fake ID is a crime. So is smoking pot. So is driving drunk. So is vandalism. So are a lot of stupid things people do when they’re young. What percentage of the population are you willing to disqualify from the presidency on this basis?
when OUR candidates get to the mike…flip the script…USE OUR WORDS AND SMILE damnit SMILE
If you are not going to have stringent standards for POTUS, what would you be saving them for? Is there a MORE important job that should have strict standards?
And BTW, the are a whole passel of gov’t jobs for which that disqualifies you.
well said! only the facts Sgt Friday
The new – and very exciting legal series that Christy has organized – is starting now – First Monday Series
New thread with Nan Aron from AFJ.
Supposedly when George W.Bush fell and hit his head on the table, his blood tested high for alcohol. Read that someplace, but don’t have a link. Drugs, recreational or otherwise, that a president uses, are relevant, not that there’s anything anyone can do about it. Bush senior was on serious mood altering medication which may be why he puked on the Japanese prime minister. Still it is disingenuous for Bill Clinton of all people to chide Obama for youthful indescretions.
I think the mud slinging unfortunate, but it will work itself out. Americans love rehabilitation. George Bush did not deny cocaine use and admitted alcoholism. That didn’t matter. Obama can handle himself. I doubt he’ll do a Kerry and ignore it. It will do the Clintons more harm than good and most likely won’t inure to Edward’s benefit.
Reckless driving is already a crime, to not pay attention to driving
while driving for any reason is reckless driving, there just isn’t a
group raising holy hell “for the children” about it. People actually
functioned before cell phones.
LHP – of course, such standards also prevent a disproportionate number of black youth – who are disproportionately prosecuted for drug related crimes, while privileged white kids are let off, to be blocked from future careers and government positions. That’s why Obama’s point is important. And missing that is missing a very important factor in his appeal.
Hillary loses the nomination and Obama wins. Obama then gets slimed by the entire MSM for being a drug addict thanks to the Clintons, allowing Rudy to win the election.
Oy vey. Knock it off Hillary. Run the election on yourself.
I did caveat my remarks by saying that I knew there had been an update to the law and did not know its provisions. So, I think you meant to say “that is NO LONGER true”
I think addiction is disqualifying. I don’t know if Obama was an addict, but Bush certainly was, and not using or using, he is still an addict.
I am sorry to see this going on, for our country which apparently is ready to elect either a woman or an AA, or maybe not after this.
I am sticking with Edwards.
Other than admitting he used for awhile during his youth, was Obama ever convicted of committing a crime??
Aren’t you innocent of a crime until proven guilty by a jury of your peers?
Do we know whether or not Edwards has ever tried drugs? I’m not accusing, I’m just saying I don’t see him throwing any stones…
BlueTex, the primary FDL goal is to keep Dems from engaging in ethnic bating and not too thinly veiled attacks on gender. Trying to limit the vetting about drug use, that we all know will occur in the general, only makes the more important boundary for Democrats (preventing attacks based on ethnicity and gender) harder to maintain.
Yes, it would be nice if voters made their decisions based on the issues, but past actions are the best predictors of future events. It isn’t going to happen among the majority of voters who have never heard of FDL. wavpeac above correctly stated that the vetting has to happen now.
Frankly, a lot of your comments read like something on a libertarian site. Right or wrong, speeding tickets, overdrafts, bounced checks, …. have a lot to do with electability.
Also, you don’t make any points with me when you address lhp in a tone that carries significantly less respect for her than I think she deserves. I have been liberal in digging your posts. I’ll take a more wait and see attitude in the future.
wavpeac, I liked your point about a nation of addicts electing an addict. I would only add, that I think we will elect an addict. What we’re trying to do is elect the one who is less steeped in denial.
What did we tell the children during Monicagate? He is a life-long serial offender in cheating on his family!
Do you want to wake up on the morning of an important congressional vote on health care or the Iraq war to a screaming headline “Bill caught in Watergate apartment with member of the Clinton administration junior staff.”
Never mind Hillary’s humiliation. What about mine? As a resident of New Hampshire I gave him a pass on Jennifer Flowers; then on Paula Jones. Then I defended him against the right wing conspiracy trying to implicate him in the Monica affair.
Then I walked into the office the day after he confessed.
This post just depresses me. I’m a Clinton supporter so I guess I’m not welcome on this site. The use of this purposely unflattering picture of Clinton looking down on everyone–I don’t need this typical Drudge-style shit from a site like this.
Presidential campaigns are tough. It seems to me that when you take the step to run for president, your entire past is on the table and people are going to talk about it, evaluate it, etc. Whether or not it’s fair, that’s what happens. Get used to it.
If you want to have a Hillary hate fest on firedoglake then you can definitely do it without this reader.
Please do not go based on your perception from one post and thread. FDL has been attempting to hold ALL the Dem candidates to the same standards. Which is why in many other posts, FDL has been accused of being in favor of Senator Clinton.
There are advocates of all the candidates who comment here and opponents of all as well.
Most all of us believe that ALL the Dem candidates are superior to the Rs running.
The Clintons have argued publicly that their personal, private lives should not have been politicized. Are you saying they’re wrong?
I don’t think this is a hate fest, and while the photo is not flattering and there are not a lot of unflattering photos of her (she is quite photogenic), I think it is not inappropriate to use it.
Let’s face it. People who want to be President are ruthless in many ways. It is part of what has to happen, to win.
And I think the Clintons are not haters/racists of any kind. But they want to win, and they will be ruthless.
I am sure they are doing their best to kick Obama in his numbers. How this plays out is anyone’s guess. Let us just hope we don’t hurt the real goal, to elect a Democrat for President.
I’m not buying the whole argument that every comment from someone in Hillary’s campaign (or a supporter) has her blessing. And again I see a double standard being applied; no one is monitoring every word from Obama supporters to see if someting may be (or taken out of context to be) offensive to Hillary. From my observations, Hillary makes a fairly open case against Obabma. On the other hand, he acts as if though he plays no part in any criticism against her, yet when he comments on it he proceeds to list (as if innocently) what all those criticisms may be. My new words for Obama are smug & conceit: he carries-on as if he alone can save the world & appears to find himself highly likeable. I don’t trust him, and I won’t vote for him unless I have to.
Clinton’s swiftboating Obama. All of this comes straight from the Karl Rove playbook. The Clintons thought they owned the black vote. Then along comes Obama, an “uppity black man” who decided to run for president. What nerve! Now we know how the Clintons really feel about blacks.
Its obvious, the Clintons decided to play the race card, they know exactly what they’re doing: sounds like Karl Rove buzzwords for the white racist votes. Sounded pretty racist when Hillary minimized the accomplishments of MLK. Here’s the message: you black civil rights leaders would be nowhere without the white politicians doing your bidding.
With those comments, Hillary was vastly underestimating the role of MLK while overestimating what LBJ did. The passage of the Civl Rights act of 1964 did not happen in a vacuum. It happened after the assassination of JFK.
Now we know the Clintons just use black voters just like the Republicans have been using evangelicals every four years. Now, horrors we have the “uppity black man” Obama running as a Democrat and the evangelical minister Huckabee running as a Republican. The powers-that-be have to knock those two upstarts out of the race.
An accurate observation, I think. For more on this and to help in identifying and understanding the problem see:
When Society Becomes an Addict
by Anne Wilson Schaef
“happy to just vote for another white male”
I think this may be a veiled racist/sexist accusation. Issue free choice? What about they’d be happy to vote for a black or white woman or a black male? They want to choose on the basis of color and gender alone?
Read the remainder of the discussion. My point is, that when you get into issues as sensative as race and gender, reason goes out the window. If an issue is already being made of whether Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act was nted as an effort to demean what MLK did, can you doubt that all rationalism would leave the argument?
LHP~ I think that those who critique Bush as a “dry drunk” are referring to his current behavior, not his past alcoholism. Some have suggested that he definitely demonstrates mental impairment from PAST abuse. I don’t think anyone is being hypocritical when they support Obama who, perhaps, abused cocaine for a year or two, and shows no such impairment. Nobody has asserted that Bush was doing something illegal just by drinking…impaired driving (and escaping the consequences due to his connections) and just general associated abusive behavior, YES. But alcohol is not illegal, in and of itself.
Bill Clinton also never demonstrated any impairment from smoking (or possessing) marijuana, which was also illegal. I would suspect that Hillary experimented with smoking pot as well. Neither Bill Clinton, nor Obama, have ever been shown to have done anything aggressive while using drugs in their teens. Actually, I think that Bill said that he tried smoking pot in his early twenties.
I consider it important that Obama (and Bill, a bit more evasively, perhaps) admitted to their actions in their youth. Bush, has lied about his activities, for exactly the reason that you have stated “I’m a role model and admitting what I did in the past would make me a bad role model.” Which is worse, a liar who justifies those lies by saying that he is upholding MORALITY…or someone who admits that they are imperfect and moves ahead.
And while I don’t know that these supporters of the Clintons are making these attacks on Obama under their direction (personally the ham-handed manner suggests not)…it’s clearly hypocritical when someone says something like…” Hillary and Bill Clinton…have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
Obama was involved in Black “issues” when he was a kid. He was involved in the same sorts of issues that millions of black young men have to confront daily. He also had to deal with issues of biracialism, being “black” in an environment where he was very much a minority. He’s been an outcast for being “black”, being “not black enough”, for being “Muslim”, For being a “Christian”, for being “African”, for being “smart”, “articulate”, “liberal” and not liberal enough, and just about everything else. Imagine a kid facing half that from a bunch of peers of either race or religion or class. Obama overcame all that.
But to make an assertion that some kid was expected to have been out championing black causes when he was 15 years old…is sheer inanity. Hillary was out posting Goldwater stickers on bumpers at that age. Bill was probably playing saxophone. If one takes what Obama was doing for the black community at the same ages, I think that Obama’s record, as a community activist in Detroit trumps whatever activities the Clintons did while Bill was Governor.
“My point is, that when you get into issues as sensative as race and gender, reason goes out the window.”
I had read the rest of the discussion, thanks. And you’re right when you implied (ironically? sarcastically?) in your hypothetical that if Hillary were eliminated blacks would not support Edwards because he was just another white male you kicked reason out the window. :-)
Well that would be news to my doctor who used it when I came in to deal with a badly broken nose after a soccer match.
I’m going to state it again. Obama, Clinton and Edwards need to come together and create a “top issues” platform that will follow the Dem who wins into office. They need to consult with some important names on some big issues. In the past, I have given the example of meeting with Gore to write and energy and environment policy. Now I may add race and gender to the concept of a “America come together” platform.
The devisiveness needs to stop now. If the Dems divide, all the numbers in voter turnout they have gained will be lost.
And trust me, Rove is doing his math. An event like this may have him doing a Snoopy Dance.
You may know better than I, but if you’re 25 and were disqualified for drug use in your teens I would get that, but I hardly believe any government job disqualifies one for drug use 25-30 years ago.
I understand your “strict standards” comment, but I think your getting a little ridiculous. Do you really think adolescent behavior has that much predictive value? Personally, I’d be a little concerned about anyone who lived their whole life having never pushed back against authority – or maybe I’m just rationalizing.
What statement would you have liked to see the Clinton campaign come-out with after Mr. Johnson made his comments? They followed-up with him & he clarified his remarks with some half-ass answer. If Hillary did anything more it would appear as if she endorsed his comments in the first place, which I don’t think she did. And she is not personally accountable for everything said by anyone who supports her.
LHP…a “dry drunk” doesn’t even have to touch a drink. It’s a personality issue. And one that can also become exacerbated by a former alcoholic.
But there is another aspect of Bush’s behavior that relates to former alcoholism…and that is, in fact, the manner in which he deals with his former abuse (and Bush has admitted that he abused alcohol..he has said that a pregnant Laura nearly left him regarding it). Bush shows the absolutism that is characteristic of certain “10-step Programs”. The world is seen in black-and-white, good vs. evil, and with simply, inviolable rules. Loyalty to those in the group, particularly the group leader, is essential. Many ten step programs also have a heavy dose of belief and communication with an “outside power” (talking with an all-seeing God) as part of their systems. Those who don’t follow THAT system, even non-abusers, are viewed as being flawed. People who cope well with the trigger (alcohol, liberal thoughts, non polarized worldviews) are viewed as affiliated with the evil. “You are with us or you are against us”.
Former alcoholics who undergo ten-step programs often transfer their aggression away from the family and circle of intimates towards those outside the group. They become evangelical in their belief of the system that “saved them”. They can’t conceive that others might not need saving, or that there may be a plethora of ways that people with issues like theirs can improve their lives.
It is meaningless to say the Clintons are superior to the Republicans running if our scrap is a few decent judges.
Did you read the new energy policy of the Clintons? wrapping houses with better insulation and low emission autos. That is it folks. Who does that new policy benefit?
The Clintons lower the bar each day in their campaign and they rely on complacence and incompetence to do it.
Some would say
I’m not sure that Clinton can, or should, respond to everything that “spokespersons” say. There are gonna be a lot of loose cannons in these campaigns who think they have a wonderful idea, and then go off and make some stupid remark. The bigger the campaign, the more likely it is that statements by others are gonna singe the candidate. Obama has had this happen with his gay-baiting Reverend in South Carolina. His response was ineffectual.
And remember that Edwards ended up firing a media consultant who came from a progressive blog simply because she had made some pretty snarky statements on that Blog BEFORE she was hired. Most people here said that what Edwards did was stupid…that her comments were her comments.
I think that all campaigns can do is the standard “Those were his personal views and not the views of the candidate”, sort of thing. That may ring hollow for a lot of folks, and they’ll continue to see the statements as some sort of stealth effort.
I will say one thing, though. If Obama is the nominee…expect the Republicans to dredge up the issue. And they’ll likely ask Hillary if SHE ever smoked pot. Edwards seems too “goody two-shoe”s to have ever dared to have experimented with that aspect of life. So maybe he won’t get asked about it.
Ask the Clintons who has more drunk drivng convictions, Cheney or Bush? There is an answer. Were the Bush and Kerry dui convictions an issue in the gore and kerry campaigns?
Woe is you.
What is factually inaccurate about this post? Has there not been a track of her playing the same games that were played against her as Blue has stated? We defended her and stood up to those attacks but now she sees fit to use them herself.
I must say I am disgusted with the Obama campaign and most of the so-called progressive blogs. It is patently obvious that Obama used innocent comments from the Clintons to manufacture a racial issue that would shift the black support to him from Hillary. What would the Clinton’s have to gain my making racial slurs? What did Obama gain by making it appear that they did, echoed by the blogs and the press who hate the Clintons anyway. Exactly what he got–a shift in the black vote.
To have the Clinton’s lifetime devotion to black issues, even to the point of being referred to as the first black President is sickening to me. Obama may have gained black votes but perhaps he and the black community forever lost the support of those of us who are offended by the tactics.
Larywt
I completely agree with you. I’m not defending Clinton here, I just think that actions have consequences and there should not be a double standard.
And I believe in the rule of law. For Dems as well as Reps.
Actually, I think he would, if he was in a similar heir apparent position to Clinton.
I don’t see what’s dirty about hitting a candidate for illegal drug use — any candidate. I just don’t. I like a certain amount of ruthlessness in a candidate, and unlike what Rove would do, Hillary’s campaign didn’t have to make up this accusation out of whole cloth. It happens to be true. If it works, it’s because most Americans don’t like illegal drug use in a leader.
If Democrats had hammered Bush more for his cocaine and alcohol abuse, instead of politely giving him a pass on it, maybe he wouldn’t be POTUS now.
It seems that flinging mud which has always been a fixture of elections, is not going to die. The conventional wisdom from the MSM talking “pundits” is that negative campaigning is always more effective commercial wise. I guess it’s here to stay.
I find it ironic, that Robert Johnson, the founder of BET, is flinging mud at anybody, and if the situation were reversed, and he were flinging mud at Senator Clinton, who isn’t my first choice, or Senator Edwards, who is my second choice, I would feel the same way.
BET’s content is predominantly music videos whose lyrics are (and I know this is a cliche but it’s true) hugely demeaning to women, promote violence, and rather than inspire people to “get out of the hood” and get an education, their effect is probably to influence many of them to get them in trouble in the hood.
I’m trying to force myself to advocate/criticize as to the issues tied to a candidate. I would much rather have a person who might have had a few problems early on and corrected them, than someone who has supposedly lived a life as a saint.
This kind of thing really insults voters. I have a hard time believing that it could work because the behavior used to sling mud was so many years ago–and there has been a success track that is enormous for every one of these three Democratic candidates left. Of the population of people who take the time to get informed about candidates, there aren’t any who think–gee Obama has said at an early age he tried grass, coke, and he drank more than he should–I expect him to revive this practice if he were elected President–or the same if the claims were about Senator Edwards or Senator Clinton.
If I were tasked say as a Republican point guard for an election, or working for one of these candidates to win for mine, I’d be going after their record, and what they might do in office rather than something so remotely relevant.
We can all take your point. But the illegal drug use in Obama’s situation (which could very possibly have occured early on in the life of many other candidates) was when he was a teenager or in his early 20’s. Few people live a perfect life.
Obama wrote about it as a problem he overcame in an autobiography. I’d rather have a leader who overcame a problem, and grew up early on in poor neighborhoods, as he did in Jakarta, and overcame the use of drugs (it didn’t seem to interfere with his daily functioning or school) who went on to become the first black President
of Harvard Law Review, had substantive accomlishments in a civil rights law firm advocating and making changes for some of the most disadvantaged Chicago neighborhoods, and was elected a U.S. Senator.
Most Americans can forgive both early mistakes, and current mistakes when the individual works hard to overcome them and produces constructive, positive results. That’s my take on most Americans. They seem to love comebacks.
Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or a Jesse Jackson Democrat?
Personally, I don’t find Obama’s cocaine use an issue. But I’m not typical of the average American, and I know it.
Why call Bush a “dry drunk” but not call Obama the same? Did Obama go through a 12-step program?
Also, I question whether Obama was ever truly poor. He was exposed to conditions of poverty, but protected from them himself. I don’t think it necessary for a leader to have personally experienced poverty to understand it, but I don’t believe we can trace a line from a poverty-stricken background to cocaine use in Obama’s case, either. He more fits the profile of the middle-class recreational user. For a guy who knew in kindergarten that he wanted to run for president, dabbling in illegal drugs as a young adult seems like quite a risk.
On a side note, why can’t I be a candidate? I’ve never used illegal drugs, been arrested for anything, committed adultery, taken bribes, hired undocumented workers to mow my lawn or watch my kids (while railing against illegal immigration), or done weird things with prostitutes, underage individuals, or livestock. I’m an average person, and I can’t help but wonder, when I’m surrounded by other average people who also haven’t done any of the above, why our leaders have.
Oh, wait, I forgot — I’m not a Christian. That’s the reason. Silly me.
I haven’t called Bush a “dry drunk.” One of the very few things I believe from Bush is that he had a drinking problem and Laura was instrumental in him stopping, and he hasn’t been drinking any alcohol for something like 25 years or more–I’d have to research the exact number.
I don’t believe Bush’s past drinking is remotely part of his problems for providing a litany of horrendous outcomes the past seven years, the worst by far of any President, that Hugh here has made a very complete list on, and Daily Kos has another good list.
In my experience there are tons of people who had the same experimentation as Obama is reported to have had as a kid, and a 12 step program isn’t remotely needed by them. They aren’t people “taking things one day at a time.
Not everyone who has misued drugs or alcohol as a kid for a transient period of time hanging around people who did, and made poor choices needs any prescription “program” that is a cookie cutter program for the next 50-70 years of their lives.
Obama didn’t seem to “need a 12-step program.” 12 Step programs, and their high percentage of lack of efficacy anyway, are a whole other discussion.
Many of us have known scores of people who had the same level of use of alcohol or drugs Obama did as kids, straightened up, and flew well.
I perceive Bush as a failed President, with alcohol/or drugs not even on the landscape as the reason for his failures. When I voted against Bush, it had 0.0 to do with any allegations of past drug use. When I voted for Bill Clinton, it had 0.0 to do with any allegations that he smoked pot or might have experimented with other stuff in college or when he was a Rhodes scholar.
On the scale of what most Americans IMHO are looking at right now, drug use in any candidate for the general election ranks awfully miniscule in the things they’re considering. It does for me.
I don’t see any clinical signs of alcohol impairment as to DSM IV or any of the other vast array of medical criteria for evaluating it in the way Barack Obama is keeping to an impossible schedule with tremendous pressure and taking care of a terrific family while doing so.
For a large number of people who have alcohol related problems the cookie cutter approach of 12 step programs is about as effective as it was for Chris Moltisanti, the character Michael Imperioli played on the Sopranos. I’ve had a chance to medically review and see people who have tried many 12 step programs, and there is a huge percentage of failure and recidivism in them. Many professionals don’t find them to be optimal care.
I don’t know how poor Obama is, and I won’t waste anyone’s time arguing it. I do know he couldn’t afford to attend the International school at the time he was in Jakarta, where the parents were uniformly affluent, and went to the school with children from poor families.
When a kid tells me in kindergarten they want to run for President, I don’t particularly belive that they will be calculating their every move for that Presidential resume during the next several years of school. It’s great that they have aspirations, and I’m hoping they do well in school. That just seems awfully rigid–thousands of kids say things about what they want to do as adults and change their minds. I know a lot of med students and law students who had an idea of what they were going to do in the first year of law or med school who changed their minds several times in the next few years.
You have a start then, for sure, I guess by your criteria.
I would not judge voting for you as to your religion. I am aware that there are candidates that are promoting religious beliefs more than others. I konw that many Republicans, including Gillespie are calculating how to mobilize Christian right votes. I, and many people abhor religion in government in general, and in politics in particular.
I’m sorry it’s there. It doesn’t enter into a lot of people’s selection process, and enters into the selection process of many.
There is an upcoming book in the FDL book salon by a Sarah Posner that is going to deal with that subject in a way I like. You should attend the discussion 1/27/08.
God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters by Sarah Posner
I respect that you have your criteria for selection for Presidential material. But my criteria doen’t include drug or alochol use even as a blip in this current crop of candidates before us.
A statute is a law a violation of a law is a crime. Semantics!
Not all violations of law are crimes. By a long shot. Some are not even violations. Some are merely civil not in any way tied to the criminal code. Thnk about regulatory violations.
Crime is a VERY specific word to a lawyer.
This post was the best commentary on this subject that I have seen Thank you. I was discomforted by the Clinton’s games and wasn’t even sure it was a deliberate plan until this third incident. I am revolted and feel betrayed. It just drags politics down to the level that it has wallowed in for decades at the hands of Republicans. Until this I was more than open to Hillary’s candidacy and while she was my third choice all things considered it was only third in a nearly even decision. I now have no idea what to do, aside from keeping my money in my pocket, if she actually gets the nomination. The level of cynicism involved in this smear is staggering — it presumes for one thing that the voters are idiots and/or that those who notice and care will just forget it.
Hasn’t it always been about them? Isn’t this exactly what Bill did too? Just how well did the Party do when Bill was getting his second term?
If Hillary doesn’t win Nevada and the NH recount shows she lost there, then does she have any chance to recover?
Cite an instance. I think you’re confusing our suggestion that Diebold voting machines may have been rigged with the idea that Clintons did it.
Do you mean Obama helped along the suggestion that the Clintons had something to do with election fraud in NH or that he helped along the ‘race’ issue discussion?
I believe someone, probably Obama people, introduced race into this after Iowa. There were Obama supporters (or someone pretending to be) who called me and others racist if we opposed Obama. That started it on the Net. Then Obama said somebody was saying the dream was not alive and hope was false hopes. He didn’t point a finger at Hillary, but it’s clear he was trying to tell black voters that the Clintons believed the hope of a race-neutral society was dead. Obama was just flat out lying to people. Of course, when Bill Clinton said Obama was selling a fantasy, then it went back and forth.
You and me. He’s lying to people by spinning things to suit himself. He’s been doing it for months as a way of deflecting issues which haven’t gone his way. He’s smooth, so I suppose his supporters haven’t caught on. I hope they do soon.
I agree completely. I even analyzed Obama some time ago and came to the conclusion he is very much like Bush. I think even Hillary made some mention of that.
There’s the absent father, the drug use, the moving around early in his youth, the (to me) surprising chance at a high-class university (Columbia and Harvard) and the passive-aggressive style. He’s very Bush-like.
Well, they do sell that idea, don’t they. It’s a cult-like thing. They don’t seem to care what his ideas are (or that they largely come from John Edwards) and they overlook his lying and his mistakes. They’re True Believers!
Obama is clearly a passive-aggressive who loves getting in the little jabs without appearing to do it himself. That jab in the debate is possibly the clearest example of what he’s really all about.
People don’t like conflict. It’s hard to debate and compete in a campaign without doing it, so what we have is surrogates for each camp who do that and the candidate tries to stay above the fray. Hillary isn’t doing that as well as she should. But, the aggressiveness of Obama’s campaign to make his attacks through surrogates isn’t nice and the kinds of things he’s doing isn’t about issues or what’s relevant. It’s just Chicago politics, rough & tumble as he called it.
John Edwards is just cruising along talking about people’s lives and what government need to do for them. Seems to me he’s the one who is most presidential and leading the way. Too bad the press doesn’t let people hear about him.
BTW, Edwards is still doing alright in the polls, so maybe people do have better sense than the media.
The polls just before the Iowa caucuses showed Edwards right in the thick of it with a great deal of momentum. If he’d won that don’t you think he’d have gotten a good bump going into NH and could be in the top spot now?
What if Iowa was rigged? What if there was cheating in Iowa and NH? Well, whoever is perceived (!) to have won received a big bump up and it wasn’t Edwards. So, who’s to say which candidate is truly America’s favorite?
I say Edwards should stay in there and fight and regain the lead, if he can, in honest ways. If his message is superior (and we know it is), then he might well retake the lead and win — if only he can re-establish parity before Super Tuesday.
Don’t count out anybody just because the media says something. They have a vested interest in determining the victor — and it doesn’t jibe with the interests of most Americans.
Precisely! Obama spins/misinterprets intentionally. He’s done it repeatedly in this campaign.
I think they’re just pissed because of all the nasty jabs Obama’s camp has taken since Iowa. Of course, having the candidate embroiled in public fighting isn’t useful. Neither looks good.
I know this blog is largely populated by Progressives and some Liberals and a lot of DFHs, but I know of nobody here who hates Hillary.
We just don’t care all that much for DLC Dems.
However, I do like her better than Obama. And, I hope she knocks him out of the race. It’s hard for Edwards to do it with limited funds and even more limited media attention.
Lord have mercy! Did you have to create that image?
Thank goodness his math isn’t very good.
This is the kind of spinning of something that I am more and more relating to the Obama campaign. Are you an Obama supporter?
Edwards had to let the girls go because they were receiving death threats and it wasn’t safe to keep them on. See, it isn’t quite what you said, now was it?