he's gone. Props to HC for dumping him pronto.
Posted by T2 at December 13, 2007 01:35 PMheh- you beat me to it. agreed.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 01:36 PMHmmmmmmm.
Posted by paradox at December 13, 2007 01:38 PMYou know, the constant Obama bashing and Clinton supporting on this site is becoming intolerable. I understand you guys have your viewpoint, but it's bordering on blindness when it comes to Hillary. I went into the primary season leaning towards voting for Clinton, but between the fake interview questions, the twisted Rove-like attacks on a surging Obama, the convoluted justifications for every mistake she makes, and her willingness to support seemingly every war related thing coming down the pike, I've pretty much had it. I'll be looking elsewhere in the primary and you guys can thank yourselves for helping to seal the deal. As far as I can tell, she's Bush lite, and that's the last thing this country needs.
Why don't you just set this site up as one of her campaign branches and be done with it?
P.S. I miss the honest analysis.
Posted by turtleguy at December 13, 2007 01:39 PMturtleguy-
i am not a hillary supporter, and my post last night made clear what i felt of shaheen, and what hillary needed to do. she did it. she deserves praise.
as for obama- the only thing i continually criticize him for is mcclurkin, and i make no apology for it. it was inexcusable. he did not deal with that situation in anything close to the proper manner.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 01:43 PMTurkana,
This couldn't have been handled by Hillary more smoothly if it had been planned in advance.. which I suspect.
Hillary comes out looking good (I think) because of the quick condemnation plus resignation, and now the cable news shows are going to talk about Obama's drug use non-stop for a while.
mark-
that's way too cynical, and i don't buy it. i agree with smith- this was more damaging to hillary than to obama, but maybe it now comes out a wash. i don't see this hurting obama. i just hope it doesn't hurt shaheen's wife.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 01:53 PMYeh, she deserves praise for her campaign subordinates constantly breaking the rules of decency and then firing them (after the damage has been done). You know, that sounds a lot like Bush.... he's not responsible for anything done by people in his adminstration either, right? It's called accountability. If she can't get her staff to follow the rules of decency, then how can we expect her to control the people in her administration? There's way too much of this going on for it to be an accident every time. WAY too much.
To be clear, it was a comment about the site as a whole, not you in particular.
Oh, and I'm not defending Obama. I haven't decided who I will vote for, except that I now know for sure it won't be Clinton.
Posted by turtelguy at December 13, 2007 01:53 PMTurkana,
I think that cocaine use is viewed more seriously than pot by most people.
Many voters probably aren't even aware that Obama admitted using coke in the past.
I think this hurts Obama.
Anyway, even if you think it's very slimy, Shaheen is right that Republicans will ask such questions of Obama. If this doesn't hurt Obama, great---now we know.
Posted by MarkL at December 13, 2007 01:57 PMtg- there are some hillary partisans on this site. that's no secret. i don't take this one incident as a sign of something more sinister or devious. i also gave obama the benefit of the doubt, when the mcclurkin story first broke. at face value, she handled this well.
when i was a teen, i worked on a congressional campaign. we didn't have a huge staff, but someone associated with the campaign did something stupid, and the campaign cut him loose.
i do not expect national candidates to have control of the behavior of everyone associated with their campaigns. there are too many people. i do expect them to take responsibility, when people associated with their campaigns mess up. last night, i made clear what i thought hillary needed to do. she did it.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 02:02 PMmark-
well, i hope this inures obama to any potential future damage from this story, but i still disagree that it hurts him now- particularly in dem primaries. we'll probably never know, because i doubt there will be, or even could be honest polling on it.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 02:05 PMI don't take this one incident as a sign of something more devious either. I do, however, take the multiple events that have occurred as evidence of a pattern. So no, I don't think it was an accident. For me, this was the last straw of many straws.
I know she (or whoever wins the primary) will have to defend herself/himself from GOP attacks in the general election by hitting back hard with this type of stuff, but there's no reason to do that stuff against the other dems.... it just hurts the party.
Posted by turtleguy at December 13, 2007 02:11 PMTurk,
I personally view cocaine use very negatively. It's a much worse drug than pot. Long-term use can cause permanent damage to the heart and brain.
Pot is benign.
Apparently a lot of people on liberal blogs don't think cocaine use is a big deal. Well, suppose he had admitted doing heroin. Do you think there would be ANY chance he could be elected President? I would say absolutely not.
I would say that one way this story will help clarify Obama's chances in the GE is to look at how it's covered in the media. If the media stick up for him now, there's a good chance they will do so later. If Candy Crowley does a segment on cocaine use and possible long term effects, you know Obama is toast. Make sense?
I don't take this one incident as a sign of something more devious either. I do, however, take the multiple events that have occurred as evidence of a pattern. So no, I don't think it was an accident. For me, this was the last straw of many straws.
I know she (or whoever wins the primary) will have to defend herself/himself from GOP attacks in the general election by hitting back hard with this type of stuff, but there's no reason to do that stuff against the other dems.... it just hurts the party.
And as far as the site is concerned... you guys run the site, so you can post what you want. I'm just saying I'm tired of watching everyone bend over backwards to defend her behavior, or the bahavior of her subordinates run amuck.
JMO.
That was me again, obviously
Posted by MarkL at December 13, 2007 02:15 PMI agree with Shaheen. MarkL is the only other person I've noticed who agrees the republics will zero in on the drug use, along with so many other things they won't tap into unless Obama gets the nomination. Then their main theme will be racism in the same way they are using sexism against Senator Clinton. Count on it.
Posted by Sally at December 13, 2007 02:15 PMI think most of the 2/3 of the country that are fed up won't pay much attention so someone smoking pot 20 years ago. It's a pretty big club. If they find some roaches in his pocket at a debate...then maybe. Don't forget, the GOP is perfectly fine with their Congressmen being busted for sex crimes and their president being an admitted alcoholic, so a little pot in college shouldn't be too bad.
Posted by T2 at December 13, 2007 02:39 PMMeanwhile - the country is being driven by a man who abused alcohol for at least 20 years, and refuses to admit his other drug use 'indiscretions' during the same time. And his behaviour has been described by countless people as being either deranged, under some influence, or even obviously suffering from something mentally irregular.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 13, 2007 02:53 PMmark- i do agree that heavy, long-term cocaine use can be extremely damaging. but obama's alleged use was for a very brief period of time, and on a very casual level. on face value, no one can credibly claim his intellect has suffered. it's a non-issue, except possibly to the most extremely narrow-minded, and they aren't likely to vote for any dem, anyway.
tg- i deplore negative primary campaigning, although they all do it- mostly through surrogates. i do not think this one was planned. it's too stupid an attack. obama clearly wrote what he did in his book to inoculate himself from something like this- it's out there, people will talk about it, but it's old news. this strikes me as the stupidity of a loose cannon, rather than as something coordinated from above.
sally- as said, above- i think obama expects the repugs to go after him, on this, which is why i think he wrote about it. no sudden bombshells. it's out there. i don't see it hurting him much, if he wins the nomination, and i certainly don't see it hurting him in the primaries.
Posted by at December 13, 2007 03:04 PMI agree that the McClurkin situation is comparable. I don't think I've had a nice thing to say about Obama since. In addition to being a personal affront, it helped crystalize Obama's flaws for me
Posted by andgarden at December 13, 2007 03:38 PMHe used powder right? If he'd used crack, it would be over for him. Powder--makes him seem more white. Maybe more people will vote for him.
Posted by CG at December 13, 2007 04:05 PMTurkana, was that you responding to me?
I don't see any evidence Obama is impaired---I just mentioned the effects as part of the reason I feel more strongly about cocaine use than pot.
What happens when someone comes forward and says that Obama did coke when he was 30, btw?
Swiftboating anyone?
If I thought Obama was just a super candidate---the only good candidate---I'd take the risk of him being dragged down by the drug history.
However, Clinton, Edwards and Biden are all very capable and they don't have this problem.
I find this sufficient reason to rule out Obama---not that it's the only one, by any means!
But if you think they are close, why take the risk of going with Obama, who is the candidate least tested in elections against Republicans, and whose past has been least vetted?
If it's not suicide, it's at least Russian Roulette.
74% say:most wouldn't vote for Pres who used cocaine
In a New York Times poll in June, 74 percent of respondents said they did not think most people they know would vote for a presidential candidate who has ever used cocaine.
"In the few polls that explicitly ask about cocaine use in a presidential candidate (as opposed to the softer more generic 'Drug Use,')" says one Washington, D.C. insider, "Seventy-four percent say cocaine use makes a person unfit to be president. It's the highest negative apart from 'no government experience.' Put differently, never in the history of the presidency has a front runner openly admitted to using cocaine. So now that Obama is talking about the drug use more often, I am absolutely certain it's because he and his team know that the cocaine issue is going to roar forward. It will be a major issue if he is the nominee.The GOP will ride it hard and he is trying to inoculate."
Full article from Iowa paper on 12/6
If this sentiment is correct about EVER then this was a great move by Hillary. People have to remember best seller books don't sell that many copies. Also the media is so ashamed of their past drug use they feel the topic is off limits unless there is some linkage to public duties. So now every paper across the country has the story that Obama used cocaine.
I give Sheehan credit for taking the public hit to his reputation. He can bounce back with a White House appointment.
http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1594
the link for the above post
Craigfarmer,
This supports my theory. They know that admitted cocaine use is a killer for Obama---it just hasn't gotten enough attention.
Like it or hot, Hillary's team is doing the Democrats a favor by bringing this front and center now.