Barack Obama ought to personally assure Democratic voters that he has told all there is to tell about his youthful drug use, and that there is nothing else along these lines that might undermine him as a party nominee. Obama adviser David Axelrod told reporters on Thursday that Obama only used drugs up until age 20, and that he had not sold drugs or shared them with friends.
Still, Democrats should insist on firm assurances that there are no surprises that Republicans might surface on election-eve in November if Obama is the party nominee. Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush managed to dodge detailed questions about his partying past in the same way that Obama's team is now doing - by calling foul against anyone who brings it up. But in the final weekend before the 2000 election a drunk driving arrest surfaced that Bush had never revealed. It almost cost him the race.
More on this topic: Craig Crawford's Trail Mix
Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford
I want to know why Obama refused to share his drugs with others. That means drugs only will go to the top 1% of the people.
Not fair, I tell you.
So they will. Count on it.
This is why I say Bill Sheheen did that on purpose, to plant it in the heads of primary voters. It was disgusting, ridiculous, and intentional! I believe with all my heart that it was planned. The HUFFINGTON noted this week that Hillary's surrogates and minions have been engaging in a whispering campaign, and an email campign (to inside the bestway Democrats and insiders) about Barack's past drug use, which is a mattre of public record.
The only who needs to do any reassuring is Hillary Clinton. She needs to reassure Democratic voters that she will not do "whatever it takes", including destroying the reputations of another Democratic candidate, to win the White House. She needs to assure her staff that this sort of backstabbing, backbiting politics cannot be tolerated in her campaign. Hillary is the one who has a lot of reassuring to do.
Obama's campaign (and unstoppable surge) is reassurrance enough.
And Craig, you do a good job with your commentary on COUNTDOWN WITH Keith Olbermann, but dude, don't you think overstating the "importance" of this just a wee bit too much?
It probably is. But if somebody's neutral on him by the time he has become the nominee and is running against JulieAnnie or Huckabee, that person either doesn't recognize that the NeoCons have wreaked disaster on the economy and our political system, or else doesn't admit that the entire Republican party, right down to the last bitter defenders of Bush, brought that disaster about as willing tools. Or worse, co-conspirators.
So where did that person come from? The Moon? The electorate is awake now. It took a long time, but it finally happened.
The election is going to be a referendum on Bush fascism and Republican complicity. It's going to be a Democratic tidal wave. Why? Because the election is about issues this time. Not about haircuts. Not about some blow on a weekend in 1983. Not about the way someone's husband behaves when he's not with her.
It's about war crimes, torture, flouting of the Constitution, subversion of our traditions. Killing people for profit, and using your own military as sacrificial collateral for profit.
The issue is: must the government be bound by the Constitution, regardless of whether they think they know better? Or not?
If we minimally want to continue with a nominally democratic form of government, then we must minimally vote Democratic. If we want to actively reform, and return to Constitutional government, then we must vote progressive. If we want to fight the corporations tooth and nail, then we must vote for Edwards.
The cocaine issue is just not in it.
No amount of assurances from Obama will close the door on speculation. Obama could hold a press conference tomorrow, spend the entire weekend discussing his kindergarten writings and everyday of his life thereafter, and still it wouldn't prevent a possible swiftboat attack. As we have seen in recent elections, swiftboating doesn't require truth to be
effective. And every candidate is susceptible.
Nothing would have cost George Bush the race since the bushits did everything under the sunt to make sure that THE ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN.
Demos should move heaven & earth to get Ron Paul
nominated as the Repo man, so as to have a decent
chance of electing the Demo candidate, whoever
that may be. After all, they're all pretty good.
Or are you pulling a Carville?
Any of you recreational drug users heard of the Opium Wars? Or studied biochemistry?
Obama ought to run for governor instead to get executive experience.
The primaries are the vetting process for the voters. If you shut your eyes to Saint Obama's drug use, you can bet that if he wins the nomination that the Republicans will be talking, coaxing and funding every teenage buddy that will talk about his cocaine habit. To say that it is a smear to bring up his cocaine use during the primaries is just insane.
To say "read his book" won't work either. Half the people who comment on the HuffPo blogs read the headline and then spout whatever half baked idea that comes into their heads. If people won't read a short blog, what makes you think that people will read his book? People don't read.
I don't think the Clinton campain should stick their noses into the Saint Obama cocaine use issue, but journalists should hammer away.
A Point
Bill Shaheen DOES NOT HAVE
A Job
If you listen carefully.....stop, listen REAL carefully. Hear that? That's the sound of implosion. It comes right after the horrible cackle and right before an Obama presidency