At approximately 6 p.m. on Jan. 15, three hours before a Kumbaya interlude at the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, I saw Al Sharpton defending Senator Barack Obama from charges of youthful drug abuse.
As we all know by now, the accusation arises from Obama's own admission in his modern Horatio Alger tale, Dreams From My Father, published long before he became a presidential candidate, that he tried cocaine as a teenager.
The hoopla over this has validated the judgment of George W. Bush eight years ago to refuse to answer questions about his own alleged drug use, which many believe continued well beyond his teen years. This is why honesty isn't considered the best policy by political consultants. But I digress.
Sharpton has done things to redeem himself in recent years, but his presence is a one-way ticket back to Tawana Brawley, boycotts, shakedowns and good old-fashioned, in-your-face confrontational race-based politics. Seeing him in that box on TV, I realized that the Clintons had done what they needed to do to stop Obama's historic surge in its tracks.
From the start of his career, Obama wanted, and needed, to remove the race card from the political deck. While it isn't clear from whose sleeve the card was pulled, it is likely it wasn't from the person with the most to lose.
If Hillary Clinton's campaign had taken only one shot at Obama, it might have been blown off as a mistake. But four shots constitutes a pattern, with Clinton's former New Hampshire chairman, Bill Shaheen, Representative Charles Rangel, Clinton pollster Mark Penn and Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson all getting into the act.
Click here to read more.
What are you saying?
I used to think the Hillary haters were insane, now at least I understand them. I used to worry that Hillary couldn't win in a general election, now I'm scared she could win. Seriously folks, it would not be a good thing for this country. Even if you like Hillary, you have to agree that she brings some major problems with her. I for one am tired of all the drama.
www.charlestwilliams.com
As long as people are talking about the Clintonites' pathetic jabs at Obama (and, btw, the youthful drug use he long ago aired is not aptly described as his "record"), they aren't talking about Hillary's rotten favorable ratings, her many mistakes while accruing the alleged "experience" that supposedly makes it so urgent for us to nominate her, nor the quandary she'll face when she's running against, say, McCain, who has far more experience than she does.
What will she do then? Withdraw and vote for McCain?
Hillary's campaign has been engineered by a nitwit. Her wretched flailings and Bill's coattails may yet squeeze her through to the nomination. But she's a certain loser in November.
What is interesting to me is that the Obama campaign and much of the media seem to feel that it is somehow unfair to do this. There was even a headline on HuffPo recently that the Clintons were "politicizing" the campaign as if it were possible to have a political campaign that was not politicized. It is pretty clear where Huffpo's sympathy lies (at least management).
How about we all just let em fight it out like always and find ourselves a nominee who can actually win the Presidency, hm?
The Obama supporters cry victim at every opportunity, but just let Hillary Clinton mention a slight she has received - wow!
(Sharpton's)..presence is a one-way ticket back to Tawana Brawley, boycotts, shakedowns and good old-fashioned, in-your-face confrontational race-based politics.
Frankly, talking about Obama's admitted drug use in his distant past isn't going to harm his chances in Democratic primaries. For most Democrats, that's a non-issue. Clinton et al. are wasting their time on that.
But, that leads to the bigger point: Is any serious criticism of Obama racist? That seems to be what a lot of people are implying.