12 Comments

Bob,

Have you SEEN the Democrats?

Obama having used drugs doesn’t really bother me, for some reason. I suppose it should, but honestly, he has been very, very forthright and mature about the whole thing.

I think this will backfire big time for Clinton. It’s an obvious attempt at character assassination, and after former President Clinton’s history with sex and drugs, Obama’s self-examination and determination to do the right thing just makes Clinton’s maneuver all the more a cheap shot in comparison.

You know what this reminds me of? Gravitas. You know, the Roman virtue that got resurrected in 2000 as a reason liberals thought that Bush would or should lose. Obama comports himself like a man of honor, and so the indiscretions of his youth just kind of wash off him. I don’t know if the character is really there or if it’s showmanship, and I would be hard-pressed to find a real issue on which I agree with him, but the impression he leaves is real, and I can only imagine how a democrat would respond to him.

Or maybe I just really don’t like Hillary.

It seems a bit of a bi-partisan stretch to include in this post some politicians taking positions to help them get their party’s nomination. The ones truly out there are worth mentioning (Huckabee, Kucinich), and the Clintons are due their backlash for having the gall to question anyone else’s character. But Thompson and Giulani don’t seem to belong in this group. Even Romney, whom seems too much of a flip-flopper to me, doesn’t belong. Their respective compromises don’t match the hypocrisy or outright lunacy of some others.

These campaign decisions do matter though. Previously I thought I’d prefer the Clintons (for they are a packaged deal) to Obama, but I don’t anymore.

Agree with the above–HRC’s ”competence” mantra is baloney, and neither of the two Clintons have what Obama has–that he seems to believe what he says.

That Obama “seems to believe what he says” is faint praise, Buddy. That is entirely true of all psychotics also, no matter how bizarre their ideation. Belief in something doesn’t make it so, and I surely do not share Obama’s.

Seemed like the article was about a Clinton person saying he didn’t think Obama and Edwards were electable. That Obama’s drug use was going to be questioned heavily by the Republicans if he gets the nomination.

The headline IS misleading but, having done PR and talked to many journalists, I know the headline is not written by the writer.

Doesn’t seem incredibly nefarious or hypocritical to me but I’m sure I’m missing something.

Jill, it’s a good point but the trick is that this is a very thin veil for the real attack. After all, Clinton attacking Obama on drugs directly comes off as self-serving and hypocritical. This is how politicians attack each other these days.

First, you use a proxy, a campaign staffer or someone high profile who isn’t formally on your campaign at all (Andrew Young, anyone? hence his recent comments about Obama not being black enough). Then you basically say, “Look this isn’t a valid allegation and it’s a real cheap shot and we here at Clinton 08 are beyond that kind of thing. But those mean evil Republicans are bound to say, ‘blah blah blah’ in the general election because they’re vicious petty bastards.”

This way you get to make your attack and with luck you get away with it. If the attack doesn’t stick, you say, “look *I* don’t believe that, I’m just saying what those evil Republicans are going to do.”

The Presidents of the future, will come from generations where 35% of Americans smoke pot regularly. 15 to 20% (depending on the study) have tripped on Acid, more than that on shrooms… coke and crack are a much smaller percentage, but the reality is that drug experimentation is gonna be likely with most future presidential candidates. Both our current and previous President obviously experimented (didn’t inhale, what a crock), and it seems likely to me that if all of our politicians were honest, a lot more would have to raise their hands when asked. If we have to have a Democrat in power, Obama, at least, seems honest about his history and mistakes (unlike Mrs. Clinton and Family).

Also, you should give Dennis a break. He stated rather clearly that he saw a flying object which he couldn’t identify… that’s not the same thing as saying “I saw Aliens”. I see things that I can’t identify all the time, flying or otherwise.

wellspring is sure right–if this wasn’t planned, i’m a monkey’s uncle–the hit, then the disavowal after the hit is safely injected into the campaign bloodstream. In fact the disavowal just added more headlines, spreading the shot deeper and wider.

Maybe an Obama staffer ought to let slip “the GOP probably has proof that Hillary is a member of the Communist Party USA”. Then Obama can fire the staffer (wink) and then spend the next week saying that he “…never said that Hillary is a Communist”.

TomTom, i agree that the Dems don’t have a candidate that wouldn’t be a mess–just the break between their own hard-left people vs middle America almost guarantees that their governance will take the form of permanent emergency disaster control (see “Pelosi/House”).

But, give me Obama over Hillary any day.

The three big things a person wants in a leader–to be right on the issues, trustworthy, and likeable–are being demonstrated by their campaigns, and so far Obama is okay on the latter two out of the three.

Hillary may have him beat on issues but she’s not even in the contest on the other two (which sort of moots her ‘issues’).

Myself, my feets is slowly, sort of by their will, climbing aboard the Romney bandwagon. The more i see & hear, the better i like.

Buddy, you’re close but no cigar.

Likeable don’t mean squat.

The big four are:

Experience, character, philosophy, policies.

I’ll give Obama character, but he flunks the other 3. Hillary flunks all 4.

Experience - what have you run and how have you succeeded? Have you been effective? Likeable may play a small role here but not necessarily.

Character - do you mean what you say and say what you mean. Are you trustworthy?

Philosophy - what principles guide you decision making? This, combined with character will inform you on what to expect when the unexpected happens. Do you truly believe in individual rights and freedom or are you a statist?

Policies - self evident, also informs on character and philosophy.

“…close but no cigar”

(*whew!*)
:-\

Buddy you are one BAAADD man!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!
8^)

I’ve used that phrase for 50 years and that implication never crossed my mind. (Duh!!)