• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama’s past could be an issue

katrina

Well-known member
Obama’s past could be an issue
Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago

Scott Olson / Getty Images file
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)




Related Stories | What's this?
• Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?
• Barack Obama: 9/11 fever has broken
• Obama ad hits New Hampshire & D.C.
• Joe Scarborough's political predictions for 2007


Updated: 11:53 p.m. CT Jan 2, 2007
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."

The Democratic senator from Illinois and likely presidential candidate offered the confession in a memoir written 11 years ago, not long after he graduated from law school and well before he contemplated life on the national stage. At the time, 20,000 copies were printed and the book seemed destined for the remainders stacks.


• More politics news

Today, Obama, 45, is near the top of polls on potential Democratic presidential contenders, and "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" has regularly been on the bestseller lists, with 800,000 copies in print. Taken along with his latest bestseller, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Obama has become a genuine publishing phenomenon.

Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.

As a potential candidate, Obama has presented himself as a fresh voice offering a politics of hope. Many say he offers something new in American politics: an African American with a less-than-traditional name who has so far demonstrated broad appeal. What remains to be seen is whether the candor he offered in his early memoir will be greeted with a new-style acceptance by voters.

Blueprint for attacks?
It was not so long ago that such blunt admissions would have led to a candidate's undoing, and there is uneasiness in Democratic circles that "Dreams From My Father" will provide a blueprint for negative attacks.

Two decades ago, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was forced to withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that he had used marijuana while he was a law professor. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton thought marijuana use could be enough of a liability in 1992 that he felt compelled to say he had not inhaled. And President Bush has managed to deflect endless gossip about his past by acknowledging that he had an "irresponsible" youth but offering no details.

Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.

"I believe what the country is looking for is someone who is open, honest and candid about themselves rather than someone who seems endlessly driven by polls or focus groups," said Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman. Gibbs said yesterday that Obama was not available for an interview.

Presidential aspirants tend to write more sanitized books for use as campaign tools. "Faith of My Fathers" by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) depicts his family's history of military service. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has reissued "It Takes a Village," which offers her views about child-rearing in contemporary society. In fact, Obama's latest book, "Audacity of Hope," lays out his policy positions.
But "Dreams From My Father" is not like that. Obama wrote the highly personal book when he was in his early 30s, after being approached by a publisher when he became the first black person elected editor of the Harvard Law Review.

"This is not the kind of book you would ever expect a politician to write," said GOP consultant Alex Vogel. "Anyone who has a career in politics has to be concerned with what's in their past, but there is no question that Americans have an appetite for redemption."

In fact, Bush himself has been a beneficiary of those sympathies. He has suffered little criticism from his conservative base after acknowledging that he drank too much in the past and is now a teetotaler.


Obama's partisan opponents and experts said it is too early to know whether the admissions will be a liability because the public seems to be enthusiastically embracing his openness at this point. What's more, they note that it is better for a politician to disclose his own transgressions, rather than be put on the defensive by revelations.

A senior Republican strategist who will be advising a GOP presidential candidate in 2008 said he did not see anything in the book that would be a "disqualifier," but he cautioned that Obama has not yet gone through an intense vetting process and that a problem could arise if there is more to his story than he has chosen to share. The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also suggested that there will be high tolerance for marijuana use among voters because many baby boomers probably tried the drug in the '60s.

"Who's going to cast that first stone?" asked Anita Dunn, a veteran Democratic political consultant, who has advised Obama's political committee.

Rhodes Cook, a independent political analyst, said that Democratic primary voters, who are typically more liberal, would be more understanding of his drug use -- "and if he makes it to a general election, it will be old news."

Obama's supporters said his admissions in the book could work to his advantage.

"I think it will be received as refreshing," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Obama's fellow Democrat from Illinois. "If you compare similar books, many of us in the political business tend to have selective memories."

Obama writes extensively about his struggle to come to terms with being a black man whose African father returned to Kenya when he was 2, leaving him to be raised by his white Kansas-born mother and grandparents in Hawaii. He describes an identity crisis arising from his realization that his life was shaped by both a loving white family and a world that saw in him the negative stereotypes frequently ascribed to young black men. He recounts a search of self that took him from high school in Hawaii to Columbia University, and then to the streets of Chicago as a community organizer.

‘Inconvenient politically’
"We were always playing on the white man's court . . . by the white man's rules," he writes. "If the principal, or the coach, or a teacher . . . wanted to spit in your face, he could, because he had the power and you didn't. . . . The only thing you could choose was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage.

"And the final irony: should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors . . . they would have a name for that too. Paranoid. Militant."

Obama has not expressed any regrets for his candor. In a preface to the new edition, he says that he would tell the same story today "even if certain passages have proven to be inconvenient politically."

In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.

In an interview during his Senate race two years ago, Obama said he admitted using drugs because he thought it was important for "young people who are already in circumstances that are far more difficult than mine to know that you can make mistakes and still recover.

"I think that, at this stage, my life is an open book, literally and figuratively," he said. "Voters can make a judgment as to whether dumb things that I did when I was a teenager are relevant to the work that I've done since that time."
 

katrina

Well-known member
Don from saskatchewan wrote:


if he was into cocaine he could be another george bush. you're right; he's bad news!

My question is to you Don why do you care about U.S. elections? You don't have any problems there in Canada??
 

passin thru

Well-known member
There we go again with the attack Bush theme in order to defend their side...............never ending tactic that shows weakness in their position.

As for Bush, one man made a claimof coke use with Bush. He made the claim in his book and the piblidsher dropped his book due to credibility problems with this author...........maybe another Dan Rather type.

Back to Obama................do you libs like that he is a coky?
 

Texan

Well-known member
That's a good point, PT. I've never seen any proof or even read any firsthand accounts of President Bush using cocaine. In fact, most of the claims of his coke use that I've ever seen are from the libs right here on Ranchers.

As for Obonga, I wouldn't vote for him anyway, so I guess you could say that his drug use doesn't matter to me. I do think that we should hold our elected officials to the same requirements that we have for military and for federal law enforcement. For example, if cocaine use disqualifies someone from being an FBI agent, it should also disqualify them from being a US Senator.

There shouldn't be a double standard. You have to wonder what all the Secret Service witnessed during the Clinton party days at the White House...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I do think that we should hold our elected officials to the same requirements that we have for military and for federal law enforcement. For example, if cocaine use disqualifies someone from being an FBI agent, it should also disqualify them from being a US Senator.

Thats kind of funny-- because about 25 years ago the Federal Agencies (FBI) had to modify some of their hiring rules because of marijuana...They had been rejecting anyone for "any" use of marijuana- and were questioning about it on the prehire polygraph tests...But I understand they began losing so many good candidates that had "experimented" or used it once or twice as teenagers/college that they had to change the guidelines....They'd still reject you if you lied about it and it could be proved- but not for "experimental" use.....

Don't know what they've done about cocaine- but I doubt they weakened the rules on that.....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Thanks for that information, OT. I'm not really sure how I feel about law enforcement being charged with enforcing laws that they themselves have violated. In fact, I expect it would cause some of them to have ethical problems with it, too. I'd hate to have them lie about it, though.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Oh, I would imagine most every trooper who pulls over someone for speeding has sped themselves (Heck, I even see some of the turn on their lights to run red lights around Chicago).. The drugs are always disturbing but for a kid to be punished for deciding to experiment with pot or coke during high school or college and only having one or two such instances in their life would seem a bit harsh but maybe it would be the right thing. Almost everyone I knew growing up at least experimented with pot (I didn't but I was in the minoritiy) by the time they finished college. Heck, I would imagine a lot also did some underage drinking or maybe even got beer for an underage friend which would be law violations as well.... I will agree you have to draw the line somewhere, my stoner classmate Joel would not have been a good cop.. Scott, who did it once and otherwise was never in trouble probably would be just fine.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I kind of got the jest that I'm Canadian so my thoughts on this don't really matter....so I'll just go for it. When we're young we often do stupid things...follow our peers sometimes when we shouldn't...most grow up. I do NOT think anyone should be penalised for something "stupid" they've done when young especially if they've done what they can to change it. For crying out load...this is why I hate watching anything to do with American politics when elections start,the mudslinging is soooo ridiculous.
If theres someone you don't want elected look for his policy ideas you hate,not something he did when he was young.

This goes for both sides,I hate the mudslinging done to Bush,hes your president,support him even if you don't like him,hes the leader of your country.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I kind of see it different. I think we should elect the candidates with the highest moral and ethical character. if there was a candidate that had complete control of his morality and ethics all his life, he should gain more respect than a candidate that hasn't. Trouble is we're down to the level of candidates where the length of time since clean or honest comes into play along with the level of drug use or level of dishonesty, because of this, I think it all needs to be heard and is sometimes valuable info.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I agree to a certain extent RR,and good luck to you guys if you have anyone that totally fits the morality bill. I also don't think that the mudslinging that goes on in American politics helps anyone clearly see the good points one may have.I don't vote in your election but its sure is nice to know whos governing our closest and best nieghbor.

A question,the next upcoming election,can Goerge Bush run?If not who will run for that party? In Canada we don't have a limit on how often a person can run for Prime Minister.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I agree to a certain extent RR,and good luck to you guys if you have anyone that totally fits the morality bill. I also don't think that the mudslinging that goes on in American politics helps anyone clearly see the good points one may have.I don't vote in your election but its sure is nice to know whos governing our closest and best nieghbor.

A question,the next upcoming election,can Goerge Bush run?If not who will run for that party? In Canada we don't have a limit on how often a person can run for Prime Minister.
President Bush is a second term president (8 years after the reaminder ofthis term.) He cannot run again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Morris thinks Obama is "virginal" compared to all those others running :lol: :lol:


------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama Can Be Whatever He Wants to Be
Dick Morris

Those who deride Sen. Barack Obama's lack of experience and criticize the broad generalities and banalities that festoon his best-selling book, miss the key point: His inexperience is an asset because he enters national politics as a blank canvas on which he can paint whatever he chooses.
With only two years in the Senate, Obama, D-Ill., is less like a politician running for president than like a general — think Eisenhower in 1952 or even the abortive candidacy of Colin Powell in 1995 — or a businessman, like Ross Perot in 1992. It's not that he doesn't have a record.

It's that the record doesn't really matter because it is so short.

His Senate tenure is so abbreviated that he can be whatever he says he is, not just as a political contrivance to get elected, but genuinely to articulate a philosophy and make it his guiding principle both while seeking office and serving in it.

He's that virginal.

So far, Obama seems very conscious that his liberal, party-line voting record is not a good foundation for his national ambitions. He seems aware that the country wants more of a post-partisan, embodying the consensus to which Americans have come over these recent dangerous and bitter years.

American politics alternates between periods in which we welcome partisan debate and those in which we demand consensus and conclusion.

Confronted by new issues, we turn to the left and to the right and ask each side to develop its ideas and flesh out its alternative for our consideration.

During these times, moderates and synthesizers are doomed to defeat since they seem to ignore the problem, while polarizing figures take over. But once the debate has run its course, we make our collective national decisions and are no longer in the mood for unending debate.

We want our will to be done by our elected officials with no more quarreling or sniping.

Obama has the opportunity to embody the emerging consensus, a broad national agreement reached from observation of trial and error over the past half decade. The bloody futility of our efforts to build a nation in Iraq have left us still committed to aggressive efforts to hunt down terrorists but determined to extricate ourselves from the mire.

The effectiveness of our homeland security efforts and our concomitant horror at instances of mistaken imprisonment and unnecessarily intrusive government investigations have led us to demand a balance between aggressive investigation and protection of civil liberties. We want terrorists caught, interrogated, and locked up, but not tortured or sadistically humiliated.

Obama's book reflects an intuitive grasp of this emerging consensus even if his voting record does not signal his agreement with it. But if the Illinois senator decides to articulate this synthesis, the question will be whether he can find sufficient traction on the center-left to give his candidacy viability.

He will have to compete for that ground with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., but her reputation for strident advocacy and take-no-prisoners partisanship will likely give him an edge in going after Bill Clinton's former constituents among the new Democrats. And Obama enjoys an ethnic and demographic base that can augment his converts among moderate white Democrats.

John Edwards, for all of the eloquence of his announcement statement, is ultimately running on the issue of national poverty against a woman and an African-American.

That's not going to work.

His campaign might have gained traction against another field of candidates, but it is unlikely that he can get it on track against these two particular opponents.

So we wait for Barack Obama to define himself. If he runs to the left, he will be a worthy successor to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If he runs to the center, he might be a successor to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

He might just make it to the White House.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
But Bush Sr. could run, lol... Wouldn't that be a hoot, lol...

2 terms is the limit now and only one President has ever been elected to serve 3 or more (I think most didn't even run after serving 2, kind of honoring Washingotn when he stepped down after 2 terms
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I kind of see it different. I think we should elect the candidates with the highest moral and ethical character. if there was a candidate that had complete control of his morality and ethics all his life, he should gain more respect than a candidate that hasn't. Trouble is we're down to the level of candidates where the length of time since clean or honest comes into play along with the level of drug use or level of dishonesty, because of this, I think it all needs to be heard and is sometimes valuable info.

I agree, if they showed weakness before they might either be still showing it or resort back to it later when the pressures and lifestyle merit even more so. It is good when people make changes and straighten up their lives, but it is even better when they do not make them big mistakes in the first place. I prefer the Better Candidates not the good ones.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Oldtimer said:
I do think that we should hold our elected officials to the same requirements that we have for military and for federal law enforcement. For example, if cocaine use disqualifies someone from being an FBI agent, it should also disqualify them from being a US Senator.

Thats kind of funny-- because about 25 years ago the Federal Agencies (FBI) had to modify some of their hiring rules because of marijuana...They had been rejecting anyone for "any" use of marijuana- and were questioning about it on the prehire polygraph tests...But I understand they began losing so many good candidates that had "experimented" or used it once or twice as teenagers/college that they had to change the guidelines....They'd still reject you if you lied about it and it could be proved- but not for "experimental" use.....

Don't know what they've done about cocaine- but I doubt they weakened the rules on that.....

I believe you have it just about right. All parts of the Govt have had to accept employees with certain limited use of illegal substances -- depending upon the substances, the age when used, duration, whether they were casual users or trafficked, etc. What someone did between the ages of 18 and 22 thirty years earlier is not likely to be relevant if they have the skills and a clean track record otherwise but unfortunately some folks are still rejected for youthful indiscretions. Whereas if you read The Looming Tower you'll see a great example of an effective senior FBI person whose adult activities were no great shakes, but that was his private business.

I was watching a documentary about the DEA last night- and it went into the history of drug use in the US.....They said there was a time period during the 1800's when 1 out of every 200 US citizens were badly addicted to some type of drug- mainly laudenum (opium based), opium, and cocaine....Reminded me of some of the articles I read about several of the Presidents and Congressmen of that time-- many of which were believed to have been addicted or quite heavy users---especially many of the former war Generals and officers that had chronic pain war wounds- and many of the Washington wives...Cocaine was used not only as a pain killer, but just as a tension reliever and energy drink :roll: and a menstrual period reliever....Laudenum was used for arthritis and all pain- along with many diseases.... All sold freely over the drugstore counter.....Sigmend Freud actively promoted cocaine as a cure for all mental stress - and to stimulate mental & physical energy-- and was addicted himself....

Rush and Obama would have been amateurs compared to some of those old boys of years gone by.....
 
Top