As Iowa Nears, Clinton Allies Quietly Raise Obama's Cocaine Use

[ariesgem]

On Monday morning, Hillary Clinton's campaign included a cryptic, somewhat ominous, note in an email to journalists and supporters:

Something to Chew On: Respected columnist David Yepsen notes that "it's important for Democrats to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Clinton's negatives are well-known, Obama's less so. Any shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements in Obama's past will be exploited by Republicans in the fall campaign if he's the nominee. It's best for Democrats to vet them now."

The Clinton campaign email did not spell out Obama's "shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements," but other Democratic activists have quietly received messages from Clinton allies pointing in the likely direction. Those messages provided a link to an Iowa Independent story by Douglas Burns headlined "The Politics Of Obama's Past Cocaine Use."

Burns' article on Obama posed a question that Clinton has been unwilling to raise herself and that has received little attention during the Democratic primary battles: If Barack Obama becomes the nominee, will the GOP be able to turn his acknowledged cocaine use into a debilitating issue.

Burns cited two June polls.

One, a survey by Scripps Howard, found that 58 percent of respondents believed American voters are not ready to accept a president "who tried cocaine as an adult." The other, by the New York Times, found that 74 percent said most people they know would not vote for a presidential candidate who has ever used cocaine.

"What will be fascinating to watch is whether Americans' views on cocaine will play out in the election booths as a defining factor or anything close to that. If it does, that could spell trouble for Obama," Burns wrote.

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man," Obama wrote in his book Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. "The highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory."

The issue has not been publicly raised by Obama's opponents, and only occasionally by reporters. On CBS' 60 Minutes, Obama said:

It's not something that I'm proud of, but that's part of the journey that I've taken. I like to think that by letting people know the mistakes I've made that maybe young people behind me are looking and saying 'You know what? This is a guy who made mistakes and he was able to right his life and get on track.' And that's I think an important message.

The raising of questions about Obama's electability poses a larger dilemma for strategists in both parties during the primary season.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Yet there is the counter argument: that a crucial function of the primaries is to weed out candidates who will be losers in the general election; that the intraparty fights are the first tests of how well the competitors are likely to do next November.

In 1988, for example, the Democratic primaries failed to fully exhume Michael Dukakis' handling of the Willie Horton controversy, and the Horton case became a cause celebre in the general election.

This dilemma is only likely to intensify as the Obama campaign is beginning to demonstrate that it is prepared to throw a punch or two that some might view as below the belt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html

[slick8790]

1. Hell, we already "elected" a president twice who spent the vietnam war snorting coke!

Non-issue.

[Virginia Dare]

2. Good point..

as long as he's not a current abuser like the fool we've got now, it's a total non-issue.

[Jim__]

3. He was a puke.

I'm betting that a Dem candidate gets a lot worse treatment from the media.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Still Have A Campaign Button From 00

That has a picture of Bush* with a cocaine powder mustache that has written "Got Blow"....

[mod mom]

7. Absolutely no comparison-Obama v bu$h. Many people of Obama's generation experimented with drugs

and learned a lesson. bu$h, forever was born a no good, spoiled, loser and the drug use made it worse.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Did Bush ever publically admit this?

I don't recall any admissions besides "...youthful indiscretions".
This is different.

[BootinUp]

23. No. nt

[BeyondGeography]

4. So clueless...what that mostly does is remind people how honest and authentic Obama is

[mod mom]

11. Yes he didn't attempt to weasel out of it by having his records disappear (*) or say he didn''t

inhale (like Bill Clinton). I would rather have a president who faces his mistakes factually rather than spew bs.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Stuck in the 90s again

They sure have their fingers on the pulse of the culture, don't they?

[Horse with no Name]

5. Given the choice

between someone who has done cocaine or someone who is a former republican....I'd pick the cocaine any day of the week.
You can get over drugs...not sure you ever get over being a republican.

[shain from kane]

8. Both Clintons were lawyers, and were surely aware that Roger Clinton was a user, and probably a

dealer. And I'm not accusing them of using. But for a lawyer to know that a person is committing a crime, possession or dealing, and not referring it to the proper authority is a crime unto itself.

[Jim Lane]

55. I dispute your statement about lawyers' responsibilities.

You wrote that "for a lawyer to know that a person is committing a crime, possession or dealing, and not referring it to the proper authority is a crime unto itself."

Do you have any authority for that? I'm a lawyer and that's not my understanding of my ethical obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility in effect in New York. (New York is one of the states following some form of the ABA's Model Code. Other states follow the Model Rules, with which I'm not familiar, but I'd be surprised if the Model Rules imposed such a requirement.)

A lawyer can't knowingly participate in the perpetration of a fraud upon a tribunal. If you know that your client has sold cocaine, and you know that s/he intends to testify falsely to the contrary, you have an obligation to take action (usually to withdraw from the representation). The other relevant provision applies if a lawyer knows of a client's intention to commit a crime in the future; that circumstance creates an exception to the obligation of confidentiality.

In general, as I understand it, neither lawyers nor laypeople have a comprehensive obligation to report all crimes of which they become aware. I don't practice criminal law, though, so I could be mistaken here. I'd be glad to be enlightened.

There are many good reasons to criticize the Clintons, but failing to rat out Roger isn't one of them.

[shain from kane]

62. It's called "misprision of felony". Everybody is entitled to a defense,

but often lawyers will not ask their clients whether they are guilty.


Dealing in drugs could cross state boundaries, and involve interstate commerce, and end up in federal jurisdiction.

During the proceedings relating to the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon, this was considered as a possible count against him. And guess who was involved in those discussions --- Hillary Clinton.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony

[Jim Lane]

68. Your linked article appears to contradict your position.

It states that the offense of misprision of a felony "requires active concealment of a known felony rather than mere omission of failing to report it." (That wording could be improved, and I may tackle it, but the essence is correct.)

You're right that lawyers sometimes don't ask their clients whether they're actually guilty. That's because of the special circumstance I mentioned -- that a lawyer may not knowingly assist in presenting false testimony to a tribunal. Did either of the Clintons ever represent Roger Clinton, in an attorney-client relationship? If not, they had no such obligations.

For one of them to be guilty of misprision they would've had to flush some drugs down the toilet when they saw the feds coming, or some such. Mere failure to report a crime is not misprision, though. As a general rule, a citizen has no obligation to report a crime, even if he or she knows for certain that a crime has been committed.

[shain from kane]

78. If you value your law license, I wouldn't recommend that you be attending any pot parties.

Your non-lawyer friends may get by with the same or a lesser charge, but you will pay the largest fine, and probably lose your license.

It was fairly reckless that with the Clintons having these big political plans, with their law licenses on the line, they would jeopardize themselves to protect an irresponsible drug addict.

I am assuming that Obama was experimenting with drugs, before he received his law degree. Again, not too smart, but somewhat lesser in degree than the Clintons' conduct.

[Jim Lane]

80. There are other good reasons not to attend pot parties

I've never heard of a lawyer being disbarred for merely failing to report someone else's felony, where there were no unusual circumstances (such as legal representation) that would create a special obligation.

You're correct that I should avoid being convicted of a felony based on my own conduct. Upon such a conviction, disbarment would be automatic.

Even aside from the legalities, I don't see this as a major vulnerability for the Clinton candidacy. IF it were established conclusively that Hillary Clinton knew about Roger's cocaine use before his 1984 arrest, I still don't think that most Americans would be up in arms about her failure to turn in her brother-in-law. In fact, if she had turned him in, that would probably be cited now in support of one of the common criticisms of her. She'd be seen as having made a cold-blooded political calculation to promote her own career at the expense of family ties.

Obama has more vulnerability on the cocaine issue. Nevertheless, I agree with the comments in this thread that, having openly admitted and denounced his past conduct, he's not going to lose a lot of votes over it.

[shain from kane]

82. Disbarment or impeachment? It was a big topic during Watergate, as evidenced by this excerpt from

Time.

It has also been recently discussed as an impeachable offense with regard to Bush*'s actions or inactions regarding Valerie Plame, as to whether he knew in advance, but with the actual crime of revealing a covert agent being committed by someone else in the administration.

Like I said before, I wouldn't want to bet the farm (your law license) on the actions of an irresponsible drug addict, relative or not.


From the internets ---

"The inadequate term Watergate has come to encompass all the wrongdoing of which Richard Nixon and other members of his Administration stand accused—and in many cases convicted—including the politicization of federal agencies, misuse of federal funds for private purposes, attempted bribery by milk producers, misprision of felony, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice. This catalogue of crimes and misdeeds did not begin with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, but were it not for that bungled burglary and the subsequent coverup, most or all of the offenses might have gone unnoticed and unpunished. Why the President allowed himself to become entrapped in the web of events that followed the crime is a puzzle."


http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,942754,00.html

[acmavm]

9. He used cocaine when he was young? Well BFD. So did millions upon

millions. Coke spoons were considered acceptable accessories worn around the neck during the 80s.

This is just pathetic. And I don't like Barrie.

What hypocrisy. Hils supported Barry Goldwater. So let me see. Snorted a few lines, supported someone that wanted to bomb the shit out of the Russians.

I know which one I think is worse. And it ain't the few lines of coke.

[sandnsea]

10. When did the Clintons attack Bush's cocaine use?

How come they have all this fire power for other Democrats - but come up down right cozy with the Bushies. It's a real puzzlement.

[elehhhhna]

27. SUPER GOOD QUESTION !!!11!

[Whisp]

39. holy crap yah good question!!!

one of those plain in your face obvious ones you miss.

!

[Cha]

35. My first thought..

:wtf:

[elizm]

42. Bingo...Thanks!

[blm]

54. Geez - sandnsea - that is EXACTLY the question I ask in a thread.

It has been a grating reality for years now - Clintons will attack other Dems with more precision than they have ever attacked Bush the last 7 years.

[sniffa]

12. awesome

now maybe a few more DUers will start calling him an addict, instead of just one or two.

[flpoljunkie]

13. If this is true, it reeks of desperation from the Clinton camp.

[Kucinich4America]

16. Four words for Camp Hillary : "Nose Like a Hoover"

That's what Roger Clinton allegedly said about his brother. Now I'm not saying I believe the story, since it was circulated by the Falwell types back in the 90's. But if they go digging up shit like that against Obama, someone's going to dig it up on them. And IF Bill did the nose candy, it's not much of a stretch to think that Hillary might have done so herself.

You're not going to find a Presidential candidate who hasn't tried some sort of "illicit" substance at this point. Even Mormon assed Romney did something he "shouldn't have", though in his case the Coke could have come from a 12 ounce can, and still be "bad" according to his belief system. Shit, these people are baby boomers. Of course they tried drugs. If they say they haven't, they're liars. Don't even bother with these questions.

[killbotfactory]

17. He's been honest about his past drug use

He can easily handle this.

[Donnachaidh]

18. are they going to fire a staffer when THIS backfires on them, too?

in this day and age -- who gives a flying f*ck? :shrug:

[RDANGELO]

19. Is it common knowledge that **** used cocaine?

Does anyone have info on that?

[Nedsdag]

20. This from a woman whose brother-in-law had cocaine problems.

The LEAST she should do is be sympathetic.

Nice going, Hillary! I guess I'm staying home this November.

[Bitwit1234]

21. Let's see erroneous post number five.

so,,,,,,just because something Obama did when he was young has come back to haunt him, the press and his Obama jumpers are blaming Hillary....gee how low can you go...not low enough I see.

[Nailzberg]

22. It's valid to question, but I suspect it'll have little if any effect

It's legitimate to bring up, because the primary should be a crucible. Once we have a nominee, the GOP is gonna bring all their guns to bear on our candidate.

I think this will be examined in the media and dismissed. He's been honest about experimenting with drugs as a teen, and wrote openly about it in his first book, and also wrote about why and why it was a mistake. So when the press examines it, he'll end up looking like a guy that has admitted his mistakes and overcame them.

This doesn't just test Obama. Rivals need to worry about this charge, as well. It becomes a trap to other candidates. Any candidate with admitted "indiscretions" now becomes guilty of lying by omission. The press will say "why did you lie about a joint when Sen. Obama has been so open about his mistakes."

Sen. Obama has admitted to the drug use his entire public career. Every rival has tried using this one. Being a past strategy doesn't invalidate it, as this election is among a wider group of voters.

[cali]

24. that just makes me ill. it's the epitome of dirty politics. n/t

[Forkboy]

25. They should bring it up.

The way he's already addressed it openly will work to his favor, and people will be turned off by the Clinton campaign going dirty.

[readmoreoften]

26. Wait! We HAVE a president that used cocaine in office!!!! And 74% of voters wouldn't vote for him???

So, why didn't we beat the coke drum in 2004? (oh right, we ain't got no medias.)

[DeanDem10]

29. Good point

Not that Bush is the kind of model we should subscribe to...

[DeanDem10]

28. Appalling that Hill did this

I am not an Obama supporter (I support Edwards). But I cannot believe that the Clintonistas are stooping this low. And let's just stop and think about Bill's "I didn't inhale: BS.

In the 1990s I was a Clinton Dem. What about the years of Clinton-bashing and impeachment hell when people like me were left to defend him for endless hours. I spent many hours every week (sometimes as many as 20) defending the man. It took real effort to keep on top of the lie of the day. (And yes, not everything turned out to be a lie). In this pre-blog world, we worked on discussion boards.

The reality is that the Clintons have no high ground on this kind of stuff. They were and are not perfect people. But it is the issues that have led me away from the Clintons. To hell with the rest of it. And given how much Bill put us through about his personal failings, I cannot believe they are doing this.

But most of all, I am sick of the politics of destruction. Tear into a candidates' ideas. But let's not do this. Call me appalled.

[Cha]

30. What the fuck..

HOw many times did hillary and her merry band of dlc operatives bring up the monkey's snorting?

[ginchinchili]

31. Good lord, that would sink his candidacy in the general election.

Democrats should quit shooting craps with this election and get behind Sen. Biden. He would win this thing for the Democrats with a lot of help from Independents.

[MadBadger]

32. Not if he runs against Ghouliani

Who already said that he admires Obama's honesty on this issue.

[Horse with no Name]

33. We can do better than Biden.

This Democrat won't be getting in line behind him willingly.

[ginchinchili]

47. Who's better qualified for the presidency and to beat the Republicans?

Count on the Republicans to fall back on their true and tried attacks against Democrats on national security. Who better positioned to rebuff those attacks than Joe Biden?

[Pirate Smile]

48. No, it wont.

[ecstatic]

34. If elected, he would be a hypocrite if he didn't immediately change drug laws

It's not fair that some people get a ticket to prison while others get a ticket to the white house.

[Cha]

36. Good point..the fooking

drug laws need to be changed anyway.

[sandnsea]

40. He has spoken in support of changes

No responsible adult is ever going to support ending all drug laws.

"The Illinois senator said he would review mandatory minimum drug sentencing and give first-time, nonviolent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence in drug rehabilitation programs instead of prison.

"If you're convicted of a crime involving drugs, of course you should be punished," Obama said in a speech at Howard University's opening convocation. "But let's not make the punishment for crack cocaine that much more severe than the punishment for powder cocaine when the real difference is where the people are using them or who is using them."

http://thinkoutsidethecage2.blogspot.com/2007/09/obama-favors-changes-in-drug-sentencing.html

[HeraldSquare212]

37. There will be new stuff about Clinton, I'm sure

I don't buy that all the dirt on Clinton has already surfaced. Just the business associates that Bill has had since leaving the Presidency will be plenty of ammo for the Republican candidate. People who think she's bullet-proof because of all her past scrutiny seem to think she's been living in a glass jar for the last eight years.

[Dr Fate]

61. All they have to do is re-embellish all the old fake or exaggerated stories.

Most of them are still in full public memory...

They can easily rehash that stuff.

Nothing left for the GOP/media to throw at the Clintons? Once again, the DLCers and "centrists" are pulling our legs with that one...

[Vinca]

38. Does she remember the current resident of the White House

has a mug shot? This will give Obama the perfect opportunity to opine on how a person can turn things around and have a successful, productive life and even run for the highest office in the land. It's perfect for Obama's optimistic message.

[gateley]

41. Just because WE don't think it's an issue and admire him for his honesty and

forthrightness, doesn't mean the Repubs have the same attitude. They will be VICIOUS about it - about any thing they can use against ANY candidate, and you can be sure it'll be presented in a way that paints a HORRIFYING picture. They are vile, evil people.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. Yep. This is something Romney would be merciless on

we would be doomed with Obama up against just about any potential GOP nominee.

[MadBadger]

44. Ghouliani wouldnt be merciless on it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

45. Rudy will not be the nominee

for the GOP. I can almost guarantee it.

[Pirate Smile]

50. Romney was over 30 when his religion altered their official view on African Americans.

All the Mormon skeletons - especially the race ones - will come out if Romney manages to win and has to run against Obama.

That is one ugly story hanging out there to be used against Romney.

[MadBadger]

51. Romney wont either

[BeyondGeography]

52. That's overblown (no pun intended)

Obama has already talked about this with schoolkids in NH. Most of the reactions went like this:

Barack Obama tells N.H. kids of his alcohol, drug use during teen years

=="I made some bad decisions that I've actually written about," he said. "There were times when I, you know, got into drinking, experimented with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time where I didn't really apply myself a lot."

In college, Obama said, he realized, "Man, I wasted a lot of time" in high school.

Jason Marcil, a senior and student council treasurer, praised Obama for his candor.

"I'm glad that he was honest about it," he said. "It's obvious that, like, he's learned from his mistakes. He's been there. He knows what not to do."

Marcil drew another lesson too: "There might be people that do drink or do experimental drugs and they may think that they are not going to get very far in life, but obviously Sen. Obama has gotten pretty far in life."

...Several New Hampshire voters said Obama deserves kudos for speaking honestly about his past.

"Honesty is the best policy. That's the way I've dealt with my kids, too," said Joyce Davis, 59, a librarian from Wolfeboro, N.H. "They know what's going on and they know no one is perfect."

Davis Clarke, 68, a retired pilot from Strafford, N.H., said he won't hold Obama's drug use against him when he goes to the voting booth.

"I have a son who got into a drug habit. It very nearly cost him his life," said Clarke, his voice shaking with emotion. "I have as much confidence in Obama to do what's right now as I do with my son."==

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/11/21/2007-11-21_barack_obama_tells_nh_kids_of_his_alcoho.html

[blm]

74. Exactly - what's a GOP gonna do - say that Bush did coke cuz he could afford it?

That blacks have to have harsher set of rules for their youth than the privileged sons of presidents who actually DUMPED all that cheap IranContra cocaine into black communities throughout the 80s and 90s?

[fujiyama]

46. Pathetic

but I'd expect nothing better from Clinton. You'd think she'd know better considering her husband's own "I did not inhale" nonsense. That said, I say the primaries are a good time to get this out of the way. The republicans will use everything in their arsenal anyways.

I am confident Obama can address this. I think it's good he's admitted to it. And I'm amused about polls showing they wouldn't vote for anyone that "tried cocaine"...likely the same people that voted for the stupid coked up monkey in office now.

[Adelante]

49. Blech

If it's going this dirty, I guess they're looking for it.

[hedgehog]

53. "Quietly" doesn't work out so well any more, does it?

It's tough to spread rumor and innuendo when you get outed this fast!

[ClarkUSA]

56. I guess the madrassa emails weren't enough. Fuck. The. Clintons.

Is this what Hillary means by "strength and experience"??? She's lost my vote forever. Who needs Karl Rove when you've got Mark Penn pulling the same
dirty tricks that Republicans routinely pull on Democrats? Now, Clintonians are swift boating fellow Democrats. Why are we even supporting Hillary here?

[EFerrari]

58. So disgusting. n't

[ClarkUSA]

60. There's no difference between Rovian dirty tricks and Clintonian dirty tricks.

And anyone who condones this crap should stay silent when Republicans start doing it to the Democratic nominee in 2008 or be called a
fucking hypocrite.

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Well, there is one little difference

The rumor that Clinton's campaign is reported to have spread is TRUE.

Call me a "fucking hypocrite" all you want. I think we need a candidate capable of Rovian style politics. Because we KNOW the Repubs will use them. Hmm... I seem to recall that you used to think so too.

[Colobo]

57. I want more of this from Hillary.

Let her sink in her own dirt.

[Azathoth]

59. Ah, the sound of swiftboat engines revving

Nice to see that Hillary and Co. aren't even going to bother with "mudslinging", they're heading straight for swiftboating. The really 'fun' part, as Hillary would say.

[BenDavid]

63. Well gee, maybe if the press would have dug a little deeper in

2000 and saw exactly how alcohol and cocaine abuse had affected bush then maybe the press would have agreed it does take someone to be president as the smartest person in the room.... I doubt serious the press will look into obama's past as they have others, but in so doing it just might stop another brain dead, person you would like to have a beer with from being elected.

People this country is in deep dodo and we do not need an "elmer gantry"(book by sinclair lewis) side show to be president. We need someone that from day one will set the course of action for the country and the world at large. That is the difference between obama and clinton. Obama will say "what now?" whereas HRC will have already met with the leaders of the house and senate and told them what her agenda is for the first 100 days.

Ben David

[pgh_dem]

76. Making sure I have the whole checklist of pro-Sen Clinton talking points:

Obama = "brain dead", "Elmer Gantry", "what now?", and my favorite, "side show".

Did you want to add a few more? Was the comparison to Elmer Gantry deliberately intended to characterize Sen Obama as an insincere, hypocritical evangelical womanizer? Was plausible deniability built in so that only people who remember the book (or look it up on wikipedia) will get the full distasteful reference, while you could pretend that such inferences are the reader's fault, you only meant he was a bible-thumping opportunist or some sort of carnival-atmosphere demagogue, right?

Are such posts intended to be persuasive *against* Obama?

[JackORoses]

81. sorry, friend, we do not need another Emperor

"We need someone that from day one will set the course of action for the country and the world at large."

I'll pass on a war with Iran and further Corporate Dominion, but thanks for the offer.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I go with the counter argument:

"Yet there is the counter argument: that a crucial function of the primaries is to weed out candidates who will be losers in the general election; that the intraparty fights are the first tests of how well the competitors are likely to do next November.

In 1988, for example, the Democratic primaries failed to fully exhume Michael Dukakis' handling of the Willie Horton controversy, and the Horton case became a cause celebre in the general election.

This dilemma is only likely to intensify as the Obama campaign is beginning to demonstrate that it is prepared to throw a punch or two that some might view as below the belt."

Good politicians aim FOR the belt; not above, not below. And winners have to be able to take solid gut punches. I think this is a gut punch - there is no fabrication of anything going on, just pointing to Obama's own writings and published polling data that suggests it could cause him a problem.

Clinton has been called a corporate Democrat and many will argue that is based on facts. She has to be able to defend herself from that line of attack, and likewise Obama has to be able to smoothly field questions about potentially controversial behavior that he has admitted to in the past.

Personally I am betting that Obama can handle questions about his past drug "experimentation". I think he can even turn it into a net plus by highlighting his candor, but if he can't handle ths line of attack, now is the time to find out.

[proudmoddemo]

65. A New Smear Campaign-_Such Fun

Since the Barack is a really a Muslim BS smear campaign backfired big time on them, they've moved on and are perfecting their skills as the politics of personal destruction, which Hillary Clinton described as "fun." We've already had one President that thinks it's fun to engage in petty politics of personal destruction--the Scooter Libby case--we don't need another...

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. How is this a smear campaign?

Seriously, how? I grant that it falls under negative campaigning, but explain why you call it a smear?

[proudmoddemo]

67. Because it is

I want the next President of the United States to make sure that their campaign talks about the issues, not the petty politics of personal destruction, which is what got us into this mess...

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Wanting candidates to stick to positive campaigns...

...that only talk about their own vision for America and qualifications for the job that they seek is a tantalizing will o the wisp with lots of obvious appeal on the surface. It doesn't happen in real life though and a case can even be made that it shouldn't.

It's like free speech, we can't define reality for each other. What is a petty matter of personal destruction to one person is discussing a possible serious character flaw to another. Does it matter if big "family values" conservatives cheat on their wives? That's debatable, isn't it?

Smearing to me is lying about another person, unfairly associating/equating someone with the negative actions of another, and/or willfully and maliciously distorting something that they some time did or said, usually outside of a proper context.

Here a question was raised about whether or not voters would find what Obama himself wrote about his youthful activities to be problematic. The question is not wildly out of the blue. American voters have not yet reached near consensus as to whether admissions of prior drug use are a significant liability or not.

What got us in much of this mess is that the Republian Party uses morality wedge issues against Democrats frequently and effectively, and often wins important elections because of it. Do you really believe that Republican campaign operatives haven't already read Obama's books themselves with a yellow highlighter in hand? Attacks on his former crack use are inevitable during the General Election if he is our nominee, some above ground some underground, unless Obama demonstrates a clear ability to swat those attacks down emphatically himself and turn them against the attackers instead.

[DrFunkenstein]

85. Shaheen Suggested That Obama May Have Been a Drug Dealer

What would you call that?

[MethuenProgressive]

70. This smear campaign is aimed at Clinton.

And it's working.

[blm]

71. Why didn't they ever think it was fun to smear Bush the last 7yrs?

Or fun to open the books on BushInc in the 90s when Bill had every access to stonewalled documents to do so.

[TeamJordan23]

72. Karl Rove tactics. Not surprising from people who once relied on Dick Morris for advice. nm

[blm]

75. And people who would actually sleep with the enemy - - the Carvilles are NOT good people

they are fascist hitmen.

Carville Family Values on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[Elidor]

73. Wow, that's really sleazy

"We only bring this up because the republicans are sure to later on." Riiiight. I'm sure the latest polls showing Obama catching up have nothing to do with it. But it's not at all surprising that Clinton will point to republicans to justify her behavior. I'm not sure which of the two of them disgusts me more.

[Carrieyazel]

77. Desperation by the Hillary camp. All year long they wouldn't touch it.

And since we already have a cocaine snorter in the White House.

[jenmito]

79. They just mentioned it on MSNBC, and said it would be a dumb move.

They also said if tomorrow's debate is like today's, Obama has already won.

[blm]

83. I think they are vicious enough to go even further....

And Obama better not TRUST ANYONE who comes 'over' to his side from the Clinton campaign. They have a tendency to use saboteurs on any Dem that gets in their way.

Chris Lehane comes to mind.