The WaPo runs a story on Barack Obama's autobiographical admission that he used marijuana and cocaine in high school and college:
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.
...
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.
And who cares? Ann Althouse does not:
Most of the talk thus far has been about the confessions of drug use -- not just marijuana, but cocaine. I don't see him losing a lot of votes because of that.
Captain Ed is calm, sensible, and nearly persuasive in his indifference:
The Nature Of Youthful Indiscretions... is that they should be handled discreetly.
...No one goes through life without making mistakes, after all, and the mistakes Obama describes have been made by plenty of people in my generation, regardless of skin color, economic strata, or location. It would make a big difference if Obama or anyone else was still making these mistakes, but it looks like those issues are twenty years past or more -- hardly indicative of the man he his now, or the value of his talents to his constituents.
The Polimom does not care:
To me, the real story behind Obama’s revelations is one of personal triumph. Many young people sadly do not emerge from those years well; the choices of their youth carry into young adulthood. Furthermore, his message to young urban black men is that one can, in fact, make different choices — choices that will lead to a radically different outcome than the difficult, dangerous, and ultimately destructive lifestyle of drugs and crime.
All in all, I think I’ve decided I like Barack Obama better today.
Booker Rising is standing down:
My response: big whup. I'd be far more concerned if Sen. Barack Obama can be linked to recent drug use, not stuff that he did back in the day. If drug use didn't hurt the successful candidacy of President George W. Bush, then it should not hurt a potential presidential bid by Sen. Barack Obama.
Well, then, let me be an Army of One - I am not shocked or surprised by the behavior, but I am troubled by the disclosure. I also suspect that there is a significant "not in front of the kids" bloc that will be similarly troubled.
I am not interested in hearing from my teenagers the argument that recreational cocaine and pot use worked out OK for Mr. Obama. Frankly, I preferred to hold out George Bush as an example of what can happen to a person who parties too hard as a youth. And that is based exclusively on Bush's admitted problem with alcohol; he never copped to the cocaine rumors, which is the sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy I can support.
Whatever. The WaPo mentions Bush's political history with youthful indiscretions and (inevitably) touches upon Clinton's famous non-inhalation, but does not attempt to regale/enlighten us as to how Al Gore or John Kerry dealt with questions about their marijuana use. Surely that political history is relevant in gauging the implications of Obama's situation.
DESCENT INTO THE JEJUNE: Hillary thinks her main opposition will be Edwards and Obama? Geez, all those pollsters and all those experts can't even come up with anything interesting to say?
Well I am neither, so here goes: a two-way Presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is not possible because in that scenario Mike Bloomberg will find a third party race to be irresistible, for several reasons.
First, the race itself sounds like the start of a bar joke - a black, a Mormon, and a Jew enter a Presidential run... . The seeming improbability of it eliminates an obstacle for Bloomberg - the country may not be ready for a Jewish President, but relative to a black and a Mormon, who knows?
Secondly, that field won't scare him - Bloomberg has a more impressive business resume than Romney and a more impressive public service resume (with executive experience!)than either of them.
Substitute white-bread John Edwards for Barack Obama and Bloomberg still has the most impressive resume, but now we have a Mormon, a Jew, and a middle-aged white guy entering the race.
On the Republican side, McCain's foreign policy credentials and personal biography may seem daunting to Bloomberg, but time wounds all heels - McCain has been an advocate of the troop surge in Iraq towards which Bush seems to be leaning, and if that works poorly McCain's star may dim. (One might think so, at least; McCain is not short of baggage, yet he remains a contender).
Giuliani is a problem for Bloomberg - can they both run as the miracle worker of New York City? And how often do we have two Republican mayors of New York running for President? I'll go on a limb here - not often. And a second limb - Giuliani can keep Bloomberg out of the race.
And can Hillary keep Bloomberg out of a third party try? He will want to wait and see how she polls and runs, but my guess is that she is the next President and will chase him out of the race.
MORE OBAMA at Memeorandum.
I can't disagree more. I think the fact that she's been already anointed the "one", will make her fade over the next year.
Posted by: Bob | January 03, 2007 at 01:10 PM
I don't buy the drug use as a palliative for the torment of being half black and living in Hawaii with his well-to-do parents.Getting high with his buddies just because he could,i'll buy and forgive.
Posted by: mark c. | January 03, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Given the family political acumen, as well as the willingness to cheat, I don't think Hillary will fade. I just pray (loudly and often) that the first Madame President is not a graduate of Wellesley.
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Who cares? I'm 65 I still count my many failings as "youthful indiscretions".
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Hmmmm.
Funny isn't it how the MSM went crazy over Bush's DUI that happened 30 years ago but yawns at Obama's revelation of alcohol and drug use.
Posted by: ed | January 03, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Can't we find one person suitable to run against Hillary that hasn't done drugs, for cryin' out loud? She'll annihilate him.
Posted by: Sue | January 03, 2007 at 02:05 PM
It's so refreshing.
Posted by: happyfeet | January 03, 2007 at 02:10 PM
I'm perturbed that he can remember using them.
Hillary has the charisma of an egg sandwich.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 03, 2007 at 02:14 PM
Look folks. Do you really want someone leading the country who went to college in the early 80's and never smoked pot or tried coke?
Because if so, I'd suggest you're too young to remember the early 80's.
Posted by: Davebo | January 03, 2007 at 02:21 PM
It's your country,but personally I'd rather have someone who had grown out of it by the 80s.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 03, 2007 at 02:27 PM
The pot was just as good in the late 80s.
Er, uh or so I've been told.
Posted by: hit and run | January 03, 2007 at 02:32 PM
TM,
Re Bloomberg
Though I am not enthusiastic about any of those other candidates you mentioned, I can at least see that they are big enough entities where somebody can have an opinion about them. Perhaps it is due to my geographical isolation here in Alaska, but in the case of Bloomberg, he is so far off my radar screen that I can't even come up with a single adjective to describe the guy.
When you mention him I wind up imagining Henny Youngman under a spotlight doing one of his patented terrible jokes in some dimly lit smoky nightclub, delivering the punchline "Bloomberg", and being greeted by dead silence, afterwhich the drummer does that quick riff (Ka-bang) highlighting how bad the joke was, and then Henny rapping on the microphone with his knuckle, "Hello..., Hello,...Hey, is this thing on?".
Posted by: Daddy | January 03, 2007 at 02:36 PM
A Bloomberg run can't be counted out, he'd be self funding. But who votes for him? Bush pissed away libertarian support, a viable independent would count on picking it up. Bloomberg cannot. Who does he draw from the Republican tent? Pro choice, anti gun, busy body nurse mom voters? Who does he draw from dems? Are there that many Blue Hillary haters? Those who love condescending pricks? He is weak under pressure, witness the recent kowtow to respective racebaiter and hater, Sharpton and Baron. He's a good Mayor; a national candidacy would be a joke of wondrous proportion. Please, please bring it on. Both parties are so sad and weak. His bellylaugh campaign would bring smiles all around.
Posted by: abe shorey | January 03, 2007 at 02:39 PM
per Oliver Willis with this disclosure the 'swiftboating' of Barak Obama has begun.
From Oliver's fingertips to FDL, Glenn Greenwald, and dKos's blogs.
Thankfully, Tom will get to keep those finely honed 'Swiftboat' reflexes of his sharp for another two years.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | January 03, 2007 at 02:42 PM
Is there any evidence that mom Hillary ever smoked marijuana or snorted cocaine? If there was any inkling of that the msm would go after her tooth and nail. I still don't see her getting the nomination though-at the end of the day-she's just too polarizing.
PeterUK:;
"Hillary hasthe personality of an egg sandwich-" Comment of the day for me!
Posted by: maryrose | January 03, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Why is there any speculation? Unless Bush deals with Iraq-2008 is going to be 2006 squared. Doesn't matter who the Dem is.
Posted by: Jess Sayin | January 03, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Bumperstickers:
Agreed ! Smart observation!
Posted by: maryrose | January 03, 2007 at 02:51 PM
They don't care about the "youthful indiscretions" - but Obama is a real sinner-
HE SMOKES!!!!
Does he smoke around his children?
Does he smoke in Senate Office Bldg?
Why isn't someone investigating that???
(:::laughing::: as I light up)
So now, I guess we advise our teens who want to be President, to do drugs, perhaps
go thru a period of transvestite/transsexual romps, steal at least one car and coins from the poor box, throw in cheating on an exam. Did I miss anything?
Sex tapes will be old hat in, what, 25 years.
If your teen only wants to be Congressman,
Chairman of Judiciary Committee,then grab a few Turkeys from the local food bank.
Working for Conyers - see DaledAmos,HotAir Vent, Michelle, Hugh Hewitt,Tapscott's Copy Desk plus Washington Times.
Must run.
Posted by: larwyn | January 03, 2007 at 02:52 PM
hmmm...
Not a lot of posts about Iraq coming from this blog lately. I wonder if that can be seen as a lack of willingness to stand behind the president right now on behalf of many who lean to the right politically.
There sure is no lack of events that deserve our attention over there.
I for one am less supportive lately. I am very concerned and am not seeing much in the way of substantive desire to resolve this conflict. What's going on?
Posted by: weloveyou | January 03, 2007 at 04:36 PM
From Obama to Bloomberg, by way of crack, Bush and Hillary.
By God, I love the internet!
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | January 03, 2007 at 04:53 PM
I think the press can understand a kid from a rich family frowing up in Hawaii turning to drugs due to his environment.
Don't rich kids in Hawaii grow up like poor kids in Chicago?? I mean, I've been to Hawaii, it is a harsh cruel world.
Posted by: Patton | January 03, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Did he ever say it helped? Is there a context for this? Did anyone read any of his books? Besides me, I mean.
Posted by: Ready Teddy | January 03, 2007 at 06:20 PM
"Did he ever say it helped? Is there a context for this? Did anyone read any of his books? Besides me, I mean."
He took drugs to forget - they worked.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 03, 2007 at 06:32 PM
I am bored with all this and have decided to nominate McGuire for the job
he's funny, makes few typos, and hates Lacrosse
good enough considering the alternatives
Posted by: windansea | January 03, 2007 at 06:45 PM
Not a lot of posts about Iraq coming from this blog lately.
Gee, I sure hope that somewhere there is a blogger covering it, or maybe even a conventional news outlet - I'd hate to see Iraq go right under the radar.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 03, 2007 at 06:49 PM
I wonder...
How would this revelation affect his capacity to get a security clearance, as opposed to, say, anyone else who wasn't a politician?
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 03, 2007 at 06:53 PM
He took drugs to forget - they worked.
If they had worked, he would not remember that he was trying to forget.
Further, he would have forgotten what he was trying to forget.
Still further, he would have forgotten why he was trying to forget what he forgot.
Who's on first?
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 03, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Hillary thinks her main opposition will be Edwards and Obama? Geez, all those pollsters and all those experts can't even come up with anything interesting to say?
How about this: for the R's Keating-Meyers,
D's Clinton-Clark, I's Bloomberg-Hegel
The Clinton-Clark ticket wins 45%-40%-15% and the 4 years of utopia begins
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2007 at 07:26 PM
"If they had worked, he would not remember that he was trying to forget."
He left a note.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 03, 2007 at 07:37 PM
from maryrose
I still don't see her getting the nomination though-at the end of the day-she's just too polarizing.
Bush II is Nixon II save the nation with Clinton II...
I suppose I don't really care all that much vis the drug and alochol with Obama. Its typical that he would rise to prominence in Chicago then be the anything-but-Hillary canidate. He is the empty suit that the D's can put all their hopes and make the "race" not seem like a coranation. He will raise a pretty good amount of money and build a power base for a future run. He isn't stupid enough to make a serious run against Hillary
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2007 at 07:42 PM
seem like a coranation...COROnation
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Negroponte resigning his position as Director of National Intelligence to become Deputary Secretary of State. Amazing how quickly wikipedia picks things up.
Posted by: cboldt | January 03, 2007 at 07:45 PM
THE DEMS WHO BROUGHT US MAJORITIES IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE WILL NOT NOMINATE HILLARY OR OBAMA.
The Dems got majorities because they ran MODERATE CENTRISTS. Like Tester and Webb.
They will nominate centrists with executive strength and geopolitical strength and demographic strength.
this means Richardson and Warner. A Western catholic Hispanic governor and a protestant southern governor.
this ticket will be hard to beat.
romney ridge could beat them.
yeah RIDGE - a proven vote-getter in PA and with Ohio in doubt for the GOP, they will need to pick up a major Dem state.
Only Ridge can guarantee a blue state pickup of this magnitude.
romney can run strongly in the NE and the West.
this would be a great contest.
romney might also do well with pawlenty or thompson. or mccain.
if warner passes on the veep spot then it will go to Sam Nunn. a cheneyesque move.
Posted by: reliapundit | January 03, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Bloomberg=Ross Perot=Clinton in the White House.
And anyone who thinks Bush is Nixon 11 does not remember Nixon 1. When I read that I get the same impression I got when I read Max Boot compare Iraq to the Russian Revolution.
Are people under the impression that when Carter left office he was a popular guy? Why is it when people want to complain about a president they always just skip right over him?
Posted by: Terrye | January 03, 2007 at 09:17 PM
And I don't think most people are going to worry about Romney being a Mormon.
Posted by: Terrye | January 03, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Oh yeah the point of the post. I always wonder if people make an admission like this as a sort of red herring. You know, tell them something now so that they will not be too shocked with other things they might hear. I don't much care, but then again I think that the only reason people even like Obama is that he is different, new and in a couple of years he won't be.
Posted by: Terrye | January 03, 2007 at 09:21 PM
Terrye, or anyone else, re "Bloomberg=Ross Perot=Clinton in the White House." How? Please explain where he draws votes. From libertarians, independents, republicans, or conservatives? As Abe noted above, he represents none of those groups. And he has enough track record, and is stunningly obnoxious, that he will be hard pressed to draw the protest vote. Anyone with the ability to self fund can make a go, how does he gain traction? Votes? Vote for me, the condescending know it all billionaire from Massachusetts, by way of NY, who happens to be Jewish, oh and liberal. Yeah, that dog will hunt.
Posted by: nick | January 03, 2007 at 09:53 PM
from Terrye:
And anyone who thinks Bush is Nixon 11 does not remember Nixon 1. When I read that I get the same impression I got when I read Max Boot compare Iraq to the Russian Revolution...
I was being tounge-in-cheek. Maybe I should have used the /sarc tag
from reailpundit:
this means Richardson ... A Western catholic Hispanic governon...
Too much baggage-from UN Ambassador during the expansion of the Oil-for-Food program and his tenure at the Department of Energy. I wouldn't mind seeing OFF and the UN tied around his neck and then kicking him into the Potomac-he probably wouldn't sink, but it would be fun to watch...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2007 at 09:55 PM
Rich:
My fault. I misread people all the time. One time I jumped all over poor little happy feet before I realized she/he was just joshing.
nick:
I am not sure Bloomberg could draw that many votes. But then again if Ross Perot could get 20% who knows?
Posted by: Terrye | January 03, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Speaking of strange Democrats with strange habits...did anyone catch Cindy Sheehan's performance at the Democratic Press Conference today? I thought Rahm would burst into tears he was so miffed.
Posted by: Terrye | January 03, 2007 at 10:14 PM
(I love JOM. The only place where a Libby comment is always on topic in every thread.)
Gee, d'ya think Team Libby can call on him to testify as their new memory expert?Posted by: cathyf | January 03, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I heldback on that just to let you have it, Cathy.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I love the idea of Tom Ridge for something (and have for awhile).
As to Richardson, I have been assured by a major Dem fundraiser who had no independent way of knowing that Richardson has too many skeletons in the closet. Well, in this context, "skeletons" refers to notably non-dead women.
This was back in Dec 2004, so it seems to be too early for someone from another camp to have been pre-emptively spinning my source. Of course, it was also too early for us to be talking about 2008, yet there we were...
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 04, 2007 at 08:58 AM
Come on. We've plenty of Clintons and Bushes available to rotate the presidency for another quarter century. It's a big conspiracy deeper than any those on the left have come up with regarding halliburton, prescott bush, war for oil, 9/11 an inside job, whatever.
It almost bubbled to the surface when all those stories were running about how close Bush 41 and Bill were getting, what with running the tsunami relief and whatnot.
And this plan is also the reason Joe Wilson had to be marginalized. He came close to exposing it - and if it were not for Libby - it may have all unraveled.
Rove, who masterminded the entire plan back in the 60s, engineered the 06 republican defeat to set up the democratic victory in 08 (hillary, of course).
The only question is, since 41 only got one term, will Jeb squeeze Hill out in '12 or wait until '16? Those details are being hammered out.
And Chelsea and Jenna (forget Barbara jr) are still unaware of the plan. They cannot be trusted yet. Still too young and naive.
There's nothing we can do to stop it.
Free Mumia.
Posted by: hit and run | January 04, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Sheehan harassing the dems-I love it! Turnabout is fair play.
Posted by: maryrose | January 04, 2007 at 09:56 AM
I don't know about today, but I know for a fact that in the 1990s you could not get a security clearance if you admitted using cocaine, ever. Can we have a President of the United States that does not qualify for a security clearance?
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | January 04, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Wilson's a liar:
I don't know about today, but I know for a fact that in the 1990s you could not get a security clearance if you admitted using cocaine,
Well, I don't know about cocaine - but that's surely not true about heroin.
I mean, Jack Bauer lost his job at CTU for his heroin addiction and then later became senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Heller.
Posted by: hit and run | January 04, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Speaking of Jack Bauer:
Larwyn alert:
24 starts on Jan. 14th with a 2 hour special which concludes on Monday Jan.15th with a 2 hour show.Jack is Back!
Posted by: maryrose | January 04, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Wow, Wilson, I hadn't thought of that angle. So now when Obama, as potential Commander in Chief, gets the Chickenhawk question "Why didn't you serve in the military?" he can legitimately respond "Well I wanted to, but my youthful unfortunate involvement with cocaine made me inelligible for service, and I'm running for President now so that I can be a champion for ending such discrimination." That answer's probably worth at least a million votes in Durham alone.
Posted by: Daddy | January 04, 2007 at 04:06 PM
If you are concerned about your kd's drug use get them genetically tested. Addiction is in part a genetic disease.
If they are not genetically susceptable experimentation will cause them little harm (as long as they stay away from the law).
If they are susceptable there may be nothing you can do to stop it as the drug use may be a way of restoring the chemical balance.
In other words - drugs are drugs.
Posted by: M. Simon | January 05, 2007 at 01:58 AM
I have a lot more to say on the subject here:
Is Addiction Real?
and you might find this interesting:
PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
Posted by: M. Simon | January 05, 2007 at 02:03 AM
If they are not genetically susceptable experimentation will cause them little harm (as long as they stay away from the law).
yeah, i remember when i was pissing away my youth "experimenting" every day, getting C's and D's in school and basically squandering any hope for the future. no harm done there. A family and common sense saved this experimenter just in time.
Posted by: mark c. | January 05, 2007 at 03:59 PM