Experienced Leadership in the War on Drugs

Obama's got the munchies (0.00 / 0)

I would hope that caution would follow such claims that comming clean about drug use is such a great thing amoung our politicians.  First, hes in the race for President and this may be a pitch to bring him in line with the masses and make him out to look like just an average joe, and second, it should be noted that politicians should be example setters.  I find it hard to sit and listen to politicians who feel that they can beat the heat that will come from past drug use by just admitting it and trying to make good on such use, with claims like "the wrong side of the tracks" cliche.  Im glad to hear that he is not your pick in the primary because with such a small record and shady past it seems clear that Democrats have better or "safer" choices for the primary, not to mention that he will not stack up well with the people the Republicans are going to come up with.  I think that all he really has going for him is the fact that he truly is fresh and not a washington insider. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 23:05:41 PM UTC

Shady past? (0.00 / 0)

You do know just about every Dem candidate in 2004 admitted to trying marijuana, right?

---

by: Chris O. @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 03:21:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Marijuana mandate (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, those hippie Dems and roughly 70% of the American public. At least the honest ones.

---

by: _mattyoung2006 @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 04:05:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Munch Away (0.00 / 0)

I don't care if he loses your vote.  Chances are good you wouldn't have voted for him anyway.  I am tired of milquetoast Dems (Repubs, too for that matter) trying to cloud their pasts.  The point is, our policy aims in the "War on Drugs" are unclear at best and backwards at worst.  A lot of that might be resulting from the fact that politicians are unwilling to be honest about their pasts.

As for "safer choices," this line smacks of a problem that I have with Democratic primaries in general.  Stop trying to read which candidate will be most acceptable to the masses, who you must think are so different from yourself.  They aren't different, and Democrats are notoriously bad at reading what the masses will do and who they will vote for.  Pick the candidate who you like and we won't end up with another "oh so electable" John Kerry as our candidate, and nothing but tears the day after the election.

---

by: V @ Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 19:58:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Snap, Crackle, Pop. (0.00 / 0)

Thats all fine, but if you ever want to get out behind the shadow of the Republicans and into the executive you may want to think of ways to gain some cross appeal.  I think that it is commonly settled that GW is one of the bigger idiots of our time, but he got himself elected twice against the "best" of the left.  It may be a good idea to look to folks more like Bill Clinton, and not the hardliners like his wife and Obama.  I really hope one of em emerges from the primaries because they almost seal up a win for republicans who will be running someone more electable.  As far as Obama's pot-smoking days, it will never go over with the over-concerned parent vote and others and like years past the orgainzed right is going to paint him as a backup dancer for the greatful dead.  Sure most folks have tried a bit of grass, but drug use does not bode well for politicians unless they are going to finally make the stuff legal.  I see this site is tacitly endorsing Edwards.  He disappeared off of the map after 2004, while folks like McCain were all over the news, hell he had a cameo in Wedding Crashers.  Face it, the top brass in the Democratic party are weak on or off of drugs.  It does not hurt my feelings any, because although I voted for Kerry in 2004, I may swing to the libertarian for this most recent embarassing failure. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 02:09:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]