Billy Shaheen Goes Too Far
I know Mr. and Mrs. Shaheen. I raised money for her candidacies. I think she served her state well.
But Billy Shaheen went way way too far in his attack on Obama. This is what happens when the inevitable candidate finds the race is not over after all, and when the old guard local chairman has just gotten chewed out by the inevitable one's campaign.
The Shaheens helped Gore pull out New Hampshire against Bradley in 2000. But this sort of nasty campaigning may mean not just that Clinton is in trouble, but that the Shaheens are. New Hampshire may have moved on to a new generation, and it is possible that an Obama victory will spell the end of the Shaheens in New Hampshire politics.















Reed,
Please stop playing "inside baseball' long enough to give us the backstory.....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
December 12, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering how much this will hurt Jeanne Shaheen's 2008 NH Senate campaign as well. I don't think all of those Obama primary voters are going to like it one bit.
Plus, the most tawdry aspect is that he was obviously just "getting it out there," as shown by the campaign's disavowal and his quick apology. That's how the Clinton's have always played ball.
December 13, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I mean. The ploy has so many potential downsides and limited (if any) upside, I can't see a reason to do it. I'm not ready to believe that the Hill campaign is that desperate at this stage of the game......
If they are, I can't wait till South Carolina! What kind of an internecine treat for the Republicans will that be? Obama with an illegitimate white baby? Calling Harold Ford, calling Harold Ford........
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
December 13, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
A complete misnomer.
December 13, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much of a misnomer as the rumors spread about McCain in South Carolina.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
December 14, 2007 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO.
The rumor about MCCain was plausible, it is impossible for Obama to have a white child.
December 19, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was only plausible to inbred South Carolinians. It isn't a question of genetics, it is a question of racism and race-baiting, WRB.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
December 21, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
just "getting it out there"
Getting out there what?
December 13, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What seems to be the problem ?
Is it OK to say to point out that Republicans hate Clinton, therefore she should not be a Democratic nominee, or to point out that Obama's drug use will be a problem in general elections therefore he should not be a nominee?
Republicans hate of Clinton or Obama's drug use
is a public information, and Democratic voters should be made aware of such info and evaluate it accordingly. Moreover, Obama have never went trough a real statewide elections, so he has not been reaserched by opposition, the way Clinton and Edwards was.
I think Reed Hundt protests too much. It reminds me of Lynne Cheney attacking Edwards, for mentioning in a debate that her daughter is an lesbian.
December 12, 2007 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is saying that the GOP hates Hillary analogous to saying the GOP will raise the issue of drug use in the general election?
Romney already raised this issue. Why is Shaeen raising the issue as an offensive attack with racist stereotypes, is this the Clinton;s new 'southern strategy'?
False. Obama is a US Senator and he has been through a real statewide election and reasearched by the opposition. The problem is there is nothing there so folks grasp at the things he truthfully divuluged when in his book.
Obama is being attacked by Shaeen for being truthful. Which is why the drug use is a tawdry racist charge.
December 13, 2007 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 13, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it wasn't a problem for Bush, was it?
Obama had credible opposition in both the Democratic primary and the general election, although eventually two of those candidates went down in scandal. Hardly a reason to vote against him.
December 13, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Bush?
Obviously, it's not a reason to vote against him, just a fact to consider that he run practically unopposed.
December 13, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
this is true for Senator Clinton as well.
December 13, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My original point was
Obama have never went trough a real statewide elections, so he has not been reaserched by opposition, the way Clinton and Edwards was
Obviously, Clinton has been reaserched by opposition do a some degree.
Also Senator Clinton had a very competitive first elections.
December 13, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is inside ball, but then again I'm from New England, and have been disappointed to see the Shaheens (whom I had known previously in positive lights) engage in such skullduggery on Hilary's behalf.
It went too far, davai, because it is an attack on the past actions of a candidate rather than for pragmatics of electability. Also especially rich, or at least telling, since Mrs. Clinton's husband managed the mother of all BS lines when he "did not inhale"; honesty vs. prevarication, which sums up the Obama-Clinton dynamic fairly well.
Also, good for Reed, as a somewhat insider, for (not so?) subtly telling the Clinton people to go blank themselves on this one. It's not just lefties who are sick of them.
Ben Cronin
December 12, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatics of electability depend on the past actions of a candidate.
December 12, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it did go to far because it is politics of personal destruction and not differences on substantative policy issues.
December 13, 2007 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize I'm a bit bitchy tonight, but I agree that Reed's new function in the Cafe is to shill for Obama, first against Krugman and now Shaheen.
It would save Reed (and us) a lot of time to just post one thread :"I disagree with any attacks on Obama."
I'm an Edwards guy, so I have no dog in this particular hunt. But this is an election. Bush's coke and booze use was fair game. Bill Clinton's pot use was fair game. But The Golden Boy is off limits? Come on..
I for one don't care how Obama partied back in the day. God knows in my day I was a walking pharmacy. But I'm not running for president.
December 12, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair game? Bush said he wouldn't talk about it, and then he didn't. Clinton just lied about it. The whole point is that it's completely meaningless anyway, just gutter politics of personal destruction stuff.
December 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, I hadn't considered this was a response by him after being chewed out. It makes some sense that it went down that way. However, it's just more evidence of poor management.
I really can't believe some people are so obtuse as to miss the point here. Yes, all Hillary supporters, we fully expect right-wing groups to go at Obama for his drug use. They are already going after him with lies, so of course they will do it with something he actually TALKS ABOUT. But Hillary is not supposed to be right-winger. She is supposed to be a Dem. Everyone voting for her in the primary is a Dem and not a single one accepts the passive-aggressive attack or the racism implied in it. (Drug dealer, indeed.)
Look at what happened a couple of weeks ago when Obama brought up his drug past with a group of high schoolers. Romney immediately attacked, Guiliani responded like a human being, and Romney way-walked back what he said. Obama is nearly unimpeachable here given his personal disclosures about it and, more importantly, the larger lessons he says that time teaches. The Republicans will always, always go after whatever they can and with Obama, they will have very little to work with. Of course they will try and use it. But that does not make it OK for HRC to use it. We expect it from them, but we also expect better from our own candidates.
December 12, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...like Obama uses right-wing talking points on universal health care, or Social Security, or vouchers...
I don't like the bulls*** any more than you do, but to blame politicians for doing what politicians do is just silly.
December 12, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do individuals who are democrats buy into the ideological framing of rightwingtalking points when it comes to universal health care, social secrutiy or vouchers. Why? Haven't we had enough of this type of framing of the issues where folks stake out positions based on partisanship rather than actual cogent analysis of the policy in an effort to come to solutions? What is with the polarization of the issue to make it a turf battle instead of a serious effort at coming up with a policy Americans want and which is politically viable in terms of it being enaacted as legislation.
It would seem that a politican with a track record of actually passing controversial issues such as ethics reform, healthcare, and death penalty changes into law would have far more credibility on policy issues than a syndicated news columnist or a political rival who has nothing but collosal failures when it comes to getting anything done legislatively when it is a massive complex problem such as healthcare.
These accusations of rightwingtalkingpoints are silly and non productive. I say know who has successfully enacted legislation on controversial issues and who hasn't before blaming any politician.
December 13, 2007 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rated a 5. As much as I love Krugman, this idea of his (and, by extension, Hillary's) that opposing mandated health insurance or raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax is adopting "right wing talking points" is absurd, and seems to be more of an attempt to stifle debate than to address Obama's arguments.
December 13, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding.
I've seen this feigned outrage from other bloggers and they're usually Obama supporters. The fact is Obama made a big deal and joked about the lameness of Bill Clinton's line about smoking but not inhaling, pot being the substance. Obama had no problem using Hillary Clinton's husband to take a swipe at her. Now we've got someone working for Hillary that explains that in the real political world of that day, saying the truth (and did anyone hear that original Bill Clinton line not know the truth?) would have been a monumental political blunder. Even before the era of "didn't inhale" it was "on a boat beyond the territorial waters." So Obama takes a cheap shot and yet the people who are supposedly so outraged now over the Shaheen dialog had a good laugh then. Obama's above it all except when he isn't.
I don't particularly care for Obama. He's running as a messiah. The "Obama generation." Imagine the ego that would promote such a line. He's running as a minority while at the same time running away from minority concerns. Sure he tells people what their concerns are, but that's not telling how he'll deal with their concerns. He's worried about Social Security when that's a Republican line to destroy it. He's got a medical plan with a hole in it that he's proud of. He's against affirmative action and for loan shark interest rates. Even his anti Iraq war stance is hollow. That video that was posted long ago had him finish his anti-Iraq war views by saying he didn't have all the information and was waiting to see what Colin Powell would say. We all know how that went. He misses critical votes and then acts as if he voted the progressive line.
Spare me this concern about "low" politics. This isn't even low and it's certainly no lower than a response Obama deserved.
December 12, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
December 12, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How so? What did Obama say that was a big deal. The remarks that I recall were made on Leno's tonight show and amounted to Obama saying 'that was the whole point' in response to Leno's query of whether he had inhaled. You call that making a big deal..or is it that it nailed the response as lame that bothers you?
What are you referring to here? It is a well known that Bill is campaigning as Hillary's surrogate and tells bold faced lines while at the same time coming to her rescue and accusing her political rivals of piling up on her while he takes the blame for the failure of Hillarycare and asserts that he was against the war from the beginning.
Shaeen did not say anything about what WJClinton said or did not say being a blunder. What Shaeen did was imply that Obama was a drug dealer which is a nasty character slur that inclues racial sterotypes. As far as Shaeen working for Hillary goes, this is the same week that Hillary has been firing campaign workers for perpetuating the nasty muslim rumors about Obama. Yet, we are to believe that Shaeen was addressing 'electability' when engaging in the politics of personal destruction after Hillary attacks Obama on his kindergarten essays?. What is going on here is that Hillary is engaging in monumental blunders with these ineffective attacks. She is torpedoing her candidacy.
Please what is this faux righteousness on your part? Obama called a duck a duck. The answer was lame and strained credulity when it was uttered just as 'it depends on what the meaning of is, is' did as well. Obama is not above it all, his answer in fact spoke directly to being human. He said he inhaled as that was the point...that is not being above anything it is being right in the thick of it! Not a cheap shot.
Ahh, now we get to the core issue for you. Obama is not running as a messiah. He does not hold himself up as such. Rather, the electorate is inspired and motivated by his language and leadership on issues. He tells the truth and is genuine while acknowledging his foibles. His lifestory matches his words. He does not just have faith he as acts of faith. He worked as a community organizer and has demonstrated that he is OF the people. That is what grabs people. His sincerity and committment through his actions. Wouldn't this country be far better off if an entire generation committed to improving this nation as volunteers, like Obama did? He rejected the personal glory of acquiring wealth for wealth sakes when the corporations were fighting to hire the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review. Obama pursued a life based on the principles he believes in and worked instead with those who had less and are most vulnerable in our society. He is to be admired for that and is certainly a role model for this coming generation, who are proud to identify service to others and called themselves the "Obama generation" after the individual who inspire them to that higher purpose than solely personal riches.
Imagine the demonstrated courage, principles and convictions of the individual that inspired such a line.
This is completly false. The color of his skin makes him a minority in America. He is not however running on a minority platform as we saw with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc. Obama is the only Presidential candidate to address the Jena six as a travesty of justice. Obama also supports retroactivity for mandatory sentencing drug laws which was upheld by the US Supreme Court with Scalia voting for it, while Hillary is to right of Scalia and opposed to retroactivity. Obama opposed racial profiling and he is a strong gay rights advocates supporting not only civil unions but the complete repeal of DOMA. Obama has not run away from any minority concerns.
False. Obama has specific policy plans which anyone can read at his website. Obama is the only one who has said how he will finance his universal health plan, there is no hole in the plan. Hillary wants mandates but refuses to say how to fund those mandates.Not to mention that mandates are political unviable just as her last attempt at healthcare was uncompromising and a complete failure. What is this GOP line BS? No one disputes that there is a gap and shortfall in SS, the only thing folks quibble about is when, not if there is a funding gap. Hillary will only say that she will send SS to a bipartisian commission where Obama specifys he is willing to raise the cap on payroll and not tax seniors with includes of less than 50K .
What specifically are you referring to when you say he is against affirmative action? As far as the loan shark interest rates go that is false. He voted against the bankruptcy bill. Had he voted for the bankruptcy bill he would have been denying consumers the right to declare bankruptcy. Do you even know what the bill said? The bill also put a cap on interest rates but at the expense of consumers losing their rights to declare bankruptcy. Read the bill and get your facts straight. His plan for urban renewal is specific to improving the community while Edwards supports vouchers to move the residents out and Hillary supports funding of exurbs. Only Obama works with the residents to rebuild their own community. . The specifics of how Obama plans to deal with all policy issues are on his website. You may wish to vist there rather than throw out 'messianic' allegations.
That video had him verbalizing a deductive reasoning analysis which explained everything that would happen as a consequence of going to war that proved to be true and accurate. Obama said he beleived that folks in Congress had information he did not have ( which makes his reasoning even more valid, not less) and that his own analysis was based on the information he was privvy to as part of the public. Which turned out to be more than sufficient to understand and predict the consequences of a war that should have never been authorized and as he described at the time would be of undetermined length with undetermined consequences. His not knowing what Colin Powell would say would not have made a difference in his well reasoned judgment at the time. A very salient point he made as a constitutional scholar in that analysis was that the authorization gave Bush carte blanche authority to wage war and that was against the US constitutional as it violation the checks and balances of our co-equal branches of governance. He didn't need Colin Powell to make that judgment. Obama has the most liberal voting record of the Presidential candidates with the exception of Kucinich.
Amos, your post was filled with misinformation and this was a low meanspirted attack by Shaeen. Obama does not deserve to have anyone infer he is a drug dealer anymoreso than Hillary deserves lesbian rumors.
December 13, 2007 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 13, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just some full disclosure before giving my position: I finally called today to have some Obama signs put on my lawn here in New Hampshire. So I am now officially in the Obama camp, although I have done no work or volunteering of any kind for the campaign. I wrote earlier this year that I would tell people here at TPM Cafe once I had committed, so that there could be no suggestion that I am playing any sort of deceptive games, or shilling for someone while pretending to be neutral. So there we are.
That said, I say bring it on as far as Shaheen's comments go. I strongly object to the usual Democratic habit of playing nice and sweet with each other during the primary campaign, only then to be shocked and unprepared when the Republicans start the swift boating in the summer. In its crudest terms, I think Democrats should "swift boat" each other during the primary. They should be very rough with each other, and bring up whatever they want against their opponents, no matter how unpleasant or dirty, so long as the assertions they make are true.
I've also never been a believer in the doctrine that this kind of thing "weakens" or "damages" the candidate. That would only be the case if the issues or revelations in question could otherwise be successfully hidden during the general election campaign. But that never happens. Facing brutal, no holds barred campaign attacks toughens a candidate up, in my view, and helps them get all their stories straight early on. Everything of possible future relevance or interest should be ventilated. I want Obama to face all these devils now, so that he works out his general election responses ahead of time. This is the first thing the Republicans are going to bring up. So we might as well get into it now.
Electability is, as always, one of the biggest issues among the Democratic electorate. Bringing up Obama's own admissions of early drug use, and raising the question of the bearing of these admissions, and the events to which they relate, on Obama's electability is a perfectly legitimate move. Personally, I wish the other campaigns weren't so fastidious about bringing out all of the Clinton's dirty laundry, since it's all going to come out big time in the summer should Clinton be nominated.
The drug use episode in Obama's life is a big part of his personal narrative. It's in his book, and he brought it up himself in a recent talk at a Manchester high school. So he can't blame the Shaheens or anyone else for holding it up for further scrutiny. I think he and his campaign should take the line that he is grateful to Shaheen for bringing it up, and welcomes the opportunity to talk more about this part of his life, because it is a very big part of the personal story he is telling America. The story is that his life was almost a tragic waste, like that of so many young black men in this country. But he recognized the wasted time and self-destructive damage he was causing to himself, chose a different path, and prevailed. And this is the hope he will bring to so many Americans who have something in their lives that they need to turn around. Americans love born-again stories, and they'll love this one.
The more chances Obama gets to talk about himself, the less he becomes just a politician defined by stands on policy issues, and the more he becomes a full person with whom the electorate has a personal relationship. So thank you very much Clinton campaign. You just guaranteed that another news cycle will be dominated by the Barack Obama Story!
December 12, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post landed before mine was done. And while I'm not changed on the essence of my post nor do I subscribe entirely to yours, you do make several valid & persuasive points. In particular the humanizing of Obama which I do think would be not only refreshing but is desperately needed in American politics.
And on a side note, thank you for the disclosure!
December 12, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racist comment explained by the fact that you are not an American and have zero understanding of the African-American experience.
Obama's rise is incredible in a country in in which, until the 1968 Presidential election, African-Americans could not vote in 11 states and in which, for a majority of their time on this continent, blacks were slaves.
December 13, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so what? What it has to do with anything we are talking about?
December 13, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of any democratic primary race where they played nice and sweet in the primaries.
As for the Clinton dirty laundry, we had three special counsel and spent 100 million dollars to hold their underwear up to the light.
December 13, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole sideshow distraction is sad at best. Trading swipes & indignation makes for some entertaining and vapid headlines but little more. And depending on the direction of the attack, it offers little more than a cross for someone to climb up on. Ultimately it means almost nothing and provides more time for the candidates to talk about more of the same - nothing.
It's silly, pointless and juvenile posturing. And politics is bad enough without it. Both candidates need to start talking about what really matters and this certainly isn't it. I'm ashamed for both of them. If we can get rid of lobbyist in politics (which I fear is all but impossible), political advisors might be next on the list. Candidate's campaigns are basically like a circus funhouse - how they look depends on what mirror they stand I'm front of. But in general, none of it gives you a real picture of what the candidate really looks like...
As you can tell this entire spat annoys me, outside 'insiders' or not.
December 12, 2007 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Obama has stuck with the issues. He has counterpunched but there are no remarks that address anything about gender or involve character attacks. Obama has stuck to providing contrasts of their policy differences. Whereas, Hillary thinks that politics of personal destruction is 'fun'. All of which accounts for Shaheen and the muslim slurs from her campaign staff. It is an attitude that Hillary fosters and engages in. She is a brawler not a leader.
I am not ashamed of Obama he has responded like a statesman and refused to be dragged down into the mud or engage in the mudslinging that Hillary gleefully and willfully slings.
December 13, 2007 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's stop acting like the Republicans. Right now, the GOP candidates are spinning themselves into irrelevancy with each outrageous appeal to their primary base. The general electorate sees this nonsense and whoever their nominee is will be irreparably damaged. Rudy has gone from Mayor of America to a cheating sleaze; Romney went from a successful businessman to a charlatan; Huckabee has become a backward theocrat instead of a "compassionate conservative".
Dems should be engaging in vigorous discussion on the issues that voters are concerned about, not wasting time and reputations on character assassination. The GOP Swift Boaters will come riding in, no matter who the candidate is.
December 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree that Reed seemed out to post having put in the least work and least thought possible. Well, with a little work of my own I turned up an article in The Times. Whether it gets exposure remains to be seen. Reed's interests might also seem wider and more important to me without the conclusion that this means the Shaheens are in trouble. Given how little I know or care who they are, this focus is a little like shouting, "But this post has nothing to do with anything." The opening disclaimer that he knows them well only adds to the irrelevant Beltway insider's tone. So, do the Shaheens support the Redskins or not? I know this is a pressing issue....
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 13, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if I had heard Obama or Edwards people decrying the politics of personal destruction when they were saying in debates she is a liar (untrustworthy, cant be believed, same thing), or standing up proudly to be counted when she was variously accused by others of being a murderer, a liar, an enabler of a sexual predator, a drug dealer (yes, do your research), a shrew, a bitch, a cackler, having big ankles, etc. etc. etc., or that Bill was a lousy President who screwed the poor and was not a true Democrat, and oh wasnt it funny what he said about pot, and doesnt that show him to be a liar, etc. etc. I might have some sympathy here. But they didnt, so I dont. Its a thin skin indeed when you react with outrage when someone points out what the other side will do to a candidate. I have had to listen to that crap about HRC all season, from DEMOCRATS. Few if any of our brave commentators have defended her.
Oh and by the way, there is nothing remotely racial about the comments made and I am highly suspicious when people leap to make it a racial issue. If you try to make criticism of him a racial issue you watch how fast he collapses in a general election. Secondly, he put the story out there. Can you please let us know in advance if there are other parts of his book we are not allowed to comment on?
December 13, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop making up stuff. What was stated was that she was disengenuous (having no say over the release of WH docs during her years as First Lady) and duplicious (double talk) which there is video of her doing precisely that. Which means it was not politics of personal destruction but accurate descriptions of her behavior. Perhaps, you do not know the difference but many informed voters do.
Stop getting it twisted, these are not comments that were made by her political opponents. Rather they are made by pundits, and non-supporters. citizens with the right to vote. So it is still not the same as the politics of personal destruction tactic of a political rival aimed at their opponent.
No it is not thin skin to call out a political opponent for character assasination attacks rooted in rumor, conjecture and innuendo. Demanding truth, accountability and honesty when folks impugn your character is the right thing to do to prevent the rumors from being believed and destroying your candidacy, livelihood or reputation.
That's right. Because American citizens live in a democracy and they have the freedom of speech to speak out against their political leaders, their character, actions and policies. It's America. If you don't like American democracy and the the Bill of Rights, leave the country. But what you need to stop doing is confusing the right of citizens to express their political views about candidates with the tawdry meanspirited actions of character assasinations by political rivals. There is a huge difference.
Why should anyone defend a politician who refuses to be accountable for sending thousands of Americans to die in the desert without even having the good conscious to read the NIE report? Why should anyone defend HRClinton who told us if we disagreed with her about her war vote to not vote for her? The arrogance and presumptiousness of her actions and remarks warrants every challenge raised about her lack of integrity, honesty, convictions and principles. She sent citizens to die based on what was best for her political career she voted for this nation to go to war. The most important vote a politican ever has and she cast her's with conviction for what was politically expedient. She has earned the distrust and disdain of the electorate. She wasn't brave enough to stand up for our sons and daughters when it counted and now she cannot expect us to defend her poor judgments.
What is highly suspicious is the inability of an American citizen to know what racist stereotypes are. It comes acrosss as very disengenuous. It is very clear that no white politician suspected of drug used has ever been subjected to a query that implies, suggests or infers that he is a drug dealer. WJClinton never had such character questions raised. Obama is being impugned for truthfulness. Those who do not get the racial undertones is most likely because they choose to be in denial about the criminal stereotypes of black males pervasive in American society. You are correct that the remarks were not remotely racial as they were blatantly racist.
Another example of racist stereotypes is the fact that Huckabee is still in the race despite having releashed a rapist.who then murdered two more people. The reason is because the rapist was white. Had the rapist been black, Huckabee would be done. But a white murdering racist does not conjure up the same fear in the hearts of white America as that of a convicted black felon. Nope. Just like Dukakis with Horton and while Dukakis did not personally intervene, he simply had changed a policy and had no idea Horton had been furloughed. His candidacy was over. Yet while Huckabee personally saw to that rapist being releashed only so he could murder innocent folks he is still politically viable?! But Obama is to have his electability challenged on the basis of drug use?
No one has to make the issue about drug use racist. Shaheen already did that. Everyone knows it and the African American community is outraged, as they have every right to be. What Hillary knows is that she cannot win in the general election without black votes, which is why she apologized. Her campaign crossed the line.
Hillary has decided though if she can't have the nomination she will make certain that Obama does not survive either. That is real clear.
December 13, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 13, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama raise the issue of his drug use in order to try to innoculate himself from future attacks? It seems perfectly logical that the Party which has run against the Democratic Party as the party of "amensty, abortion and acid" will go after Obama for his drug use. It may not matter it may not be fair but it seems rather reasonable to raise the question of its political significance.
The problem is particularly severe when the Media, mainstream or online, can't ever seem to get its facts straight nor acknowledge how often they are wrong.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 13, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. It was public knowledge as he disclosed it in his memoir Dreams of My Father which was published in 1995. So, unless you are using this as evidence of his ambitions like his kindergarten essay it would be a stretch to say he was innoculating himself from future attacks.
Raising the issue of drug use was not the problem. what shaeheen did was raise the issue of Obama being a drug dealer which is a helluva lot different.
December 13, 2007 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Johnson and Reed Hundt,
How about a little disclosure? If you are supporters of a particular candidate, can you just say so
December 13, 2007 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why it is considered necessary to say that Bill Shaheen went too far as the Clinton campaign distanced itself from his remarks right away, then he himself apologized and resigned, all within a single news cycle.
The point is that this campaign has an underlying meme of at least pretending to make nice, to campaign 'positively'. The idea of talking about the issues the Repugs will campaign about negatively is indeed pretty snarky & too clever by half.
I really think that they need more substantive debates, not these 1 minute or 30 second answer marathons. I suppose that will come as the number of candidates thins out.
December 14, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink