Letters to the Editor
-
As long as the issue is in the spotlight...
Can we talk about the real issue now?
Can we talk about what a sad waste the "War on Drugs" has been? Can we get a high-level discussion going about non-violent kids getting thrown into prison with career criminals, and walking out with no job prospects because of their incarceration and a bunch of underworld contacts? Can we talk about how racist our drugs laws are and how young minority men are being deligated to life of addiction and desperation because of our systems rush to throw them into the joint? Can we talk about the prison-industrial complex? Can we talk about a health issue being treated like a criminal issue, and the negative consequences that come from failing to make this distinction?
Anyone? Hello?
*crickets chirp*
Gotcha. Then on with the passive-aggressive attacks and Rovian disinformation campaigns. And God forbid anyone call the Clinton's on their bullshit, lest you risk getting branded as a sexist.
ENOUGH.
-
Responding to Clinton defenders
Writes one Clinton defender: "Why is it not OK for people to discuss it?"
It is okay. Clinton's surrogates don't want to discuss it -- they want to float it. Pretending there isn't a difference doesn't work on grown ups.
Write a number of others: The GOP will bring it up, so he should get used to it!
So you're telling me that Clinton does as the GOP will always do. That makes it easier for me to decide who not to vote for in the primary.
-
Brawling is what primaries are for
I'm not bothered by the dust-up. Primaries should force the candidates to deal with the worst stuff they'll have to deal with later. It may be a minor matter, but I'm glad both sides are doing what they're doing. Clinton should be prodding at Obama's weak points - if nominated, hopefully she'll continue to do that with the Republican candidate. Obama should be fighting back with all he's got, which he's doing. I much prefer his offense-is-the-best-defense strategy to Kerry and Gore's roll-over-play-dead responses when criticized. The democratic candidate has to be a fighter.
-
Who gives a shit?
Obama, buddy - be the bigger man and just ignore these attacks. You already blunted any effectiveness they might have by engaging, more or less admirably, in full disclosure. People are looking for substance, and Hillary running around shrieking "cocaine cocaine cocaine!" will start to sound like Rudy's "9/11 9/11 9/11!" pretty soon. Be the bigger man.
-
If people really want to vote for you,
they will ignore the past (as in poor grades, AWOL, coke, DUI, failed businessman) and vote for you with the idea in their forebrain that you are better than all that now so it doesn't matter. The majority of people who would not vote for Obama because of remote drug use are the same people who will not vote for him because he remains a: still a democrat and b: still black.
-
"Brawling" would be a vast improvement over this "bored kids in the back seat" sniping ...
whining, pinching, prodding and provoking ...
hell, we might even LEARN something ...
-
right.
A teenage kid drinking alcohol might be a youthful indiscretion.
A teenage kid smoking pot might even be merely a youthful indiscretion.
But a middle-class teenage kid with no real troubles in the world snorting coke? I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone from my youth who was THAT indiscrete. Seriously.
-
Plausible Deniability
As I've said before, I don't really give a rat's patoot about what someone put up his nose 20 years ago. It's what a person has been doing recently that interests me.
And what I have been seeing recently is a candidate using her flying monkeys to _suggest_ that Obama's past nose candy infatuation means that he shouldn't be president, but not having the required intestinal fortitude to let her staff know that they need to STFU on the subject because it's irrelevant, or to come out and make the claim directly because she does think it should be seriously considered and discussed.
Now _that_ does interest me. "Plausible Deniability" is for weasels, not Presidents.
-
Re: As long as the issue is in the spotlight...
Agreed. A discussion of the real "War on Drugs" issue would be much welcomed.
And as long as we're on the subject of addictive substances, could we get the candidates talking a little more about oil?
Here's a specific question I want to forward to all candidates: Should the federal government change its tax and/or royalty systems (as Alaska and Alberta have recently done) for oil and gas extracted from federally owned lands and waters? In other words, are we giving away the public's resources too cheaply, and if so, how much too cheaply, and what's the right balance between public take and encouragement of energy production?
-
Question for Rosenkavalier
So for the record, you believe that teenage cocaine use should be part of the discussion on who will serve most capably as President?
-
Let's put YOUR teenage years under a microscope and see what holds up.
And if you've got the nuts to admit to a lot of the stuff you said and did back then.
I'm lucky to be alive after all the stupid shit I did when I was that young, and I'm a wiser man today for having been such an idiot back then.
Get off your fucking high horse.
-
Clinton kneecapping Obama = Republican landslide
If this is the way the Clintons secure the nomination, there will be Republican landslide in the general election. How can they kneecap the one politician that has actually inspired passion and hope across all manners of difference and not think that his supporters aren't going to turn around and fury and either throw away their votes on a write-in candidate or, heaven forbid, vote for a Republican? HRC has officially lost my vote in the general election and I always knew I'd end up voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who was nominated. No longer, not after this weekend's developments. I am very, very sadly starting to understand the wide-spread contempt of the Clintons. Woe be to those who spit on hope with lies and all manner of deceipt. They will receive their reward. What an incredible shame.
-
If TeamClinton "harps" on Obama's ancient drug use, imho, it's going to backfire -- BADLY ...
the "didn't inhale" bullshit was bullshit ...
Lots of people have experimented with drugs, generally whatever was available in your neck of the woods (it's not like you order these things on line, paying extra for express shipping) ...
My guess is that most folks who didn't trying something or other (some form of speed taken for finals, for instance) are people who were either SERIOUSLY frightened by their elders (and I've met people who fit that description) or "didn't get out much" ...
For Team Clinton to make a big deal out of Obama's "youthful indiscretion" -- bad mistake...
Can you spell "hypocracy"? yes, I knew you could.