Centerfield

He's a first term senator with a bright political future, but he in no way shape or form will be our nation's next president--it's all media hype. Perhaps VP--I wrote a story on why I think Al Gore will vanquish Hillary on the Dem side... www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

I haven't read the book yet, but I gather that many folks have responded very favorably to it.

It's inevitable that any revelations in it that could be cast as lurid will be cast as lurid, especially when quickly summarized in a news story. But if the book is as good and readable as some suggest, attacks based upon it will function as further opportunity for Obama to tell his story. If he's smart, he'll remain candid and stick with the spin his book puts on these events. He'll be able to use such attacks to invite people to read the book and make up their own minds, based on the fuller story. That gives him the rare chance to speak at length, from his heart, to each person who reads it.

I think that in this modern era, the public has proven to be pretty accepting when it comes to admissions of past issues with the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol abuse really wasn't much of an issue at all for Bush. IMO, it's most often the covering up and lying about such things that becomes an issue, unless the abuse is recent, led to more serious trangressions, was part of a wide or lengthy pattern of deceit, or occurred at a point in time when the abuser had assumed an important position of authority.

I remember 20 years ago that the conventional wisdom used to be that there were no 2nd acts in public life. People are more forgiving now. Mulligans are common, and the new rule seems to be "there's always a sequel if there's money to be made."

bk - there have always been second acts.

Think Nixon in 68

Brian,

I agree with you, and I think most Americans will see this for what it was: a youthful indiscretion that they won't hold against him.

That said, there are going to be some Americans who absolutely will factor this into their decision-making. My father, for example, is a moderate Republican who has voted for more Democrats than Republicans over the last four elections. He's also a recovering alcoholic (twenty-three years without a drink). And yet he's made it quite clear that he considers drugs as something entirely different from alcohol, and would never vote for someone with cocaine or heroin in their past. I don't think he's indicative of a very large part of the population, mind you, but some people really do think drugs are evil, something entirely different from alcohol, and are going to hold these things against their political candidates.

I second what Bobby said, and I think the number of such people may be larger than he thinks.

One of the things that many on the right found wrong with Clinton's response to the marijuana question was that he appeared to be trivializing the issue, making a joke of it. One felt very much that he was communicating in code to the tokers that he was just saying it because the uptight squares in the country were making him say it, but don't worry, he really had nothing against it. Having the next President of the United States make a laughing matter out of drug experimentation of any sort made it just that much harder for parents struggling to keep their kids from trying it.

No sign that Obama will do anything like that, but he may wind up going in the opposite direction, and start using a lot of the usual stock phrases of those in recovery about personal growth, etc. Part of America is, I think, really tired of that sort of thing. We've heard too many con men use the language of recovery to snow us some more. The most recent big example is that guy who had the fake autobiography on Oprah. There's also Marion Berry.

Not criticizing him for Senator Obama for his past will also open up many anti-Bush zealots to charges of hypocrisy. Someone mentioned Martin Sheen earlier; he and others have accused President Bush of being unfit for office, in essence because he is (they claim) a recovering alcoholic, or a relapsed one). Given many of those folks' personal lack of character, they probably won't be too embarrassed to change their tune on that topic for Senator Obama, but the hypocrisy charge will mute their message.

As usual with campaign "scandals", the real test will be how the Senator responds to it.

Bobby, I too am well acquainted with some friends of Bill. Making it through that crucible brings both scars and wisdom.

I agree that many folks, primarily but not exclusively from older generations, are under the impression that alcohol is fundamentally different from "drugs." No wonder, when so many folks say "drugs and alcohol" without even blinking. For whoever doesn't know, saying drugs and alcohol is an awful lot like saying "guns and deadly weapons."

Alcohol IS a drug. And it's not just any drug, it's the one that probably causes, at least measured by volume, the most harm to our culture. And I say that as someone you guys know is quite far from being a puritan. It's a dangerous insidious beast, and its general acceptance is likely one of the biggest reasons WHY it is able to do so much harm.

Personally, I simply consider alcohol to be one of the various drugs Americans use. For every drug, its utility versus harm ought to be measured in the context of how well we're able to use versus abuse the substance. By abuse, I mean overuse to the point where it adversely affects our actions, choices, and relationships in serious ways other than on very rare occasions.

Caffeine is a drug, but practically speaking, it's hard to really abuse it. Alcohol is used fairly responsibly by many or even most folks, but far from all. Marijuana is IMO fairly similar, and may even have fewer serious drug abuse issues. Alcohol abuse correlates to serious things like domestic violence, traffic accidents, and violent conflicts in ways that marijuana doesn't seem to. Cocaine? Much more dangerous, IMo. More addictive, and equally prone to domestic and other violent conflicts. And if crack is any indication, delivering it in small inexpensive relatively measured doses sure didn't tame it any.

Leaving aside relatively trivial caffeine and nicotine, alcohol is America's legal drug of choice, and as such, folks understand it more, and so fear it less than other drugs. That's how it is. That's how people tend to look at it. This is to some extent a realshame, since it's a perspective that IMO actively hinders understanding the fundamental dynamics of drugs (alcohol included) in our culture.

I don't like most of Obama's policy positions at all and it would take a Really Worse Option before I'd pull the lever for him, but I find him somewhat refreshing. I find some of the attacks being levelled against him pretty damn low and uncalled for, and I'm not the only one.

Some of those attacks are coming from the wing right--and some are coming from his potential opponents in his own party. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Obama.

On another note, I know a few Friends of Bill and they have my admiration and respect. I no longer know any real unrepentant "practicing" alcoholics that I'm aware of. I used to know quite a few. They're all dead now. ALL of them.

Obama is not yet ready to be Presidential material no matter what the media is saying. He needs to have a resume and that will take time to build. He could forego a bright political future and become a fast burner like John Edwards who never going to reach the White House either, but it beats having a real job!

Obama self admission of past drug use is something most people his age have experiemented with and understand the stupidity of youthful judgment. This does not let him off the hook. Senator Obama should take a hardline against illegal drug use. It is an American problem and should be treated like one.\

But Obama running for President this soon in his senate career poses many problems for himself. Only two incumbent senators have went directly to the Oval Office from the U.S. Senate - Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. There is not a great chance of that happening to the Senator from Illinois. But the Senate is a very good place to jump off for the VP spot!

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Brian,

Caffeine is a drug, but practically speaking, it's hard to really abuse it.

I don't know, I probably come pretty darn close!

Seriously, though, Americans just have a cultural perspective about drugs-- especially the so-called "hard" ones (let's call them the "powders")-- and there's a tendency, among some people, to view them not just as dangerous and irresponsible, but downright evil and immoral. That's not necessarily the case if you delve into the truth behind what each of these substances unleashes upon society, I agree, but it's the prevailing perception among some and- as we well know- politics is so often about perception, not reality.

Americans have grown up accustomed to alcohol and tobacco's effects on society (although tolerance of the latter has decreased considerably in the last two decades), and so they're not inclined to see them in the same black-and-white colors that we see cocaine or heroin. It's a cultural thing- much like Colombians can turn a blind eye to the bazucos and pretend that cocaine is purely a "gringo problem," or the way the Taliban can grow poppies and sponsor opium, but they'll be damned if anyone will have a swig of liquor on their watch... It's not rational, it's cultural- but it still is there.

Absolutely agreed Bobby, that's the general sketch of cultural perceptions, which as we know, matter.

I still don't think that in our era, revelations that one messed with coke for a bit 20 years ago are that big a deal to many voters. Especially if you are upfront about it and get it on the table. If you hid it, and it came out near voting time, different story.

Of course, if you're runinng for big office and substance abuse/illegal drug use is a part of your past, you can expect some pious journalist to ask you some version of "what do I tell my kids becuase they need good role models..." You need a good answer for that, and may need to provide it repeatedly without showing signs of anger or defensiveness.

Pat,

I doubt President Clinton was being facetious when he said "I did but I didn't inhale." just to tick off the right wing; he already ticked them off by the mere fact of his existance. He was trying to have it both ways; to sound hip without being dangerous, responsible without being stuffy, much like Prohibition politcians, when asked about their drinking habits, would say "I tried it once, but didn't like it." Not an admirable characteristic, but sadly usual.

Someone mentioned Martin Sheen earlier; he and others have accused President Bush of being unfit for office, in essence because he is (they claim) a recovering alcoholic, or a relapsed one). Given many of those folks' personal lack of character,

Oh? Like me, for example? Because I've always thought W is the least qualified candidate ever to make it to the Oval Office, for reasons I have already gone into, yet my personal life would make J. Edgar Hoover yawn.

Some of W's most ardent supporters, though, like Rehnquist, were clearly living la vida loco (with some help from the FBI and the heavy hand of the WH), so YMMV.

I believe W's two arrests, plus another for DWI (because he drove through a hedge) should give anyone pause. Certainly, Clinton or any other Democrat had had three arrests in the record, Rush and the rest of the right wing would be reminding us a few thousand times a day. If any future Dem with a couple of arrests in the docket decides to run for President, no doubt we'll hear from those who suddenly think the Oval Office should be above reproach. And I'll be right here, reminding them of W's DWI.

Thanks, George. ;-)

But, again, I think the average American sees alcohol abuses- including DUIs and DWIs- in an entirely different light than other narcotics. It's not rational- a guy smoking pot in his living room is risking far less potential injury to others than a guy who slams too many beers and gets behind the wheel- but it doesn't change the fact that there are many Americans who see cocaine and heroine and other drugs as innately evil, while willing to excuse those who hit the road after one too many (and the fact that they themselves have fallen in the latter camp, and not the former camp, probably has a lot do with with that). I don't know how significant this part of the population is, but within my own (limited) circle of friends and acquaintances, I know for a fact that it's out there.