Why not - they have been there before, and still are, right? All this talk about Obama's past drug use is so lame. Hillary is obviously grasping for straws and her campaign is trying to make it an issue. The reality is that it's not going to work.
Bill Clinton got elected to 2 terms even after admitting to smoking pot. Bush got elected to 2 terms despite vague references to his past drug use, including pot and cocaine (not to mention his arrest for drunk driving that he admits fully). So what - Obama tried drugs in college. Big deal. His candor on the issue might just be what gets young voters to rally behind him more than any other presidential candidate in history.
And then there's Mike Gravel who openly mocks the War on Drugs. Of course, he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination so he can pretty much say anything he wants. These situations are always entertaining, because we finally hear politicians saying what so many of us are thinking. In this case, it's the fact that the War on Drugs is an utter failure, misguided policy, and an incredibly expensive and fruitless undertaking.
It's going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out next year in the general election. Surely the Republicans will dredge up all the drug use reports that they can find on the Democratic nominee. At least, that's what Hillary wants everyone to believe about Obama's potential fate in 2008. It's doubtful that the public will fall for it. It obviously hasn't mattered that much in recent history - why should it now?
|