Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton NH Co-Chair on Obama's Cocaine Use: "Did You Sell Drugs?", Clinton Refuses to Condem Words

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:50 PM
Original message
Clinton NH Co-Chair on Obama's Cocaine Use: "Did You Sell Drugs?", Clinton Refuses to Condem Words
The wheels are coming off the Clinton campaign - this is the state co-chair, the husband of Jean Shaheen! Clinton has not asked him to resign

In the course of a hotly contested primary season, it's natural for the rhetoric to become increasingly heated and the attacks more direct. And apparently when a campaign is losing ground every day to their opponent, some think that trotting out a Republican line of attack will stop the bleeding. Such was the case earlier today when the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire said of Barack Obama:

The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."




It's hard to say which is the most offensive part about this "concern" from Shaheen. Perhaps that he ignores that it was Obama himself who opened the door when he wrote his autobiography, and that he has used that chapter in his life to convince young people that drugs are a waste of time:

You know, I made some bad decisions.... You know, got into drinking and experimenting with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time where I didnt apply myself. It wasnt until I got out of ... high school, and went to college that I started realizing, man, I wasted a lot of time...I realized if I had spent a little more time reading, and studying that I could actually have some influence in the world.

Or perhaps it's that Shaheen talks about Republican dirty tricks as he himself is engaging in them. Or maybe it's the implication that Obama should follow George Bush's lead and be secretive and dishonest. Does a Clinton co-chair really want to stay that course?

The Clinton campaign issued a statement saying:

Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.

So, the comments were not authorized or condoned, but then again, they weren't condemned, were they? And will Billy Shaheen, who is no political innocent, pay any price for his comments? Or was this a directed hit from a floundering campaign?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/19335/388/717/...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nah the clinton crew smoked dope but didn't inhale
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. That was his first lie... bigger than his "I didn't have sex with that woman"...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is acceptable fodder for a campaign.
His admitted criminal violations and drug use are issues that should be addressed. Can you imagine if Clinton admitted to drug use? DU would implode with attacks and the media would be in a constant tizzy about a white house presidential candidate admitting to a felony.

What ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You keep right on spewing that garbage. I hope your candidates campaign continues it
She looks like a total ASS.

She is shooting herself in the foot!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Lovely. DU is such a great place to come and discuss issues
among friends

"spew" "garbage" "ass"

It has been such a pleasure talking about these issues with you Windy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You don't want to discuss the issues Evergreen.
This is NOT an issue and should not be an issue in this campaign.

yes, I am extremely frustrated with the behavior of Clinton supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Which isn't an issue? Your inappropriate behavior or Obama's?
Why is his drug use not an issue? His past behavior is a direct reflection of who he is.

Come on now. Really--you guys have never held back on Clinton. Is there one thing you ever suggested was not appropriate discussion?

I do not understand why it isn't an issue. He brought it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. It's not the issue itself , it's the way it was brought up.
He brought it up awhile ago, and suddenly just now it's important to vet him? This is a true "concern" type issue if there ever was one.

What did you think of this thread that was locked?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Does the vetting excuse still hold up? Is it so hard to see how both issues are being used against a democrat ?

This stuff does the Republicans work for them. I don't like anyone doing this stuff, and if you search my posts you'll find I've defended Clinton, Edwards and Obama pretty equally. Hillary and Obama are at the bottom of my list. I would like to see someone else win besides them, but not by means like this. Stories like this are used to manipulate us (and don't think anyone is immune from that, myself included) and I don't like it coming from our side anymore than from the Right. In fact, I dislike it more from us, because we stand for the right things and this just cheapens the party and turns people off to politics as a whole, not just one party or the other.

Obama has spoken about it and addressed it before. He's trying to be open and honest with people for what he admits are mistakes, and instead of working with that theme to truly help people someone in the Hillary campaign has decided to use it as a cheap political ploy to smear a fellow Democrat. It's bullshit when ANYONE does it and we, and the candidates, would be better served to stick to the issues that really matter. There's war, global warming, genocide in Darfur, a clusterfuck in the middle east...do you really give a shit if Obama did drugs in high school? I don't care if he drank the damn bongwater.

None of the candidates are perfect, and acting like there's only one that is is a fool's game, and we can't really afford to play it anymore. There's nothing with honest disagreements on issues and policy and past actions, but we need to be fair to all of our candidates as best we can and not buy into this kind of thing even when, or especially when, it comes from our side. It doesn't help any of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent questions. They need to be asked now, not later. Good idea. Get it out there.
Another good question would be, "Will you pardon all non-violent drug offenders in the USA and fully restore their right to vote?"

It is time to end Nixon's war on political enemies, the war on drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. speaking of getting it out there ... what's up with those NYT and LAT stories about Bill's affairs?
Huffington Post said they're sitting on big stories about Bill's ongoing affairs... just when are they planning on printing those? After Hillary is nominated? It's none of our business, but heck, if they're gonna print them at some point, please print them before the nominee is decided! Get it all out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow....your headline is a complete lie...."Clinton refuses to condemn words"
The Clinton camp has condemned that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Nope, this is how she condemns things, by saying it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2174603 /

This is in the context of the MoveOn ad (not trying to resurrect that issue, just pointing out the usage of terms):

"I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country," she told Tim Russert. "I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that."


NB: I posted this in another thread and would have linked there but, uh, don't know how (sorry!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. No it hasn't -- it just says it does not condone it, 2 different things!
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 10:27 PM by Dems Will Win
"These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

It does not say the campaign condemns this or asked the co-chair to apologize or step down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. Boy, this is going to be a great election.
:popcorn: :popcorn:

(Where were these people both times Bush/Cheney was running?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I work for workers Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's a valid question.
The fact that Obama is an admitted drug user who still (so far as I can tell) supports the war on drugs makes me rejoice every time his name gets dragged through the mud on this issue. He should be the poster child for legalization, but instead that honor goes to... nobody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. pfftttt
Obama is advocating restructuring sentencing to reflect parity in an otherwise racist legal system. Plus he advocates decriminalization of 'soft drugs'. I'm a lowly college student and actually look shit like that up. Inform yourself, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I work for workers Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Coke is not a soft drug. Obama should live up to his own standards.
Nothing annoys me like politicians who talk about "soft drugs" and pretend there is some sort of arbitrary difference between narcotics. It just shows they don't get why we need legalization. It's not because some drugs aren't bad and some are, it's because prohibition doesn't work.

This criticism is just as valid against almost any other candidate and politician. It just irritates me in particular that Obama, who should know that hard drug use doesn't guarantee a destroyed future, still won't denounce the failed drug war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. ya well he understands the unequal sentencing and will fix it
and he did coke and pot as a teenager not as an adult
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I work for workers Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. How many teens end up ruining their lives because of our stupid drug laws?
It's not just the ones who end up in jail, though there are plenty of them. If you have any drug convictions, you can't get federal college money. If you're poor, no college money very well could equal no college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. you need to acquaint yourself with Obama's platform because you are mis or uninformed.
You are complaining about stuff he addresses and you are mischaracterizing him in the process. But I guess that's how politics are played around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Obama does not support the War on Drugs. Learn some facts.
He has said time and again he will work to decriminalize "soft" drugs and eliminate mandatory sentencing in favor of treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. So, you are saying Clinton was asked to condemn this and she refused?
Or "but then again, they weren't condemned, were they?" . . .there is a difference, and it is a major one. I am not a Clinton supporter but it appears this headline is not accurate by any means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. "Well Now ...This is another fine mess you got us into" ... This will lead to even more revelations
While I believe that damaging and embarrassing information in a Candidate's background SHOULD be dislodged and exposed during the race for the Party Nomination --AND NOT for the first time AFTER the Nomination has been bestowed on Candidate, once this step is taken there is a logical next step here.....

Since the questions are coming from Hillary, or one of her surrogates, she needs to be prepared to answer equally personal and possibly embarrassing questions from the target's campaign.

Imagine for a moment the boundless limits of these questions "once the gloves are off."

You don't have to push hard to imagine that her personal relationships are now going to be placed under the public microscope. What she knew and when she knew it about Bill's dalliances with other women? Who she has been with romantically since she ran for the Senate since she and Bill no longer live together? Have any of her 'romantic' relationship partners contributed to her campaign? Have they lobbied her on behalf of corporate/business interests while she was in the Senate? What has been her own use of drugs? Who has used drugs around her and she ignored it?

And if she fails to answer these questions it will conjure the appearance that she is hiding something.

THis is indeed a very prickly field in which Hillary may find herself.

This is why rival candidates in the past has agreed upon 'a truce' regarding such questions.

I guess tomorrow's Debate will tell the tale....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
22. Amazing that the wife of Mr. "I Didn't Inhale" would pull this crap.
Of course he inhaled. At least Obama didn't need to lie about his past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Feb 23rd 2020, 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC