Obama Admits to Coke Use

Well, he did write a book that outlines his policies.

You can blame America's superficial approach to politics for a lack of subcutaneous info.

Obama is black? Next you're gonna tell me he's planning to run against Hillary or something, or that he has a real estate scandal hes keeping hush-hush. You kidder you!

JeezyChreezy, I loved your phrase:

a lack of subcutaneous info

I'll have to remember that one.

Yes, it's funny that the only things you hear about are "Barack did coke, oh and he's black. Don't worry though, a nice black man (that did coke)." I've researched a lot, found a little, and still don't know what to think.

But when it comes to a white person, how much [real] information can you find there? Still not that much. The main difference is that people aren't focused on their faults as much...for some reason.

and all i hear from the right is how his name sounds like osama mixed with saddam.
You can see the legisilation he sponcered here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
how he voted
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/
here is how the groups rate him and more on how he voted
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

seriously this is why we have the net, the no online people can say "well i dont know what he stands for, all i have heard he is black. But us online peeps have somethign called google and if i dont know enough about someone or something, if i think i am being advertised too, lied too or have info kept from, i turn to google.
If you read my links, you will know more about the man than 90% of americans.

My bad on the last link, he hasnt been in office long enough to have a ratings but you do get some votes and quotes on the issues.

His Senate page: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/:

More of the same old same old:

Defense

With the nation facing unprecedented threats, our military needs to remain the world's best. We must adapt the Pentagon to face 21st century threats such as global terrorists and loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet states. Senator Obama is working to ensure that the nation's defense capabilities are strong, agile, and prepared and that our troops are provided with the equipment they need.

Crime

Senator Obama is a strong proponent of tougher measures to fight crime, in particular the growing problem of methamphetamines, which has ravaged many communities in Illinois. He has also advocated providing more resources to local law enforcement officers.

Homeland Security

Senator Obama believes that greater attention needs to be paid to the nation's homeland security. To that end, he has supported efforts to distribute more funds to cities like Chicago most at risk of a terrorist attack. He has also introduced legislation to strength chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.

I love the rank hypocrisy, "sure I did coke and weed, but that methamphetamine is the devil, we need to bust all those people". He sounds positively Republican on defense, crime, and homeland security.

Good links. Google and the internet are definitely an amazing combination. I still don't get how that 90% think this is still some sort of secret...all you have to know it google.com and how to type, really.

The only question that remains is what to trust...

The common strategy at this point is to just be likable. I would prefer that all those running were more upfront about their policies and stance on issues but that will come later. Plus, if you look passed the media, listen to his podcasts, what he says in interviews, and read his book, you'll understand his policies.

seriously this is why we have the net, the no online people can say "well i dont know what he stands for, all i have heard he is black. But us online peeps have somethign called google and if i dont know enough about someone or something, if i think i am being advertised too, lied too or have info kept from, i turn to google.
If you read my links, you will know more about the man than 90% of americans.

I'm sorry, but if a candidate wants to be taken seriously then he has to publicly state what his positions are, and not just write them in a book. If we don't know, then he's either hiding his true intentions or he has the worst PR people in the world.

Right now it's early and he hasn't even officially declared. But if we still don't know what he stands for come the primaries, then you really have to question whether he is just trying to get by on looks, likability and being uncontroversial.

you just said it.... and do you live in ill?
why should we know his policies if we didnt look and he is not runnign for pres?
Most of the push for his presidency isnt coming from him.
How about guiliani, do we know his policies? Hilary? condi?
Seriously let the man annouce before you comaplin he is being secretive.
I dont know the policies of a majority for people in congress
should they be more open in case they run for president?
Should netowrks give them more time so i dont have to google how they voted?

I love the rank hypocrisy, "sure I did coke and weed, but that methamphetamine is the devil, we need to bust all those people". He sounds positively Republican on defense, crime, and homeland security.

There's a huge difference between doing coke and weed at some point in your life and being a meth user who is causing harm to their community due to their addiction or through creation and sales. That would be like saying that if you drink beer you can't disapprove of alcoholics who beat their wives.

Obviously he was able to do drugs and still become a productive member of society. He's a senator. I highly doubt that the meth abusers he is talking about stricter law enforcement for are going to become senators. If he was a coke dealer, maybe you could call him a hypocrite, but he's obviously not a detriment to society through his drug use.

And all Democrats are Republicans on Defense. Except Kucinich, and we all know how popular he is with Americans.

Deh Ehn, I've done both coke and meth in the past. They're both addictive stimulants. They can both hook you if you're stupid about it. One is not worse than the other. Are there people hooked on meth who are bad for their community? Sure. Are there people hooked on coke who are equally bad for their community? Sure. There's no real difference.

Please don't pretend that drug users are any different than drug dealers. You can't have drug users without drug dealers. Obama didn't just have it appear, he bought it from a dealer. The truth of the matter is though, that most 'dealers' are small time users selling to friends to make their stuff free. And the truth is that most drug users never have a single encounter with the cops. It's mostly completely invisible since people do it indoors. Almost all drug users are normal people next door, productive members of society.

So more enforcement is going to do what exactly? It's the default response of any politician. Cops cannot ever stop people from doing drugs. It just doesn't work. It's just money poured down the drain. Education and treatment facilities for those who find they're addicted are the only things that do anything about the numbers, and they don't do very much. I just find it ridiculous that anyone who used to do coke and knows that it didn't prevent him from being successful would come out in favor of busting people on meth.

what exactly are george bush's politics, as an example? he's been president for 6 years now and he still cant complete a sentence which outlines his basic views.

so: phht.

Cops cannot ever stop people from doing drugs. It just doesn't work. It's just money poured down the drain. Education and treatment facilities for those who find they're addicted are the only things that do anything about the numbers, and they don't do very much.

Yeah, I agree. Really the best policy would be to legalize the drugs so that they can be more closely monitored, maintained, safely sold and taxed. If someone has issues with their drug use they could then seek help instead of fearing retribution. Our society will have drug users no matter what we do and treating them like criminals only needlessly fills jails, wastes billions every year and drug use has only increased in the past four decades of the War on Drugs.

But of course any politician who ran on this solution or any other solution besides more enforcement and stricter laws might as well be a drug addict to a public ill informed of drugs in America. So yes I suppose he is a hypocrite but he's also a politician so that kinda comes with the territory.

Actually he's as much a white man as he is a black man, since his mother is white and his father is black.

Please don't pretend that drug users are any different than drug dealers.

No. Drug dealers and drug users are not the same. One deals drugs and one buys those drugs. See? Different.

If you want to go over "Near" and "Far," I know this wacked out crackhead who lives in the city. I think his name is Grover...

Mykola: I don't know what his issues are - all I hear is that he's really likeable, that he's black, that people like him, and that by the way he's black. It all kinda feels like marketing to me.

His stance on net neutrality is heartening - it's nice to know at least one person in congress knows how the hell the internet works.
His wesbite has his list of broad issues, but it doesn't take much digging to find his stance on more specific issues either.

The thing with Obama and the "marketing" feel though, is that he's not doing it himself. He's getting attention for acting like a real legislator instead of a politician out for himself.

I live in IL and have been a fan for a long time once I started learning more about him and had the chance to speak to him - he's one of the only chicago politicians who doesn't legislate only for Chicago (so tired of them ignoring the other towns and cities).

I tend to take a libertarian stance when it comes to drugs, but meth is one that always gets me. A meth lab can easily blow up and take out an entire city block. Combine that with the fact that it's usually meth heads making the meth, and it's enough to concern me. There's also the problem that buildings that house meth labs are unsafe to reuse and must be condemned for a long period of time - if the buyer even knows that there could be danger, which they may not. So this appears to be a drug that can heavily impact someone other than the drug user, which is why I tend to eye it a little more critically.

No. Drug dealers and drug users are not the same. One deals drugs and one buys those drugs. See? Different.

I meant in the sense of 'one is bad and one is not'. Neither one is. It makes no sense to be against drug dealers while giving drug users a pass. Drug users create the market demand for product, not the dealers. The line between the two is also not so clear cut. If your friend asks you to pick him up a dime bag of weed does that make you a dealer? And most of the non-pro dealers also use drugs. They may have one that they sell because they have a hook up, and another that they buy, because they don't have a good hookup.

why was my comment deleted?

I'm sorry, but if a candidate wants to be taken seriously then he has to publicly state what his positions are, and not just write them in a book.

Wait...what?

Yeah, I'm just as confused as spiffie over that comment. Isn't publicizing a book making in public? And therefore, making public his admitted drug experimentation? Just because it's not on TV doesn't mean it isn't public.

If you try Cocaine you're experimenting.

If you're hoovering off of the instrument panel of the air-reserve fighter your daddy got you into to avoid a war in South East Asia and then climbing down the ladder to do shots you've got a problem

Just... hypothetically speaking of course.

If you try Cocaine you're experimenting.

Now, I'm not going to condemn the man for this, but this doesn't sound like experimentation to me ...

"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.

LOL why always knocking down stra dems
has anyone stood up for william jefferson, the scum bag that likes to keep his money cool
Or how about marion barry, the crack head that amazing got reelected to office?
Who didnt make fun of clinton and his "i didnt inhale remark"?
which by the way obama said the opposite " i did inhale, that was the point" ..of smoking pot

Oh I knnow we should give bushy a break for his coke use because he is a republicans and dems do it too, or foley should be able to sleep with little boys because the dems did something simular 30 years ago.
I really dont care if obama or bush did coke, i like that obama would admit it. I really dont want someone that was completely sheltered from reality and you cant judge a man by the things he did as a kid. I do care if he still partakes, because you can judge a man for what he does now.

I'm sorry, Killfile. I should have realized law only applies to rich, white folk. It would be downright uncivilized not to make excuses for poor, young, urban hoodlums on dope.

"Experimentation" is exactly the type of rationalization I expect from hypocritical, partisan hacks.

Oh I knnow we should give bushy a break for his coke use because he is a republicans and dems do it too,

Only in your imagination, zippy. I'm a centrist and believe in obeying the law. If you bothered to read any of my posts before jerking that knee, you'd know this already.

If you try Cocaine you're experimenting.

No. If you try Cocaine, you can be President!

Seriously, our standards are so low now, after the past 30 years, the only people who DON'T have a chance to get elected are probably serial killers - and that's only if they've been caught.

I mean, just look at the past few days with the Gerald Ford funerals. People are looking back at an UNELECTED, FILL-IN President who was in office a whole two years and saying "damn, what a great guy he was - man those were the days..."

America is starved for real Patriots.

I don't see why he can't be against drugs, even though he did them in college. He realized his mistakes, its better then pushing a bill to legalize marijuana. He is just trying to keep them out of the hands of young people. Since the past few presidents we've had have had issues with drugs or alcohol (the alcohol one even got elected on moral platforms) we can't use this as an exclusion for him as president.

So long as they aren't overtly corrupt, like our current pres., and haven't done drugs for a while i think he's morally acceptable enough. No one in the senate has a spotless record for morality, no one on this planet does either.

as for your comment on Ford, when someone dies, their supporters will naturally say some kind last words. Its been less than a week since a president died, they'll be off of it in a few more days.

Uhh.... W was alcohol and Cocaine.

I don't see why he can't be against drugs, even though he did them in college.

Because if he'd done them and learned from the experience he would see that the ban we have is stupid. Here's someone who is being considered for president. If he had had the unfortunate bad luck to get busted by a cop during this period, he'd have been in jail, maybe for a year or two. That would have ended his presidential hopes. It wouldn't be the drugs that did it, it would just be our laws about them. I don't trust any politician who favors the drug war. But if they're a teetotaler I can at least understand why they might have their opinions. If they actually did it, I cannot fathom how they can still support our drug policies.

He is just trying to keep them out of the hands of young people.

Pot is easier for high school kids to get than alcohol is. Drug laws do the opposite of this goal.

Brian, maybe his experience with drugs taught him that they wreck lives?

Koozebane--

You know..."experimentation" is a fair term. Lots and lots of people "experiment" with drugs, whatever their race or economic background. I think (though I can't be sure) that the point Killfile was trying to make was that there is a difference between trying things, and being addicted to them, to an extent that it may affect your decisions for the rest of your life.

As for obeying the law...sometimes the law is wrong. I understand that as a politician, he is now doubly obligated to uphold the law he helps to create, but at the time he did coke, he was not a politician. If he were busted snorting a line in a rest area bathroom between speeches, I would be appalled at the hypocrisy. But as it is, he did something many, many Americans do. And the reason they continue to do it is because there is a fault in the culture, and in the laws governing that culture. Every other aspect of the man aside, there is no reason to condemn anyone (yes, that includes President Bush) for what no-victim laws they may have broken before entering office.

Experimentation should be a fair term.....if it's applied to all equally.

I see gossip and unproven allegations. I see excuses and minimalizing. I see it from the same people.

I've condemned no one but hypocrites who excuse what they also use to attack.

Burnt out coke head comments in 3...2...

Oh, wait!

He's a DEMOCRAT. That should cut down on the outrage and derision quite a bit.

Well, Bush was known for being a recovering alcoholic, but I'd also heard comments about cocaine addiction and other things floating around during his bid for Presidency. Very little was said about it, relatively speaking.

Very little?

You can buy t-shirts that rag about it.

I find this to be the very epitome of internet liberals' progressive ideals and philosophies.

Very little?

You can buy t-shirts that rag about it.

I find this to be the very epitome of internet liberals' progressive ideals and philosophies.

Lol, that's great Koozebane. I can buy a t-shirt that rags about pretty much anything, and I think you can find the "epitome of internet liberals' progressive ideals and philosophies' in most anything.

In his first election, when I actually, disgustingly enough, supported the guy, I wouldn't allow people to go after Bush as a recovering alcoholic, or for the prior cocaine addiction. It's sewer politics either way. He had a problem and he got over it, and your trying to turn this into an issue does not impress me.

I've never voted Republican, so I've never voted for a Bush in any election.

I believe the hypocrisy was demonstrated enough in this thread to get my point across.

Not everything I post needs to be a big deal or an "issue."

How do you assume he wrote that before any ambition of public office? He not only chose to write that he had...HAD a drug problem, but it was also only 11 year ago. Being about 35 years old at the time that he wrote this memoir, and now that he is in office (and possibly running for presidency), don't you think he had a pretty good idea of what his ambitions were at the time? You don't have to be in office to get credit for admitting a problem like this. He wrote this memoir as a precursor to explaining his political standpoint.

I think he deserves credit for achieving what he has, while still not trying to hide what he was. Snorting coke isn't an admirable thing, but he admits that. How many things do we know about many other politicians that someone had to dig up?

So as an answer to your question: if that book had never come out, he'd probably still hold value in honesty. Therefore, yes, I believe he could admit to his previous life. However, in the memoir he has a better chance of being heard (especially since it was out there long before now).

I think all politicians have something to hide, whether they write a memoir, make a movie, or publicly annouce a mistake on international TV. Some of these things should be of concern for a president, and some should not. An affair in the White House? Give me a break...there are more important things to worry about. An old coke habit that seems very likely to not return? Don't rule out a good man for an honest mistake of circumstance.

Gore's movie about global warming? Whether it's accurate or not, he's only trying to make this world better any way you look at it. Sure, he might have his own personal motivations--but if they help to get rid of pollution and global warming I'm not going to argue too much (as long as there isn't "collateral damage"). But he's only talking about becoming less reliant on the people we're at war with, so we have one less reason to be at war with them.

Too much finger-pointing and focusing on the stuff that shouldn't matter will only delay the process of making this society any better. Hell, if someone starts to slander someone else based on something like an old coke habit, I tend to tune out because I focus more on the current ambitions of a man...not previous circumstance.

It's not like he purposefully admitted it up front. He wrote it in a book years before he had any ambition of public office. I wonder if not for that book, would it ever come out, or rather come out voluntarily?

What the hell? He didnt purposefully admit it? HE WROTE IT IN A BOOK. How is that not purposefully admitting it?
No, now being a congressman, he doesn't go to each rally and say "I did coke, just so you know" and he doesn't need to. He hasn't bothered to hide it or cover it up, hasn't lied. What the hell more do you want out of the man?

There is Bush, who also talked of drug use, conviction of drunk driving, but it had to be forced out of him after quite some time, and quite a few missteps. Where is the outrage over his ambitions? Where is his "up front" admission?

Come to that, what about all the rest of the congressman who lie about it? I just don't understand how no one cares then, but his history is admitted and open, and yet, we're all gonna bitch.

What exactly was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing with spent fuel rods before? Throwing them in cardboard boxes out back?

There is no uniform protection procedures for all nuclear plants at this point. Kind of scary.

What exactly was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing with spent fuel rods before? Throwing them in cardboard boxes out back?

probably shipping them to Texas ranches.

What exactly was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing with spent fuel rods before? Throwing them in cardboard boxes out back?

You'd be surprised. In current designs, nuclear power plants have an operative life of about 30 years before key components become dangerously radioactive. At that point the plant must be decommissioned, or its entire reactor core replaced at great expense. To date, there is no solution regarding where to store spent power plant reactor cores. Compounding the storage problem is an accumulation of spent radioactive fuel rods, which have a life-span of only three years. Storage of radioactive waste is an ongoing problem, and there have been a number of incidents involving nuclear power that involved individuals forging logs, misplacing material, and so forth. The current plan is for disposal of spent fuel rods in some sort of deep geological structure, but those plans are proceeding at a snail's pace.

Newer reactor designs (such as the Pebble Bed Reactor) are a lot less problematic.

Bingo... Lincoln was a prime example of that.

that the ability to inspire, to lead, to listen and to deliberate is a personality trait, not a skill one learns in the political trenches.

I'd go so far to say that in fact they are complete opposites. The longer one spends in politics, the less that person listens or inspires.

the ability to inspire, to lead, to listen and to deliberate is a personality trait, not a skill one learns in the political trenches.

Nah. Those are skills that can be taught. Most books on public speaking written after 1980 cover all three. People are easily led; they want leaders. How inspiring a person is rests in how inspired they are, not their personality, and listening abilities in everyone are profound, the choice of how much to use them fluctuates according to motive daily.

Which is exactly why so many Democrats and Republicans in power are afraid of him. He might just turn over the rug and show what bugs have been crawling around from BOTH parties. I'm convinced that most politicians, when you get past the smiling and jawing for the cameras, DON'T want an honest conversation with the voter - because then we'll all realize how little they are doing for our benefit - or that they are idiots who don't really understand the issues they are signing into law. (cough. PATRIOT act. cough. DMCA. cough again.)

I have a feeling that he'll get blasted in the primaries by the Clinton Machine (without anyone knowing it was the Clinton Machine, just like Dean in 2004) and at best will become the VP candidate to Hillary. (which means the Dems will lose)

You're a bit right. I'm feel less uncomfortable with Obama's coke use although on a personal level I greatly disapprove. Additionally, I've been under this former coke abusing president for a number of years, so maybe I've just become desensitized to the issue.

Reformed??

I love typing out a very well thought out comment just to have spell check destroy it!

Mike! How about a little client side checking to ensure that spell check doesn't return this Http/1.1 message!!

that would be nice..... as would maintaining session variables when the server barfs on submit so that you do not lose what you typed.

Session variables wouldn't do much good when the server itself takes a crap. Newsvine seems to have been lucky enough not to have any lasting server glitches otherwise Mr. Davidson would have certainly Added in a check to the client side in case there was an error on the server side.

Anyways.. the gist of what I had posted is that I like Obama but he is not seasoned enough to make a run for office. Given his admission of drug use I would not vote for him unless he had an extremely long history and a proven track record. If he ran he would never get elected. If he did get elected solely because he is a democrat and is popular right now then it would be potential disaster.

The fact that this information was just made known only means that he had fears about it coming out later. There is no honor is drug use and it's no great act to share that information with people. It does not reflect strength of character. It just means that he had friends into bad @!$%# and joined in right along side them. Lets not pat him on the back for this. He may indeed make a fine presidential candidate someday but could we at least watch his career for a little while to make sure he doesn't give in to peer pressure as easily nowadays?

I don't understand what you mean "that he had fears about it coming out later." It was out there, in a published memoir. There are few forms of information so permanent as a book. I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't hiding it.

well... by barf I was not meaning entire failure... I should have said "when doComment barfs"

you do not need political experience to be a good president most of the worst presidents in history have been politically experienced. Many of the best have been equally inexperienced.

Just about every president up until Bush came into office was an articulate speaker.

Surprisingly Bush was a very strong speaker before his presidency, and many of his non-taped speeches are actually quite good when you hear them. It's almost as if the video cameras have a psychological effect on him.

no... He speaks well when he is comfortable with the topic.

Seriously. The pansy wouldn't even try smack.

he never actually went to re-hab for them... he claims finding Jesus is what allowed him to bare-knuckle it.

Someday I hope that we Fresca drinkers will have a candidate of our own... but it's a two party system. (*Sad sigh*)