2 Good reasons I will NEVER SUPPORT OBAMA!

As I have said before, experimental use of drugs is considered normal. Now, I'm not saying that that makes you abnormal but some of your posts are pointing in that direction. There is a difference between the experimental use of drugs (which is normal) and addiction which is considered a diagnosable disease. Everyone I know has made mistakes. The wise ones have learned from them and grown from the experience. Our generation and the youth coming up have rejected the status quo "Do as I say," as well as rejecting "Do what I do." We have seen injustice, corruption, and disempowerment and we want to reject it all. At times we may make the wrong choice but change is impossible if we keep doing things the same way it's always been done.
I watched the video of Obama you posted above. It appears that he is watching a performance. I noticed he was singing along. I too have stood respectfully through the National Anthem as it was performed without realizing that I had not placed my hand over my heart. It was not a sign of disrespect, it was quite simply an over sight.
Please, Mr. P Edward Murray, get over yourself!

used drugs. So you never voted for them, right?

And how do you know that Hillary didn't use drug? Just because she didn't tell ya?
Bahahaha. Because she is that honest, right?

Gore doesn't support Hillary for a good reason: she supported the war when it was politically safe and she started to oppose it when that became politically safe and now she lies about what she voted for the IWR.

Remember Gore's speech in SF! Remember what Hillary did afterward!

This was no small deal. If this doesn't matter when we pick a president what exactly should matter?

When was the first time you heard HIllary say that Bush misused the authority she and others gave him?
Not on March 17, 2003, right?

Why not? If she wanted inspections not war why didn't she protest then?
Not just years later when the war was no longer popular but when Bush actually pulled the inspectors out.

How do you refute this:

Why Hillary's war vote excuses do not fly

She didn't read the classified 90 page NIE as she was supposed to read. Sen. Bob Graham begged the senators to read it before voting on the IWR. More about the NIE here.

She voted for the IWR/AUMF which was a blank check authorization for war and it's title reads: "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." Floor speech (video)
She voted against the Levin amendment (which was a multilateral approach). See: The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

She voted against the Durbin amendment whose purpose was: "To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Saddam was not imminent threat, and hence that amendment would have prevented a war.

On March 6, 2003, as UN inspectors were already reporting by then (news reports were coming by late Feb, 2003) that no WMD or nuclear weapons/programs could be found, she was asking Saddam to "disarm", instead of demanding Bush not to invade until the inspections were completed 100% on which Blix was only asking for a couple of months to wrap up the inspections effort.

On March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion, despite the UN inspector reports, she demanded Saddam to accept Bush's "ultimatum" instead of telling Bush NOT to go in.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/2/1/15738/00109/89#c89

She will play the same political game with climate change. Since it's not politically beneficial
to address that issue she won't do it.

And you trash Obama for his drug use -- a "crime" both Bill Clinton and Al Gore committed?

Grow up and try not to be a hypocrite.

THE NEW REPUBLIC
The Bogarting Candidate
by Michael Currie Schaffer
Barack Obama's past drug use is no major sin. But his recent dissembling about it is.
Post Date Monday, December 31, 2007

DISCUSS ARTICLE [32] | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE

You have to hand it to Bill Shaheen. Hillary Clinton's former New Hampshire campaign co-chair may have demonstrated a blunderously poor understanding of the national Democratic electorate, but the remarks that led to his resignation earlier this month showed off a decent awareness of the everyday logistics of drug use. Shaheen, of course, stepped down after suggesting that Obama's candor about his youthful drug use would open him up to other questions in the general election: "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' " he said.

Naturally, Clinton soon dropped Shaheen like so many stems from a dime bag--but not before the ensuing controversy opened her campaign up to charges of negative campaigning, drug-war myopia, and racial bias. (Among dozens of pols who admit drug use, why does only the African American get accused of possibly being a dealer?) The jury is still out on the political implications of the kerfluffle. But at the very least it has earned Obama another round of praise for his drug-use honesty, a distinct point of contrast with the New York Senator's husband.

Or is it? Soon after Shaheen resigned, The New York Times reported that a campaign spokesman declared that Obama had stopped using dope in college at around age 20 and "did not share/distribute drugs." Which seems fine enough--until you think about it.

Imagine the scene: It's 1981 and there you are at some dorm party. Your friend is there, too, and he's getting ready to smoke up. He never offers you any? Really? A popular, gregarious sort like the classmate who'll go on to rally communities and lead the law review? While "I didn't share" is hardly a whopper along the lines of "I didn't inhale," it's still something of a stretch. College may be a time of cash-strapped cheapskatery, and Obama's adolescence may have involved no shortage of introspective searching, but no one goes an entire undergraduate career without offering one wee little hit to the next guy on the dorm-room couch.

Not that this is a bad thing. Obama went to college in the late seventies and early eighties. Those were also the days before dope, rightly or wrongly, came to be demonized, in the overheated tones of the "Just Say No" era, as the nation's top public enemy. Recreational drug use was, to use the political handler's favorite term, mainstream--far more mainstream, for better or worse, than the abstemious childhoods of Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Against that backdrop, it was a lot better for a drug-using pol to have been a generous citizen of his era rather than an up-tight hoarder. The picture of a young man who shared a bit here and there is far more comforting than the image of someone getting high all alone.

The sad thing about the Shaheen controversy--and even about Obama's role as the victim in the whole affair--is that it shows how, after two decades of candidates tiptoeing towards honesty about personal vices, the political system still can't seem to handle it.

In 1987, the first major baby boom presidential candidate, Al Gore, drew great praise for acknowledging his own youthful marijuana use. Of course, the candor turned out to have been intricately stage-managed by a campaign fearful of the fate that befell Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew his candidacy after acknowledging adult dope-smoking. In a 2000 biography of Gore, Bill Turque describes frantic campaign conversations about how to acknowledging Gore's drug use while shading the truth about its extent and how much he had actually liked it. Gore ultimately called it "infrequent and rare" and added that "when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Still, Gore did a lot better than the first two members of his cohort to actually make it to the White House. Bill Clinton embarrassed himself by declaring that he had smoked but hadn't inhaled. (It would actually be more embarrassing if it were true, as that would imply a guy who picked up the joint just to impress peers). George W. Bush, with a chemical history that is probably rockier than any other major politician of his generation, declared the whole subject verboten in the name of the children.

By contrast, Obama--until now--has been an inspiration. His autobiography doesn't just mention pot and blow; it meditates on the meaning behind the depressive world of the youthful narrator. "The highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was," he writes. "I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory."

Here's hoping Obama, whose candor could do so much to reclaim the White House for those human enough to have engaged in ordinary young-adult tomfoolery, doesn't let the drug politics of election season further blur those edges. What "didn't inhale" and "didn't share" have in common is that both involve wishing away the realities of life out of some overwrought fear that voters will be too simplistic to understand. Push those fairy-tale expectations to their logical conclusion and you wind up with a politics that accepts nothing but campaign-trail automatons. In the Obama narrative, he's the one who's supposed to defeat the robot.

Michael Currie Schaffer is working on a book about the pet industry.

© The New Republic 2007

it's not like he's trying to say he didn't inhale or that he didn't have sex with someone just because it was a blowjob .

At least Barack Obama said he did that in his high school days. He wrote that in his book. Obama is

honest and trustworthy. And you say you support Hillary, the Scandal Queen. America is behind Barack

Obama and his three wins last night proved it, Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska.