<p>Does anyone else get News & Notes on their public radio station? They were discussing this last night (basically agreeing this should be a non-issue, both because it wasn’t anything someone could dig up, and because in Obama’s generation that kind of experientation simply wasn’t that unusual). One of the conservative commentators said he himself had “certainly” done cocaine back in the day and “thoroughly enjoyed it.” He said he even missed it sometimes. It was actually kind of funny–the other guests sure sounded amused.</p>
<p>The troops (read: privates) on the ground want a troop surge because it is currently unsafe, and they are constantly being shot at, and the overwhelming majority of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds alike think it desirable to kill them. And the last thing they want to do is try to train the Iraqi army and police (GW has now abandoned that line too), because that makes it even more likely to be shot at. Safety in numbers.</p>
<p>The generals think more troops is a very bad idea. It absolves the Iraqi government (another euphemism) of responsibility for self-policing (funny how the occupiers feel it’s okay to blame the occupied for not cooperating). So it’s time to replace the generals.</p>
<p>So the Bush plan is “troop surge” and then “cut and run”. It’s what drunks do, overdose themselves, and then plead that they couldn’t help it. And, if they just had a little more time to sober up, or just one more drink tomorrow morning…</p>
<p>The former teen cocaine experimenter looks awfully good these days…</p>
<p>Now that we are in a New Year, I am no longer required to ask,</p>
<p>“What about Clinton?”</p>
<p>"Of course, he may have decided it is better to listen to his “voices” rather than the troops and generals on the ground.</p>
<p>Poor guy.</p>
<p>Stay the course."</p>
<p>You know, I have often wondered if the voices GW hears in his head aren’t messages from God about how to proceed. I wonder if he ever for a momment thought it was the other guy with the pitchfork giving advice. I mean, how do you know if the “burning bush” is actually the good burning bush that you should be listening to?</p>
<p>WIth her “Stand by Your Man” routine, Mother Hillary set the womens’ movement back 50 years. No thanks.</p>
<p>I much prefer family values guy who serially abandons sick wives to take up with new sweeties, or the 911 hero who invites his squeeze in for some hot-lovin’ at the mayor’s mansion while his wife and daughter occupy the space. Good examples for our nation’s youth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama might be wise to read about Senators Lieberman’s and Edwards’ good fortunes when accepting to be running mates of bad candidates. For Obama, the path of least resistance should NOT be the one traveled by a quasi-unelectable candidate. </p>
<p>Smart as he is, Obama should not stoop THAT low. Unfortunately, when it comes to selecting leaders, our country has shown it can, and probably will in the next elections.</p>
<p>In a totally unscientific observation of people I know, the republicans totally don’t care about the Obama admission, while the democrats are concerned that it may damage his chances.</p>
<p>The Republicans may see him as such a longshot for winning that they don’t care about his admission. The fact that he’s black does make the odds long against him for winning.</p>
<p>After what the Party of Appeasement and Family Values did to Harold Ford (maybe it should be called “RWB” - Running While Black) I’m sure he’s gotta think and rethink. But he’ll never be more qualified than he is today.</p>
<p>Mini, how do you think Harold Ford’s candidacy was affected by his family’s reputation?</p>
<p>I think the impact of his family’s reputation was well-established weeks before the election, and those whose votes were determined by it were already decided. It was racist ads, run by the Republicans, pure and simple, that determined the election. You can actually check the polling data pre- and post- and see exactly what happened.</p>
<p>Race is still the third rail of American politics.</p>
<p>(How much do you think George Allen’s election was affected by his family’s reputation?)</p>
<p>“(How much do you think George Allen’s election was affected by his family’s reputation?)”</p>
<p>Was this intended to be snarky? Maybe I took it the wrong way? I’m not familiar with southern politics and hadn’t known of Mr. Ford’s family issues until after the election, so I was asking for information purposes and not as a shot to you.</p>
<p>No, it was a serious question. I think George Allen’s election WAS affected - positively - by his family’s reputation, but those who would be so affected in terms of their voting had made up their minds long, long ago. Same with Harold Ford, who was already extremely well-known in his state, as was his family.</p>
<p>What was NEW were the Republican racist tv ads. And they worked, almost instantaneously. Bob Corker is very pleased.</p>
<p>(P.S. I am not a Democrat, and am no fan of Harold Ford.)</p>
<p>Mini thanks for answering so courteously. My only (worthless) insight on George Allen is that I don’t think he would have been elected in the first place on his own merits. I sort of vaguely heard about the Ford ads (that was during the time of my diagnosis) but haven’t seen them, so that’s why I’m not up-to-speed on them.</p>
<p>They were really, really ugly. Hope the treatment is going well. My wife’s seems to be, though it is a long row to hoe.</p>
<p>Mini, I’m a registered Republican but agree that McCain’s past and definitely Giuliani’s (mistress as a First Lady? huh?) will come back to bite them in the b***s.</p>
<p>If Hillary set back the women’s is movement 50 years, Newt’s actions put them back in the Dark Ages (on second thought, this may be the Dark Ages. ;))</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>I’ve been informed by many that I’m not allowed to post on a political thread (I wish I knew why, but…I don’t), so it’s risky for me to do this, but here goes: The racist part about the Ford ad was the interpretation by Democrats that a white woman was used to appeal to racist Southerners–the idea that putting a white woman and a black man together in an ad is somehow ipso facto intentionally meant to appeal to racists. That interpretation is what is racist. ;)</p>
<p>HH: bullfeathers. Visually linking a black man and a white woman in small-town redneck Tennessee is like waving a gazelle haunch in front of a hungry lion. </p>
<p>We’ve come along way since I attended a very recently desegregated-in-law elementary school in the South…but some places have come further than others. The attitudes of many small-town Southern white males still verges on Paleolithic from my perspective. Look at the cross-tabs on the Corker-Ford election…</p>
<p>Don’t buy it: the ad was aimed at our famous “family values” folks. The woman at the end could’ve been black or white, no matter. I wasn’t fond of the ad myself; it was silly and obvious. But there is no way to prove that it was intended to be racist.</p>
<p>Look for more of the same when Obama runs. Every single criticism leveled by Republicans (any chance maybe he’s not experienced or qualified enough?) will be charged as racist by the Democrats.</p>
<p>Won’t be pretty–but not because of the Republicans.</p>