home

Clinton Advisor Apologizes for Obama Comments

A big mistep by New Hampshire Clinton advisor Michael Sheehan today.

He said voters should study Mr. Obama’s background as they chose a candidate, warning that Republicans would scour for new details about a period of Mr. Obama’s life more than 20 years ago when he admitted using marijuana and cocaine. According to The Post’s Web site, Mr. Shaheen said, “It’ll be: ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”

The most important part of the story:

Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said, “These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.”

....In a statement later, Mr. Shaheen said, “I deeply regret the comments I made today, and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way.”

< R.I.P. Ike Turner | Larry Craig Blocks Bush Pick for ATF Chief >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Given a choice..... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:21:20 AM EST
    between a candidate who never touched an intoxicant in his/her life, and a candidate who admits to some totally normal youthful experimentation with intoxicants, with all else being equal, I'm choosing the normal person with the normal youthful experimentation everytime.  

    Because the straight edge candidate is either lying or too far out of the mainstream to lead this country.  Let's be honest, if you were a teenager in the 60's/70's and didn't experiment with intoxicants you are a weirdo.

    I hope youthful indiscretion does not (3.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    commonly include multiple uses of cocaine.

    Parent
    Wow... (4.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    I was in high school/college in the late 70's and early 80's--in the heart of middle America, mind you--and the use of cocaine "multiple" times was not that infrequent or unheard of.  

    We're not talking big city slum dwellers or coastal elites or anything.  Just run of the mill, typical, middle class Midwestern kids that are now very productive member of society.  It was part of growing up at the time.

    Hoping that people won't experiment with drugs and/or alcohol is like hoping your kids won't ever have sex.  

    Parent

    That's educational. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    We on the Mississippi River in SE Iowa in an earlier era, led such tame and boring lives. Same re U of M, at least to my knowledge.

    Parent
    Part of the president's job.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    is setting drug policy.  

    Do we really want the person setting drug policy to have never tried drugs?  Shouldn't the person setting policy have a clue?

    Parent

    Firearms policy, decisions re use of military (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:37:11 PM EST
    forces, torture et al.

    Parent
    Point taken..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    we'll never find a candidate with experience in everything....but drugs is an easy one:)

    Parent
    Not on my "must have done" list of (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    prerequisites for a President.

    Parent
    Well it's certainly..... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    high on mine:)

    Mike Bloomberg ain't my favorite mayor, but I gotta respect him for the way he answered this very question.  Not only did he admit smoking reefer, he admitted enjoying it and was unapologetic.  

    I won't vote for Obama, but I can respect the honesty and the normalcy.  Hillary on the other hand...  

    Parent

    Part of the President's job also includes: (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    setting military policy and  farm policy. Do we need all presidents to farmer-soldiers too?  What about policy on crime generally? Only cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers or  criminals?  

      What about health policy? Education policy? Trade policy? Environmental policy? Housing policy? finance policy? ............

      If you can find someone with prior first-hand exeperience in every aspect which a President plays a role in setting policy, let us know about him.

    Parent

    Again.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    point taken.

    Well done Secretary of Bullsh*t Eradication Decon:)

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    I think the Clinton campaign's distancing from the remarks is entirely too weak and that they are apparently choosing to allow Shaheen to remain in the campaign due to the political organization of former Gov. Shaheen.

    It is a cynical and contemptible choice.

    Shaheen should be asked to resign. Period.


    Long time no see (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    Why would they ask him to resign? It looks like they told him to do it.
    Thomas B. Edsall the day before Shaheen launched this line of attack.

    The Clinton campaign email did not spell out Obama's "shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements," but other Democratic activists have quietly received messages from Clinton allies pointing in the likely direction. Those messages provided a link to an Iowa Independent story by Douglas Burns headlined "The Politics Of Obama's Past Cocaine Use."

    It seems like Hillaryland has a group think problem. How do they think these attacks are a good idea?

    Parent

    So they saw (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    the line of attack wasn't going well and backed off!  He is a campaign chair, this isn't some intern.  Sorry I don't buy that her campaign didn't plan this.  Sheehen is too high up for that to be plausible

    of course you wouldn't (3.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:08:23 PM EST
    you're an Obama supporter.

    Parent
    Clinton propaganda (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:37:34 PM EST
    I know you blindly accept Clinton campaign press releases as true.  But seeing as how Thomas B. Edsall over at Huffpost predicted it was coming based on Clinton campaign officials statements, I don't think that statement holds water.  Read his article from before this pathetic attack here

    The Clinton campaign email did not spell out Obama's "shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements," but other Democratic activists have quietly received messages from Clinton allies pointing in the likely direction. Those messages provided a link to an Iowa Independent story by Douglas Burns headlined "The Politics Of Obama's Past Cocaine Use."

    So either Mr. Edsall is psychic, or this was a planned statement.

    Parent

    Sorry, that doesn't hold water (none / 0) (#8)
    by DA in LA on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:01:11 AM EST
    Based on all of your past comments on Edwards going negative...come on.

    This isn't some amateur making the comments.  This is a seasoned pro who is high up in her campaign.  And it is revolting.

    I am not at all surprised


    Parent

    no doubt the most significant part (4.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:53:59 AM EST
      of the entire story is a spokesman denying the comments were authorized or condoned and the apology.

      Similarly, when an agent of a corporation does something to injure a person, the most significant part of the story is that corporation denies authorizing or condoning the conduct and the agent apologizes.

      Or, the most significant part of a story about police brutality is  a police spokesman stating the brutality was not authorized or condoned and the police apologizing .

      Or....

      In the history of incredibly lame and foolish spin, that "most important" nonsense is Hallof Fame material.

      This week, TL seems hellbent on repeatedly shooting itself in the foot with credibility destroying words and acts.

    Shaheen resigned (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    I won't vote for HRC & this is TYPICAL (none / 0) (#2)
    by seabos84 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    dlc crud ---

    don't say or do anything cuz the thugs will lie, scare the middle, and we'll lose.

    even if this fool actually spouted off, which I have NO faith in,

    the whole clinton mindset is 1 of fear ...

    well ... kind of ...

    actually, what their mindset is 'how can we stay in the front of the trough' cuz life is a lot more fun jetting around to cool places eating and hob nobbing than it is sitting home after working all day, fried, after busting it trying to do a good job / not get fired.

    they stumbled into this 'don't do that or we'll lose' theme during the dukakis ascendancy and even when they won they accomplished very very very little of lasting value.

    sure, they weren't as bad as the fascists, but

    another 30 years like the last and we're gonna be like brazil or nigeria.

    yuk on hrc.

    rmm

    bad form? yeah, probably. (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:14:59 PM EST
    true? yeppers. you don't think the rove machine, and the 527's will wage a scorched-earth campaign against obama, digging up every piece of dirt, regardless of how unsubstantiated or irrelevant it may be?

    if you don't think they'll do that, you need serious professional medical help.

    I'm sure they will try to use it (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:41:32 PM EST
    But just like this attempt from the Clinton campaign is falling flat, and the attempts to attack GW Bush of his past drug use, didn't work, it isn't going to matter.

    Ohh how could I forget, just like it didn't hurt Mr. but I didn't inhale, to have smoked pot, NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE!

    Parent

    Where is the condemnation? Let's see the dirt. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Aaron on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    Notice that the Clinton people stop short of condemning these attacks, which would be the correct tactic, if they're really interested in taking the high ground.

    The Clinton campaign keeps hinting that they've got some kind of dirt on Obama, well let's have it.  No point in waiting till your 10 points behind in the polls before you spring it. If they've got something which places Barack Obama in a bad light, let's get it out now, don't save it for the Republicans to use.


    Clueless (none / 0) (#9)
    by koshembos on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:02:34 AM EST
    It's yet another indication for the mishandling of the campaign by the whole Hillary campaign team that includes Saheen and Penn. From day one, it was a campaign of positions instead of one of issues and ideas.

    Not surprising, a relatively vulnerable candidate such as Obama who runs the same campaign Bush ran in 2000 is doing well while missing crucial votes in the Senate, lacking any real appeal to progressives, supporting the war in Iraq in 2004-2005, etc.

    When will the Democrats learn to run campaigns and stop nonsense such drug use way back in the past?

    what? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    supporting the war in Iraq in 2004-2005

    I don't know if you now this, but most democrats who voted against the war voted for funding in 2004-2005, in fact i think all in the senate did.

    Not surprising, a relatively vulnerable candidate such as Obama who runs the same campaign Bush ran in 2000

    Is that the line from the Obama haters these days?  is it frustrating when your talking points are so off they don't get any traction? If he is so vulnerable, why cant the Clintons who are supposed to be the best most experienced campaigners take him down?

    Parent

    what "dirty tactics"? (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:50:41 AM EST
    sen. obama opened the door, with his public admissions of past drug abuse, and use of illegal narcotics. why is everyone supposed to tippy-toe around and act like he didn't? "alice, meet wonderland."

    one could argue that, by openly admitting his "youthful indiscretions", obama has vaccinated himself against campaign tactics using that as a base. on the other hand, there's the "where there's smoke, there's most likely a fire" issue: what else is going on, that he hasn't mentioned, that's going to be brought up during a general campaign?

    sen. obama already has two big hurdles to overcome: he's a black male, and he's young and inexperienced. throw in the "radical muslim school" nonsense, the admitted drug use, etc., and you can almost see those two or three gears in the putrid, stinking mass that passes for rove's mind cranking.

    bet on it.

    that is so sweet of the clinton campaign (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    She claims that since republicans will be bring up irrelevant racist stuff, she is going to do it for them as a favor.

    sen. obama already has two big hurdles to overcome: he's a black male, and he's young and inexperienced. throw in the "radical muslim school" nonsense, the admitted drug use, etc., and you can almost see those two or three gears in the putrid, stinking mass that passes for rove's mind cranking.

    Is this the best reasoning there is, I Should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is old and white?  I think HIlary's campaign would be better off telling others what she has to offer rather then lashing out at Obama.


    Parent

    Racial Coding (none / 0) (#12)
    by norbizness on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:34:16 AM EST
    Did anyone ask whether Bill Clinton was "selling drugs" after he made his weird non-admission to smoking marijuana? Strange how that happens.

    BTW, why are some so willingly naive when it comes to a corporate Democratic primary, but would magically regain our skepticism when an Atwater/Rove is involved? For Christ's sake, people.

    I completely caught that too (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    If Obama said something it wouldn't get traction but it is the first thing that comes to mind, he doesn't need to.  I don't think Shaheen meant it to be racist, but it was a racially insensitive remark.

    Parent
    No longer above the fray (none / 0) (#13)
    by byteb on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    Call me a cynic, but it's interesting with her lead fast disappearing in N.H., Billy Shaheen (co-chair of N.H. campaign) ponders to WaPo about the viability of Obama as a candidate while helpfully pointing out his (Obama's) past admitted drug use as a potential problem.

    Filled with concern, Shaheen wonders whether the nasty Republicans will attack Obama with selling drugs. Gosh, thanks Billy.

    Billy apologizes for his "Oops" moment,while Clinton hides behind plausible deniability.

    Shaheen should be fired. Period.

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:33:33 AM EST
    We now where the millions and millions of people in the U.S. who've tried cocaine, marijuana, etc., know what Clinton thinks of us.

    Hey, you wanna talk drugs? MENA!

    Ah, yes. (none / 0) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:41:54 AM EST
    Republicans might bring that stuff up. Heck, they might even do it in a really backhanded way, by warning us that less scrupulous Republicans might use it as an attack. Repeatedly.

    Thanks for warning us, Hillary! And then the classic Rovian fadeaway... oy vay.

    In other news, Edwards said voters should study Hillary's background, because Republicans might tar her as a lesbian, a feminazi, an emasculator, and Vince Foster's murderer, and... yeah, they just ought to keep that in mind.

    So what? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM EST

    The amazing thing is that anyone thinks that what someone smoked 30 years ago in their teens or early twenties is relevant today.  That this got brought up at all is a sign of a political tin ear, and a fair bit of desperation.

    Spelling (none / 0) (#24)
    by manys on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    It's "Shaheen," not "Sheehan."

    Given Obama is addressing high school (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    students in New Hampshire on the issue of his drug and alcohol use, it seems o.k. to me for other candidates to talk about it too; but not infer sales when Obama hasn't sd. that.  Either way, Clinton campaign is marred by this.

    Nice to Apologize (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    Obama wanted Bill's sex life to be a campaign issue, so so what?

    Clinton has a history with women.

    Obama took some drugs once.

    Apparently we can talk about one of these issues and not the other.

    It's impossible for me to care.


    Just like a HIllary supporter (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    make something up:
    Obama wanted Bill's sex life to be a campaign issue, so so what?


    Parent
    He Says (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    What happened during the Clinton administration makes it more difficult for Clinton to be a uniter.

    Anyone at all, you or Obama, who plays the "She's polarizing" card is feeding off that history.

    If anyone ever said this:


    I can't stand 8 more years of hearing Republicans attacks on Bill and Hillary.

    or any derivative thereof at all.  Anyone who ever said anything like that really needs to come down off their high horse if somebody else points out:


    I don't want to spend the next 8 years hearing about Obama and drugs.

    Cause I guarantee you, I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but we all know the second Obama becomes the candidate, we will hear about it.

    They don't care that Bush was 100 times worse as far as drugs are concerned.  Hypocrisy won't stop them.

    They have no shame.  It will be an issue.

    Parent

    well see (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    there are things like polls and facts that say she is polarizing.  The fact that republicans are already using her to attack our down ballot candidates for instance.  Pointing out that Hillary is polarizing  isn't referencing anything in Bills sex life, its stating reality, backed up by facts.

    Parent