Obama's First Step (If Bush Supposedly Needed A 'Brain' (Rove), Then Does Obama Need A Brain Also?

The State Journal Register ^ | 1/17/2007 | Dori Meinert & Finlay Lewis

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

...Obama's revelations about his drug use in high school and college - contained in his first book - raise questions about whether his youthful behavior could come back to haunt him.

Many political experts doubt that his admissions would prove troublesome in the primaries...

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Many Democrats/liberals pounded president Bush because of his past alcohol usage, and supposed drug usage.

They said that Bush needed a 'brain' because of that. Now, if Bush needed a 'brain' (Rove) does Obama need a brain, too? Obama admits to using drugs in the past, right?

Remember, John Kerry and President Bush both graduated from Yale.

President Bush had a better GPA than John Kerry.

If liberals say that Bush is a dummy (which he isn't), then what does that make John Kerry?

If Democrats have mocked the intelligence of every Republican president since Eisenhower, then what should be done in reply?

Remember, eloquence in speech does not a genius make.

[rocksblues]

Liberals encourage the use of mind altering drugs. But only if you succumbed to their ideology.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

If Clinton supposedly took this off of the table (as the article contends) then why didn't that translate into Bush being inculcated from mockery and criticism?

If Bush didn't get any political cover from Clinton's past, then should Obama?

[Delta 21]

Of course he should. HEs a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

[ExTexasRedhead]

IMO, all Liberals' brains are fried. Liberalism is a mental disorder with no cure.

[Proud2BeRight]

There is something very surreal and frightening about how the media has become obsessed with this Obama guy. He is an empty suit that supports left-wing ideology. He says NOTHING in his speeches and he is given deity-level status with the media. This is dangerous.

I keep getting analogies rolling around my head of Paris Hilton, Bill Clinton, and even fictional character Nicolae Carpathia.

[ansel12]

Bush never used drugs, and I couldn't find him mentioned in the article.

[BlueJ7]

YES! and Robert Byrd would be a good pair. he he he he.

[hunter112]

There is something very surreal and frightening about how the media has become obsessed with this Obama guy. He is an empty suit that supports left-wing ideology. He says NOTHING in his speeches and he is given deity-level status with the media. This is dangerous.

That's what will make him easier to defeat in '08. He's just a prettyboy, who doesn't speak 'black'. The media knows that Hillary has more enemies going into this election than any other Democrat, they like the blank slate that Obama represents. All their efforts to elect President Gore and President Kerry have gone down the tubes, as well.

One thing, though. All bets are off if Iraq is still on the front burner on Election Day. We need to be out of there well before the Republican convention has started.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Like I said, Bush has been accused (unfairly) of using drugs.

And President Bush need not be mentioned in the article to draw a comparison.

If Bush was fair game for mockery from Dems, then isn't Obama also?

[RightWhale]

He is an empty suit

Don't count on that.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Actually, if the Republicans will pound home the following message (or one similiar to it - contained in the first post) they can seriously damage the Democrats chances of keeping the House and Senate and winning the Presidency.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766762/posts

[Jabba the Nutt]

I'm sorry, Obama's drug use is not an issue. It's not worth even mentioning. Focus on substance or his lack of substance. Anything else is a waste of time, especially against a guy, who's likable.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

If Bush's past use of alcohol was made (and still is made) an issue by Dems, then how is Obama's past use of drugs not an issue?

You sound like a Dem apologist.

Additionally, if the Dems have accused Bush of being a dummy because of him supposedly being a drunk in the past and unfair assertions that he used drugs, then why isn't Obama's past drug use (which he admits to) not an issue?

If Bush is a dummy, as the Dems have made him out to be, then wouldn't Obama also be a dummy?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

BTW, it therefore would be an issue.

Sorry.

Yes, it is worth mentioning and will continue to be worth mentioning.

He's supposedly likable. Big deal.

Who cares if he's likable?

Take that DUmmy thinking elsewhere.

[hunter112]

If Bush's past use of alcohol was made (and still is made) an issue by Dems, then how is Obama's past use of drugs not an issue?

Because drug and alcohol abuse are significant to Republican voters, who the Rats wanted to discourage. They're actually a badge of honor to a few Democrat-leaning voters.

[ansel12]

The way you wrote the title got me to read an article that it turns out didn't interest me, I thought it was going to be some kind of a comparison with Bush.

[WestSylvanian]

You succumb to their ideology because you've used mind-altering drugs. There's no other reasonable explanation.

[rocksblues]

So every attack against GWB for drinking is ok. But every attack against Obama or Bill using drugs is not worth the time it takes to make it because they are likable?

[operation clinton cleanup]

Obama, 45, has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, making him less experienced than many other presidential contenders, but that may not be a liability among voters frustrated by partisanship in Washington.

Is there anything in his record that would suggest he is any less partisan than any other liberal, other than he has no record?