[Windcatcher]

What's dirty about it is the insinuation that he's unfit to serve as Governor. That somehow this makes him incapable of the job. It's using people's prejudices and emotions to get them to make a knee-jerk reaction, which, as a poster here recently pointed out, is defined as demagoguery.

[Earl B.]

What's dirty about it is the insinuation that he's unfit to serve as Governor. That somehow this makes him incapable of the job.

It's not dirty. He did these things. He publicly talked about them. It is perfectly legitimate to question his fitness for office based on this behavior. I clearly recall Bill Clinton getting a lot of heat for his drug use. Many candidates have been disqualified in the minds of the voters because of drugs and "immoral" behavior.

In California, I doubt that admitted marijuana usage (a long time ago) and a vigorous sex drive (in an unmarried man) will be seen as disqualifying. The language is what may put people off.

It may be ugly to watch, but it isn't dirty. Sometimes the truth can be painful.

[churchillbuff]

What's dirty about it is the insinuation that he's unfit to serve as Governor.

"Wild" Bill Clinton couldn't have said it better himself.

[jsbankston]

So if Howard Dean gets the Dem nomination for President and it is found that back in the 70's he did drugs, had orgies with women and MEN you would feel that it would be wrong for the media or the Bush Campaign to brng that to our attention?