Obama Drank the Bong Water
By Mitch Berg
Barack Obama was a cheetoh-chomping cheeba zombie in high school and college, and he admits it…:
Obama’s revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.
As a potential candidate, Obama has presented himself as a fresh voice offering a politics of hope. Many say he offers something new in American politics: an African American with a less-than-traditional name who has so far demonstrated broad appeal. What remains to be seen is whether the candor he offered in his early memoir will be greeted with a new-style acceptance by voters.
…and, like Ed in his piece on the subject, yes, I am qualified to criticize; I’ve never smoked pot in my life (largely because in my punk-rocking high school years I figured pot was for dozey, dim hippie bulbs; punks, in my little worldview, were all about beer and speed. Of course, I didn’t do speed or, until college, drink beer either). And I say…who cares?
I don’t support Obama – I think the notion that he’s a “moderate Democrat” are pure marketing – but I think it’s a safe bet that he, like President Bush, has reflected on, recovered from, and gone on to abjure his youthful vices.
Of course, it’s incumbent on all of you Democrats who claimed that Bush’s old (and thoroughly-controlled) addictions disqualified him for office to get out there and oppose Obama. Right?
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Don’t hold your breath…
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Oh good God. jbauer asks and answers his own questions. People just like you, that’s who, jbauer. What’s good for the goose is NEVER good for the gander in your world. There’s always something, some extenuating circumstance or little bit different twist on whatever it is a conservative or Republican has done that makes it “completely different” from what the pet liberal has done and so is deserving of your neverending blah-blah-blah.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
pb (uh I mean “jbauer” snicker, snicker) surely you didn’t hear endless rips on Bush and his “maybe on the bottle again” cracks from such luminaries as Al Franken and Michael Moore?
You give BDS a bad name, peeb.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Bush was not criticized for his addictions and I don’t know of ANYONE who said he wasn’tr qualified to serve because of them. He was criticized for lying about, being deceptive and evasive about them.
And if the fine folks at FOX et al would have made Bush’s well known and documented drug and alcohol abuse known the way they are about Obama, Bush would be a retired former Governor of Texas and failed candidate for President..
January 4th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Doug,
Bush’s addictions were brought up plenty in the ’00 and ’04 elections.
And you think Fox has that much control over this nation’s politics? Hmmm.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:58 am
And kermit, Bush’s irrational behavior, affected speech and level of arrogance and grandiousity is a pretty clear indication that he is either active drunk or untreated dry drunk.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Doug,
In the run-up to 2000, the media carried scads of stories about Bush’s hard-partying days, and his addiction. The last-second hit piece about a 20 year old DWI was arguably what made the election as close as it was.
Oh, did Fox do that, too?
January 4th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Mitch said,
“And you think Fox has that much control over this nation’s politics? Hmmm.”
No Mitch I don’t think they have control over politics but they do have a powerful influence over their viewers.
They spent hundreds of millions of dollars – in the red for YEARS by the way – to get to that point.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Mitch said,
“Oh, did Fox do that, too?”
No Mitch, They didn’t and that’s the point.
And Mitch, if you recall, the stories of Bush’s hard-partying days as reported by FOX were resolved with the story of redemption and salvation for Bush.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:00 am
No Mitch I don’t think they have control over politics but they do have a powerful influence over their viewers.
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, smug as it may sound at first blush. I’m not sure that there’s any empirical basis for it (and I know the “study” you’re going to cite, and I’m putting the cross-hairs right where that big fat unempirical one-point buck is going to cross the trail…)
And Mitch, if you recall, the stories of Bush’s hard-partying days as reported by FOX were resolved with the story of redemption and salvation for Bush.
Which happened to be where the story of the hard-partying George W. Bush ended (barring some sort of relapse which, Mike Malloy’s best efforts aside, has never happened). Which means they told the whole story. Which is what journalists are supposed to do.
Where’s the problem?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Clearly the difference is that Obama admits to past drug use, while Bush NEVER did..plain and simple. Also a good political move for Obama should he make a run at the presidency, better to get the past out in the open instead of trying to hide it.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Doug Wead, who was a staffer on the Bush team in 2000, secretly recorded conversations regarding the drugs and alcohol issue that was sure to come up in the campaign.
I’m paraphrasing, but Bush (not knowing he was being recorded) said “I’m not going to get into that issue. I don’t want some kids saying ‘Hey Daddy. President Bush smoked marijuana. I think I will.’”
Whether or not it was wise to be evasive, his purpose for being so seemed genuine.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Mitch said,
“I’m not sure that there’s any empirical basis for it…”
Uh huh… Sure Mitch… And they really honestly want to deliver the news in an unbiased and open way and not influence it’s viewers in any way…
And Santa came to your house a couple weeks ago didn’t he?
“(barring some sort of relapse which, Mike Malloy’s best efforts aside, has never happened).”
Yes and Mr. Bush chocked on a pretzel which caused him to fall off the couch and severly bruise his face… And all of those other unexplained bruises and injuries through the years… purely coinidental…
It’s tough to relapse when you never really got sober in the first place.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
And they really honestly want to deliver the news in an unbiased and open way and not influence it’s viewers in any way…
Fox actually does prettymuch the same job as every other news outlet. Their point of view programming skews right, which is both good marketing and irrelevant regarding news coverage.
And Santa came to your house a couple weeks ago didn’t he?
Oh, goody! We’re playing “irrelevant sneer!” OK, my turn; “Does it hurt, where the aliens did their anal probe?”
Fun!
It’s tough to relapse when you never really got sober in the first place.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Hokay then.
How did you feel the night you turned on the radio and Mike Malloy wasn’t there to soothe your rage?
January 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Mitch said,
“Their point of view programming skews right,”
Which is 98% of their programming and what most FOX Viewers believe is the news.
By the way, saying FOX programming SKEWS right is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a very long time. Thank you for that. Really.
“How did you feel the night you turned on the radio and Mike Malloy wasn’t there to soothe your rage?”
Gosh Mitch, I was so upset that I baked a loaf of french bread and played a game of ping pong with my son.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Oh, and speaking of smug…
(and I know the “study” you’re going to cite, and I’m putting the cross-hairs right where that big fat unempirical one-point buck is going to cross the trail…)
January 4th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Which is 98% of their programming and what most FOX Viewers believe is the news.
Words fail, Doug. That’s just too ill-informed to merit a resaponse. The numbers are wrong, and as far as viewers’ beliefs – well, if it gives you that warm-all-under feeling to believe you really are that much better than everyone else, knock yourself out.
By the way, saying FOX programming SKEWS right is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a very long time. Thank you for that. Really.
Really? Really! Really. Reallyyyyyy…?
Really?
Jeez, Doug, what’s the problem this time? Don’t like the word “skew”? Prefer “curve?” “Warp” “Woof” or “bend?”
What, oh what, has displeased you THIS time?
Gosh Mitch, I was so upset that I baked a loaf of french bread and played a game of ping pong with my son.
Ah. Or did you only THINK that’s what you did?
Because I know what you think better than you do!
Well, it works for you and Rick…
January 4th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“Words fail, Doug. That’s just too ill-informed to merit a resaponse. The numbers are wrong.”
It’s called sarchasm Mitch but I would be willing to bet it’s not to far from the actual count. And ironically, you responded.
“well, if it gives you that warm-all-under feeling to believe you really are that much better than everyone else”
uh… ok… Here’s a question… I’ll bet that that most, if not every FOX viewer can tell you what John Oneil has to say about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam but none of them can tell you his voting record for legislation that is supportive of the military. Why would FOX choose to give a demonstrable liar like Oneil hours of airtime and not spend entire Kerry supporters to give the facts?
I hear FOX commentators say to this day that Kerry accused other Vietnam soldiers of war crimes during the Winter Soldier hearings. I know that Kerry was repeating what other soldiers had reported to him but to FOX News and their viewers? No – Kerry was accusing his fellow soldiers of crimes.
What possible reason could there be for FOX to allow it’s staff to keep repeating information that’s been domonstrated over and over to be bullshit? And you really believe that the lies disseminated by FOX’s pundits doesn’t make it into their news? Further, you think the average viewer is smart enough to tell the difference? What friggin planet are you living on?
Oh and Hey Mitch. Remember that whole “unhinged” discussion we had? Remember how you said it was a typical Liberal charge? Turns out O’Reilly, Hannity and others at the Bush Propaganda network use it regularly to describe liberals. Must be where you picked it up because you yourself called someone that right here in this very blog…
I would reference it in a link because I found it once before but your search tool still doesn’t work.
What makes you so damn funny Mitch is you are everything you criticize in others but you’re to arrogant to see it.
By the way, did you ever go see my tribute to your Twenty Years ago series? I think I left a link in one of the threads about your three women which you threw down the memory hole – not the women – the threads.
And Mitch – Skew? Really?
Saying FOX programming SKEWS right is like saying Charles Manson was a little peculiar.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Doug said
“And kermit, Bush’s irrational behavior, affected speech and level of arrogance and grandiousity is a pretty clear indication that he is either active drunk or untreated dry drunk.”
Spoken from personal experience, no doubt? “affected speech”.
Heh. Sounds like untreated BDS.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Er, yeah.
Doug? The more you write, the more
derangeddifferently-ranged you sound.January 5th, 2007 at 10:02 am
And Mitch, after you claim that FOX is no different than the other news organizations and that their “point of view” programming “skews” right, the more convinced I am that you’ve been bogartting Obamas bong water
January 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Except that it’s not just me. Serious media-watchers observe that Fox’s actual news reporting is, if anything, closer to the center than the Big Three, and that the left’s undies are in a knot because they are used to all news coverage being reliably left-of-center.
I’ll await your inevitable snark in return with skull-splitting boredom.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Mitch said,
“Except that it’s not just me. Serious media-watchers”
Let’s take a look at your offered link shall we?
“Leslie H. Gelb, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, watches international news obsessively…”
OK. So, there’s Leslie H. Gelb. Got it. Next?
He now considers Fox News Channel often to be a more reliable news source for international reporting than CNN…
He? Oh that would be Mr. Gelb again. So, so far we have um, Mr. Gelb. Continuing.
Mr. Gelb said he makes a distinction between Fox’s news coverage and its opinion programs, like “The O’Reilly Factor,” which he…
Damn! there’s Mr. Gelb again. Hey Mitch. There’s three of us typing this. Me, Myself and I. Next.
A lot of other people who do not fit comfortably into the right-wing stereotype of Fox viewers apparently agree…
AH! There it is! Finally! A lot of other people! That must be why you cited this article – Oops, I mean this OP ED piece which is very persuasive. A lot of other people… All very “Serious media-watchers” I’m sure.
Ironically, there is a great bit in Greenwalds Outfoxed which examined FOX hosts – news and otherwise – extrensive use of refering to unidentified masses to validate a point, as in, “Some people are saying…” or “A lot of people say…”.
I seem to remember you going on and on, oh about a half year ago about journalistic integrity and ethics. How does this little false citation trick work for ya Mitch?
Not that it will make an inpact to a choir boy like you but there are some other parts of the OP ED piece that are worth pointing out. And remember, I didn’t distinguish between FOX’s News programming and Opinion Programming. You did. My contention, which is supported by the piece you link to, is that FOX News – as a network – is an opinion based media outlet with a sprinkling of news to give it some degree of percieved validity.
But the bulk of Fox’s ratings success is not from its hard news coverage. It comes from the other niche that apparently wants to see attitude
Take the “attitude” out, the opinion programming, and would there be an audience Mitch?
BRIT HUME’S “Special Report,” a mix of news and talk, is ranked fifth among all cable news shows. Mr. Hume, a former star at ABC News, asks pointed questions of liberals and conservatives, but the tone of his program is still to the right of the more factual news programming on Fox.
Read it again Mitch. The paragraph says Special Report is a cable NEWS show. What did I say before? the average viewer isn’t able to distinguish between news and opinion. And the tone of his program is still to the right of the more factual news programming on Fox
Next.
But Mr. Rosenstiel (director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism) says he sees a core journalistic dishonesty in the Fox news style, as compared with other programs of opinion and analysis like CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” on NBC and Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation” on CBS. The power of the host in such programs is enormous, because that person leads from topic to topic, and cuts off or extends debate.
“Blitzer and Russert and Schieffer are trying to cut it down the middle,” Mr. Rosenstiel said. “Fox is not.”
Finally Mitch. What is the purpose of and editorial piece or an op ed piece? Before you answer that, consider seriously why FOX has so much opinion based programming.
I’ll await your response with equal skull-splitting boredom.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Answered above.
Perhaps less boredom and more thought?
Just an idea.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Mitch said,
“Answered above.”
Evasive much?
January 10th, 2007 at 7:57 am
No, a moderately-bright four year old can see that your question was answered above.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Humor me Mitch.
What is the purpose of and editorial piece or an op ed piece? Before you answer that, consider seriously why FOX has so much opinion based programming.
Thanks.