Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Smear 'Em if You Got 'Em
Thank Yahweh for Mike Huckabee, or else this attack by Clinton surrogate Bill Shaheen would be the most boneheaded smear of the election.
"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use—which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire—with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
Oh, the gormlessness, the pretense of hypothetical attacks, the
veneer of worry: It was beautiful. Sadly, Shaheen
apologized immediately afterward, although he remained careful
to leave the insult hanging in the air. He clearly thinks—or wants
primary voters to think—that being open about
one's drug use is worse than covering it up or lying about it.
Apply that logic to the mountain of Clinton stories that will
percolate if she's the nominee (Ron Burkle, donors to the Clinton
global initiative, laundered campaign donations) and you understand
why Democrats are cooling on her.
In related news,
Robert Novak noted that Clinton attack on Obama's PAC from
about a week ago. I said it was a stupid attack; Novak
and his sources agree.
|12.13.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I don't think drug use as a teenager matters at all in politics
anymore.
But Obama sure does have the Clinton people worried. He's a point
up in New Hampshire - not Iowa, but Clinton's firewall New
Hampshire - in a CNN poll today.
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I called this...yesterday. Who was it who thought that Hillary was insufficiently politically tone-deaf to make attacks like this? This isn't the regular dirt. This is the *special* dirt.
|12.13.07 @ 10:39AM|#
This is special dirt?
You have a very low pain threshold, Elemonope.
Bill Clinton was accused of rape, murder, and drug trafficking.
John Kerry was accused of cowardice in battle and treason.
Is this your first election? Put on your seatbelt. This is
kindergarten.
|12.13.07 @ 10:41AM|#
John Kerry was accused of cowardice in battle and
treason.
Plus I heard he flip-floped a lot.
Everyone together now...
FLIP!
FLOP!
FLIP!
FLOP!
|12.13.07 @ 10:51AM|#
I have had a revelation. Not all attacks on politicians are
strictly motivated by political interest. Although politicians are
notoriously good at speaking and motivating audiences (some better
than others, and not so much with more sophisticated people), they
usually come across personally as opportunistic, self-interested
jerks, once you see below the public persona. So if some guys who
knew Kerry or Clinton or Bush before they were major figures just
seem dedicated to trashing their images, don't discount the
possibility that they just don't like the politician. Obviously,
the parties will run with such things, but I'm sure that this
motivation is far more important than we think it is.
This doesn't address the truthfulness of any claims, of
course.
I know several politicians personally, and I've seen the
transformation. It isn't pretty. I had one (who is now in Congress)
treat me less than well on a couple of occasions--I couldn't
advance the career, you see. Bah.
|12.13.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Remember the anonymous calls about John McCain's inter-racial baby? That, my dear, is down-and-dirty mudslinging.
robc|12.13.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Adams said Jefferson had an inter-racial baby too. Is the mudslinging when its true?
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 10:53AM|#
No, joe. This is the special dirt. Remember that outside the
Reason bubble, most people still (perplexingly) give a
damn what substances people chose to put in their bodies a few
decades ago. Cocaine is *teh supre evillll* in many parents' minds,
*especially* women, *double especially* black women. This is quite
dirty, and made even more so by the fact that it isn't a closet
skeleton; she's making hay about something he revealed several
years ago of his own volition.
And I wouldn't compare it to the Bill Clinton attacks, as those
were clumsy and never had much traction (they sounded so
conspiratorial even dittoheads were shaken...but perhaps that's
just because they got confused by the complexity) and were aimed at
an audience already very predisposed to hate Hippie Clinton.
No, it's not as dirty as the crypto-Muslim stuff, but that level of
disgusting is reserved for those who can use it...let's see, a
party heavily reliant upon nativist principles and latent white
Christian resentment...NOT the Democrats!
robc|12.13.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Im not saying McCain has an interracial baby, Im just saying we may need to wait 200 years to find out for sure.
|12.13.07 @ 10:54AM|#
robc,
McCain DID have an inter-ractial baby. He and his wife adopted a
"dust child" from Vietnam.
So, yes, it can still be mudslinging if it's based on true
events.
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 10:56AM|#
p.s. Joe, it is no news that Republicans have been wallowing in
the dirty-is-better attack-ad mentality for a very long
time...their machinery is disgustingly vicious. McCain got
politically violated in a most gruesome way, and you will never get
any argument from me that that, too, was the *special* dirt.
What would be news is the Democrats (in this case Hillary) turning
such tactics on their own in a primary.
Dennis|12.13.07 @ 10:57AM|#
"Remember that outside the Reason bubble, most people still
(perplexingly) give a damn what substances people chose to put in
their bodies a few decades ago."
I doubt it. Most people overlook it, unless the drug use is by the
other party's candidate (see Clinton, Bush).
|12.13.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Remember that outside the Reason bubble, most people still
(perplexingly) give a damn what substances people chose to put in
their bodies a few decades ago.
You mean like PRESIDENT Bush? You mean like PRESIDENT
Clinton?
Anyway, it isn't the efficacy of an attack that defines its
lowness, but it's nastiness.
No, it's not as dirty as the crypto-Muslim stuff No, it's
not. It's not within 1000 miles.
|12.13.07 @ 11:01AM|#
What would be news is the Democrats (in this case Hillary)
turning such tactics on their own in a primary.
Agreed. Remember the "negative campaigning" Al Gore did against
Bill Bradley?
"You retired from Congress when the Republicans won, you
BASTARD!"
|12.13.07 @ 11:06AM|#
I've seen nasty Democratic primaries. I think people forget primaries too quickly. It wasn't so long ago that the Reaganite view of not trashing other GOPers still held sway, and the Democrats were the fractured, argumentative club. What's odd about politics here is how much behaviors (and even positions) switch sides. Huh.
|12.13.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Gormlessness? Jeez, I had to look it up to see if it was a real word. H&R once again proves to be educational.
Steve|12.13.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Great site you guys have!
Would you like to have a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio
Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of
America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio...
http://netradionetwork.com
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"You retired from Congress when the Republicans won, you
BASTARD!"
LOL! Exactly. Joe, I have always respected the modern Democratic
party much more than the GOP on their basic congeniality towards
one another in the primaries. It's almost like they are trying to
reach back to a faint memory when politicians were statesmen,
and....
So, here's the rub; the crypto-Muslim slur as well as the cocaine
stuff would be far more effective from a GOP point-of-view
post-nomination (if Obama were to be the nominee) rather than in
the thick of the pre-Iowa positioning. It makes no tactical sense
for a republican to use it now...so I wonder whether the Democrats
are picking up bad habits from their pachydermic brethren. If so,
it makes me sad.
I guess my only thing is I think HRC is the only one on that side
of the field who is ambitious enough and tone-deaf enough to use
those tactics, and considering her suddenly desperate situation,
the most reasonable beneficiary. And since she is quite familiar
with being on the receiving end of those same attacks, to her
perhaps her sense of what is acceptable in politics has been
blunted by her past experiences.
|12.13.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Well, Hilary never actually had to run much of a campaign for her senate seat in NY. In the last election, most nobody even knew who the Republican running against her was.
|12.13.07 @ 11:25AM|#
"Well, Hilary never actually had to run much of a campaign for
her senate seat in NY. In the last election, most nobody even knew
who the Republican running against her was."
Remember how Guiliani's extramarital affair came up during the
senate race in 2000? I wouldn't doubt that Hillary's people brought
that up.
|12.13.07 @ 11:28AM|#
LMNOP,
Maybe it's best for Obama that it comes out now. If the info is
public knowledge, by the time of the general, it may be a
yawner.
This assumes, he makes it to the general.
BakedPenguin|12.13.07 @ 11:35AM|#
I wonder if leading campaigns offer a quid pro quo to lesser campaigns - you go after so and so, and you'll be my VP (or get this cabinet post or whatever) when I get the nomination. They can keep their hands clean, but still sully the opposition. Given Edwards' attacks on HRC, it would be interesting to see if he gets anything from the Obama campaign.
|12.13.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Oh, the gormlessness, the pretense of hypothetical attacks, the veneer of worry
Yeah, I had a flashback to those Red bloggers who so
worried about that Ron Paul is so extreme or
vulnerable to public misunderstandings about things that
he could hurt the public image of libertarianism.
(I mean, being bloggers, they don't have to practice keeping a
straight face while saying things like that, but how do they expect
anyone reading their stuff to do so?)
Sadly, the rah-rah-drug-war-never-say-die stuff is so mainstream
and accepted that it's much easier for folks like Shaheen to keep a
straight face ...
Billy Beck|12.13.07 @ 12:09PM|#
"Shaheen apologized immediately afterward, although he
remained careful to leave the insult hanging in the
air."
During a particularly close race early in Lyndon Johnson's
congressional career, he suggested during a staff head-press that
his campaign should leak information of his opponent's carnal
knowledge of barnyard animals. A horrified aide exclaimed, "Lyndon!
We can't get away with calling him a pig-fucker!"
"Maybe," Johnson said, "But we can sure as hell make the
sonofabitch deny it."
Some things never go out of style.
|12.13.07 @ 12:57PM|#
So, does Obama back off on the WOD because of his past drug use,
or is it the tired old "don't act like I used to, or we'll pack you
off to jail, because what I did was wrong, from the perspective of
someone for whom the statute of limitations has
expired more mature."
|12.13.07 @ 1:00PM|#
I agree with joe on this one -- this isn't the nastiness we can
expect as the campaign heats up. This is just the opening salvo.
And, the gloves might stay on a bit here, since HRC and Obama have
to be thinking about running together, and any really biting
attacks could come back to haunt them.
The gloves really come off in the general election.
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 1:11PM|#
So, does Obama back off on the WOD because of his past drug
use, or is it the tired old "don't act like I used to, or we'll
pack you off to jail, because what I did was wrong, from the
perspective of someone for whom the statute of limitations has
expired more mature.
I would hope so on option one, but the topic is an especially
complex one in the Black community. There, because of the damage
done by drugs, they have little love for the WoD *or* for the drugs
themselves, and many are conflicted about how to parcel out the
responsibility among the two for the damage that drugs do. This
schizophrenia makes ending the WoD in that community have at best a
mixed reception polling-wise (though they are still apparently very
happy to hear a white politician say it on occasion, as RP did at
Howard a few months back).
This is the issue of Obama's that he has spoken least about (WoD),
and what he *has* said underwhelms me. But, as he is walking,
talking proof that people who experiment with drugs can be come
Chicago law professors and national political leaders, perhaps
he'll shape up on this one.
|12.13.07 @ 1:16PM|#
prolefeed,
Obama sponsored the bill that made pharmacists put Pseudofed behind
the counter, in order to make it harder for people to cook up
meth.
Not an auspicious start.
Kolohe|12.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Re: Jefferson
I forgot who orginially linked it, and I can't get to Youtube here,
but there is an excellent Anti-Jefferson Negative Ad out there that
some did recently whose voiceover is reading from actual pamplets
of the 1796 or 1800 elections.
So there is absolutely nothing new under the sun, especially viz a
viz rough & tumble american politics.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245