Obama ahead in New Hampshire

Obama edges Clinton in poll

www.concordmonitor.com/.../article

[Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results - which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton - mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton's once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.

The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren't registered with either political party. Much of Obama's backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton's support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.]

I don't trust people my age who haven't tried drugs.  Even if it was just marijuana.  It shows a lack of guts and willingness to experiment.  That's what you do when you're young.  A goody-goody-two-shoes disposition.  And I see nothing wrong with having the doors of perception opened.  I know a couple of people who never quite came back from bad trips, but I still stand by what I say.  Unless you're heavily medicated with psychotropic drugs (anti-depressants, mood-stabilizers) which, when mixed with illicit stuff, is dangerous, or you're just plain unstable. Other exceptions abound, I'm sure.  

Marty:  I love it when your aversions match mine.  I may wince when you demonize Arabs, who, however poorly led or politically self-destructive. are after all human beings with a full panoply of human feelings and difficult life challenges.  But you have my wholehearted blessing in letting Hillary have it.  Not that she's a bad person or even a bad Senator.  Quite the contrary, I wish she would have waited and run for Harry Reid's job.  But I regard her as the death knell of Democratic hopes should she be nominated.  So I am glad that you are sounding the alarm early and often and do not agree with those who accuse you of riding the Hillary hobby-horse to excess.  This is a serious, high stake business.  Our country is badly wounded and needs a healing touch in our next leader.   Gazai gazunt.

Mollysimon: Myself a college student, I'm not going to apologize for never having tried drugs. I don't judge people who do, but likewise people who don't shouldn't be judged either. I feel no need to "escape" the world around me, I'm fine with my life the way it is. I also don't feel the need to be a "rebel" and give the finger to the authorities by smoking pot in my dorm room.

(Besides, the FBI is headquartered pretty close to here.)

I also think one of Barack's best campaign lines is one he uses when talking about drugs in his youth. He says, "Yes, I inhaled. That was the point!" Take that, Bill.

Actually Bill Clinton might not have been lying: he suffered from bad allergies and he might well have been pretending to smoke the pot back in college for appearances sake.  

I've done my share of drugs, but I really hate the reaction Molly posts here that you can't trust ANYONE who didn't experiment with drugs. If that the case have the courage of your convictions and attack Obama and pretty much every other serious candidate who claims their experimentation was a mistake.  I knew pleanty of "normal" college kids who didn't do drugs (most had drunk like fish) and can't recall any correlation in decision making or other positive attribute you could think of for the drug users.  

Marty, any times you have the courage to answer a serious question about Hillary vs. Obama (other than Israel, though you've kind of ducked that too) rather than take easy pot shots like this, we're ready.

Mr P - why aren't you promoting Joe Biden's candidacy? Did he say something kind about the Palestinians recently? What am I missing here?

Rozenson--like I said, I'm sure there are many exceptions. I'm not trying to peer-pressure you, man, but not all drug use is escape.  Sometimes it's just downright fun.  And a way to see things differently.  And  connect.  People who are escaping, they're the ones I call unstable.    This in no way is telling you to go out and get wasted.  Though I do think there's something to "gathering your rosebuds while ye may," which to me wasn't just about sex, but about going wild while you still can.  Ah, rebellion:  I think that's crucial to growing up.    

As for me, my wild times are long gone.  I don't have the energy.  Plus  it just ain't responsible when you have kids.  What will I tell my children when they're older?  That I don't want to know.  I'll just worry.  Also, that I had more than one bad experience.  Just know that in a bottle,  there's a label with ingredients, not so drugs.  As I can attest.

Lymon:  Hmm, the courage of my convictions.  Doesn't quite track that I should condemn Obama.  I respect him for trying it.  If he wants to call it a mistake, that's his business.   Plus, he's a politician.    Yeah, I probably went a little far there in saying I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't tried it. Rozenson is exhibit A.  And I'd definitely leave out anyone who came of age before the sixties.    By the way, you're joking about Bill's allergies, right?  Because sometimes sarcasm goes way over my head.  "Really?" is often my too-often gullible response.

I understand the "you only live once" theory, I just live by the counter-theory "so make it as long as possible."

Actually no, I'm not joking  -- I don't think it's that much more flattering to Bill Clinton if the deception came earlier rather than later.  I'm pretty sure he has offered that as the reason behind the remark while recognizing how ridiculous it sounded.  And didn't he, like, only drink half a beer when he visited Ireland?  I think you're trying to have it both ways on your Obama remark -- leave aside your subsequent qualification and keeping inside the context of "you can't trust anyone who hasn't done drugs," it's kind of selective to excuse Obama's ultra-contrarian views with "he's a politician after all."  But whatever, I'm far more upset with Obama for his attacks on health care mandates and his flip-flop-bury on Darfur (and with Marty for his general ducking of questions).  

Lymon, he tried the drugs.  He showed youthful abandon. I like that in a person.  If he wants to disown it now, for whatever reasons, fine.    Though I suppose that youthful abandon can come in many different forms.  Sexual experimentation, drinking (which I don't get), dropping out for a few years to trek the silk road.  That's what youth is for.  

As for Clinton's allergies, he's so full of shit.  But let's say that yeah, it was allergies.  He still should have kept his trap shut.  One of Bill's biggest problems in office and life was/is his utter inability to draw lines.  Boxers or briefs?  Why didn't he just say that's my business, or I'm not here to discuss my choices in undergarments.  Whatever.  Bush is a pig, but he handled his earlier drug use perfectly.  In that generation,  at that time, that's what you do when you want to win.  

I'm not following the whole health care debate closely.  The plans don't have that many differences, from what I've skimmed.  If it's not too much trouble, and you can do it in a nutshell, let me know.  I'm very curious.  However, as far as I can see, anyone who can't afford health care gets it, period.  And that means the middle-class, too, who are getting crushed by insurance bills and premiums.  Or whose insurance doesn't pay for life-saving measures.  No child should die of cancer because they weren't covered for chemo.   What I worry about is the possibility that once medicine is deprivatized, you're going to get mediocre doctors.  We have incredible, cutting edge surgeons, for instance.  The U.S.  is where most of the innovation happens.  There has to be a connection.  Anyway, if I don't hear from you, have a good weekend!

Just remember, Clinton's half-assed confession was 16 years ago, which, if you remember, was almost light years removed from the current reality when thrice divorced, ACKNOWLEDGED philanderers bilking the govt for their f pads, and open admissions about drug use from any candidates, did not automatically eliminate someone from contention.  Yes, Bill's "did not inhale" eliding was unbelievable but it set the stage, in both a positive and negative way, for today's blase environment concerning this stuff. Is this a better environment that the past, when people most likely partied just as hard but never admitted it?  Yes and no..  

As for the side argument on this thread?  I dabble but I never really got into drugs at all, mainly because getting high never really competed with my own personal North Star as a young man...meeting up with women.  While all my stoned and stupid friends lolled around, I attended to the more important things.  I think I made the right choices...

make that "dabbled", past tense and almost 30 years ago.  Livin' large and completely clear since...

My pleasure!  Though Paul Krugman in the New York Times has done the best job of it (and he goes out of his way to put Obama in context -- that his plan beats anything the GOP is offering).  Here's a shortened link to one of his columns:

http://tinyurl.com/2f5vrt  

In a nutshell: Obama's attack on Hillary (and Edwards -- she basically adopted/stole his plan) is dishonest.  Without mandates the numbers don't work, and there are all sorts of mandates available. Any health care plan that lets anyone join it the moment they get sick and require expensive care is going to go broke.  I think the key to keeping the innovation edge is that you never *limit* what people can pay for health care -- the wealthy will always pay extra for better care.  National care may well dampen the market forces that spur that cutting edge surgery/r&d/etc. but we're already seeing that with employers dumping plans, people forced into HMO's, etc.  

Ditto on having a lovely weekend!

Who Gives a F*ck? Is my first response to this story.

Half of the middle class, if not more, are doped up on Doctors lazy shortcuts anyway. It's an industry in the multi billions. Pfzier, Novartis, Glaxo Smith can score you anything you want, to cure any ailment, they've even got some good sh*t that will give you a hardon. Fortunes are being made out of the drugs industry. A friend is a very succesful medical rep and the stories he tells me chill my bones. Your local GP is the biggest pusher in the community - he gets all sorts of goodies and holidays out of it.

My first impressions of the last few months is that such an open field on both sides is leading to cut throat primaries. Most candidates are giving up some sensational attack ads: Romney, The Huckster, Clinton, Guiliani.

The only one who seems relatively clean is Obama.

Molly - your sentiment appeals to me but I think Rozenson is right. You don't have to get of your head to rebel, in fact it's the complete opposite. And that's from someone who wasted far too many nights "high". I just get blind drunk instead now. Much better.

Actually McCain is the other candidate who has come out of it looking good. Thank god the Repubicans are too stupid to realize that he's their best shot.

Thank you, Lymon, for the link.  And your nutshell explanation.

Iggy, re: lazy shortcuts.  You clearly don't know anyone who's suffered from bi-polar disease or severe depression.  Or even a panic disorder.  Because if you did, you'd probably get down on your knees and worship the drug companies for the suffering they've ended.  Just look at the suicide numbers:  Way down.  Although, maybe you have known mentally ill people.  Know any alcoholics ?  Often bi-polar or depressed and self-medicating with booze.  Ditto drug addicts.  

As for the GPs pushing drugs because of all their free trips to Hawaii?  I know doctors, and they only wish.  Besides, the U.S. has enacted laws to limit this sort of soft bribery.

And I never said you had to get out of your head to rebel.  It's just one marvelous way.  I seriously doubt you regret all those high times.

jaunty/cookster:  Nice to hear your "voice"--I've missed your irreverent, feisty comments.  The issue in the Shaheen brouhaha was not so much drug use as the Clinton campaign's growing (and totally warranted) desperation, which I am enjoying immensely.

I wish you and your ecumenical family a happy holiday season and a happy, healthy New Year.

I just love the way the bastards of the media, including Obama fanboy Peretz, ran with Bill Clinton's "didn't inhale" joke.  If it was an"Obvious lie," Peretz, then it was a joke.  But then as is the media's wont, why take it as intended when you can get more mileage out of it by distorting it?  And here's Peretz, like the rest of them: -- if they can't run Obama against Hillary, then they'll run him against Bill.  They certainly can't run him against either on the merits!  Oh, but Obama is so likable and he's so principled, and he's so "diverse".  How pathetic, feckless, fatuous -- the Dems are once again showing why the country is so disgusted with the parties.  

When the nation begs for relief from the depredations of the Repugs, once again, all the Dems hand them is a feelgood candidate from their looney-tunes base.  Or a purported lesbian with Nixonian negatives.  There are good Democrats -- Biden and Dodd and non-runners Warner, Bayh, Webb -- who would make fine presidents, but the Dem base is too wedded to its mirror, too mired in narcissism, to be interested in winning.  Just making a statement.  Just feeling virtuous.  Yeah, virtuous losers.  The party of self-esteem.

Tep, you're right.  Biden has clearly proved the best candidate for president, but alas, this is a beauty contest.   Like Kirchick, Obama is MP's type.

It is an entirely different thig for Bill to have admitted smoked pot in the 60's than Obama admitting he did drugs in high school in the 80's. Bill was fighting the culture war and to admit to smoking pot was to admit to being in league with the hippies. As for Obama, it is well known that almost everyone of his generation experimented with drugs and a sizable number, Democrat or Republican, still smoke pot.

The issue is ridiculous, and despite Obama's contrived "honesty" on this subject, he is unfit to be President. Clinton is a better choice and Biden would be the best choice.

Jim Rice:  "And here's Peretz, like the rest of them: -- if they can't run Obama against Hillary, then they'll run him against Bill."  Your joking, right?  Because she has Porky Pig going on Charlie Rose defending her honor, speechifying all over Iowa, claiming (lying) that he was against the war.   Oh, she didn't approve that last one?  Right.  One assumes, then, that they are one and the same.  If she's not nning on his record, which she is, then why feature the creature so prominently?   By the way, how can you defend the sleazy tricks they're already pulling?  Oh, yeah, that's how you win.  

Beauty contests?  Oh, those Republicans don't play that game.  Which is why McCain is so far behind . . .

And Biden?  Fear not--he'll be a running mate to whomever wins the primary.

r-ennis:  Yes, you're right about the generational factor.  But like I said earlier, Bush didn't admit to anything.  He did not leave behind any lines we now include in our lexicon.   Clinton--who never met a chance to expose himself that he didn't like--answered.  The guy was not the greatest campaigner ever, by the way:  He lost the popular vote, and if it hadn't been for Perot, would have lost period.  

Molly

Clinton never lost the popular vote, either in 92 or 96.  He won the popular vote with pluralities in both contests. He also hammered both Bush and Dole in the electoral college. Perhaps you meant to say that he failed to get a majority 50% each time.

Also, I know that there is a school of thought that without Perot, Clinton would have lost 92 but that is a minority opinion. Most politicos I know sensed that in a two man race, in either 92 or 96, Clinton would have prevailed and would have certainly crossed the 50% line in 96.  In that 3 man race, he got 49%.

I agree, Cookster, though many of my GOP friends think GHWB would have won but for Perot.

The real issue is, the Dems have garnered 50% once in the last 10 Presidential elections.  Why?  And will the nominee do so next year?  Or will defeat be snatched from the jaws of victory yet again?

butchie,

Now that is the real question, the 50% barrier. Actually, even more disturbing is given our polarized environment, will anyone ever top the meager 51% that Bush got in 04.  I don't see the winner in this election getting much more than 51% either. The 54% that GHWB got in 88 may not be topped in the next few election cycles.

Kinda sad really. Is the country just unable to get behind a candidate period?

Jaunts, Butchie:  Don't you think this has something to do with the religious right?  People might be ready to go more moderate if these nuts weren't such players.  They've pulled the Repugs so far to the right, that it's made it impossible for Dems to cross over (I mean, I might have considered Romney had he not gone all 700 Club on us).  And what's the likelihood that Repugs are going to cross over to Dems?  We're polarized, and it seems we're polarized right down the middle.  If a Dem wins, though, let's pray they make like George Bush and tell the country he/she was given a mandate.  Fuck all this "consensus" stuff.  The way things are now, I doubt there will be one for generations to come.  Just my opinion, though, which is worth a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.  

Maybe, Molly.  But the religious Right, however defined, is simply a reflection of very real differences on many (mostly "cultural") issues.

My Dem friends tell me they'd think about voting for McCain, though I think they're blowing smoke.  And I can't see voting for any of the top 3 Dems, as I consider them to be unqualified for the job, not on any religious grounds.

Yeah, I'm afraid a "mandate" for anyone is a thing of the past.

Mandates are a thing of the past, but that didn't stop George Bush.  I'd vote McCain, but I'm worried about what his choices for supreme court would be.  He's anti-choice.  And with what this court has done with other rights, we just can't afford any more Scalias.  Besides, not all Republicans are so unreasonable about cultural issues.  Many are pro-choice.

Agree with you about the top three Dems, but I like Obama, and the fire he's shown lately makes me think he could handle it.  Though yes, I wish Biden were the front-runner.