Obama: "I inhaled. That was the point."

Refreshingly honest.

He did drugs.

And Bush is an alcoholic and possibly was a coke-head. What's your point?

The right is now talking about this like he was some sort of addict. I think just about all of us have tried pot a few time. Geez.

Just wondering how low our society has gone....

C'mon crcg. How is smoking pot any worse than being a alcoholic at one point? (ie. our current president)

mrcg, it certainly isn't as bad as when George was a coke head.

Just wondering how low our society has gone....

Marijuana is no worse, if not better than alcohol, and I would say probably every president drank before. That doesn't make them an alcoholic and smoking marijuana doesn't make you a pothead or somehow morally inferior to people who go to bars on Saturday night.

I think it would be a good sign for our society to accept someone who admitted to smoking pot as president. It obviously didn't affect him adversly or else he wouldn't be a senator today.

Neither is good, to be proud of, or to be defended. Maybe it isn't a sign of how low we have gotten, but as how high we have gotten.

It stinks when our society just accepts it. (Well he didn't shoot anyone, kind of moral relativism) Right an wrong are a thing of the past, I guess.

The President is supposed to represent the needs of the people. As an American who has done drugs and is open about it, I believe Obama is better equipped to understand and approach issues regarding the massive constituency with whom he shares this experience.

By the way, mrcg, outside of a more or less arbitrary rule of law that America has enacted (unless you believe Netherlanders and many doctors are immoral) what's "wrong" about doing drugs that isn't "wrong" about drinking alcohol or smoking tabacco?

Addendum: You said "right and wrong are a thing of the past." So are the days when Obama got high. Everyone does things they aren't proud of, everyone has regrets. Getting wasteed isn't a mortal sin. Isn't forgiveness a virtue we should practise?

@stolte-sawa

Everyone does things they aren't proud of, everyone has regrets.

Precisely, where does it say that Obama regrets ...... ?

The title of the article seems to convey a completely different attitude.....

I believe Obama is better equipped to understand and approach issues regarding the massive constituency with whom he shares this experience.

So, what, he can show them how to use tequilla in the bong?

@Daniel A. Hallo

...promoting sex in the same commercials on TV for all those young eyes to see...

I am glad that we agree on this subject. However, it is the Hollywood and the New York Movie, TV, Music, and Advertising artists (writers and producers) that determine how much filth gets on your screen. Get upset with them, rather than the Republicans. Remember "The Passion of the Christ?" I laughed when it got an "R" rating. The rating screeners tried to keep the young minds from religion.

Neo-con Hypocrites own stock in the drug companies

Correction1: It is your 401k that owns the drug companies. You, your friends, family, teachers, police officers, firemen, postal workers, state and federal workers have made out large/huge from the wise choices that your mutual fund managers have made. Who is the hypocrite?

Correction2: Michael J. Fox is able to deal with his disease because of those drugs, as well as the grandmothers and grandfathers that need them. If you want to lower the prices of the drugs, then get rid of the overwhelming lawsuits and lawyers that drive up insurance and other costs to deliver the best drugs in the fastest possible amount of time.

I'm sure mrcg is a Saint and is allowed to throw stones.

Contrary to opinions that abound, I am not dead, yet. I have to die first, before I can be canonized. Let me know if I get it, after I have gone.

I am, also, not running for public office, much less the presidency of the USofA. I believe that offices of senator and president should be held by someone of a higher caliber.

mcrg, in spite of your egregious misuse of the br tag, you have a point. Obama doesn't say anywhere that he "isn't proud" of what he did--but he did stop using drugs. We all look back lightheartedly on the indiscretions of our youth once we've grown and learned more about ourselves and the world. Don't actions speak louder than words?

I believe that people will follow a leader they can trust to understand their personal situations. People look up to leaders who have overcome problems that they themselves have not. Nobody in politics--nobody in politics--has a clean slate. It's about time politicians stopped being so sanctimonious and owned up to the fact that we are all equal.

You didn't answer my question.

First off, it was a br tag. I'm sorry, everything was bunching together and I am just trying to figure this stuff out!

Secondly, Tax sheltered retirements (not including pensions or private home ownership) constitute about 35% of total investment in the United States (including foreign investment, so the total percentage is a lot more). So hypocrite right back at you.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html

At the start of 2004, total U.S. securities amounted to $33.4 trillion .... (This figure includes foriegn holders of securities)

http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v14n4.pdf

Americans' tax-advantaged retirement savings have grown substantially in the past two decades, reaching a record $12.9 trillion at year-end 2004.

So what if there are rich people. I want to be one someday. Don't you? Everyone in the world needs to learn how to gain, gather, hold onto, keep and manage money.

If you want to do REAL good in this world, go preach the gospels of Mutual Funds, retirement planning, insurance, and living within your means.

REAL people would avoid REAL tragedies, rather than rely on some dream of Big Brother communist-socialist non-existant protection.

The government gets their money, by taxing successful people and businesses out of existence. Look at Ford, GM, Chrysler, the airlines. They are either bankrupt or drowning. Unions and taxation have buried these companies and now millions of workers may not get the fat pensions that their unions have promised.

@stolte-sawa

Answering your question ....

Isn't forgiveness a virtue we should practise?

Show me where Obama is asking for forgiveness.....

You're still not answering my question.

I did answer your question. You are confusing forgiveness with masochism. There is a process to forgiveness. It takes one person wanting to repair the damage and another willing to throw away a grudge to reconnect their relationship.

Just like North Korea during negotiations, they defiantly take over and abuse, then they demand new concessions. That is not negotiations it is a form of self abuse.

Forgiveness is only given to those who ask for it genuinely. Forgiveness is part of the process of healing relationships. When you ignore a wrong, you give them a pass to repeat the grievance. This is called spousal abuse syndrome.

Charles Manson could eventually qualify for forgiveness, if he shows contrition and demonstrates his sorrow. Also, he will never get out of prison, because even the most honest contrition and forgiveness will never absolve the societal punishment he deserves. His act was too heinous. However, Charles Manson does not ask for forgiveness. Therefore, he deserves none. Were he to want forgiveness, he would have a lot of broken glass to crawl over.

Obama does not ask for forgiveness. He deserves none. Let him ask first.

Masochism? Please. What he did was in his personal past. He moved past it. You and the rest of America didn't know him at the time. He didn't hurt "America" then and he isn't hurting "America" now. Why should he have to ask your forgiveness?

There was another question.

Bill Clinton didn't inhale, but he did ingest, he unzipped in the White House Oval Office, he lied repeatedly, told others to lie for him, then interfered with the investigation.

It is a pattern of brazenness that is galling.

Obama is starting in the same way. When caught with a stain on his record, he becomes obstinate and proud of it. He could say that it was a one time thing and will never happen again, but he doesn't. These traits will not endear him to the electorate, or me.

It is nice to know that you have other questions. Let's discuss them sometime, when you have a chance.

BTW it IS a mortal sin. Dont you remember your Catechism?

...Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2291 states that using drugs and or sale of (pot and pills too) is a serious grave matter unless for the sole purpose of medical reasons and prescribed by a doctor to you....

Firstly mcrg your points are based on your personal philosophy, which you are attempting to impose on others, thus depriving them of their inalienable rights under your constitution.

Secondly, if you are a good Catholic, What the HELL are you doing Supporting an EVIL Pentecostal Protestant like Bush ???

Its Purgatory for you, that is why the USA is in such a mess. Because they Flung themselves into the Arms of the EVIL Pentecostal Protestants, and abandoned the Catholic Faith.

You really don't understand, do you?

I think that you should go back and read this, before you speak so definitively, on this subject.

Those are bigoted and offensive slurs against the Christian faith.

Where is the famed tolerance of the left now? Why the anger and rage at Christians? When losing in the arena of political debate, you start in on some libelous, bigoted rant about Christianity?

You, sir, are a cur; your true intolerance has been masked for the seething hatred that it is. I suggest that you go back and review your Reader's Digest history bullet-points and analyze them for the communist Stalinist talking points that they are, as well.

You mark yourself sir. You are more intolerant than anyone that you can point out. Your rage is consuming you and is on display for all to see.

I will not be silenced by your Stalinist tactics and pressures. You respond to the current topic, which are concepts that a political leader in this country should be held to a higher standard, rather than being an unrepentant drug user or sexual predator; or be silent.

Why is it that you think that you can get away with such offensive language about Christianity?

If you were equally inclined as to disparage Islamists, most of the various races, abortionists, homosexuals, criminals, left leaning politics or politicians, or any other victim; do you think this blog could contain the justified outrage? I know it could not!

Good Christians should read your words as an example. They should demand your retraction for the scurrilous insults that you have spewed on these pages. I hope that they and the Newsvine staff do as well.

I have no stomach for that today. Someday you, too, will be on the outside looking in, as we all eventually do in this life of ours. You will feel the sting of intolerance and indifference. At that time you may understand, but until then we all have growing to do.

While I should demand a contrite and sincere apology from you for your outbursts and insults, instead I will pray for your immortal soul at Sunday church. I can only hope that it helps you.

So mrcg, you feel that obama should be asking for forgiveness based upon your faith's view of drugs?

And what was the offensive slur part of Daniel's comment?

You study history in a vacuum, filter my comments through your own personal bigotry, and won't speak directly to the issues. Who has the problem?

The point was the worthiness of the candidate. You unappologetically make constant personal affronts against me and my religion. Then you make it sound like Christians are not allowed to vote. Have you extended the "separation of church and state" that far now? This has now turned to hate speech, and will be so reported.

I did not bring it up

stolte-sawa
Addendum: You said "right and wrong are a thing of the past." So are the days when Obama got high. Everyone does things they aren't proud of, everyone has regrets. Getting wasteed isn't a mortal sin. Isn't forgiveness a virtue we should practise?

#1.11

AS YOU CAN SEE, I was responding to stolte-sawa, you should read the thread before you stomp in and push people around, telling us how to vote.

You also must have missed this jewel that was deposited.

I SPY
Secondly, if you are a good Catholic, What the HELL are you doing Supporting an EVIL Pentecostal Protestant like Bush ???

Its Purgatory for you, that is why the USA is in such a mess. Because they Flung themselves into the Arms of the EVIL Pentecostal Protestants, and abandoned the Catholic Faith.

You were the one that just piled it on to this hate speech, without even reading the context of the debate. The context of the debate was the electibility of Obama. I have commented on this over and over, and you CHOSE to ignore my points and you CHOSE to attack my religion.

We voters have our own minds. The electorate can and will vote its conscience, and no amount of Stalinist bullying will shut us up. The electorate will look at unrepentant drug users and withhold their votes. Obama may get re-elected in Illinois as a Democrat incumbent, but he will never get elected on the national scene.

you also seem to have forgot not to judge least ye be judged

You have to make judgements in politics. A foolish person abandons his judgement at the ballot box. Render unto Ceasar.

You are a bully and a hate monger. You insulted me and tried to strong-arm me into silence in this forum more than once and I don't like it.

And so the mask slips from the righteous and we see the same leering face and cold claws that we see on the mullahs of the Taleban. Mrcg, I see no moral difference between your unwilling and unwelcome imposition of your faith and Mullah Omar's. Both of your misinterpretations of history lead to a new dark age, and no amount of pious criticism from hypocrites will stop me from making that clear.

I did not and do NOT impose my faith, but I do defend it.

Both of your misinterpretations of history lead to a new dark age

How dramatic!

I stated NOTHING about history, except to question someone else's limited (was it only three sentences?) interpretation of the last thousand years of history.

Good job at trying to divert the argument again. Good job at trying to silence the opposition. This is the fourth time that religion has been dragged back into this argument and I didn't start any of them. If you can't present a valid argument, then silence the messenger. Stalin would be proud.

But the issue here, AGAIN, is Obama's electability (not religion). The electorate will look at his record, and his explanations and recoil.

AND YET AGAIN, would he have handled his explanation differently, the electorate and I would be more accepting. But he didn't, did he?

So what position could he have taken that would have made your side more accepting?

Ok - I don't normally jump into religious discussions on the 'Vine because religion isn't something that you can really argue with someone, but this is an exception. Daniel, you know I value your opinion on lots of issues but you're way off base here.

How Rome was burned, How the first Pope last Roman Emperior and needed a way to consolidate his power and control of a failing empire so he chose Christianity. How he began the first crusades to purge the world of all those who did not follow his newly invented virsion of Religion. How he had the Bible rewritten in the canonization so that it would appear that the Bible says you can not get to Heaven without going through the church. And to spread the rule of the Roman Church through out the world. The new Roman Empire was born. But you don't want to know this.
Just keep you false religion out of my Government.

As a historian, let me take this in parts.

1 - How Rome was burned: Archaeological evidence suggests that, while Nero was certainly crazy as a proverbial loon, it was in fact the Christians who set fire to Rome under Nero. Later historical revisionism painted Nero as the bad (as opposed to incompetent) guy. Nero didn't help his case by using the opportunity to build a vast mansion for himself upon the charred ashes of Rome's most populous slums, but he was very likely not at fault for the fire itself.

2 - The "first Pope last Roman Emperor" and the "consolidation of power:" Catholics hold the first Pope to have been Peter. He is buried beneath the alter of St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican city and a great deal is religiously invested in his role as the first pontiff. That said, the last of the Roman Emperors was well after Peter's death. Moreover, the first Roman Emperor to accept Christianity to consolidate his power was Constantine, who was neither a Pope nor the last of the Roman Emperors. Christianity became the official religion of the Empire shortly after Constantine and the Eastern Emperors would gradually transition into the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

3 - "Began the first crusades:" That all happened centuries after the fall of Rome and had nothing to do with the Emperor(s) of Rome. The Holy Roman Empire had something to do with it, but as Voltaire famously quipped - it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

4 - "Had the bible rewritten:" Now you're talking about James the First of England and his rewriting of the Bible - largely to demonize Homosexuality and keep his brother in the closet. I'm not aware of any versions of the Bible that specifically state that entrance into Heaven hinges upon the Church itself, though Catholic doctrine certainly implies it. That said, specific verses of the Bible do not - to the best of my knowledge - reflect any such revision.

5 - "Rule of the Roman Church" etc: Roman Catholicism was spread throughout Europe by virtue of the Roman Empire. Later spread beyond the borders of Europe was accomplished through missionaries and colonial practices. These same factors spread protestantism throughout Europe's colonies later on, though the Roman Catholic Church had a head start by virtue of Spanish influence particularly up until the Treaty of London in 1606.

You numbered some things there that I'm confused about. Do your numbers correspond to my numbers or are those completely different numbers?

Catholics consider Peter to have been the first pope. Since "pope" is something the Catholics made up I think it's fair to let them decide who the first was. Moreover, as the fundamental precept upon which the Church is built - the infallibility doctrine - is derived from the authority given Peter by Christ, the significance of Peter as the first Pope has theological consequences for the Church and is indeed a cornerstone of Catholic faith.

In other words, it doesn't matter a whit what the history books say on this one, the Catholics all believe that Peter was their first Pope and since no one other than the Catholics really gives all that much of a damn about who the the Pope is - we can safely assume that Peter was/is the first Pope - even if it has to be retroactively.

I think you're also confusing Pope Constantine the First (whose Papacy began in 708 AD) and the Roman Emperor Constantine the First (who died in 337) who was the first "Christian" Emperor, though the phrase is used very loosely.

Ok, this is the fifth time religion has overwhelmed this thread. I'm glad we have all of that volume behind us. At least it was civil. I hope that you two have found some middle ground between you.

Hey! Wait a minute .... Is this some new kind of leftist tactic? Change the subject to religion then tag team the thread, and fill three yards of printout with semi-factual religious hyperbole, until the average reader gets bored and runs away?

That's LOW!

Besides, won't you be flirting with carpal tunnel syndrome?

I'm tired of politicians making these kinds of 'punk points' concessions to avoid having to nail down their political agendas and methods of acheiving them. Lets focus on the issues instead of focusing on color, ethnicity, teenage/college experimentation and sexual tendencies.

If the article's any indication, it's not Obama focusing on his past drug use—it's the media.

Oh hear, hear! Finally someone focusing on the issues rather than the issues' package. I never thought I'd see the day when a fellow adult cared more about what a person thinks than their preconceived notions of political leanings, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ect.

@mrcg:

Why are you so concerned about whether or not a politician used a substance when the current group of politicians in power are using you? Lying your way into an unnecessary war while underfunding and under-manning the necessary one is so far lower than a little pot usage that the two cannot at all be compared.

I am all for the decriminalization of pot, but I would make its use an exacerbating, not mitigating, factor in the sentencing phase of any crime committed while under its influence. If someone tokes up in their own house, it isn't any of my business, plain and simple.

People ridicule Dubyas college day coke fest because his hacks continually , and to this day, flaunt Clinton's "I did not inhale" line every chance they get. They than combine this with the Lewinsky affair under the topic:"what kind of example is this harumph harumph harumph. As usual, the right wants to have it both ways.

maybe true, but its completely different.

Obama seems to have minimalized the whole issue by simply copping to it.
Yep, I inhaled. Big deal. Its weed not cocaine. Its slightly more intoxicating than a beer.

Face it hard alcohol is WAY WAY WAY more dangerous than weed.
Who can disagree with that? It true.

You know, if Bush were to come out and say, "Yeah...I snorted a few back in the day," it wouldn't make me like his policies any more, but I confess I would have a teensy ounce more respect for the man. Not because he did or didn't do cocaine, but because he told a hard truth, one that wasn't designed just to make people feel better. I appreciate that in people, and look for it in my representatives.

And what if he just came out and said "No, I didnt snort a few back in the day", do you only believe him when he's admitting to something you hope he did?

Andrew, I don't believe anything bush says. In fact, I truly don't believe he knows the difference between truth and fiction. I've seen your comments, Andrew, and I would much prefer *you* as President over bush, and I'm a liberal. Heck, you can read!

So, theoretically, if he came out and said "I've been wrong" or "I've lied", you wouldnt believe that, thus thinking that he really was right, or that he never lies, which would end up causing a loop that would end in your head exploding off your shoulders?

Could make for an interesting 60minutes.

So, Benton for President (in like 18 years)

To be fair, I was just trying to see whether or not any honesty is noted, or if you only accept honesty you believe to be true yourself.

Also, it was kind of just to liven up the debate :]

Surely you've known people who lied constantly and who you frequently caught lying, right? What I have a tendency to do is just shut that person out. I don't know why I'd want to continue parsing their message because it would make my head explode. I continue to read bush's babble because I enjoy politics, but, at this point, I assume everything is a carefully crafted communication and I ignore the message being shoved down my throat. I reached that point with him when he was the Texas Governor, btw. I am not surprised, at all, but what he has said or done in office.

Plus, the man simply does not have the ability to be so introspective or the courage to admit he has lied. He is too weak.

(A little belated:)

Maybe it doesn't matter what Mr. President, whoever he is, did during his college years, or what happens in his private life, as long as he is a clean and law-abiding citizen when he gives his Inaugural Address.

Who gives a flying @!$%# if George W. sniffed at some parties, if Obama toked up in the dorm, as long as they've given it up? Honestly.

An Alcoholic is an entirely different thing than someone who has used drugs from time to time. Alcoholic means addiction.

If I go out tonight and smoke a joint, pop some Ex, or do a line of coke I'm not a junkie - I'm a 20-something professional out having a good time and enjoying illegal substances while I do it.

If I need a line of coke every morning to start my day, or if I need Ex to feel human anymore I've got a problem. Alcoholics, by definition, had - at one point in their lives - a problem.

Now I'm not saying people can't change - but there are risks involved here and we can't simply dismiss them because they're inconvenient. Alcoholism is a daily struggle to stay sober. Every day President Bush fights with his internal cravings for a drink, or two, or twelve.

Now I applaud the man for staying sober - but I'm terrified of what might happen if he doesn't.

Alcohol is a beverage available easily and rapidly throughout DC and the White House itself. The Presidency is a high stress job and one that tends to drive people back to old vices.

No Tom, Alcoholism is a real and serious concern when we're talking about the President of the United States. I view Bush as a better person for having overcome it -- but that doesn't make me feel safer with him running the country.

Personality Traits of Alcoholics/Addicts
Here are some of that seem particularly negative for a world leader. (full list here)

Anxiety that state which seems to exist in all people, exists in an exaggerated way in addicted persons. They are subject to nameless dreads and fears. This anxiety drives alcoholics and addicts to "fight or flight". Sometimes this is called free-floating anxiety.

Grandiosity is worn as a protective armour to hide feelings of low self-esteem. In reality, although addicts nourish an inflated image of themselves, their deep conviction is one of self-worthlessness.

Justification Addicts are masters at this. Justification is the science of arranging to do what we want to do, then making it appear reasonable.

Sensitivity exaggerates all the unpleasant interpersonal relationships experienced by the addicted person. This inevitably produces extreme resentment.

Impulsiveness "I want what I want when I want it." This is probably related to a low frustration tolerance. In some ways the addict takes pride in this impulsiveness, as though it were a valuable asset. The alcoholic/addict can't seem to enjoy a job or task and long before completion is already moving on to something else.

Defiance is a common response to society as a whole, whether the addict is under the influence or not. This is associated with a feeling that one does not fit, exactly, into society.

Interesting? It doesn't say whether these traits become less noticeable when the addict/alcoholic is no longer using.

Oh my.

I wonder if being addicted to power has the same symptoms ??

I would also like to point out that addicts of any type have what may be termed an addictive personality. That is to say that the substance they chose to abuse could easily be replaced with another as long as the new one feeds their need. Is power addictive? Of course it is. No one who once had power will be happy after it is gone and some will go to great lengths to retain it.

I smoke pot, maybe 3 or 4 times a year. I don't break any laws when I do either.

Tell that to the officer :)

By the way, some people have more addictive personalities than others, and there is a genetic component to alcoholism as well. It's not simply a matter of willpower.

Right, just like genes have nothing to do with growing wisdom teeth.

Tell it to the native americans that their genetic predisposition to alcoholism is a cop out.

Also,

Either you want to do a thing or you don't want to do a thing.

Right. People who don't want to repeat it are very unlikely to get addicted. This is where genetics plays a role.

I'm not sure if I'd call him a habitual liar so much as a habitual equivocator, but I feel you here, tschreck.

Kind of ironic though that Edwards cant even carry his home-state though. I think it will be McCain or Guiliani also, althought personally I hope its not McCain. I think by 2008, Hillary will have been washed out as a main candidate, mostly because her negative stigma of the fact that she's running for re-election NOW, just to hold her over til 08.

Either way, I look forward to the excitement of the next couple of years... and look forward to working on some of these campaigns!

Edwards/Clinton? i disagree.
Clinton would be the headliner on that ticket. She has more exp in the senate and her name is 1000 times for famous.

I beleive they are both too old world, old school, whatever you want to call it. They are both last generation.

i think we need new blood, new ideas, new methods, new models, new way of thinking for the new information Age.

All these characters came up to far back in the day.

I think Obamas "purple America" is the perfect foil to Bushs 8 years of divide and conquer.

His timing may be just about perfect if the backlash against Bushism comes to a head in 08 as I expect it to.

Unlike Hillary he does not have long record of supporting Bush policys(coughIRAQcough).

Hes barely been a senator for 2 years.

Less time to have been corrupted and got in good with the "good ole boy" network. I mean, how many terms as a congress critter had Washington served before being elected president?

Hes barely been a senator for 2 years.

Also, in some ways that might be good for him. Think back to 2004 and how Kerry's senate record was constantly used against him (sometimes legitimatly, sometimes not).

It could also be helpful to him if the mood of the country stays the same until 2008. People are sick of politics right now, and nobody really has anything nice to say about the career politicians. So the fact that he hasn't been in the game that long, that he doesn't appear to be a career politician (yet), might be helpful to him. How many times do you hear people talking about the need for "fresh blood" in the government?

Overall, I don't really know what his chances would be. Guess it depends on how his election would be spun.

Im not a fan of career politicians either, but we do need to see things from him to make an informed decision. I would want to know his real stances on alot of issues and from the interviews with him I have heard, he has given answers that play both sides of the issue and doesnt tell you where he stands.

Kerry has been in the Senate way too long and has done nothing to distinguish himself positively. But atleast 1 term I dont think would be a bad time frame.

That was a rather off topic rant. Further off topic: I use antabuse.

deh ehn,

re read the article - you're misinterpreting what he's saying about his faith.

read this

that was: www.realclearpolitics.com /articles/2006/06 /the_connection_between_faith_p.html

Alright. But it will still be nice to have a president who doens't think the jury is still out on evolution. And who recognizes the progressive tendencies of the teachings of christ, rather than focusing on gay bashing and abortion. And who probably wouldn't start wars in the name of God.

Bush admitted to having a problem with drinking and denounced it. Barack never said he had a problem with smoking pot he just said he smoked it. Some people are capable of doing things in moderation so that they don't become a problem that needs to be repented of.

I guess I just figured dems smart enough to figure it out for themselves.
:)

I'll bet you're smoking up as you type this, admit it ;)

I'm assuming it was at the interview. She said she saw him on Monday and that there were 600-700 people there. And it looks like the interview in question was in Arizona (where I live) so I'm assuming that's where she was.