The article about Obama and pot laws is telling. Anyone who really believes that Obama would have had the guts to vote against the Iraq Slaughter if he'd been in the Senate at the time is sadly deluded. Obama is a pandering political coward. He may have ridiculed the late Paul Wellstone as being nothing more than a "gadfly," but Wellstone had more political courage in his little finger than The Fraud will ever have in a lifetime . . .

On the Michelle Obama clip:

I don't know if this is intended to demonstrate the divisive "our guy our bust" attitude of the Obama camp... but really, what should we expect her to say? It's just like Tom DeLay saying he'd "have to think about" whether he could vote for McCain. Not that I'm in any way comparing Ms. Obama to Mr. DeLay, except to say that in both cases, someone with a particular intraparty agenda is making statements that are carefully calculated to advance it. Show me someone from the Clinton camp who wouldn't say the same thing in reverse.

It's just the kind of posturing that is expected from anyone involved in any campaign. It doesn't really indicate anything special.

Are you kidding, I'd expect her to say she was supporting the Democratic candidate for president. I would be shocked if you can find any report of Bill saying he wouldn't support Barack if he is the candidate.

She's not saying she wouldn't support her, just that "she'd have to think about it", which to me is just a coded way of avoiding coming out in support of her husband's current primary opponent. I'm sure she actually will support Clinton if she wins.

Sure I would prefer an expression of Democratic solidarity, but with as tight a race as it is now, that's probably not very realistic. It's dumb, sure, especially to most of us whose priority is getting a Democrat, whoever it turns out to be, in the White House, but it's also not surprising.

I don't know of a specific instance off the top of my head where someone in the Clinton campaign was asked the question that Mrs. Obama was asked, but I'd bet plenty of similar vacuous evasive maneuvers have taken place on their side too. It's not fair to ask for an example of an outright announcement that the Clintons would not support Obama though -- that's not what we have here.

Also, keep in mind that, for whatever reason, Clinton was far and away assumed to be the front-runner for years leading up to these primaries. It's neck-and-neck now, but I think that mentality persists, given that there hasn't been a clear reversal of status. The reason I point that out is that front-runners typically are in a position to be more complimentary to their opponents, whereas underdogs traditionally have to be on the attack.

"It's just the kind of posturing that is expected from anyone involved in any campaign. It doesn't really indicate anything special."

No I don't think so. It's a major mistake by Michelle Obama. DeLay is a Republican thug who wants to throw his paltry weight around. Michelle Obama is the spouse of a major candidate who is running based on the assumption that the quest for the nomination will not come at the expense of the party's chance in November. Any mainstream candidate much make that pledge to support the nominee, and that goes for the closest supporters, too.

Of course Michelle Obama is a political novice who is oversensitive to the harsh back and forth of the campaign. So she's speaking from the heart as someone taking the attacks on her husband too hard. But it's a mistke nonetheless.

"the Iraq Slaughter if he'd been in the Senate at the time is sadly deluded."

It is sad that all our major candidates tend to be former drug users who cannot produce the gumption to advocate the legalization of possession of 5 oz. of pot. That's pretty standard, though. Every liberal knows that anyone taking the sensible stand on that issue is DOA in any nomination.

Maybe Wellstone was uncompromising, but even liberal heroes pick their battles when running for president. Kucinich, every liberal's favorite example of 200 proof, changed his abortion position right before his first run.

Your assumption about Obama is pretty uncharitable, I think. Most Dems in the House voted against the war, and a good chunk of Dem Senators did too. I think you're trying to hard to make Obama's position (hypothetically) equivalent to Hillary's which was exceptionally spineless, after it was sincerely pro-war. It really bothers me, because it wasn't easy to be pro-war at that time, even among liberals. We got to be lectured by the likes of Hillary Clinton about being unserious about terrorism and now our opposition is called insincere and meaningless. Maybe that's what my preference for Obama all comes down to. There has never been accountability for cowardice or malice on the war, even within the Democratic party. The people who ran for cover then are still running things.

Are you kidding, I'd expect her to say she was supporting the Democratic candidate for president.

The question in the interview is "work to support" not simply"support".

Certianly the spouse of every senator won't be out there "working". Did Bill Bradley's wife stump for Gore, Did Howard Dean's wife stump for john Kerry?

Did everybody honestly miss that?

RedSeven: This.

All she really said was that she would have to think about whether or not she'd work for (ie campaign for) clinton. I saw this days ago and realized the linguistic interpretations would be overblown.

I hear that Obama lures children into his house and eats them.

OK, seriously Norm, I have to ask. The Obama/pot issue cites extensive coverage from the Washington Times, which is owned by theocrat Sun Myung Moon (aka "News World Communications [sic]").

Shucks, some Republican legislators even gathered to crown him Messiah in a Senate office: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3DD1E39F937A15755C0A9629C8B63&scp=1&sq=A+Crowning+in+the+Capital&st=nyt

"As a shining symbol of democracy, the United States capital is not ordinarily a place where coronations occur. So news that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the eccentric and exceedingly wealthy Korean-born businessman, donned a crown in a Senate office building and declared himself the Messiah while members of Congress watched is causing a bit of a stir."

What's next? Links to attacks from Fox News and the New York Post?

According to NORML, January 31, 2008

"It appears Senator Obama, alone among the major candidates for the presidency, has the courage to state the obvious: it is time that we stopped treating responsible marijuana smokers like criminals," said NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre. "According to a recent CNN/Time Warner poll, 76% of the American people agree with Senator Obama, as well as the 48 million Americans who smoked marijuana last year."

Democratic rival Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign stated that she opposes decriminalization. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain opposes decriminalization, while former Utah Governor Mitt Romney opposes both decriminalization and physician-recommended access to medical cannabis.

come on,norm. adam was charitable in calling moon a "theocrat". i thought you didn't like cults? does the actual ownership of a media outlet cited by you by the very definition of a cult leader mean nothing to you? i mean, if not then ok, fair enough. i was just wondering..

Norm:

First, there are reliable sources of information, and those that are not. I count Fox News, the Washington Times, the Bush Administration press secretary--to name a few--among those that are not, given their obvious history of distortion.

Second, the way the issue is posed in the WaTimes article is--predictably--tendentious. If you were a black candidate running for president who had openly admitted to using drugs in the past--rather than, oh, say, making lame as remarks like 'I smoked pot but didn't hail' for the media to have a frenzy with, and for your enemies to use against you--would you, in a nationalized debate, trust that when a question was asked about "decriminalizing" pot, the public would know the difference between that and "legalizing" it? (The blog article which cited the WaTimes pieces obviously didn't trust that most people were familiar with the distinction, because it explicitly defines them).

Perhaps you might respond that Obama could have just explained the difference; at which point I would remind you that the question was of the "raise you hand if you agree" variety. And anyway, why give your enemies--by which I mean right wing wackos--fodder if you can avoid it?