--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/5/08 8:34:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Just like Billy Sheehan tried to warn others that the > > Republicans would use Obama's drug use against him and > > might accuse him of drug dealing. He was making the > > accusation first! > > Uh, no, he made no accusation. But he shouldn't > have said it, > > It was an indirect accusation. It planted the idea in peoples > minds,
Yes, it raised the issue of possible drug-dealing (as noted, it was already widely known that Obama had taken drugs when he was younger because he himself had revealed it in his book, and it had been a hot topic of discussion in the media). As I noted, he shouldn't have even mentioned it. just as > having Bob Kerry speaking about Obama's great Muslim roots > was to plant an image in peoples minds, The image had already been planted in people's minds by the right-wing rumors. What Kerrey was attempting to do was to point out that any connection Obama had with Islam was a positive rather than a negative. and it was a Hillary campaign advisor doing it and > tried to mask it by saying the republicans could accuse him > of this later. Like a good campaign worker , Billy Sheehan > fell on his sword for the Hillmeister after the damage had > been done. I don't think either man was following direction from the Clinton campaign. I think Kerrey's motive was entirely benign; and I'm not entirely sure that Sheehan was doing anything but warning of what the Republicans were likely to do if Obama were nominated. It's the sort of thing campaigns and political mavens speculate about among themselves in trying to anticipate their opponents' moves, but it shouldn't have been mentioned publicly. The point is nobody in the Republican Party had > ever mentioned this. Not so far, no. But there's no reason to think the same people spreading the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumors will be any more scrupulous about the drug- dealer idea, especially if Obama wins the nomination. By the way it is another Clinton ploy to attack the > bearer of bad news. If Novak lacked any credibility he wouldn't > be published in any major news papers and called as a witness > to testify in investigations. Oh, please. Novak has been running on his reputation for awhile now, but he lost his investigative edge and his ability to evaluate the reliability of his sources quite some time ago.
