I don't think it will.. many officials have been elected with past drug use.. even presidents have been .... it seems to me that it makes the officials more human somehow to the voting populace... it might even actually help him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16443180/
2007-01-03 01:47:41 · 29 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We are becoming more tolerant, not less. Clinton smoked pot once and 'didn't inhale', but Bush jr. did cocaine...and, I'm sure, inhaled deeply...
2007-01-03 01:49:55 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I love Obama and what he stands for. I read an article in the Washington Post this morning about the very same thing. I do believe that by his admitting his past drug use, and showing how and why he came out of it, he is going to connect more with a younger audience. Not to mention, his politics actually make sense! We really need a man that's that honest to the American people and has no problem showing that he's human too and he has made mistakes. Bush and other political figures fail to realize they are not anything special...they're public servants and owe the people the truth...
2007-01-03 01:52:23 · answer #2 · answered by sheand24 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It may hurt him in the short term, but it's doubtful it will have any effect on his long term prospects. Given that he didn't try to deny, the usage may also grant him favor in some circles for honesty.
Both Clinton and Bush either admitted or had strong evidence of drug use and both became president. Obama's abilities, achievements, oratory skills, and election campaign will weigh far more on his chances if he even decides to run. According to the latest information, he hasn't even made a decision.
2007-01-03 01:55:50 · answer #3 · answered by Jerry Hayes 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Based on Bill Clinton's admitted drug use and George W Bush former alcohol problems I don't think that will have a noticeable effect on his chances. However, his inexperience, lack of huge donors as compared to other democrats (like Hillary Clinton) and his very defensive views on race relations will probably have more of an effect.
2007-01-03 01:52:44 · answer #4 · answered by Matt M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not even close. the top of the battles in the two Iraq and Afghanistan have been whilst nearly all of enemy combatants died. by technique of a few estimates, as many as 500,000 Iraqi squaddies and civilians died and yet another a hundred,000 Afghans under Bush. under Obama that is been extra smaller conflicts and IED's , drones that have carried out the killing.
2016-12-15 14:41:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unlike Chicken George who hid his cocaine use, alcoholism (which, by all accounts, he has resumed), and illegal abortion in Texas, Obama freely admits his past mistakes. Obama has no more skeletons in his closet while Shrub and others still seek to bury theirs.
Obama is saying publicly, "This is the worst part of my life and I admit it." Correction: he said it 20 years ago. It's never been a secret he tried to hide.
Which would you rather have: Honest admissions of past mistakes or deliberate and false claims of moral superiority which hide far more republican - oops, reprehensible - acts (eg. Abramoff, Foley, Delay, Cunningham, etc. etc. etc.)? The number of scumbag rethugnicans - oops, republicans - who have been caught in criminal acts since 2000 could fill the rosters of three football teams.
.
2007-01-03 07:08:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they start hair testing voters and disallow those proven positive from voting,which is the fair and just thing to do,in this situation,..you know" judge me not lest ye be judged" then perhaps the hypocrisy of some people would be better seen
2007-01-03 02:07:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The man is a liberal worm in any event, and never should have even gotten elected to the Senate over Alan Keyes (someone decent and respectable).
2007-01-03 01:50:11 · answer #8 · answered by Joseph C 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Frankly, I don't care what he did in the past, as long as it's in the past. I do care about what kind of person he is now. If he can get the job done, and he is a decent fellow and has put his past behind him, that's fine with me.
2007-01-03 01:56:54 · answer #9 · answered by Dr. Quest 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it may help him win. But honestly, they ALL have skeletons in their closet . . . "let him without sin" . . . so the mud slinging has begun when in reality if you point one finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you! We need to look past previous personal mistakes and not psych ourselves out of another good public servant.
2007-01-03 01:52:49 · answer #10 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it. Look at the hop head how occupies the White House now.
2007-01-03 01:49:34 · answer #11 · answered by DavidNH 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋