Barack Obama’s “shady” real estate deal turned out to be a pretty weak controversy. The intern story was even duller. The poor conservative attacks dogs are desperate enough to try and bring Obama down by talking about his ears, his middle name, and his father’s Muslim beliefs.
Not surprisingly, all of these fascinating topics seemed to lack a certain salience, but the scrutiny is just getting started. The Washington Post ran a lengthy item today — on its front page, no less — on Obama’s admitted experimentation with drugs as a teenager.
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life’s journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: “Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.”
The Democratic senator from Illinois and likely presidential candidate offered the confession in a memoir written 11 years ago, not long after he graduated from law school and well before he contemplated life on the national stage. At the time, 20,000 copies were printed and the book seemed destined for the remainders stacks.
Today, Obama, 45, is near the top of polls on potential Democratic presidential contenders, and “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” has regularly been on the bestseller lists, with 800,000 copies in print. Taken along with his latest bestseller, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream,” Obama has become a genuine publishing phenomenon.
Obama’s revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.
They are? Why, exactly, are they “sure to receive new scrutiny”? Because bored political reporters say so?
I can appreciate the fact that George W. Bush’s “youthful indiscretions” were the subject of considerable interest in the 2000 campaign, so it’s not unreasonable to apply the same standard to Obama. But there’s a major difference — Bush acknowledged an alcohol addiction, but refused to answer questions about more illicit drug use. Obama, meanwhile, not only acknowledged drug use, he wrote about it extensively in an autobiography. Unanswered questions pique reporters’ interest; already-answered questions are a lot less interesting.
For that matter, looking ahead, how exactly would Obama’s rivals make this relevant to voters? It’s not exactly a compelling pitch: “Don’t vote for Obama, he did drugs 35 years ago.” Chances are, any voter who might find this compelling probably wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway.
Patrick Hynes, a far-right blogger with whom I agree on almost nothing, summarized the dynamic quite well.
I am a recovering alcoholic…. [W]e are all flawed human beings. And I think any attempt to use this issue against Obama will backfire badly, whether it is done by one of his Democrat rivals or by a Republican. Frankly, it tells me something positive about the man that he had the character to overcome his problems and can speak so freely about them now.
It is my considered opinion that we Americans are an exceedingly forgiving people. It is one of the characteristics I love most about my fellow Americans — Lord knows I’ve had to beg for forgiveness from time to time. Besides, picking on a candidate for his youthful indiscretions — indiscretions he has clearly put behind him — is only one notch on the sleaze meter above using a candidate’s troubled family member as a campaign issue.
Obviously, news outlets like the Washington Post need to put candidates (and potential candidates) through their paces. For anyone who might be president, it’s both valuable and necessary for the media to scrutinize aspirants as closely as fairness will allow.
But this article strikes me as misguided, and frankly, a little silly. The WaPo put a lengthy article on its front page about an old story that seems to have no political relevance at all. It suggests that the drug issue might become important, and then quotes experts from both sides of the aisle saying it won’t be important at all.
I’m probably a little late in the game, but I’d like to declare the official beginning of The Silly Season.