Unexpected turn in the story of Obama’s teenaged drug use

It’s been a pleasant surprise that the presidential campaign has been largely indifferent to Barack Obama’s admitted drug use as a teenager. Voters don’t seem to care, reporters can’t find a reason to note its relevance, and even Republicans have generally decided there’s no point in pursuing the issue. Obama has been candid about it, he’s acknowledged his mistakes, and aside from some inappropriate comments from a couple of Clinton campaign surrogates, there just doesn’t seem to be any controversy here.

But the NYT puts an unexpected twist on the story today — apparently, Obama may have done less experimenting with drugs than we’ve been led to believe.

Nearly three decades ago, Barack Obama stood out on the small campus of Occidental College in Los Angeles for his eloquence, intellect and activism against apartheid in South Africa. But Mr. Obama, then known as Barry, also joined in the party scene.

Years later in his 1995 memoir, he mentioned smoking “reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and talked about “getting high.” Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii, according to the book. He made “some bad decisions” as a teenager involving drugs and drinking, Senator Obama, now a presidential candidate, told high school students in New Hampshire last November.

Mr. Obama’s admissions are rare for a politician (his book, “Dreams From My Father,” was written before he ran for office.) They briefly became a campaign issue in December when an adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s chief Democratic rival, suggested that his history with drugs would make him vulnerable to Republican attacks if he became his party’s nominee. […]

Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use.

Let me get this straight. The NYT decided to take a closer look at Obama’s teenaged drug use, and found that those close to him don’t remember him experimenting that much at all.

In other words, the story suggests, Barack Obama may be the first major politician in history to exaggerate his drug use in the wrong direction.

In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana.

Vinai Thummalapally, a former California State University student who became friendly with Mr. Obama in college, remembered him as a model of moderation — jogging in the morning, playing pickup basketball at the gym, hitting the books and socializing.

“If someone passed him a joint, he would take a drag. We’d smoke or have one extra beer, but he would not even do as much as other people on campus,” recounted Mr. Thummalapally, an Obama fund-raiser. “He was not even close to being a party animal.”

Mr. Obama declined to be interviewed for this article. A campaign spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said in an e-mail message that the memoir “is a candid and personal account of what Senator Obama was experiencing and thinking at the time.”

“It’s not surprising that his friends from high school and college wouldn’t recall personal experiences and struggles that happened more than twenty years ago in the same way, and to the same extent, that he does,” he wrote.

How very odd. The suggestion seems to be that a politically ambitious young man wrote a book conceding drug experimentation that was less serious than he disclosed.

My inclination is to give Obama the benefit of the doubt — I suspect he’d more far more familiar with this behavior than his college buddies — but it also seems likely that he kept his personal vices private.

It’s a silly political process, and I’m often surprised by what becomes controversial, but I imagine if Republicans went after Obama on this, his response is pretty simple: “Are you suggested that I didn’t experiment with drugs as a teenager enough?”

The funniest thing about that article is his spokesman basically insisting that he really did use drugs more than these other people say. That has to be a first.

  • OK…if the NYT says so.

    So: Obama is overstating reality (lieing), or the NYT doesn’t know everything he did? My bet is on the latter.

  • Well, if someone decides to stop doing a behavior they feel badly about, and if they feel that they have done wrong, they may exaggerate the badness of their own behavior in their own mind. Especially if they knew from the outset that they were violating some personal code of ethics.

    I really don’t think that there is an issue here except in how Obama percieved his use vs how more easy going people viewed it.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names.]

  • I envision an anti-Obama TV ad in which a group of mid-40s aging-hippy types look into the camera and say things like, “Barack Obama claims he often used marijuana and other illicit drugs during his college years. Well, I went to college with Barack. I was there. I was close to him. And I never once saw him use an illicit drug. It bothers me that he is now claiming to have been a big drug user back then. It really bothers me that I can’t trust what he has to say.”

    The group will call itself Spliff-Toke Veterans for Truth.

  • This is an incredibly stupid story on behalf of the NYT. Did any of them ever attend college or high school? There are a lot of students who use drugs who also get good grades and generally appear normal in their day to day lives. Life is not an after school special. Just because someone is struggling with drugs does not mean that their drug use is obvious to everyone around them. Also, if you’re using illegal drugs, you tend not to tell that many people.

  • “Are you suggested that I didn’t experiment with drugs as a teenager enough?”
    That’s tyhe perfect comeback and one that I was thinking as read the post.

  • My take on this was not the one you presented, Steve. My thought was that maybe by overstating his “mistakes,” it had the effect of making his “redemption” and eventual success a lot more powerful than it would have appeared otherwise.

    If Obama was never really in any danger of going down the wrong path, he becomes just like millions of others and a lot less inspiring.

    If it’s true, it’s creepy.

  • Of course Repuke-licans would look at this as an attack advantage. Everything and all will open for ridicule.

    “splifff-toke vets” – love it….simply love it.

  • I think it’s outrageous that the New York Times published a story rehashing old news about Obama’s admitted drug use on the morning of two Democratic Primaries and two Democratic caucuses in the crucial first match-up after he held his own on Super Tuesday.

    Combined with yesterday’s New York Times front page story anointing John McCain the victor after so much of Romney’s momentum swung to Huckabee last week, it is hard to see a motivation at work other than to try to take choice away from the voters.

    The Times has, after all, openly endorsed both McCain and Clinton in their respective 2008 primary bids.

    Contrast the Times behavior in the last few days of publishing non-stories designed to swing an election with the way they sat on real, relevant, crucial stories critical of George Bush in October 2004 precisely because, they claimed, they didn’t think it would be fair to publish them so close to an election.

    I wish I had a subscription to the New York Times so I could cancel it.

  • Count me as an Obama supporter from this day forward.

    Really?!?

    I shudder to think of any Clinton supporters that tangle with you as a newly minted convert!

    And by the way…check out #31.

  • That should be the, not “thye”. My cat was pestering me for some attention while I was typing and I missed the typo while I was trying to type and gently trying to shoo her away at the same time.

  • Goes to show that he didn’t “disclose” his experimentation with drugs to forestall later bombshell revelations, but instead truly felt that doing drugs was a waste of his time and talent, as it is for ALL people. He was telling the story of his own journey. That journey included some detours and close calls, all of which made him wiser. He’s not going to whitewash that story just to make it look perfect. Authenticity. Barack Obama has it.

    We can spot prevarication a mile away. That was Mitt Romney’s downfall. Romney was so off base he even suggested that if one had used poor judgment in the past it was best not mentioned in front of young people.

  • Further to my previous comment, the NYT story seems to be of a piece with the John Solomon articles on Edwards in the WaPo, and now Clinton in the WaTimes – not enough “there” there to warrant the space.

    Zeitgeist, if that’s really you, I have to say that I’m shocked.

  • I’ll be surprised if Zeitgeist@#4 is for real. It looks like a handle hijack to me. It is suspiciously fact-free.

  • “instead truly felt that doing drugs was a waste of his time and talent, as it is for ALL people.”

    not all of us think that smoking pot is a waste of time and talent. please stay away from generalizations.

  • I just hope when he becomes president, he looks back on his marijuana use and remembers how it didn’t deter him from being successful in life. It didn’t cause him to drop out. It didn’t cause him to lose his motivation.

    But most importantly, that if he had been caught and arrested back then, he may not be where he is today. A marijuana conviction can ruin a persons life. Which can provide far greater damage to a persons life than the use of the herb itself does.

    Obama in 08′ ! Legalize it!

  • The thing about drugs is that they might interfere with your memory a little bit. Did I drink five of that six pack or did I drink all six?

    I was just thinking that if you apply the title of Barack’s book to Huckabee then the audacity of Hope has a whole new meaning.

  • I agree with Dale that Message #4 from Zeitgeist has got to be a fake, a Freeper comment or just plain delusional. The Times took apart Bill Clinton when had that embarrassing adulterous incident with Monica Lewinsky, and has continued to attack both Clintons. My readings of their columnists, Brooks, Modo, and Kristol (among others) are pure slaughter.

  • I have a real, simple observation: our generation (I’m a few years older than Barack) engaged in drug use. I’m not sure that I would trust someone who didn’t try pot, and I actually appreciate Obama’s willingness to be open about past drug use. While it may be used against him, I doubt it will have much impact. It only shows that he was a normal member of the culture of his time in college. I’m willing to bet that a lot of repubs in the same age range partied, too (I think I supplied them back in the day).

  • If Obama had understated his drug use (“I didn’t inhale,” for example), we would never hear the end of it. Now he’s having to defend himself because he may have overstated his partying and drug use?

    This is just about the stupidest “controversy” I’ve ever read.

    And what Jennifer said @ #13.

  • Does it mean anything that he may have exaggerated his drug use? I think that’s the point of the post and the column – and so far, all anyone wants to talk about is that he used them.

    Maybe it doesn’t mean anything at all. It seems like a strange move for someone who knew when he was headed for bigger and better things in the political arena, unless he thought it would accomplish two things: (1) get it out there so people knew about it and he couldn’t be accused of hiding it and (2) make himself appear to have overcome more than he actually did, so as to make his message of hope a little more audacious.

    The first seems only logical – don’t hide the dirt and then people can’t play “gotcha.” Maybe the second follows from the first because it gives the drug use more meaning than it might have otherwise had. I mean, I venture that we could all probably write a book and include tales of our own youthful experimentation, but if we haven’t risen to the political stage, and have no ambition to rise to the national level, it’s meaningless, isn’t it?

    Or maybe, his friends and those interviewed for the article were afraid the NYT was going to make more out of whatever they said, so they downplayed the drugs.

    I think this is the problem when there’s an ending going in search of a story, as perhaps the NYT was doing, and which we have seen in other papers and on the TV.

  • My readings of their columnists, Brooks, Modo, and Kristol (among others) are pure slaughter.

    Remember, the news and op-ed pages are run by two different departments and by two different sets of rules. Often, the news does not match the views expressed in the op-ed section (this is true of all papers).

    You are right that their op-ed has become unreadable. MoDo will go after anyone, though. She is a nasty woman, and her ‘discourse’ is of the utterly vapid variety.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names. -CB]

  • Like many kids who are Obama’s age I did my weed, coke and maybe a lude or two. It was part of the zeitgeist. I always thought I did a lot, but over New Year’s I saw an old friend who really had an addiction problem…and she made some quip to my wife about little I partied. It was odd, in my mind I did a lot of drugs, but in reality I was a guy who got a little high when going out, did some bumps at a few parties (and hated the stuff), and took a lude and a hit of acid to check it out. I never really bought the weed or anything else. I think there are millions of us (including Obama) who think we were late 70’s, early 80’s druggies, but in reality were only doing the social equivalent to drinking Scotch in 1959.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names. -CB]

  • I never said the NYT should have done this story – as a matter of fact, I thought I made it clear that it seemed more in line with the John Solomon, no “there” there stories he has done on Edwards and Clinton – AND – I also said I thought it was an ending in search of a story.

    I suppose where I “went wrong” was to try to make some sense of the alleged differences between what is in the book and what those interviewed said about it – you know, actually look at what was written and see if it makes sense?

    I’m not trying to use the story against him, and if trying to make sense of something is now an unforgivable error around here, maybe here is not where I need to be.

    Happy voting everyone.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names. -CB]

  • THIS IS A TERRIBLE MOVE BY THE CLINTONS TO TRY TO CRUSH THE DREAMS OF OUR NATION!!

    THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA!!!

    – the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington.
    – the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government — we do. And we are here to take it back.
    – the time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.
    – He will be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way he expanded health care in Illinois, by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.
    – He will be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas
    – He will put a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.
    – He will be a president who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.
    – He will be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home
    – He will restores our moral standing
    – Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

    YES WE CAN!!!

  • I’m with Stav. Contra Anne @ 25, I don’t see this as a necessary or even a likely exaggeration on Obama’s part. What one sees as ‘too much’ or ‘enough to lead to undesirable effects or even mistakes’ by one’s own standards can be pretty mild by other people’s standards, if one is by nature self-controlled and mild, rather than wild.

    Although I may well be projecting too much of my inner nerd here, my own experience gives me no trouble in accepting Obama’s statements in his book and his friends’ recollections as equally truthful statements about their particular perceptions.

  • Well I was speed reading the paper this morning or maybe the reason is that I have reading comprehension problems or maybe I’m just dense but I thought the article was pro-Obama (and the paper is not available to recheck where I’m at). Wasn’t there three pictures of people with captions saying what a wonderful guy Obama was? And I thought the message of the article was you may have heard some things that might have led you to believe that Obama was a bad guy but we looked into it and the result of our investigation is that not only was he a good guy but he was a really really good guy.

    I also don’t get why this would have to be a Clinton hit job or if it was a Clinton hit job it had the exact opposite effect on me. But then again maybe I read it too fast or reading comprehension is not my strong suit.

  • ***Zeitgeist?*** WTF. This is such a non issue and really a ridiculous article but where did you get the idea it was an attempted smear tactic from the Clinton campaign? So much so that you’ve become indignant. If it was the part where some Clinton surrogate stated that Obama’s teenage drug use would make him vulnerable to republican attacks? I don’t get where you’re coming from? (and please don’t get John S. started..he commented 19 times in an hour and a half last night on one article) Did any one ever believe that Obama’s carreer or campaign was affected by statements about his teen years. People get all worked up about what the republicans might do. Are you kidding…after the horrors of Bush and the disasters he’s brought on the country with the full support of the republican party voters are turning out in record numbers out of necessity to make sure no republican wins the WH this election no matter who we nominate. More wars, no national health care, tax cuts for the wealthy made permanent, Iraq forever, the list goes on and on and McBush represents the disaster perfectly. Screw the republicans and their campaign tactics. We are currently just a few steps away from an insurgency in this country.
    With all this on the table…this article is pure entertainment fluf of no importance or significance…what does it have to do with anything much less Hillary?

    Hallelujah Amy, Hallelujah. I believe. I believe the republicans will stop obstructing all the legislation in the senate because Barack is here. He will make healthcare affordable by making sure only certain profiteers in the ins industry get our money and less of it. the corporations will stop denying patients procedures to save money because a pre-existing condition can be proved Because Obama says so. He will make sure the congressmen and senators stop taking money from lobbyists to pay for reelections. He will end the tax cuts for the wealthy who will want to give up the billions they’ve been collecting from it. Our divided nation will just unite as republicans finally decide our way is the right way because we have Obama, the savior has arrived. Corporations will suddenly just stop polluting and profits will be given up in the name of humanity. Walmart will go back to selling only products made in America, an Americans will have factories again to manufacture these Walmart goods.

    Now don’t think I’m projecting what I believe onto my candidate…he really will do all of these things…but god I wish I could also get him to make the healthcare system Not For Profit like medicare and medicaid (something about corporations running my health care that offends my ‘healthcare is a right not a privilege’ belief) Higher education used to be free before Reagan now I guess we’ll have to settle for “more affordable”. And I’m just not certain how many Billions the defense budget will be reduced by but hopefully enough to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Do we have a department of Peace yet or are we still threatening Iran with regime change(against the UN charter agreement) unless they change their behavior to be more like..I dunno…Pakistan maybe…and ExxonMobile has agreed to fully develop alternative energy sources to combat Global warming just as soon as they use up the oil they already have. As progressive as you wanna be I guess.

  • Non-story and a waste of print-estate. Maybe NYT felt it needed to write something nice about Obama (he’s not as black as in his self-portrait!) to maintain the optical illusion of balanced reporting. Or maybe they felt they needed to do a non-story on Obama, to balance the one they had on the Clintons’ marital non-cohabitation a while back. Who knows?

    And if that’s “our” Zeitgeist, I’m the Queen of Saudi Arabia. From 100% support for Hillary (and the Clintons in general) to the: […] a smear tactic by the Clinton Propaganda Machine,[…] (@31) in less than 36 hours??? Not only am I the Queen of Saudi Arabia, but I’ll eat my burqa (or whatever) as well. Besides… Zeitgeist was an adult, using adult language; this is a kid, in love with short and easy to remember catch-phrases. “Smear tactics” and “Clinton Propaganda Machine” indeed. Pfui.

    I’m gonna miss real Zeitgeist…

  • I was trying to think back on the extent of my own youthful indiscretions but damned if I can remember.

  • I’m sorry, but I only vote for hardcore druggies and believe that the best candidates for president are the ones who have truly proven their drug-cred by dying of an overdose. Unfortunately, none of them have stepped up, and I was hoping Obama would be the next best thing. But not now. That straight-laced pansy has lost my vote, and I’ll be scouring Deadhead websites looking for my new presidential choice.

    BTW, I once read about how Gore was a big pot smoker in his college days. But the GOP never really pushed that fact, I’m guessing because it made him look cooler. I really think it would have helped in 2000 had he brought it up more. I find it slightly odd for people to not have experimented with recreational drugs; at least pot at a party or something. It makes them look gulliable and square to not even have tried it at least once (no offense to any of you squares who haven’t). But I’ve never actually had the impression that Barack was trying to sound like a party animal. This is definitely one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” stories, where the reporter had to write something to justify the small amount of footwork they invested in it. They were probably hoping to find something bad, but had to write a story anyway.

  • I finally got around to reading the article in the NYT (the xword was tough and I have my priorities). Obama’s drug past covers one and a half page in the book he wrote when he was 33. NYT interviewed more than 3 doz friends, classmates and mentors. They didn’t learn much of anything, but apparently they spent so much effort finding these people, they decided they needed to write an article that was probably the equivalent of 10 book pages. And apparently the author, Ben Shpigel, didn’t ask any other questions.

    Amelia (35): I wouldn’t call it pro-Obama. A hit job? No way. A waste of paper mostly, though I suppose it is reassuring to Obama fans. As for the pictures, there is a high school group picture with people smiling. The other pictures looked like yearbook random shots with mostly friendly quotes underneath.

  • If the NYT article was a smear tactic it was too subtle for me.

    Evidently Ann Coulter said at CPAC something to the effect that B. Husein Obama is lucky that he was born half-black – now THAT’s a smear tactic, and there’s nothing subtle about it.

  • If the NYT article was a smear tactic it was too subtle for me.

    It is a subtle one, though I doubt it’s a “pro-Clinton” one. It’s too subtle and small for the primary season. Democrats aren’t going to care much about the implications of this individual story, and the time to the end of the primary season is too short for this to become anything big.

    OTOH – be prepared for this to be used to depress the younger vote if Obama gets the nomination. It’s groundwork for turning the image from “Obama the fresh voice” into “Obama the lying politician who will say anything to get elected.” A chip here, a chip there and soon you can weave a story about Obama’s “exaggerations” and “phoniness” out of nothing at all. I watched them do it with Gore in 2000, I’m sure they can do it to anyone.

    (And it’ll be especially disgusting to watch them using this to paint him as a liar while simultaneously playing up the fact that he admits to experimenting with drugs. They don’t care if their stories are consistent – they’ll just sling mud and exploit whatever hits).

  • Non Issue Now or in general election if he is the nominee. The kind of person who back him could care less about this. Intelligent people should not be worried about this.

  • This is retarded, they are arguing how much Obama thinks is too much.
    WTF ??

    Too much to Nancy Reagan was anything above zero, too much too Keith Richards is around Angola’s GDP.

  • Are the people trying to make this reflect badly on Obama’s character serious?

    I have a very explanation for this. He did some drugs, maybe once, and rather than get caught in a “I didn’t inhale,” he gave himself some wiggle room. Don’t try to minimize it, exaggerate, then you get a story like this when they try to dig and find out what really happened.

    I think it’s quite smart.

  • Not a waste of paper, either. The NYTs knows his drug use will be an issue, so they investigated, and this is what they found. Very empirical, and much better than, after all that digging, finessing to make it sound as though it was worse so that you can meet your quota. Very responsible journalism in my opinion, and a pleasant change of pace.

  • So, if Obama is elected president, what do we tell the poor schmucks in prison for federally mandated long terms for doing drugs? Sorry suckers, if you only hadn’t gotten caught, you could have ended up president. What hypocrisy! We so easily condone what the popular do while condemning those who aren’t. Isn’t it preferable that the leader of the free world hasn’t done illegal drugs?

  • Shouldn’t we be more concerned about his smoking habit (poor judgment) and lack of experience. Haven’t we had enough of presidents bicycling into the oval office on training wheels? I mean c’mon.. less than 2 senatorial terms in Illinois and less than 1 term as a U.S. senator? This is no time for a popularity contest followed by 4 or (gasp) 8 years of on-the-job training.

  • Comments are closed.