Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

The Flap Over Obama's Drug UseWhy it hurts Clinton and helps him.

By John Dickerson
Posted Saturday, Dec. 15, 2007, at 10:23 AM ET
Barack Obama. Click image to expand.

I am not deeply outraged that Hillary Clinton's now resigned New Hampshire co-chairman, Bill Shaheen, talked about Barack Obama's past drug use. I am in the minority in this view. In a Fox News focus group, Democratic voters were asked if bringing up the drug charge amounted to dirty politics and they all threw up their hands so fast it looked like they were under arrest.

I think it's fair to talk about how Republicans might use publically available details about the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she turns out to be. That's true for Obama just as it's true for Clinton. And her opponents—including Obama allies and aides—have often talked about how Republicans will delight in bringing up the scandals from her husband's tenure. Shaheen made his remarks in the open and on the record, but Obama staffers, under the cloak of anonymity, tried to get the Atlantic's Mark Ambinder to look into Bill Clinton's post-White House sex life.

Fairness aside, Shaheen made a huge blunder. Let's count the ways: His remark fired up Obama's supporters and volunteers during the final stretch. It made Clinton look mean on the eve of the caucuses in Iowa, where they penalize mean politicians, and at a time when she was trying to soften her image in her ads. It also made her look hypocritical, since she's campaigned against the politics of personal destruction. There will be even less sympathy for Clinton aides who argue that it was actually Obama who was the first one to escalate the personal combat, by telling the New York Times five weeks ago that Clinton was being dishonest with voters. The flap has overshadowed and muddied Clinton's main argument that Obama will be vulnerable in the general election to GOP attacks because his record as a state legislator hasn't been thoroughly scrutinized. It also wasted two days of news coverage that Clinton could use to get out her message.

But wait, won't voters blanch when they think of Obama using drugs? For some older voters, it might be an issue, and for rural Iowans, it might make Obama seem more distant from their way of life, but I think most Democratic voters won't care. Plus, the underlying story about Obama's drug use is one in which he looks candid and thoughtful—both in his book and when he talked about his childhood indiscretions a few weeks ago. That's more contrast with Clinton's trouble with voters on questions of honesty. Rudy Giuliani, no patsy when it comes to breaking the law, praised Obama for speaking so forthrightly. This serves to undermine, for now, Shaheen's case that the GOP will some day savage Obama for his past.

Perhaps the biggest benefit Obama gets from this episode is that he emerges the winner in another big public fight. Combat skills matter because Clinton has been arguing that only she can handle the GOP onslaught in the general election. "Whoever we nominate is going to be subjected to the full force of the Republican attack machine," she said Friday. Democrats want to win, and voters I've talked to over the past months have asked whether Obama could handle the kind of attacks they saw against John Kerry. In Iowa, Obama precinct captains report that they get this question when they walk the streets and knock on doors. How considerate of Shaheen to give Obama the opportunity to land a solid counterpunch.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Barack Obama by Scott Olson/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

If I had to bet even money on the whole thing I would have to say that Hillary has now become Billary and that the firing of the campaign co-chair is something every bit as orchestrated as an Oprah Winfrey dedication speech. Watch out...the most Brilliant political mind of this century is the new bus driver and all I can say is you'd better get out the dirt shields because you ain't playin chess with the local high school champ anymore.

The campaign has been brilliantly lifted off of the substantive politicking that it was becoming ( very much to Obama's favor ) and has gone back to being an image war...a war that Obama simply cannot wage or win unless he starts wearing one of Oprah's stuffed bras.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy...he has real potential and he's trustable...but his new cohort is not. You think the Iowans will Punish Hillary for this?? Well, maybe they will...but I guarantee you this...most of the Bible belt heard all of this stuff loud and clear and they no longer need to buy the book to find out about it.

The claim that this helps Obama is ridiculous. Dedicated followers don't suddenly clone just because their candidate has been dealt an insult and undecided voters are as quick to acknowledge weakness of character as they are to condemn meanness. So they'll do what? Condemn Hillary for something she apologized for and pretend that Obama didn't already print all of this stuff for view in a Published and oversold autobiography?

If anyone did Damage it was Oprah who took this stuff from austere to best seller with another flash of surgically altered cleavage. Maybe it's just that the Publishers feel they have been cheated out of the royalties for this ...um...unauthorized exposure of personal secrets.

--justoffal

(To reply, click here.)

I think the media is mis-reading the impact of this "Obama drug story" in their glee at the prospect of bringing down a front runner and making the whole contest more of a horse race.

As an undecided democrat, I have to say (1) I did not know about Obama's past cocaine use, (2) to me, cocaine seems much worse than marijuana use and is frankly kind of shocking in a Presidential candidate and (3) since Obama has admitted the use - he brought it up himself if I understand this - and the Clinton person was just commenting that this admission makes him vulnerable - I don't see this as negative campaigning.

Or, if it is, we've gotten to a point of ridiculousness on what is considered "negative campaigning" My sense of this is voters will eventually settle down on the whole "Clinton is slinging mud because she's getting desperate" meme, and start thinking "Huh. Obama used cocaine." And I can't believe that will ultimately be good for Obama.

--wswiggs

(To reply, click here.)

Obama saying that Clinton is not telling the truth to voters is a political criticism, not a personal attack. It means she is deliberately fudging or spinning past and present policy decisions. Democrats have rightfully criticized Bush for not telling Americans the truth about the war in Iraq and its costs. Is that a personal attack against Bush? No. It's a political attack against his leadership methods and his destructive foreign policy moves.

You report on the Clinton campaign warnings that Obama will be subject to GOP attacks - because his record as a state senator has not been fully examined! This is one of the more entertaining comments of the campaign.

Obama's record in the Illinois state legislature is open for public review. Yet Clinton has refused to expedite the release of records documenting her time and actions as First Lady while claiming her First Lady years as a huge portion of the experience that qualifies her to be President. Say it ain't so!

And does anyone believe that if Clinton thinks Obama is vulnerable on his state record, that she would not resurrect that record against him now?

--Squeek

(To reply, click here.)

(12/16)

Washington Post