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 [that's probably a topic for a whole different discussion - how what the media obsesses about is generally unrelated to what the electorate cares about]. But anyway - 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 [I know there were rumors about Bush to the effect that he used cocaine - but he never admitted to doing so, and as far as I know there was never any proof of the claim] 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.

You could have a valid point here. I think that many Americans take a different view toward using cocaine and narcotics than they would take regarding alcohol or marijuana use.

I agree, I'm a pretty liberal guy and I know plenty of people that have used cocaine.  And you know what, they were all idiots.  Sure they went to one of the best schools in the country, and probably half will end up rich hedge fund traders on wall street, but still idiots, and I wouldn't vote for them for president.  Using cocaine is just a really awful decision, and I think most people will look at that and think, what the hell.  At some point you're old enough that your judgement reflects the type of person that you will always be, and Obama was well past that age when he used cocaine.  Something has always seemed off about the guy to me, I've just never been convinced he's anything like the media image of him, and I suspect that the more we see of him, the more other people will get that impression too.  It's no secret that outside of his speeches about hope he can be grumpy and combative.  I think if he actually makes it through the primary to the real election process quite a few people will put that together with this drug thing and decide that he's not the person he says he is.  That's a pretty big problem when you're running on your personality and not your experience or platform.  This drug thing hasn't been publicized nearly enough to draw any conclusions yet about people's reactions.  I highly doubt that most iowa voters have heard the news.  When they do, I really think you're going to see a significant slip.  I know this pretty much pushed me over the edge where I would vote for him vs a republican, but would now prefer clinton, edwards, or kucinich.

I don't think having used cocaine for a while cancels a person's ability to run the country. Obviously, he has moved on and it doesn't seem to have seriously damaged him.

Everyone makes poor decisions during youth. This all just makes him come off as a normal and honest person.

He will get young voters because of this. He knows what it's like to be us. We like that.

You grossly understate the negative element of what Sen. Clinton is up to.

1) Clinton is free to bring up Obama's teenage-era drug use if she chooses. He has already acknowledged that, even if you did not know about it. Personally, I don't see what that buys her. For those voters who view what someone did as a teenager as important, they will vote for somebody else who was a more saintly teenager.

2) The "negative" aspect of the comments was Shaheen's suggestion that Obama dealt drugs. Obama did not admit to dealing drugs, so either Clinton has evidence that Obama dealt, or she is making it up in a pathetic attempt to smear Obama. If she doesn't have evidence, then she should shut up. Notably, she chose to "apologize" rather than stand by the comments of her campaign aides, so she knows that she got down and dirty.

3) Clinton herself claims that she was refraining from negative, personal attacks . Yet, her campaign made the attacks anyway. I don't buy the argument that the comments were unauthorized. I think they planned to drop them in an attempt to slow down Obama's momentum. I don't buy the Clinton apology either. That is part of the plan. It it completely disingenuous and cynical.

4) I think its clear that Bush used cocaine. True, Bush never admitted it (although for all practical purposes, he has), but admitting to error and poor judgment (e.g., Iraq, Katrina) is simply not a Bush trait.

polkadot8:

I don't think having used cocaine for a while cancels a person's ability to run the country. Obviously, he has moved on and it doesn't seem to have seriously damaged him.

Everyone makes poor decisions during youth. This all just makes him come off as a normal and honest person.

He will get young voters because of this. He knows what it's like to be us. We like that.

There is nothing more deadly to a political campaign than the support of young voters. They don't bother to actually vote.

Please, please prove me wrong this time. Please.