Gibson called Obama's long-known cigarette smoking a "dirty little secret"
SUMMARY: Fox News host John Gibson
claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's "dirty little secret" is
that he is a cigarette smoker, despite the fact that Obama's cigarette
use was, in fact, known during his 2004 Senate campaign. Guest John H.
McWhorter claimed that that the reason Obama is "considered such a big
deal is simply because he's black." McWhorter added that "if
you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any
attention."
On the January 17 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson, during a discussion with Manhattan Institute senior fellow John H. McWhorter and Young Democrats of America's Malia Lazu about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- who on January 16 announced his decision to form a presidential exploratory committee -- said: "And [Obama's] team works overtime trying to hide Obama's dirty little secret. He is -- get this -- a cigarette smoker. The point is: What else do we not know about Barack Obama?" Despite Gibson's claim that Obama's smoking is "a dirty little secret," Obama told the Chicago Tribune in December 2005 that his smoking is "an ongoing battle," and his cigarette use was, in fact, known during his 2004 Senate campaign, when his wife told the Chicago Sun-Times that he smokes "about three Marlboros a day."
The conversation also featured a comment by McWhorter that the reason Obama is "considered such a big deal is simply because he's black." McWhorter added that "if you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any attention." At the end of the discussion, McWhorter, who is himself black, said that "[i]t's almost like he's mammy," a reference to a caricature of blacks as "contented, even happy, as slaves," according to The Jim Crow Museum at Ferris State University. Gibson did not respond to McWhorter's "mammy" remark. McWhorter's comments about Obama's race as a factor in the campaign echoed those made in a January 17 editorial in the Manchester, New Hampshire, Union Leader, which asked if Obama would "get affirmative action," as Media Matters for America noted.
Gibson also asked: "The question is would you vote for a smoker as president? John, is that kind of -- is that an impediment?" At one point in the discussion, an on-screen graphic showed a picture of Obama in front of the White House, smiling next to two packs of Marlboro cigarettes with the question: "Would you vote for a smoker as president?" After Gibson asked if Obama's smoking would be an "impediment," Lazu answered that "I think Americans will be happy that his vice doesn't lead him to pages or to choking his mistress," apparently in reference to scandals that plagued former Republican Reps. Mark Foley (FL) and Don Sherwood (PA).
As the weblog News Hounds noted, the January 10 edition of Fox News' Fox and Friends hosted a discussion on January 10 in which PoliticalDerby.com editor Jason Wright predicted "the smoking issue comes back to bite [Obama] in the hindquarters."
The discussion was the most recent in a trend of media figures clinging to past admissions by Obama -- some dating back to 1995 -- in an attempt to dig up dirt that could smear his fledgling campaign.
From the January 17 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Meantime, time for "Big Politics." Sure he's young, sure he's charismatic, but what do we really know about Barack Obama? And what does he really stand for? Obama is the kind of presidential hopeful who appeals to the masses. He portrays himself as a political moderate, but he's much more liberal than he says he is. And his team works overtime trying to hide Obama's dirty little secret. He is -- get this -- a cigarette smoker. The point is: What else do we not know about Barack Obama? America seems to love him now, but will we still love him tomorrow? With me now, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute John McWhorter and Malia Lazu with the Young Democrats of America. John, this guy -- what else do we not know about Barack Obama?
McWHORTER: Well, I don't think that we really know a whole lot about Barack Obama at all that you would really call distinctive. He's said some very nice things and he says them well. But if you ask me, the reason that we're looking at somebody who is such an inexperienced senator, who has said some very pleasant but not especially sterling or innovative things, the reason that he's considered such a big deal is simply because he's black. That doesn't mean that he's not smart. That doesn't mean that he isn't good. But if you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any attention. And that's just to say that we don't know yet and we don't know him just because he has brown skin and a touching story.
GIBSON: Malia, if he were exactly the same person, but he were white, would we -- same resumé, same bio, same, you know, excellent speaking manner, but he wasn't black -- would he be a presidential hopeful at this point?
LAZU: I'm not sure. I think that race plays a role into this. But I think what Obama does more than his amazing speaking ability is he's able to connect with voters. And it's that hope that he brings out in American citizens that we are all hungry for, that people get excited about Senator Obama. And yes, he may have a habit that millions of Americans want to -- want to quit. We all know people who want to quit smoking. But the real question here is that America is ready for a change, and are traditional politicians going to be able to answer that call?
GIBSON: Malia, I'm glad you brought it up. Let me put something up on the screen, "Obama Behind Closed Doors." You never see him smoke. You never see a pack of cigarettes in his pocket. The question is, would you vote for a smoker as president? John, is that kind of -- is that an impediment?
McWHORTER: I really don't think it is because it depends on the person. And Obama is seen as very, very cool. I think a lot of people find him sexy. And I think even in today's America, there's a sense that there's something vaguely sexy about cigarettes; you've got fire in your hand. So to tell you the truth, I think it will only help.
LAZU: I think Americans -- I think Americans will be happy that his vice doesn't lead him to pages or to choking his mistress. I mean, all humans have vice, and he has one. But what Americans want is they want a change and they want that hope that Obama sparks in people.
GIBSON: You know, the only problem I have with this, John, is if it were that easy a barrier for him to overcome, why is he so determined to make sure nobody ever sees him with a cigarette in his hand?
McWHORTER: Well, to tell you the truth, knowing that he does it and keeping it secret is even better. To actually see the so-called filthy habit would be different. But it's that little thing that he kind of does behind closed doors.
GIBSON: Let me put this up on the screen, Obama's formula for success. He has a moderate image, but he has one of the, if not the, most liberal voting record in the Senate. Malia, is that part of the secret of his success, is actually obscuring his liberal voting record?
LAZU: I don't think that Obama has obscured his liberal voting record. I think Obama has put out two books that lay out who he is and what he stands for. He has been very public about who he is and what he stands for, and the American people like that. And I think that we need to understand that Americans want to hear true talk, and that's what Obama does.
GIBSON: How liberal is he, John?
McWHORTER: Well, frankly, he is a standard-issue leftist that you would expect of somebody with his particular experience, and he doesn't exactly hide it. But it's true, and somehow we like to think that he represents some sort of hope of bringing us all together anyway. And that means that somehow he's going to bring together the Michael Moores and the Grover Norquists and everybody in between. And, again, I think the only reason that looks plausible is because we see something about his being brown that creates that. It's almost like he's mammy. And it kind of worries me.
GIBSON: John McWhorter and Malia Lazu, thanks very much. Appreciate it, both of you.
LAZU: Thank you.
In 2000 and 2004 a lot of people voted for a "recovering" alcoholic, former(?) cokehead/drunk driver. Why not a smoker?
because he smokes? Or are they bringing Politics into this?
It's my opinion that the Fox hacks are trying to shoot Obama down before he can get more traction with the public (ouch - mixed metaphor). They're doing this by looking for any flaw they can. So far they've got:
- He smokes
- His parents were two different colors
- His middle name is "Hussein"
- He's only been a U.S. Senator for two years.
If that's the best character assassinating they can do, they better be worried.
Those are very shallow. I have no issues with the Man.
Obama sounds like Osama
And you can bet they'll beat that like a drum.
He Did admit to trying cocaine in college.
Oh God! He is going to be shot down before he gets any traction. They are going to lynch him before the first half gets under way. Etc...
america voted for a self admitted pot smoker and a womanizer.
if your point is that we need a president with INTEGRITY, then i think perhaps hillary might have it. obama nah
This article is a load of crap and after reading the comments, I believe most of you are completely out of touch with reality. I take issue McWhorter's assertion that this is because he's "black". Smokers of all colors are being banned -even as we speak- from public areas- even streets. They are not given the benefit of a doubt regardless of color or political affliation and they have been criminalized virtually overnight. If you were the real Rusty Shakleford - you'd have known this. I also take issue with the word "black" since his mother is white he and his father is Kenyan. In reality he probably shares more heritage with me, the white smoker, than he does with any "black Americans". Note the traditional white brand he smokes - Marlboro, not Kool, Salem, or Newport. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!
If you were the real Rusty Shakleford - you'd have known this.
Nice allusion. Good catch. (But I still disagree with you about the anti-smoking ordinances.)
First he uncovers the liberals' war on Christmas, and now Obama's secret smoking. I'm glad to see there's still room for real investigative journalism at Fox.
really just call Obama "mammy"?
Wow...at this point, I can't actually find the words.....
Monk, I found that astonishing too. How long before he breaks out Uncle Remus and Step'n'fetchit? Sheesh what a horse's A.
and for one black man to aside that label to another black man (Obama of all people!) ON FOX NEWS!
What a prick?
And I personally would not vote for someone who does snoke. Thats why I think we should all stick being Senator Clinton, she is the one who can best handle the hate of the media, she did so well as First Lady she knows how to beat these A holes like Gibson.
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and if you find smokers so disgusting that a candidate’s cigarette smoking is a deal breaker that would preclude you from considering them for the presidency that’s certainly your prerogative. Now I would be more concerned with candidate’s use of mind altering substances like drugs and yes inappropriate or excessive use of alcohol. That would give me concern.
as long as I'm not trying to eat dinner in the Oval Office.
I also agree with you about Alcohol and Drugs. Smoking disturbs me just as much because of the families it destroys with Lung Cancer and other diseases. I dont believe that someone who smokes despite everything we know it does today should be President of the US.
This country has a long tradition of electing Presidents who smoke.
"Smoking disturbs me just as much because of the families it destroys with Lung Cancer and other diseases."
Yes smoking is bad, but in all honesty, would it affect his job as President? Honestly? And we are not talking about having him smoke while he gives the State of Nation address. (although previous President have) Heart disease destroys many more families than smoking, yet should we refuse to elect an overweight person who refuses to go on a diet? That's basically what you are saying.
"I dont believe that someone who smokes despite everything we know it does today should be President of the US."
BTW are you an ex-smoker? Just asking because often those who yell the loudest about it, are usually those who have once smoked.
Well I personally believe that Presidents should have recieved excellent grades in school or be able to speak in a coherent manor before being elected.
Why does his smoking disturd you so?
Yes John, I think America would vote for a cigarette smoker. My hope is they would not vote for Obama because of that big fat D-Ill after his name.
Is that people vote based on real issues, and not those presented by Fox News.
Looks like you'd agree to let the next president be elected based on the total number of registered Dems vs the total Reps. Gee, wouldn't it be great if Ds voted for the D, and Rs voted for the R? What a democracy!
look at the facts, platforms, etc with open minds this time.
Yes, especially after the great successes of the last six years under Republican rule.
LMAO
Why is this comment highlighted and considered more egregious or noteworthy by McWhorter > "the reason that he's considered such a big deal is simply because he's black.".............
Than this comment by the Democrat Lazu in response to Gibson asking if he would be a presidential hopeful at this point > "I think that race plays a role into this."
Both comments should be highlighted. His race should be shot down as irrelevant by his detractors as well as his supporters.
Website bias.
Like you're the arbiter of what should be discussed when it comes to matters of race and ethnicity.
What is your problem with issues of race?
I can recall in other threads your disdain for bringing up race related issues.
I'm just asking in a civil tone here, I am not saying this to berate or be hostile towards you.
Mind you, I wholeheartedly agree that race should not be considered in this context but it isn't us here that goes there - at times it is responding to the subtle and not so subtle commentary that spews forth from the msm/right-wing/conservative bloviators.
Are we supposed to just ignore, stick our heads in the sand and hope all of that talk just goes away? If it's not challenged they'll assume it's all good and keep firing away.
I totally expect the dialog when it comes to race will get hot and heavy if/when it becomes official that Sen. Obama is running for president.
Do i think it should get that way, no. but this is America - it eventually comes down to matters of race and ethnicity when you aren't white.
Please don't feed the troll. Please, everybody, don't get into what you assume may become a logical discussion with this kid... it never does.
You didn't address the point I was making. How was McWhorter's comment any different in content than Lazu's?
Doesn't appear anyone wants to answer you [and you do bring up a good point]...but I'll give it a shot.
IF you read both comments McWhorter's comes off as vindictive, while Lazu's seems to be reflective/thoughtful.
It was a minor quibble actually, but I just thought it interesting for this thread to highlight one and not the other. And I understand they were spoken from different viewpoints, but both said race was an issue and I think that kind of "talk", for lack of a better term, is counterproductive and irrelevant to Obama - as I have stated on other threads.
Thanks for the reply.
that Lazu's comment was in response to a direct question from Gibson about whether Obama would be getting buzz if he weren't black, and that Lazu FIRST said "I don't know." I think SOME of the buzz is undoubtedly because he's black - it's still fairly rare for a high-profile presidential candidate to be black, so of course there'll be talk. This segment proved that before Lazu even spoke, because the race issue had already been raised by McWhorter.
McWhorter, on the other hand, brought up the issue with no prompting, and only to slam Obama by saying that he's only getting attention because he's black, which is a much stronger and more negative assertion than what Lazu said.
I don't disagree with their intent - McWhorter's was obvious and uncalled for. But Lazu, in my opinion, should have called him on it and answered Gibson by saying something like "His race is irrelevant to me, No, it should not be an issue to anyone. If it is, they are using it for their own purposes and I won't dignify it".
By her stating it may play a role is puzzling to me. Why should it play any role. This was her chance to diffuse it and she didn't.
But no stones thrown her way really.......the other guy is shameless, I agree with that.
In my original post I said that McWhorter's comments were equally as egregious as Lazu's - or should be compared equally. Upon reviewing and reading other posts, I misspoke. The intent of McWhorter's words were decidedly more inflammatory than Lazu's.
I apologize for that.
posted. Yes that is the difference. I am not a huge Obama fan, he is obviously intelligent and speaks very well. Being black is NOT the only reason he is getting attention. It is like when Limbuagh said the only reason Donovan McNabb was considered a great QB is because he was black. The contention is ludicrous.
While race shouldn't play an issue, of course it will in SOME quarters. Just like Hillary being a woman, or Romney being a Mormon.
Like it or not, race, gender & religion remains a sticking point [or worse] for some.
I think Lazu answered HONESTLY, while McWhorter's remarks were belittling and yes inflammatory.
that if Obama were elected, or Hillary, or Condi, or Mitt, it would be historic because he/she would be the first black or Mormon and/or female president. Just because we all "should" be colorblind or gender-blind or religion-blind doesn't mean that it is unseemly to comment on such an historic first. It's simple human interest.
Bringing in the black guy to bring up the race issue...nicely done, Gibby. Oh, by the way, according to Rush, Obama is only half-minority. Y'all need to get your talking points straight or pretty soon you're going to get us so confused about why we're interested in him that his race won't matter.
as is convenient. Totally different comments in totally different contexts. One person is claiming the only thing going for the man is that he's black. The other statement simply acknowldges that people will consider his race as a factor. The first statement is inflammatory and false, the second is logical and matter of fact. It would be great if we were color blind but we are not there yet.
Actually, only an amateur profounder-ist, but thanks for falling for my bluff. If I were a pro-profounderist, I'd be inclined to offer more of my pajama-clad, fuzzy slipper-wearing, Red Bull-sluggin' feeble mindedness to anyone who might have a mind of their own or insomnia-driven time on their hands. And some of it would include suggesting to Obama that he jump right out in front of that overloaded Kenworth with no brakes plowing down the highway at breakneck speed with its lights off headed straight for his character, honor and integrity. Lean into it and stop it in its tracks. (At this point I'd reference the scene in the Hulk movie, but that might leave the impression that I like and/or have little else to do than watch heavily CG infused two-star comic book-based cinema, and I just don't think a pro-profounderist would allow himself nor his ethereal late night keyboard strokers to give or be given anything less than a 3-star visual image. That's just the kind of wannabe I want to be.) Lean into it how? By doing as many things on purpose - and with purpose - that all the stereotypers are just waiting for him to stumble into doing. Go to the premier of Stomp The Yard, then show a little fancy footwork yourself. Light up a Lucky right in front of the cameras...inhale deeply followed by a long, slow exhale, then hold up the tar-stick, look at it and give a slight shake of the head while saying, "Man, I wish I could quit these things...". Get your family together for a picnic and have lots of pictures taken of all of you eating fruit and poultry. You know what I'm saying. Give a speech at Harvard. Better yet, get them to give you the Hasty Pudding award, then do what they do and dress up like a woman to recieve the award. (Note of caution: Those Yale pussies in the Skull and Bones spend a lot of time sitting around telling each other their deepest, darkest sexual experiences and fantasies, and more than once it's come to light that some of those have involved the afore mentioned Pudding Princesses. And I only mention this because your pool of co-workers seems to have more than its share of those skullduggers skulking around. Watch your back. They're not called "Bonesmen" for nothing.) If you were still listening, next I'd suggest you walk unannounced into the studios of Lumbaugh, Savage and Hannity and offer them some cordial conversation with some Bush-like towel snappin' on the side. And if Coulter calls in casually asking what size show you wear, tell her 14, even if it's really only a 9-D. And don't forget to mention how easy it is for you to palm a basketball. That'll really make all the GOP gals swoon. See, they've been laying in the weeds like an army of illegal combatant IEDs just waiting for you to drive by so they can try and bloviate you off the road. It worked on Gore and it absolutely destroyed Kerry. Dozens of other bodies have been strewn like junk across the horizion. Oh, yes, they're good with their hands of sleight. So be ready. And be better at it than they are.
McWHORTER: ...if you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any attention.
Yeah they would. The hacks at Fox News would be loudly asking whether America is ready to elect an albino president.
and a cigarette smoking albino.
Why not? The country voted for an alzenhimer's patient, an alcoholic and an idiot.
just in the last presidential election
How about big friggin deal on the smoking issue in regards to Obama. Laura Bush is a sneak smoker...and, well...I'm also a smoker. We are NOT evil. Granted we're treated like lepers while our counterparts...the alcoholics, and druggies are treated with kid gloves and are regarded as victims of their addictions while we, the smokers, are treated like villains!!! Grrrrrrrrrr.
As far as the ridiculous statement by McWhorter concerning Obama ["considered such a big deal is simply because he's black".]--yeah they wish. Barack Obama appeals to Blacks, Whites, etc-- the guy possesses something that can only be described as "IT". Call it charisma, call it optimism I like the guy. I'm hoping that I'll like his positions on the issues as well. IF I do, he'd get my vote.
Gibson & the gang [Fox, Rush etc] are in full throttle on going after Obama. They must see that certain "IT" as well.
Some are already comparing him to JFK. Could be...
"Granted we're treated like lepers while our counterparts...the alcoholics, and druggies are treated with kid gloves and are regarded as victims of their addictions while we, the smokers, are treated like villains!!! Grrrrrrrrrr. "
Maybe if I poured my Vodka down your throat, you got pricked with my needle of H, and I blew cocaine in your face you would understand how smoking affects other people in a way these "counterparts" do not.
As a former smoker, I had no idea how rude that addiction is...
Come on, you ex-smokers are the worse. Most smokers aren't chasing people down the street to blow smoke in their faces. My best friend doesn't even smoke in her own house. Her husband's a non-smoker. When we go out to dinner she's the first to ask for the non- smokers section, she doesn’t like smelling smoke while she eats. Any way like I said I would be more concerned if Obama used drugs or used alcohol inappropriately and/or excessively. I don’t want someone developing policy under the influence of substances. Although I wish there were a smart pill that existed so we could give it to GW.
What I meant to convey was that smoke wafts away from the smoker not deliberately, and affects others...I should've given my examples in a more passive sense.
Nothing more sanctimonious than an ex-smoker...
Wes, don't wanna take THIS thread off-topic BUT....I don't smoke in PUBLIC. Basically because it's virtually outlawed. Do you have a problem with me indulging in my evilness inside my own home...or rather in my screened porch so as not to POISON my family.
You would probably have to sit in a room with me for 20 years while I smoked my daily half-a-pack habit to become ill from secondhand smoke.
An alcoholic or drug addict behind the wheel of a car can WIPE out you & your family in a matter of moments!
Ex-smokers can be a real pain in the a__. I'm one myself. I'm an addict. I've had my smoking addiction under control for more than ten years now. I haven't had one in all that time. But I'm like an alcoholic. Every day, I say to myself, I'm not going to smoke today. I also know that all it would take is for me to have one and that would be it for me. So, I'm never going to judge anyone but myself.
Thanks for your understanding . I've quit before [2-3 times] and I'm down to about a half-a-pack, sometimes less. Congrats to you for kicking the habit! Perhaps I'll get it right one of these days too ;-)
I'm always courteous to non-smokers by not lighting up around them, and even I prefer Non-Smoking section in restaurants.
As far as Barack Obama's smoking habit goes, as long as he indulges in private, even the harshest critics of smoking should NOT make it an issue.
OK I know there are courteous smokers out there...I'm glad you and your friends realize how bad it stinks - I didn't until I quit. I also didn't realize how that smell permeates whole towns until I went to Reno. I am tired of smokers feeling victimized because I don't want to smell their crap. As for me being sanctimonious...yes I am, because I quit. When you quit you can be too.
And comparing deaths caused by cigarrettes to other drugs is a losing argument, as you know.
Jeter: Do you really think that drug addicts are treated with kid gloves in this country as opposed to smokers? Neither is socially sanctioned, but you are generally not going to go to jail for smoking (tobacco). I agree a drunk or drug using driver can wipe out a family in seconds, but that's why there are such harsh penalties for those caught drunk driving.
That all of the voters and Fox listeners who live in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Alabama and Kansas find out how anti-tobacco Gibson and Fox News seem to be. How many thousands of people in those states earn their living growing, selling and manufacturing tobacco products?
I think if Gibson really feels the way he does about smokers and tobacco, he should start a campaign to make tobacco use and production a criminal offense.
I think that there will be late-night meetings at Faux to discuss how to hate the D smoker, but love the R smoker and the tobacco industry all at the same time.
OK, just joking. It's Fox "News." They don't have to explain their logic (or lack of) to the lemmings.
are scared of this guy.
If this smoking thing (3 / day? Does that even count as "smoking"??) is the best that they have, along with tales of cocaine use that Obama wrote about in HIS book, well, I'm feeling pretty confident about 2008. Aside from that, once Senator Clinton declares that she is running, these guys wil forget about Obama, and turn back to attacking Hillary just like always.
Rove's buddy that did the Playgirl thing to our guy Ford in Tennessee, along with the smart producers of the jungle drums theme music and the constant use of photographs depicting him as being of a darker complexion than he was or as skulking in alleyways, all appearing on our TV's, will be doing their thing to Obama. Some of it will be subtle ("Is America ready for a Black President") and some of it will be direct. Pitifully, we won't be surprised that such will work on/for people like the pinheads on Fox and much of their faithful audience.
I would like to pop McWhorter one time, what an arrogant prick he is.
glad I'm not the only one!
Did you catch the mammy comment? When I actually heard the last part of the discussion, my fist automatically clinched on its own.
having the slur regarding his smoking come out will cause Obama to quit. If it's really that limited, he can. But as bad a killer as smoking is, and as much as we would hope children and young people would not see their nation's leader setting a bad example for them in this regard, I would hope that if he is otherwise the best person available to lead the country into recovery from the dreadful past six year assault on most things good about it, no voter would allow that failing to block a vote for him.
Barak Obama is a half-breed mongrel with dirty habits. The right wing is attempting to quickly define Obama before people learn more about the substance of the man. It borders on silliness... except that you know the rank and file GOPs are probably already buying into it. Do the right wing pundits know anything about fairness?
newsless show people would cast aspersions on, for example, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell if it were shown that they were smokers?
I guess McWhorter thinks there is an abundance of editors of the Harvard Law Review running for president. No matter what race you are, you have to be pretty smart to have that position. If anyone was running for president with that on his/her resume, it would be a big deal.
are usually the people at, or near, the top of their class. Our current president didn't even have the brains to be at the bottom of the class at the University of Texas law school (which is an excellent school, but still a lot easier to get into than Harvard).
I gather from your moniker, Blackacre, that you are no stranger to a law school classroom.
Let's put all the cards on the table for everyone in Washington. All the smokers line up over there, all the drinkers line up over there, all the reformed drug users line up over there, all the sex addicts line up over there. Okay, who's left? Nobody.
Smoking is legal. As much as I don't like it and wish it wasn't part of society it's a choice people are entitled to make. There are restricted areas to partake in said choice. Good grief.
just as long as he doesn't smoke around me... personally, I think he should give up Marlboros and take up Guinness!
I would trade some smokes for a cool pint of Guinness anytime. Then listen to some Flogging Molly or Dropkick Murphy's.
Except I think that if you took away his oratory skills, his persona and charisma, his youth, his opinions, and his sensible approach to issues that many voters care about, nobody right now would be paying him any attention.
Or is anyone else beginning to think that Corporations and right wing nuts are trying to take over the country by any means necessary, and that they're quite possibly will be no election in 2008? Is it me, or is it paranoia?
who is right there with you. I wish I could laugh at you both...but I keep thinking of "The Rise and Fall" and how relatively recently that occurred, as well as the disintegration of the USSR and the remapping of the African continent. We're naive if we think we're immune to the stuff. When we decide there is no way it can happen and laugh it off is when the moment most likely arrives ...
Answering your question, I think it's paranoia.
The "right wing nuts" got slammed in the recent election so they aren't even in control of Congress anymore.
Well, my comment was very slightly tongue in cheek Tommy but consider what has been going on lately. Virtually ALL major television news networks keep putting on right wing-let me rephrase that by saying wingnuts because not everyone on the right scares me---right wing hate and fear mongerers. I mean ABC, CNN, MSNBC--they are beating to death everything progressive. The new propoganda spin is using Obama's middle name-don't tell me that's not calculated, right? And yes the Dems swept into Congress but the President seems completely unmoved, telling Dems, his own party, military generals whose life's work is war, that no matter what they say or do, he's fighting in Iraq. He makes me feel more and more every day that he's either unbalanced, or someone is behind him with this nonsense. My gosh, there's hints of dropping nuclear weapons on Iran!!!! It's like this big propoganda machine driven by an unbalanced leader, and most of America go along like sheep. Look around you at what is happening. If N. Korea makes a move against the south, for example, we can't help. Fight a war on one more front and our military is doomed. The Generals will tell you that. What the President is doing seems more and more to defy logic, every day. And every day it truly gets more scary. And now the attacks on Obama are starting, unabated. There is hatred everywhere, everywhere. Against us and by us. As a famous but aging rock group once sang-revolution is just a shot away. I agree with the previous poster--if you don't think it can happen here, you are fooling yourself.
The attention that Obama is getting is most likely split down the middle if the totality of the coverage he is getting is evaluated. Sure, the minions at Fox News are running around like rats about to go down with the sinking ship - and they are shamelessly hauling out everything they can find to plant doubt in voter's minds - but there is also plenty of complimentary and fluffy press about him as well.
In any case, the level of virtriol is high, I agree with you......as well as the Iraq situation and posturing politicians, including Bush. But we are a strong and resilient country and our freedoms are very important and precious to us all. When that is threatened in anyway, from any source - we will always win.
we agree. i just hope it doens't get that bad.
I really like your Posting Name. I wonder if it can be entered the way I did above?
NOW: - Will America Love Obama After They Know His Dirty Little Secret?
I do believe the Assignment Editors at Fox News are exposing their desperation when they did this story. Is this all they have? Isn't this cigarette and being black story angle just more good advertising for Barack Obama?
Don't most of us know that it's his character and other good qualities (Not Black or White) that make him Celebrity Status and Presidential? Obama just has “IT.” JFK had "it" too! Nixon and Bush have never had "it," and never will.
I could be off base here, but I really think this one does more harm to Fox News than to Obama?
"But we are a strong and resilient country and our freedoms are very important and precious to us all. When that is threatened in anyway, from any source - we will always win."
People define "freedoms" differently. I would not be surprised to see that a majority of people would be willing to give up almost all hard-earned "freedoms" in the name of fighting terrorists.
I also agree with this. completely. I have a headache now
I personally haven't relinquished any of my freedoms, (although the left always says "not that you know of") - nor am I worried about doing so, in the name of fighting an aggressive war on terror.
Conveniences?, yes, I would be willing to give up a few of those - rights and freedoms as expressly outlined in our constitution?, no. That would be unconstitutional and I have faith in that document and the checks and balances put in place to keep those freedoms sacred.
You have Tommy-the right to unmonitered overseas telephone calls and unopened first class mail, without judicial oversight. Not volutarily, admittedly.
I am not worried about any of my freedoms being taken away, despite your "examples". If you are, then we have different priorites, apparently.
My opinion lies somewhere in the middle of the road here. I don't believe I've really LOST any of my constitutional rights, at least not me personally. I do, however, have serious concerns about the POSSIBILITY of losing them. Suspension of habeus corpus worries me. Warrantless wiretapping worried me. To put it frankly, any oversight by government of private citizens worries me, at least mildly. And I don't care how tongue-in-cheek the comment was, I'm worried about a president who says "f this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator" Yes, I think the country is resilient enough to defend against loss of freedom. But I also believe vigilance is necessary.
Does Barack Obama's cigarette smoking make America less safe?
Next on Special Report, Brit Hume and the Fox Suck-Ups - er, All Stars - get into this crucual issue. But only until the next blonde white girl goes missing.
(caption under one of the FoxStars)
"Obama's Smoker Secret....Are Cigarettes a Gateway Drug?"
"We now welcome a scientist from a Washington think tank who believes that smokers in high stress level jobs in Washington may reach out to harder, more dangerous drugs and the cigarettes can lead to marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and even hashish. Let me ask you, is Obama headed for freebasing and a shoot up lifestyle eventually?
Don't give them any ideas! LOL!
This is almost TOO delicious! For years Liberals (or is it "progressives" now?) have been telling the heathen "where", "when" and "if" they can smoke cigarrettes. Accusations (proven or unproven) of cocaine use by Bush was an "abomination" to the Left but it's now a badge of honor for Obama. If "blind followers" doesn't define the Leftists who are hyperventilating over Obama like teenaged Beatles fans, I don't know what does.
I think the point goes to the hysteria in which Obama is being covered by Fox News. For them to put a pack of Marlboro on the screen and then to superimpose "Would you vote.........." is just ridiculous.
Are they that worried this far out of any election about him? Their silly bias is on full display, and it borders on panic.
Your point about the left and their infatuation with Obama is a good one perhaps, as well.
Let the dust settle and let Obama be evaluated on issues and experience and viability as President. All this other irrelevant stuff is just cable news filler.
Of course the Obama/Marlboro thing is ridiculous. Have you ever seen "Fox & Friends"? If you want ridiculous, go there.
My point is that the Religious Left absolutely pilloried Bush for alledged cocaine use and his admitted alcohol abuse but when Obama admits he used cocaine, it gets a huge liberal yawn. The hypocisy should be astonishing but I've come to expect it from the Religious Left.
Hypocrisy is like a tray of free champagne, everybody's got their hand in that......it flows freely whenever it suits one ideology or another, you are correct.
Actually, you have it exactly backwards. It was the religious right who made such a ridiculous deal about Clinton's drug use, then ignored Bush's all-but-admitted cocaine use and the documented drunk driving. That's why it became such a big deal, to point out that hypocrisy in no uncertain terms.
Personally, I don't care about anyone's past drug use. Policy and performance are more important concerns. I didn't see Bush's past as a reason to disqualify him as a candidate, the same way conservatives shouldn't have seen Clinton's past as an issue either. I also don't think it's time for Obama to run. Too early, not enough experience, too many troglodytes who vote on skin color. It's early now, and I think the buzz will die out and he'll quit the race.
"Liberals" are the reason people can't smoke wherever they want? Uh, right...
You obviously haven't been to California lately where the Liberals run the asylum. Whole communities are being targeted by the tobacco gestapo in their city councils. There are bills up for votes on whether occupants will be allowed to smoke in their own dwellings. Don't worry, Shack. It'll be coming to a community near you soon. What? You can't wait? I thought so. By the way, I've never smoked and never will.
It's all part of some in goverment trying to tell us what we can and can't do - to regulate our own behavior because they know better than we do what's best for us.
And they know how to spend our money, and they know this and they know that so much better than we do............this is why I am a libertarian.
When a law or ordinance is passed to prevent you from smoking in a public place it's not because the government decided that smoking is bad for you. It's because medical researchers decided that smoking is bad for the people around you. The government doesn't really care if you kill yourself with cigarettes, but there are plenty of people who care about the unwanted damage that you do to others.
Your usual argumentative self is on full display. Try Santa Monica and many beaches in the LA area - they have banned outdoor smoking.
So your health concerns where the wide open air is concerned is ridiculous. It is government's widespread hands in the people's business......for no reason except politician's who are most likely in the backpocket of insurance companies.
When a law or ordinance is passed to prevent you from smoking in a public place it's not because the government decided that smoking is bad for you.
********************
Really? Then what about seat belt laws? If I don't wear my seat belt, who is that bad for beside me?
Face it, there are tons of governmental intrusions to protect us from ourselves, like silly drug laws. Your assumptions and theories are all wet.
Seat belts are good for you. Cigarettes are bad for you and for those around you. Your argument is nonsense, as usual. Government restrictions on smoking are for the health and welfare of those around you. And, yes, people can still be unwillingly subjected to secondhand smoke on the beach.
Tom's Error's are in full display.
Tom's Theories are wet.
Clams is not Ridiculous.
I'm no Liberal and I thank God for these laws. We need more of them because I can't even walk outside without wading thru a cloud of Hazardous, Cancerous Smoke. They congregate with their Cancer Sticks at all the exits! Same thing at the Beaches and other Outdoor Public Areas. Many of my smoking friends agree.
Seat Belts? Thanks to the Law I am now wearing my seat belt. It will save my life and the lives of my passengers as well. Plus it will save our loved ones from all those sad, sad funerals.
Also, If involved in a terrible accident, passengers are strapped in to keep them from being thrown out on the roadway. That protects oncoming drivers from becoming involved and harmed as well.
My only departure Casino, is that Tom's arguments are not always nonsense. But on this one, he's way out wrong.
Sometimes I think Tom is 3 different Posters, because he comes out for the Right, Left, and the Middle. I like that, because it displays an independent thinker.
The Key word here is Independent.
Hey "Clams", I'll bet you look really sharp doing the goose step. What a pile.
about seat belt laws. People who are too stupid to wear their seat belts deserve what they get.
Smoking is different though, for the reasons Clams gave. Not to mention that most anti-public smoking laws are local ordinances - the closest thing we've got to the direct will of the people, which I keep hearing is important.
Yeah, that explains why more and more places here in Mississippi - you know, bastion of liberalism - are banning smoking in public places.
You may not smoke ciggies, but apparently you're smoking something, Toobed.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Just admit that you and all other Leftists are fascists at heart and we can move on.
PLEASE come down here to Mississippi and start telling the citizens that they are "liberal fascists." PLEEEEEEEASE.
Did Obama say anything about his cigarette smoking in his autobiograhy . . . the one he wrote some time ago? . . .
If so, then it is not a "secret" . . .
Why would he say something about it there, unless it was in the context pf something like "I smoked a cigarette, then I walked into the meeting."?
This whole thing seems ridiculous to me. It's OK to bring up Obama's legal smoking habit, but not OK to bring up Dubya's years of alleged use of illegal substances?
"This whole thing seems ridiculous to me. It's OK to bring up Obama's legal smoking habit, but not OK to bring up Dubya's years of alleged use of illegal substances?"
Huh? Unlike Clinton, you must have been inhaling. The leftist press dragged Bush through the mud for years over these ALLEGATIONS. I wonder why they're not making a big deal about Obama's admitted cocaine use. Hmmm....I just wonder.....NOT!!!
Is that the rumors have been flying about Bush's supposed drug use for years. He has not responded to the rumors. Nor should he. Yet Senator Obama has admitted to using illegal substances before any accusations were made. He seems to be honest about it anyway. President Clinton was ridiculed for years for his "not inhaling" comment.
And most people in Bush or Clinton's age group have used drugs at one time or another. So no one should be shocked, or care if a candidate who came of age in the sixties or seventies or eighties used drugs. If everyone who used was disqualified from seeking office, there would be very few people eligible to run.
Obama has as far as I can tell been open about his former use of legal and illegal drugs.
When the press has asked Bush about his former use of legal and illegal drugs, he has avoided answering, and it's been made clear that it's a topic that's off limit for anyone who wishes to have contact with the White House.
That's what I meant by OK and not OK. Not that it's not allowed to speculate about it. Got it?
Asking that question and suggesting that the answer is "not much" is absolutely idiotic. Obama has written two (!) books about himself, his beliefs and his vision for the future. Obviously John Gibson can't read.
Is that seriously the best they can do? He smokes? Next they'll be saying he drives 50 in a 45 zone or something equally as inane. I don't smoke, and I don't like being around people who are smoking, but given that he's not going to be lighting up anywhere near where I am I couldn't care less. To attack him on the basis of being a smoker is self-parodying, really.
Let me try to understand your reasoning about government.
Tommy:
“So your health concern where the wide open air is concerned is ridiculous. It is government's widespread hands in the people's business......for no reason except politician's who are most likely in the back pocket of insurance companies.”
“yes, I would be willing to give up a few of those - rights and freedoms as expressly outlined in our constitution?, no. That would be unconstitutional and I have faith in that document and the checks and balances put in place to keep those freedoms sacred.”
Toobed:
“You obviously haven't been to California lately where the Liberals run the asylum. Whole communities are being targeted by the tobacco Gestapo in their city councils. There are bills up for votes on whether occupants will be allowed to smoke in their own dwellings. Don't worry, Shack. It'll be coming to a community near you soon.”
In other words “Don’t tread on me” is just a quaint saying from long ago. Since the Bush administration has stolen power the following “rights” have been sorely tested in the name of stopping terrorism.
Check out the following web sites then tell me where the greatest danger to my “Constitutional” freedoms has come from:
12/15/2005 [link to emoglen.law.columbia.edu]
05/11/2006 [link to www.usatoday.com]
01/06/2006 [link to www.iht.com]
05/16/2006 [link to www.computerworld.com]
Just something to think about.
Most of the senate smoke cigars, even the people others are saying don't smoke so what's the difference?
Cigars are more expensive. Cigarettes are for the common riff-raff.
Doesn't it make sense that democrats would defend their candidates as republicans would defend theirs? None of this seems laughable to me..it makes sense. This silly country is divided right down the line by the people that matter. The parties in control want it that way. Now you and me are being manipulated to be swayed to one side. Your predisposition will bring you to your conclusion. I already assume this, so how can I be surprised when something like this happens?
And this is just off to Tommy because I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. You said you would give up rights and freedoms for an aggressive war on terror, but nothing expressly written in the constitution...what does that mean exactly?
If he can barak the habit between now and his 'announcement' the public will have an obamagasm. That alone will probably win him the election.
All kidding aside, I wish him well and hope he is able to quit. Doing so might lead others to do the same.
Are you serious? Smoking? Arent there more important things to worry about in America? Come on people.
A SMOKER! GOOD LORD! THANK GAWD I FOUND OUT!!! WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE WERE ELECTED?!! HE WOULD GET ALL OF THE WHITE CHILDREN HOOKED, THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN!!! WHAT ELSE DON'T WE KNOW ABOUT HIM?! OOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!