My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Is Barack Obama a doper, or just a dope? Or are we dopes for believing his lies?

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(December 17, 2007) A reporter from the Miami Herald interviewed me last week. She asked me what I had against Barack (Barry) Obama. I said nothing. I find Obama's tap dancing and prevarication endlessly entertaining. Obambi gets away with stuff that would never pass if another candidate were involved. And, as usual, focuses on the ignored story. Feast on.

The "big" news this week, of course, was whether Republicans next year could smear Obama because he used marijuana and cocaine up to some still-uncertain date (Teens? Twenties?). What Obama should have said to counter Hillary Clinton's claim that Obama was planning to run for president while still in kindergarten was, "Would anyone planning a run for the White House write a book and admit to using cocaine?" Not on your life. Well, Barry has not offered me a job as a speechwriter, yet, so he will have to take this long distance advice. (Obama's staff has offered to promote me for a job as "fiction writer.")

But to the point, will Republicans raise the issue of Obama's cocaine use? They could. But I doubt they will have to. Bill Shaheen, one of Clinton's leading supporters in New Hampshire, provided a preliminary list of questions that could be asked: did you sell? When did you last use? Did you give it to anyone else? You get the idea.

On the contrary, I think that rather than Republicans raising the cocaine issue, the media will. Absolutely the issue of cocaine use will be a question asked in any nationally televised presidential debate. How could it not be? The media loves salacious little tidbits. Bill Clinton "did not inhale" and we are still talking about his lack-of-inhalation 15 years later. What if he had inhaled?

Since Obama admitted to using the stuff, he is in a difficult position. People are curious, and the media wants to ask what is on peoples' minds. So puffing and snorting have to be on the agenda of questions to be asked in any fall debate.

I am a complete nerd when it comes to drug use. Never have, never will. But even I could come up with a few questions. Who was your supplier, Barry? What was the good stuff? (Hint: "Maui Wowie?" comes to mind.) I have been in opium dens in Asia, and on military reservations where bags of hash were sold for a buck, and even an occasional party where marijuana was used, but I stayed away. Far away. Can't stand the taste; can’t stand the smell. Just a whiff was enough to cure me for life. So, no, I did not inhale, either.

Clearly, Obama does have some "exposure" on the drug issue. It would be fanciful to deny that fact. Why do Democrats deny the obvious? Here's a possible explanation.

Democrats have now entered the real kindergarten phase of the campaign. This past week Hillary promised not to run negative ads if her opponents do not run negative ads. Obama has threatened to fire staffers who engage in negativity. Are they all running "positive" campaigns? I am waiting for one of them to cite Adlai Stevenson, who once said "I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them." But the reality is that no one can displace an entrenched front-runner without aggressive tactics. And that's a fact.

Now on to's take on Barry Obama's latest "lie." Once again, although the following comments originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, under the byline of the increasingly skeptical Obama observer Lynn Sweet, they were totally ignored by national and mainstream media.,CST-NWS-sweet12.article

Sweet says that "someone" started passing out Obama's responses to a 1996 IVI questionnaire when Obama was first running for the Illinois state senate, and Obama's answers popped up on I have run for the state senate, and the U. S. Senate, and I can tell you that candidates for state senate have small districts and very little to do. Moreover, Obama was a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, so his election chances in 1996 were 100%.

So how did Barry O lie, again? Well, he tries to claim that in running for a nothingburger office, Illinois state Senator, he was too busy to fill out answers to the IVI questionnaire, which he "never saw," and that his campaign manager "unintentionally mischaracterized" Obama's views. Yah, sure.

Caught in a flip-flop, Obama says, "The woman did it!" Isn’t it just like Barry O to blame a woman for his flip—flop? If any other male candidate said he "never saw" a questionnaire and some "woman" filed it out for them, can you imagine the uproar? But not in Obama's case. The story was buried. The double standard for Obama carried the day, again.

Obama's latest lie dovetails with the way Obama was two-faced in attacking Hillary Clinton for concealing her presidential files, while claiming he had destroyed the files of his own state senate office.

Politicians are world-class pack rats. At the time he claims he destroyed his own state files, Obama had just been elected to the U.S. Senate and was planning a presidential campaign, in 2005. He had lots of money to rent a storage space. Can you really believe he wanted to destroy the history of his first office? Or was he destroying incriminating evidence of his links to crooked Chicago politicians like Tony Rezko, and to a former name partner of Obama's own law firm, to which Obama had previously passed out a cool $1 million in "honest graft" as part of a charitable contribution?,CST-NWS-watchdog29.article

Most likely, Obama destroyed his state senate files because they contained unflattering and even incriminating evidence of his extensive links to the sleazy world of Chicago Democratic Party politics and politicians. Barry's record in the Illinois state senate was taken to a laundry and disappeared. The way Obama plays these games with opponents, and the way the media always put him in the light of the innocent target, is a scandalous double standard.

And so on and on it goes, the media cover up of Obama's flip-flops, blaming women for his mistakes, and still-uncertain history of using illegal substances as part of his coming-of-age.

Bottom line: the only reason Obama is doing well in Iowa and elsewhere is because Hillary Clinton is running an incompetent campaign and has Bubba popping up to sling mud, when she should be the one confronting Barry O and ripping his credibility to shreds. A good lawyer could, and would, do precisely that. But, contrary to 1992 Clinton disinformation machine propaganda, Hillary was never a good lawyer, and as a result she has very poor forensic skills as a candidate. So what goes around comes around.

Maybe Hillary should hire me and dump Bill.

As I said, we are now in the kindergarten phase of the Democratic presidential campaign. Dennis Kucinich, anyone? (Just kidding.)
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:


Post a Comment

<< Home