This was a deliberate racist smear implying because Obama is black he was probably selling drugs in contrast to white guys like Bush who was not smeared in this way. This is more proof of the despicable tactics of the Clinton campaign and how far they are willing to go to return to power. Any commentator who keeps playing their game is either an idiot or is working for them.

G.W Bush gave up alcohol, after being hooked. Mike Huckabee gave up too much food, after being hooked.
Barack Obama (to our knowledge) tried some drugs, didn't get hooked, stopped doing them, and told the truth about them (so far as we know).

Some may dislike him for reasons of race, intellect, cultural background, liberalism, youth, inexperience, or because he's a Democrat and perceived too far right, or even because he probably has a better knowledge of Constitutional law than anyone running. Those folks will love to talk about his experiments with drugs.
Count on it.

This all reminds me of the gingham dog and the calico cat.

Too bad Hillary and Obama didn't go at it sooner, to make way for a more viable candidate, like Dennis Kucinich.

It has come to this: rather than rumors about politicians, we are now hearing rumors about rumors about politicians.

skeezyks, you contradict yourself. You call DK "a more viable candidate" yet his lack of significant support proves that he is not in any way, shape or form viable. Not to say he is a bad guy, but thinking people are not going to jump on a sinking ship.

More importantly, the real mud slinging will begin after each party has picked its nominee. But I'm not worried. Obama has nothing to hide. Huckabee, on the other hand, not only has to worry about what he has said and done in the past, but what is flying out of his mouth even now. The man thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Is there anything else that needs to be said?

Nothing is too low, too sleazy, too underhanded or too disgusting if it furthers the ambitions of Hillary Clinton.
What will she do next? Tell us that Obama is "soft on terrorism'?
Reminds of another politician of some years back who had a lot of skeletons in HIS closet too. In the end he couldn't escape them. Remember Richard Milhaus Nixon? Now we have Hillary Milhaus Clinton.
AAARRRGGGHHH!

Dmia "skeezyks, you contradict yourself. You call DK "a more viable candidate" yet his lack of significant support proves that he is not in any way, shape or form viable."

Who says he's not viable, the big corporate news media that's who. The only problem is people like you who lap it up and believe it. Who are you going to vote for the perceived winner or the person who best represents your views? Screw the front-runners they don't represent any thing good for the American people. I will support Dennis Kucinich for president and if he doesn't get the nomination I will either sit out the next presidential election or I'll vote for the republican nominee just to punish stupid ass back the winner at all cost democrats.

Interesting take by Nichols. His main argument is because there are "unsavory" characters working for Clinton, the act of firing a political operative in reaction to the operatives behavior should be seen as dubious at best, but more likely should be seen as just one more cynical tactic at flanking and attacking her opponent? I mean, he got in "hot water" and all of a sudden isn't working on the official team, and this indicates Clinton is behind the entire thing? Reasoning: because Clinton camp doesn't hold grudges?

Talk about playing the field. Nichols should get into politics rather than reporting on it. Oh, wait.

So much for the illusion that Clinton wouldn't put up with the smear tactics of one of her staff- thus the immediate dismis sal. No such luck. Interesting take by Nichols. Man, talk about cynical! I thought it was only me. The unsaid part of Nichols' piece is how his ideas play favor to the Obama camp. perhaps illustrated by the various support for obama in this thread... Very interesting....

rumor about rumors" too accurate, too funny.

heh.t

Honestly, I would have trouble trusting anybody from Obama's generation or later who did not experiment at least a bit. To me, such a person is out of the mainstream, afraid to take risks or try new things. Hearing that Mr. Obama's teenage years were perfectly human lends credibility to him. Clinton, on the other hand, comes off as some sort of Stepford candidate ...and everything she does reinforces this sensation.

What came to mind when the issue of Obama's past drug use, etc was: Why was this question never raised when W was running for president? He is an avowed alcoholic, allegedly on the wagon. Everyone knows alcoholism is never cured, alcoholics merely keep the addiction at bay -- like junkies. Beyond that, W's use of cocaine is not in dispute, so why did no one ask, "When was the last time you snorted a line?" If the question is certain to be raised by the Republicans, why was it not raised by the Democrats in 2000 and 2004?

JH,

The answer to your question is that Republicans never ever go by the rules of fair play or pull their punches. I recall Republicans arguing that Bush never admitted to cocaine use after Bush always refused to adamantly deny use but instead issued statements to the effect: "In year x, I could have passed a test which asked whether I had used cocaine in the last y years." To anyone with a lick of sense, that is an implicit admission of use before year x-y. But Republicans not only refused to make that inference, they continued to claim it showed nothing and that Bill Clinton was the druggie, and by implication all Democratic politicians were suspect, for Clinton's famous admission with regard to trying weed but not inhaling.

If Obama becomes the nominee, surely the right will try to make an issue about Obama's adolescent drug experimentation, just as they will try to make an issue out of Hillary's marital difficulties (even if Giuliani is the Republican nominee).

The US Republicans have no decency, they know no bounds, they play by no rules, and they certainly have no principles. Their entire campaigns are designed to fool the ignorant and gullible into voting against their own interests, as the true Republican base, the corporate and other wealthy elites, already know what's what and enthusiastically fund the propaganda campaigns intended for the rubes.

But that does not mean Democrats should vote against Obama for that reason. Instead they should vote against him because he is a corporate toadie just like Billary.

There's a Yiddish phrase for this (I'll ferret it out). That George "Coke head" Bush's coterie might attack Obama on these grounds is both despicable and risible.

am i relieved that not everybody is fooled by obamaism and an article such as this that is so blatantly pro - obama,( thank heavens some americans learned to read between the lines somewhere!)

Obama'a drug use is a problem: he did not just "experiment." It seems he used a lot. He also used marijuana.

Republicans will CERTAINLY try these type of racist smears, using the stereotype that is so hard to defend against: a young black man using cocaine, perhaps selling it.

Unfair but psychologically powerful.

I love Obama. Clinton's team appears grotestuely insincere in saying it was a mistake.

Obama may have abused drugs. The Clintons lack adequate conscience development, which is sociopthic.

Billary, "I did not inhale",
"I did not have sex with that woman"
What a game..

It doesn't matter who the Dem nominee is, he or she will be excoriated by the filthiest smear campaign the GOP can mount, and most of it won't be true. I hear echoes in some of these comments of why many Dems voted for Kerry in the primaries four years ago; they calculated that, with his record as a war hero, he'd be immune to the 'soft on terrorism/anti-military' charges and we know how well that worked out.

In Obama's campaign for the senate in Illinois, he showed how to handle the mudlsingers without getting muddy yourself. In one memorable moment, he good-naturedly introduced to the media at a press conference the GOP operative who had been following him around for weeks trying to get a video of Obama doing something embarrassing. The man slinked off to the hooting of the crowd, his cover blown.

Obama is also the best political counter-puncher I've ever seen, as evidenced by his riposte to Hillary in the last Dem debate. He'll handle himself well when attacked by the GOP; he's smart and he anticipates the opposition. And it doesn't hurt that he has Oprah on his side. He also doesn't have the baggage of Mrs. Clinton to overcome.

Fortunately, this time around, I think most Americans are so sick and tired of the Republican Party it won't matter if the Dem candidate was a stoner at one time -- anything would be better than four more years of the GOP.

Since Kucinich doesn't have a prayer this election, Obama or Edwards is the best we can do, and they aren't bad at all.

Rob Price, Shaheen's comments came on the heels of two Clinton volunteers in two separate offices in Iowa spreading that fraudulent smear email, originally written by a Republican, that Obama is a Muslim (he's not and never has been) and hinting that he might be some kind of 'agent' of Islam if elected. I don't believe that Hillary herself knew about this, but I do believe someone in her campaign gave the order to go negative, and it started right after that Dem debate where she bobbled the question regarding driver's license of immigrants and her poll numbers headed south.

She's desperate and it's showing.

Dear Stilba,

Thank you for the Stepford wife. The likeness indeed is amazing.

Here we are comparing a spoiled frat asshole (the chimp) who would probably take a small portion of his allowance from his crime boss father ( the head of the cia) which was probably more than you make working for a living in a month and the chimp would buy KILO"S from his daddy's minions to toot while he was flying around in his NATIONAL GUARD JET to a regular guy who smoked a couple of doobies. Get out of the race HILLARY, you already lost.

Obama is a fraud and a liar.

I live in Illinois. We remember Obama stating that he would complete his term, and not run for President. Not only did he break that promise, but he can't even be depended upon to show up for important votes.

Obama said that, to get bin Laden, he might favor the US acting unilaterally sending our military into Waziristan, Pakistan. (Good thing he's a "peace candidate": think what he'd favor doing if he were a war candidate.)

A fraud and a liar.

I take it that you did not vote for him? What about chimpy?

mcpete

Was that aimed at me?

What has disliking Obama got to do with Bush?

No, I never even considered voting for Bush. Had it been my only other choice, I would have voted for Daffy Duck rather than G W Bush.

Republocrat fascists rule America. They represent the corporations that they work for. Until publicly funded elections and elimination of lobbyists, America is doomed. America is way too stupid and greedy to do that, therefore America is hopeless. Now that K street is buddying up with the Democrats, the corporations are insuring their rape of the brainless American public.

The candidates leading in the polls are leading because Rupert Murdock and the rest of the blood-sucking media moguls want them to be, period. Get a clue, what we need is an Edwards/Kucinich ticket to take back America.

Of course Kucinich is viable. Note the results of this poll:

Thank you for voting in PDA's Presidential Straw Poll. The two progressive candidates Dennis Kucinich (41%) and John Edwards (26%) combined for over two thirds of the total vote.

As a result of our poll, PDA received some excellent attention from the media, including this article by John Nichols of The Nation, who noted, "PDA's a solid group and their poll was run with great care to make sure that only members voted. As such, it's a good reflection on where particularly committed anti-war activists within the party are leaning. It's also the product of an impressive process."

MikeBinSC "what we need is an Edwards/Kucinich ticket to take back America."

That would work for me. So would a Kucinich/Edwards ticket. I like that one even better but either would be good.

Excuse me truthforall I hope you don't mind?

Kucinich First, Edwards Second in PDA Straw Poll
December 5, 2007
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-12-05-08-07-19-news.php

Everybody I talk to tells me the reason they're backing Clinton or Obama is because they are the leading contenders. When I ask them if their supporting these two because of their views they state no I want the republicans gone at any cost. I always come back and ask them why they would sacrifice their beliefs for someone who is not going to represent them. Their answer is almost always to win.

What does it take to convince these people that they are already the losers and they haven't even voted yet.

Anytime I hear someone say I'm voting for the lesser of two evils they've lost. Anytime you say their the most viable candidate because someone else say's so, you've lost. I will no longer give any encouragement or support to the lesser of two evils. I will send the message by just not voting. I don't want to hear anything about the green party either, here in Oklahoma they don't even exist and won't be on the ballot.

My only choice is to register as an independent and then I don't even get to participate in the primaries. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place and swimming in the wide-open sea.

This whole bs about Obama is a non issue. But American media loves non issues more than any important discussion about facing our ugly truths.

Clinton has already demonstrated she's as a bad as, if not the same as, a Republican. Obama started out inspiring, then the Democratic washing machine ran him through the permanent press cycle. Now he's seeming to me to be less and less trustworthy. While he seems sort of liberal, he hasn't been clear about the war, or global trade, or universal (non insurance based) healthcare. He is more like your average bland Democrat to me only he talks really nice and he's good looking.

It's hard to say what kind of a leader Obama would really make. But this has nothing to do with this nonsense.

Jeeze Louise, Obama may have done drugs, but he didn't commit capital murder. What is it with America's obsession with drugs? It's the same obsession that has turned the US into a prison-industrial compex. The Drug War is an economic and social drain on our society. Drugs are inanimate objects. Get over it America!!!!!!!!BTW the Drug war is racist!!!!

Edwards is sleazy. But I would vote for Kucinich/Edwards.

I have worked in drug prevention and so I have spent some time thinking about drugs, alcohol.

I think it was Richard Pryor who said that Cocaine is God's way of telling you you have too much money or something like that.

Since many of our candidates grew up priveleged, they probably did some drug experimentation. Of course having or not having money is no guarantee against not getting exposed to chemicals.

And I regret that chemicals are part of life for so many people. Arguably, it doesn't make life better for many people.

But in the realm of chemical use and abuse are those that try it and decide not to; and those that become involved with chemical abuse (those who may or may not make what I call the u-turn); and then there are addicts. Some addicts face their addiction and though they remain addicted they are not using. Some never shake it and it kills them, sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly.

Now for Hillary Clinton's campaign to throw stones at Obama over this is pretty silly since she herself spent some time in the company of someone who admits to trying chemicals. But she did it. It's hypocrisy and it's not nice.

But to me the greatest irony is that we are splitting hairs over people who did chemical experimentation and realized that it wasn't going to get them where they wanted to go SIMULTANEOUSLY with having a sitting president who had a serious chemical abuse/addiction problem that he has not faced. I swear that history will show that this guy was abusing chemicals while in the office of the president. And since chemicals are how people celebrate when there is celebrating to be done and cover their hurt when there is hurting to be done--unless they consciously pursue better coping mechanisms--this guy has GOT to be using someting. (My personal bet is that he's on lots of prescription drugs but that he binges now and then.)

We have, arguably, a chemically impaired president.

So we're chit-chatting about silliness while ignoring the real problem--a chemically impaired chief executive.

MollyJ "I regret that chemicals are part of life for so many people."

Why do you regret it? You're not the one making the decision. Many successful people from lawyers, to doctors do drug recreationally. I know many people who have a few drinks of wine, cans of beer or shots of whisky every night. They're not hurting anybody. Same with the other drugs, that is illegal.

MollyJ "But in the realm of chemical use and abuse are those that try it and decide not to; and those that become involved with chemical abuse (those who may or may not make what I call the u-turn); and then there are addicts"

Do you assume that somebody that has a few drinks every night is abusing it?

MollyJ "Some never shake it and it kills them, sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly."

A lot of them live to be a ripe old age, I know some of them.

There's a big difference between having a few drinks and getting smashed. Most of the people I know that continue to drink don't get smashed anymore.

The illegal drugs aren't any different. There is a big misconception in this country I don't know how it ever got started but I believe it was the drug treatment industry. There is a big difference between recreational drug users (alcohol drinkers) and drug abusers.

By the way since the introduction of the drug courts the drug treatment industry has exploded. It's pretty easy to treatment someone for addiction when their not.

Sorry I just didn't like the tone of some of your comments. To me a recreational drug user isn't any different than someone who plays golf, goes fishing or bungee jumps a lot. Just based on my experiences.
.
MollyJ "We have, arguably, a chemically impaired president."

The symptoms are there and legal prescription drugs are probably the reason. If Bush and Chenney would just lay off till the weekend and not shoot anybody.

Anyone who cares about this issue wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway. My question is what is Mitt on? A flip flopping Mormon going for the republican nomination. The only way I see him picked is if the republicans want to blame an inevitable loss on someone.

Yeah Obama was the junkie pres of Harvard Law Review. Wow that's one busy dude.

Shakker it's true, Obama has the Democrat flu, he seems afraid to stand for some actual solid solutions to our corrupt system, as far as I can tell. There are solutions. Its just he hasn't proposed much of them.

We are never going to get change in this country until we vote outside the machine candidates into office.

This is a cynical, low ploy straight out of the Rove-Bush playbook. Bill Clinton admitted trying pot but claims not to have inhaled. People of Obama's and my generation can be divided, with respect to drug use, into 4 groups: remote, casual users; addicts or heavy users; goody-goody lifelong abstainers; and liars. Obama is clearly in the first category, and Hillary is possibly in the third but more likely in the fourth.

Obama's problem is that he does not want to piss anybody off. He wants to be all things to all people, a Uniter, not a Divider so to speak. In short he is a typical politician. The problem is, we don't need a politician, we need a LEADER. Edwards/Kucinich or Kucinich/Edwards, either one is fine by me!
Ms Clinton is Republican-Lite just as Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had.

Hi rickster. I appreciate your comments. My career in health care has led me to see plenty of people across the use/abuse/addiction spectrum. I really am willing to admit that some people can use chemicals recreationally and not get into trouble with it by anyone's measure. But all those folks that find themselves in treatment were all people who thought they could use and handle it. It doesn't always work that way.

I regret that chemicals can cause so much misery for folks, for children. I do regret that. As an ED nurse, I once took a sobering up mom to see her dead toddler who had been ejected from her vehicle in a car wreck. The back of the kid's head was mush. That occurred over 2 decades ago but I've often wondered how that mom is doing--it can take a long time to forgive yourself something like that.

I've listened to kids talk about driving their drunk parent home when they were twelve, how they learned to cook for their siblings as young elementary aged kids due to chemicals, etc, etc.

Like experiences can lead some people to see the fun and party aspect of chemicals; some of us are lead to see the other aspects. They are both sides of the same coin.

That is the source of my regret and it may not effect me at ground zero level, but I cannot say I've been untouched by it. Also chemical abuse and addiction is expensive to individuals, to families, to communities and to our nation. So that's my regret for that.

But really, the gist of my post above was that an episode or a period of chemical use/abuse does not have to indict an entire life-career. Conversely, I do believe that in George W. Bush we have a profoundly chemically impacted individual--at the helm of our nation. And it hasn't worked out at all well for us.

What I find most telling here is the obsession with a politician's past or personality or family life or charisma or height or anything you can think of except his or her ideas.

Personally, I don't care if George Bush is an alcoholic, still drinking or otherwise, or an ex-cocaine user. What I care about is that he lied us into a war for oil, killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending the US toward bankruptcy in the process, all of this done in the name of God.

MollyJ "My career in health care has led me to see plenty of people across the use/abuse/addiction spectrum. I really am willing to admit that some people can use chemicals recreationally and not get into trouble with it by anyone's measure."

Hi MollyJ I can certainly see were you're coming from. I have friends who work in the health care industry. There are a lot more people out there that use drugs recreationally then most people want to admit. It just burns me when I hear statements that place these people as second-class citizens. Their not, their actually really good people who want the same rights as every body else. I feel the same way about race, sexual orientation and the homeless. Did you know that there are homeless people who actually choose to live that way? As one guy I explained it to me, it's the only way to truly live free. I have to admit he's right.

For all the harms drug use can and does cause some people, it would still be easier and cheaper to help them if drugs were legal. Prohibition cause far more harm to the welfare of this country than recreational drug use does. Prohibition destroys families far more often than drug use does and prohibition makes it almost impossible to identify and help them families that are having problems with drug abuse. Prohibition is directly responsible for the majority of violent crimes in this country. Prohibition is the reason this country has slowly turned into the fascist police state it is today. Prohibition drains money away from our public schools, health care and other basic government services. Prohibition is racist and unfairly targets the poor.

No matter how you look at it, nothing good comes from prohibition. Recreational drug use does have its harms and dangers but would be by far easier to manage if recreational drug use was legal for adults.

My only problem with your statements was it sounded like you were placing all recreational drug user into the same basket as abusers and their not. I also don't like it when people put them into the same basket as real criminals. In my opinion in this country we should consider everybody a first class citizen.

Ticonderoga--
"Personally, I don't care if George Bush is an alcoholic, still drinking or otherwise, or an ex-cocaine user. What I care about is that he lied us into a war for oil, killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending the US toward bankruptcy in the process, all of this done in the name of God."

My contention is that GWB is an acutely impacted addict. This is not, certainly, unrelated to the terrible judgements he has made in his role as chief exec.

So would it be okay with you if he were paralyzed and on a vent; a schizophrenic who was having acute schizophrenia and actively hallucinating; or a diabetic who was having acute problems with his blood sugar control and having multiple hypoglycemic episodes per day? Wouldn't you agree that those conditions would impact someone's decision making capacities? (Please, I am not trying to say anything about people with chronic diseases fitness for office--I'm making a point about ACUTE problems.)

Precisely _because_ of his untreated chemical problems, I would contend that GWB is not fit to be at the helm.

The real point is: if the presidential candidate was Jesus Christ, the Republican smear artists and attack dogs would cherry pick and enlarge upon anything in his past that would discredit him.

Campaign smears against Jesus.

Remember his hippie days in the desert? Man, the guy even claimed he was hanging in the desert to dry out. Can you believe it? It took forty days of rehab to get that monkey off his back.

Did you know the guy was a boozer and a party animal. He actually came up with the wine at one party even though the crowd drank enough booze to fill the Dead Sea.

Hey don't ask about his Mom. Everybody knows she was seeing someone while she was married to her hubby Joe. Can you believe it? She claims someone date-raped her while she was sleeping. Anybody can see her kid don't look anything like the Dad.

Anyhoo, what were all them feathers doing in her bed the night after the alleged date-rape? It sounds kinky to me.

Did you know that he skipped out of doing his military service fighting the Romans. When other young Jews were fighting and getting killed fighting atheistic Romanism, Jeez just took off and chickened out when it came to fighting. Man, the guy could talk, but he was a whimp when it came to serving his country.

Now he claims he was executed because he spoke out against the Romans and their pinko Jewish sympathizers. Did anybody see anything in the news about it? Anyway, does he think we're dumb or what?! The asshole isn't even dead.

Did you hear the one about him buying votes passing out free food to homeless people and welfare chiselers? We won't even mention his affair with one of his campaign workers and whore (the lady would give it away to anybody who asked)..what's her name..?

BALABIREV -- Who would have thought? Excellent historical possibilities here!

You missed the part about him hanging out with the "other" Mary (Magdalen),

whose reputation was besmirched and be-speckled (not very sanguine [ha!] but possibly after the event, but who really cares when she "fell", or how far?).

obama is perfect but not his time yet.
who cares about deja con-u details
the scrutiny is on the cia torture
and the too many INNOCENT victims
screaming in slow motion to death
most despicable vomitive designs
of sick minds with aide of apa.
Most politicians take some or other
drug. If not how could they survive ?

The Republicans have killed a million people in the past five years. Hillary, Barack, Edwards, Kucinich. Pick one of them and get those damned murderers.

Hey- why dont all of the fucking politicians take a fucking drug test. And I dont mean a piss test, give them what Brittany got. I bet they would all show up with their heads shaved. Make the chimp go first.
In fact, Congress should be working on a bill for that instead of debating the telecom fiasco.

Hang Jane!

Ascott wrote: "Obama is a fraud and a liar.
"I live in Illinois. We remember Obama stating that he would complete his term, and not run for President. Not only did he break that promise, but he can't even be depended upon to show up for important votes."

I live in Illinois, too, and I don't recall him making any such promise. I Googled this and couldn't find anything either. Do you have a source for this contention? While it's true he missed some votes, this does not make him a fraud or liar -- he has never denied the votes he missed.

Ascott also wrote: "Obama said that, to get bin Laden, he might favor the US acting unilaterally sending our military into Waziristan, Pakistan. (Good thing he's a "peace candidate": think what he'd favor doing if he were a war candidate.)"

Yes, he did, as preferable to invading entire countries to get bin Laden, such as Bush invading Afghanistan. If you listened to what he had to say on the subject carefully, he was talking about a surgical strike to arrest bin Laden and his assocaites, not a war against Pakistan, and he would only do that as a last resort if Musharraf refused to arrest the al-Qaeda leader. In these times, if you think he could get elected by being the peace candidate -- as nice as that sounds -- you should just put the pipe back in your mouth and get back to dreaming. Even Dennis Kucinich would not disband the US armed forces or refuse to use them in an emergency.

Ascott=A fraud, liar and repukagain plant

Mcpete, I think you're right -- a fly-by troll trying to smear a Dem.

You know what gets lost in all this is that Obama can relate to the millions of Americans who have used drugs-like me- or continue to use drugs. Personally, I think it's ridiculuous that someone's past drug use even matters. I mean it actually gives me a higher view of him that he's lived in the real world- not that it should, but it does. But are we really a country that is going to stigamtize other people's religion, race, occupation, class, choices? We live in a society of choices. A candidate who criticizes the most human of choices strikes me as lacking a certain degree of humanity quotient I expect from my neighbor and my postman, much less my next president.

And when it comes to political choices, I expect better than Edwards or Hillary.

"I do not see how a person can be acceptable who is untrustworthy in word. When a pin is missing in the yoke-bar of a large cart or in the collar-bar of a small cart, how can the cart be expected to go?"- Confucius

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

MollyJ, all those conditions you outlined would prevent George Bush from actually being President, not just prevent him from making good decisions.

My contention is that George Bush is a puppet, groomed for the job of conning the American people by his handlers, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocon power brokers.

And the American people are puppets, conned into believing George Bush's rhetoric by the whole conglomeration of greedy oil barons, greedy weapons manufacturers, greedy mainstream media moguls and the like.

So I guess I'm not actually disagreeing with you, instead what I'm saying is that this problem is a many-tiered one that's been building to a climax for a long time, and if George Bush wasn't the puppet someone else would be.

But there's a silver lining here: Politicians have been conning us for a long time, but now, thanks to the ham-handedness of Bush and his handlers, everything's out in the open and if we survive what they've done to us we'll never be so easily conned again.