A story from the UK's Telegraph by Hans Nichol, which might've otherwise been ignored completely on this side of the Atlantic, caught my eye because it's on Page A3 of today's
National Post (one of Canada's two national papers).
It's allegedly a report supposed to contradict Obama's claims about his past (i.e. drug use). Just go
read it to get the full effect.
This story is just classic, a prime example of a reporter actively trying to dig up some dirt and coming away emptyhanded, then trying to make the best of a wasted research effort while presenting everything in a way that makes the candidate appear to be swimming in a lake of impropriety, or in this case, exaggerating "for political effect" (Nichol's words). Nobody wants a liar; they had nothing to attack Gore with in 2000, so the RNC and the compliant media made him out to be a serial exaggerator. (The
Telegraph isn't the RNC, but these stories spread like wildfire. I can just see it now: some Fox News blowhard, feigning shock and outrage, reporting that "well, it's just come out from a report in Britain that Barack Hussein Obama has been exaggerating his past claims of drug use for political reasons!")
This story is something you'd expect from the American "liberal" media, except it's coming out a little earlier than would be expected since it's from overseas, and American outlets are waiting for Obama to be the actual Democratic nominee before they innuendoize his credibility and reputation.
According to this story, what Obama's old chums (apparently) say about him is "scarcely recognisable" from what Obama has claimed about his past. As if this reporter were unaware that internal behaviour and thoughts often differ from external behaviour, and what others see may differ from what someone experiences or sees internally.
The following quote essentially summarizes the absurdity:
"It wasn't like guys were smoking dope on campus and coming to school high," said Eric Kusunoki, 57, Sen Obama's teacher from age 15 to 18. "If they did, it would have been pretty obvious. If he did dabble with drugs or alcohol, I didn't see it."
You read that right: Obama's high school teacher wasn't aware of Obama smoking marijuana, therefore, Obama's claims are doubtful. It's not like a high school teacher could possibly be naive or ignorant to students smoking pot at lunchtime and coming to class baked.
To this day, I don't know what substance use many of my close friends have partaken in, nor do I care to specifically find out. What a weird, weird story, with a bunch of nonsense innuendo interweaved into a "Obama is lying for political purposes" narrative.
Some may look at the story at think it might be helpful to Barack Obama as it seems to dilute his initial claims of drug use and a dark clouded past -- but all it cleverly does is take the old cannard of Al Gore being a conniving exaggerationist, and apply it to Obama. He lied about his past, according to varying recollections by somewhat-close associates in elementary and high school, what a liar!
This is an interesting statement from the "news" report:
The interest in Sen Obama's Hawaiian upbringing is fuelled because, unlike his chief rivals, Sen Clinton or former senator and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, Sen Obama has not previously been subjected to a national presidential campaign or the dark arts of opposition research.
You've done your part, Hans Nichol.
(Maybe I'm making too much of this; but then again, I read The Daily Howler.)
Addendum: Hey, now just imagine the flipside of this. What if Barack Obama had not, in fact, publicly disclosed his past drug use? Would Nichols, and "muckraking" reporters like him, be scouring Hawaii for old hippies who claim to have sold him pot in high school, people who claim to have once shared a joint with Barack, and old teachers who once noticed that his eyes were a little red? Surely, yes. It makes you wonder what a guy's gotta do to avoid these desperate attack "reports": you either don't tell the truth, and hope it doesn't come back to bite you, or you come out with the truth, but then be baselessly criticized for exaggerating your past.
