Beldar on Obama’s Smoking
[Guest post by DRJ]
Beldar asks “Is Obama still smoking while hiding and denying it?” and he tells us why the answer matters:
“But by far the most important thing this could tell us is about his authenticity. It’s not just whether he’s been lying to his wife or whiny reporters. It’s whether he’s still lying to the American people, who are very much trying to get to know him so they can decide whether to entrust him with the presidency.”
I thought about calling this “Beldar Hits Obama in the Butt” but that’s too corny, isn’t it?
— DRJ
what’s to know? he’s a lying racist bullshitter of the first order. were he a TWP, he’d never even have gotten in the running, let alone be a contender.
redc1c4 (a877b7) — 4/4/2008 @ 10:44 pmI’m not a big Obama fan, but that first comment makes me want to ask: So, being black is an advantage in politics now?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/4/2008 @ 11:27 pmThanks for the link! The pun would have been corny, but my own post has a comparable (“weed out”) pun.
Beldar (c7d2f9) — 4/4/2008 @ 11:52 pmuhhhh, yes, corny but you got it out there anyway, lol. interesting article and one thing i agree with hillary on is, this guy obama has not been vetted for whats surely comming his way this fall if he’s the dem nominee.
james conrad (7cd809) — 4/5/2008 @ 12:21 amSorry, I don’t care if he smokes or not, nor whether he lies about it. I also don’t care if he drinks alcohol, eats his vegetables, brushes his teeth, or any other personal habits that don’t interfere with his public life. If he gets a DUI, that matters. If he has an affair, that matters. Smoking? Nobody tells the whole truth about everything they do… not one single person. Because some things are nobodies business.
If he’s a closet smoker or not pales in comparison to some of the whoppers he has told. He said he never heard the “bad” sermons. That everybody should be able to bear arms, but not carry handguns. He’s lied about so many important things and people are focused on whether he smokes? This is the stupidest election that’s ever been. Pretty soon McCain, Obama, and Clinton are all going to name Britney Spears as their running mate just so people stay focused on unimportant … stuff.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 4/5/2008 @ 12:49 amBritney’s running? Is the debate going to be in Ft. Lauderdale? At a beach bar?
It’s really aggravating, they keep interrupting the E! channel with this “election” stuff. As if it’s as important as celebrities.
DRJ – As you can tell, I don’t think it’s corny enough.
Apogee (366e8b) — 4/5/2008 @ 1:18 amYou could have titled it Obama and Fags, as long as you had an asterisk pointing to an explanation that the word fag is UK slang for a cigarette.
Robert (220f5c) — 4/5/2008 @ 4:34 amyeeeech,
paul from fl (47918a) — 4/5/2008 @ 6:33 amThis guy is essentially “applying’ for the Job of POTUS. Everything matters. He is a crappy candidate. I wouldn’t hire him, but thanks to affirmative action, the self-loathers are falling over themselves to give him the keys.Idiots.
yeeesh
Everything?!
Does it matter if Obama always brushes his teeth at least twice a day and stays away from foods high in saturated fat? Does it matter if he remembers to never read in the dark? Does it matter if he always wears matching socks?
C’mon, none of that matters — even if he is on the record saying one thing and doing another. And his smoking habits don’t matter either. Focusing a laser on trivial minutia bs like his personal health and hygene habits don’t make Obama look any more dishonest than he already does (or should), it merely makes his critics look more petty and trivial.
Sean P (eb1fb0) — 4/5/2008 @ 6:54 amRobert@4:34pm, I lol’d. 🙂
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 4/5/2008 @ 8:05 amDoes it matter that Obama appears to be physically addicted to a drug and can’t shake the habit even when faced with his own statement and sense of what he should be doing in trying to become POTUS?
It sure fits with the reality we know as Obama vs his totally fabricated aura.
J. Peden (094956) — 4/5/2008 @ 10:42 amIt’s whether he’s still lying to the American people, who are very much trying to get to know him so they can decide whether to entrust him with the presidency.
Sentences like this demonstrate how outrageously debased American politics have become. Have become again, I mean, if we’re elevating personal peccadilloes to matters of national import. Maybe it’s because a Clinton’s back in the national spotlight that this trivia’s significant again? If a hummer’s a fine way to kick-start an impeachment campaign, why wouldn’t sneaking a cigarette be? It’s not like anyone else has lied about anything more, say, substantive recently?
That said, I think the fact that Obama’s quit smoking in the dense heat of a Presidential campaign speaks to fitness for the highest office in the land. When friends of mine quit smoking, they’re testy and irrational, liable to snap at you for minor indiscretions.
Obama’s been jonesing, for the better part of three months, under constant public scrutiny and the only evidence we have of this is a rumor that he might have had a quick fix? His nerves should be raw from the race alone; the fact that he’s performed so well means he has the equilibrium and equanimity of a god.
SEK (bd295a) — 4/5/2008 @ 11:12 amSEK,
Obama’s apparent equanimity could also be evidence he has returned to smoking, that the media isn’t reporting his melt-downs, or that he melts down behind-the-scenes.
Neither Beldar nor I care if Obama smokes. Beldar’s point is that Obama should be honest about it. I have teenagers who lie to hide their imperfections but I expect better from adults, especially over something as benign as smoking.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/5/2008 @ 11:21 amSean P,
paul from fl (47918a) — 4/5/2008 @ 11:22 amOK none of it matters, the racism, the questionable patriotism, his loyality. None of it.
There ya’ go pal.Do whatever you want.
I know that personal habits aren’t important, but this need to hide,lie or confabulate, that’s the problem.
But hey, whatever, I ain’t votin’ for him.
Cuz if he’s the Messiah, Laissez les temps de fin Roulle!
Put me outta my misery!
yeeeeesh
I agree with Stashiu. This type of media diversion only makes a socialist look credible. Although I do see the bigger point that basic honesty on small matters is critical.
Vermont Neighbor (e7ed47) — 4/5/2008 @ 11:29 amSEK – Thanks for the reminder that the impeachment was just about sex for the liberals and not lying under oath about sex.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/5/2008 @ 11:32 amOf course his smoking is not the issue, but his attempts at concealment are not themselves an issue so much as another example of the faked nature of his “authenticity”.
Lots of changiness of course.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/5/2008 @ 12:07 pmGives one hope for November and full disclosure.
Vermont Neighbor (e7ed47) — 4/5/2008 @ 12:09 pmDRJ:
Obama’s apparent equanimity could also be evidence he has returned to smoking, that the media isn’t reporting his melt-downs, or that he melts down behind-the-scenes.
The man’s in front of cameras 18 hours a day, and we don’t live in the age of gentleman’s agreements anymore. If he’s smoking on the bus, the cameras catch it — and they don’t belong to “the media,” but all the media outlets covering his campaign. If Foxnews catches him lighting up, it’ll take all of fifteen seconds to interrupt regularly scheduled programming with the breaking news.
As for meltdowns behind-the-scenes, my point was that people who quit smoking don’t compartmentalize their irritability. I’m surprised he can make it through a debate without biting someone’s head off. (I’m being somewhat glib here, but only somewhat: I’ve been around enough people who’ve quit, and even with Miracle Gum and Stickies, they still exhibited the classic grumpiness of nicotine withdrawal.)
The only plausible scenario in which Obama’s still smoking and it’s going unreported is if a number of reporters following him are fellows in the Fraternity of Smokers. They bum cigarettes and lights, but silence is their code.
Even if that’s the case, I still consider this whole thing a non-issue. Saying you’ve “quit” smoking is different from saying you don’t smoke. I have friends, as the perverse old chestnut goes, who quit smoking five times a day. Or who sit there with a lit cigarette in their hand, half a pack of Nicorette in their mouth and patches slapped half-way up both arms who say they’re quitting. This just isn’t an issue for me, nor should it be for anyone who’s more serious about the substance than the stage-play of the race.
daleyrocks:
Thanks for the reminder that the impeachment was just about sex for the liberals and not lying under oath about sex.
Thanks for reminding me, um, that you don’t know how to read? (I’d follow your lead and indict all conservatives for your failure, but that just seems unfair.) Here’s what I wrote:
If a hummer’s a fine way to kick-start an impeachment campaign, why wouldn’t sneaking a cigarette be?
Clinton never lies under oath about the hummer if the hummer’s never an issue in the first place, now does he?
SEK (bd295a) — 4/5/2008 @ 12:57 pmThanks for telling me how to think about this, SEK.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/5/2008 @ 1:00 pmActually, SEK, he never “has” to lie about a hummer if he had not taken actions that led to him being enmeshed in a sexual harassment lawsuit from his multiple infidelities. But perjury is alright for a sitting President.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/5/2008 @ 1:23 pmSEK, no, on its own, it’s not a matter of national import at least in my opinion (although it does send a message to kids). But if he deceives us in relatively trivial matters like this where there is no real need to do so, how will he behave in much more important matters? And you railing so much against it just emphasizes you really think this is important. And if you think it’s important, shouldn’t others think so, too?
Jim C. (d32322) — 4/5/2008 @ 2:28 pmActually, we do. Obama is proof of that.
The media has given him a free ride complete with champagne and roses on his way to the ticket. Only when things are heavily filtered does he appear comfortable and in control. It’s definitely a look-but-don’t-tell style of reporting from his fawning media friends.
Vermont Neighbor (e7ed47) — 4/5/2008 @ 2:37 pmSheesh, Paul, did I SAY anything about Jerimia Wright, or the flag pin or anything like that? No I mentioned the smoking. The smoking. Honestly, if you can’t tell the difference between lying about smoking and lying about attending a sermon from the Reverand God Damn America you just might need as much professional help as he does.
Sean P (e327e4) — 4/5/2008 @ 2:53 pmOf course this begs the obvious, if can’t be straight up about something as insignificant as smoking, what on earth would he lie about when sitting in one of the most powerful positions in the world? Are you kidding me.
Dana (fba430) — 4/5/2008 @ 4:06 pmSEK – Thanks for the second reminder. Was Paula Jones a Republican?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/5/2008 @ 4:15 pmSEK, while I understand your point, if I thought that Clinton would lie under oath, I would not consider him presidental material…
Would YOU???
Now, how this relates to Obama? Simple. If he’ll lie to our faces on camera, would he do it under oath? Would he lie to another world leader???
We cannot expect that our President would lie to us. He could choose to say nothing, which would not be a lie. But, in both of these cases, the President (Clinton) and the wanna-be Obama are willing to lie to us, to our faces.
How can that make him “presidential?”
reff (59b2ad) — 4/5/2008 @ 4:28 pmI believe I heard Obama virtually admit that he hasn’t been able to kick the habit. What I wonder is why nicotine patches or gum will not suffice his need. Why does he need to smoke in particular? His need reminds me of the people of lesser means I see who still buy cigarettes when they could easily buy bulk tobacco, which is very cheap in comparison, then either “chew” it or roll their own.
I attribute this behavior to either lack of problem solving skills, or the simple inability to break rote behaviors. So where does that leave Obama? Does this play into his inability to break with Wright and Black Liberation Theology? Iow, what kind of person is he? He looks like the perfect Prog tool to me, and also like he is not otherwise a leader in any meaningful sense.
J. Peden (2fd68d) — 4/5/2008 @ 6:08 pmI’ve got to agree with the deceased Frenchman here, that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
If Obama smokes, it’s not really any of our business if he is healthy (likely at his age regardless of the smoking), and to the extent the problem is one of setting a bad example, then it’s better that he hides it, and it’s not a good thing that he be outed.
That said, if Obama were guilty of actual hypocrisy (i.e., he condemns others for smoking or perhaps for analagous unhealthy but legal behavior), then his hypocrisy should be fair game.
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 4/5/2008 @ 6:30 pmDW,
Then shouldn’t Obama say “It’s none of your business whether I smoke”? The problem with Obama is you never know where he stands on the issues, let alone on something trivial like whether or not he smokes. He’s the stealth candidate.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/5/2008 @ 8:14 pmBut if he deceives us in relatively trivial matters like this where there is no real need to do so, how will he behave in much more important matters?
I wonder how long before the MSM starts publishing studies about how “everyone” lies, similar to what we saw in the 90s.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/6/2008 @ 5:22 am(This is not a duplicate comment.)
Thanks for telling me how to think about this, SEK.
No sweat. It’s what liberals do.
SEK, he never “has” to lie about a hummer if he had not taken actions that led to him being enmeshed in a sexual harassment lawsuit from his multiple infidelities.
So is it the infidelities that bother you or the getting caught? Because if it’s the former, I wonder what your feelings about G.H.W. Bush are; and if it’s the latter, well then, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with admiring a serial cheater who escaped detection, but there’s nothing admirable about it either.
But if he deceives us in relatively trivial matters like this where there is no real need to do so, how will he behave in much more important matters?
I don’t own property on that slippery slope. There are many, many things people lie about that have absolutely no consequence on whether they should be considered trustworthy. Ask a married man how many times he’s had sex with his wife the past three months, and unless he’s dispirited unto divorce I bet you he’s rounding up. Or ask someone how many times they’ve masturbated in the past week.
Or how many drinks they had the other night.
Or how many times they worked out last week.
Anytime you ask someone a question of little importance but fraught with baggage, you’re likely to hear their estimate of what they think you want them to tell you, i.e. a student will tell his mother he had two drinks on Tuesday but his friends he did ten shots.
In a country which frowns on smoking as much as ours does, I see no problem with someone who says they’ve quit, but needs the occasional cigarette to make it through a particularly stressful moment.
And you railing so much against it just emphasizes you really think this is important. And if you think it’s important, shouldn’t others think so, too?
Objection! Asked and answered.
Seriously, I don’t think this is important. I’m responding to it because political winds sometime shift on the strength supremely unimportant matters — a mouse farts in Toledo and suddenly the national debate about healthcare is irrevocably closed. Plus, you know, the substance of my response consists entirely of reasons why this issue is unimportant.
I know, I know, there’s an ironclad relation between length-of-reply and importance-of-topic. But I bet you I could find a lengthy, heated debate about the etymological history of the term “Romulan” beginning after 2150 — and I’d win — but I’d hardly say its length and heat demand anyone consider the discussion important.
Only when things are heavily filtered does he appear comfortable and in control. It’s definitely a look-but-don’t-tell style of reporting from his fawning media friends.
Proof? He’s certainly getting hammered in conservative circles, and it’s not like the mainstream media’s constant focus on Wright qualifies as fawning. I mean, sure, they’ve given as much attention to McCain’s relationship with Hagee–wait, scratch that, no they haven’t.
SEK (bd295a) — 4/6/2008 @ 12:35 pm