The New York Times Smears Obama, Politely.

In the recent NY Times article, Few From Obama’s Youth Remember His Drug Use, SERGE F. KOVALESKI writes in what at first seems to be a very judicious exercise in journalistic integrity, an obvious and ugly smear unworthy of the backing of any serious publication.

He begins by taking great care to point out just how BLACK Obama is.

Nearly three decades ago, Barack Obama stood out on the small campus of Occidental College in Los Angeles for his eloquence, intellect and activism against apartheid in South Africa.

He stood out because he cared about Africa, was black and could speak well (why not mention he was clean?).

But Mr. Obama, then known as Barry, also joined in the party scene.

You know him as Obama now, but he lived a second life as a party boy named Barry, do you really know him?

Years later in his 1995 memoir, he alluded to smoking “reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and talked about “getting high.” Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii, according to the book.

Barry smoked reefer with “brothers” and used the words “getting high.” But thats nothing because in High School he was a casual cocaine user.

He made “some bad decisions” as a teenager involving drugs and drinking, Senator Obama, now a presidential candidate, told high school students in New Hampshire last November.

This black person who made ONLY “some” bad decisions wants to be out president. Thats right the black ex-cokehead.

Those are the three first sentences of the article. Another gem tucked into this beauty is the sentence “That could suggest he was so private about his use that few people were aware of it…” … he could still be a cokehead! I mean even his closest friends did not know! This is a black guy who knows how to hide his drug use!!

On and on, its amazing really. They decide to back Hillary, great. Yet, instead of writing some persuasive article about why she would be a better choice based on facts or opinions we may have not considered, the Times decides that they will simply be a thug for her. I was pretty disgusted. I actually do expect more from the Times, a lot more.

It’s very telling that they think the general American population is so stupid and uninformed that all it takes is a racist caricature, of one of the most dynamic, forthright, intelligent American men to enter our political landscape, to make us all run into the arms of one of the most egocentric, duplicitous, and conniving corporate political animals.

How anyone can overlook the fact that this woman voted for the war out of fear of looking weak after, as was though at the time, the Republicans would look heroic after a quick win and she would look unpatriotic and afraid. Can you imagine, knowing that out of such a shallow feeling of self-worth your actions contributed to the deaths of more than 3000 Americans, all to save a little face. She still will not admit wrongdoing, instead opting for the far more unbelievably hypocritical line of “I was duped”… I mean the MOST experienced woman in the world with 35 yrs of whatever could not understand that the bill she signed, which was called “To authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”, was a bill for war…

When Hillary cried, it was not because she cared about her country, it was because her country was not aware of how much she knew it needed her.