Hillary, Bill and Obama on Crack

Rolling stone Magazine endorses Obama and notes that judging from how HRC has run her campaign, her so-called 35 years of erxperience do not amount to much. Here is a brief excerpt:
The reason for the early choice is twofold," the editors explain in the publication's upcoming issue. "Undoing the damage of the disastrous Bush years will take a leader who can unite a deeply divided nation, and politicians with gifts like Obama's are so rare that it's imperative for each of us to do our part."

The magazine has endorsed presidential candidates since 1972, beginning with Democrat George McGovern. Other recent candidates include Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

"Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles," wrote Jann Wenner, the magazine's editor and publisher.

Wenner called Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a "capable and personable senator," but criticized the way she has run her campaign.

"Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn't count for much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack," Wenner wrote.

Obama appears on the magazine's cover next to the headline, "Barack Obama: A New Hope." In the image, his pose his Superman-like and an aura surrounds his frame. The issue hits newsstands Friday.

Get a clue, Kermugeon. The death penalty for crack users, who are overwhelmingly black and non-violent? Why don't you just espouse genocide and be done with it? Isn't it sufficiently destructive to our society that 1 of every 99 persons is incarcerated, 1 in every 36 Hispanics and 1 of every 15 blacks? And that so many of them are incarcerated for using -- not pushing -- drugs? If we spent a fraction of the money it costs to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world on education and treatment for drug use, we would have enough left over to address some of the root causes addiction. Of course Bush & Co. would not approve of such an enlightened approach because the corporate folks to whom our prison system has been outsourced would lose business.

The question is not whether or not crack is bad for inner city neighborhoods, it is whether or not those handling it should be sentenced more harshly than those handling cocaine, and further, whether or not non-violent abusers should be sentenced on par with the violent ones. As it is, there is no proportion in judgement being exercised. Even judges and law enforcement officials themselves have proven to be largely in favor of changing the drug laws, because they are the ones seeing the evidence that they are having negative impact on the communities they serve.

Moreover, it is a much more serious problem that government officials engage in drug trafficking which results in the massive inflow in the first place. Now I'm not a death penalty advocate, but if one were to start somewhere with the harshest penalties, it should be at the top, where they have the most influence, not at the bottom where they simply exacerbate the problem exponentially.

Locking a parent up for 25 years because of a drug problem tears apart the family unit. Unsupervised children are worse for our inner cities than crack. By your logic, we could solve the drug problem by putting all offenders to death. I suppose that would help the inner cities.

now you are confusing me. i thought charlie chaplins..er..er..i mean john mccains wife was on cocaine..or was it crack she stole from the foreign drug shipments?does anybody know what cindy mccain s (alien 4) drug of choice was?"

not so fast baracknot. I remember going home and watching "white collared guys" getting out of their car of the year to buy "stuff" off the streets. You can probably catch them yourself if you go to the street corners. Also let's not forget meth the drug of the soccer moms. Also cocaine is the drug of choice for the elites. "Heron" or Heroin is the drug that makes you steal. It is extremely addictive but so are prescription drugs. I'm not defending drug use. But let's keep it real here. Drug addiction is a disease and needs to be treated accordingly. It's not until the drugs begin to hit suburbia that it becomes a epidemic. We know Bill isn't innocent, oh that's right he didn't inhale. At least Barack was open about his past. By doing this he took one dart away from Clinton before she could throw it at him.

It's not necessary to believe the Clintons are racist, only that they will say/do anything to win and that they lack the moral courage to take responsible positions if they think it will costs them votes. What good is it to be the best policy wonk in the world if haven't got the guts to stand on principle?

Drug laws were created because of racism.

This is a fact look it up.

Watch the PBS documentary on DRUGS in AMERICA

Shame on you. I have flagged you, this is disgusting.

using a drug is not a crime that should be punishable by loosing your freedom.

under what premise can you justify taking someone's freedom?

How can you justify taking someone's ability to walk down the street and look around and be free?

...is it because drugs are bad?

If that's the case so is Mcdonalds. so should a big mac get you a 3 - 5 bid?

The fact is the entire drug laws are based on Racism.

This is a fact look it up and you will find that Cocaine which started off as a medical treatment was made illegal because RACISTS said that it made BLACK MEN rape white women.

This is the ugly truth of our nation.

So what should we do about it? Continue to perpetuate this notion or challenge it?

Why is it so hard to do what is right?

I guess ou are prepared to pay higher taxes for the expansion of you prisons. I presume you are not a fan of wellfare, and yet the idea of paying for teen-to-grave food, housing, and medical care for a large segment of our society is an expense you are ready to shoulder, as long as they are locked up out of sight.

Conversely, cocaine users/dealers contaminate the so called civilized professional community and their habits and trafficking underpin the most violent of violent offenders. The recidivism for cocaine use is high, but isn't tracked the same way, because it not treated in as draconian a fashion. Violent crime should be treated as such. Period. The punishment should match the crime.

Wilson, the research finds little relationship between length of time served and recidivism: in other words, longer sentences don't reduce it but do cost much more. Western Europe has both lower levels of drug use and dramaticlly lower sentences for dealing and use-- prison doesn't solve drug problems.

A bigger cause of crime in the American inner city is fatherlessness/ forced single parenting-- it's hard to parent from prison and when one in nine marriageable black men is incarcerated, it leads to an incredible destruction of the family.

If long sentences actually reduced violence and crack use, I'd be all for them but the data simply does not support this. The best way to deal with the problem is via increased economic opportunity and increased access to high quality treatment. That may sound like liberal blather-- but there's hard data to support it and none to support your point of view.

Great idea Mr. dimwit. Let' punish people for crimes they MIGHT have done and are likely to commit. That's so constitutional.

Republicans are indeed as stupid as my stereotypes of them.