Joe Gandelman thinks that the Hillary! campaign shot itself in the foot. But I find this comment kind of naive:

After this episode, it will be difficult for Ms. Clinton or her husband Bill Clinton to ever denounce “the politics of personal destruction” that occurred during Bill Clinton’s term as president, or any other instances in the future. How can the campaign condemn Karl Rovian tactics when it is practicing them?

Is this a joke? They're the Clintons. These aren't "Rovian" tactics. They were indulging in this kind of hypocrisy all throughout the nineties. They (with Carville and Blumenthal) invented the "politics of personal destruction," all the while rubbing the crocodile tears out of their eyes and decrying it. Why does he think that they will stop now, or even find it "difficult" to do?

[Update a few minutes later]

Gerard Vanderleun reminisces about the summers of love.

In the late night, stoned streets of Berkeley in 1971 whenever you heard that Light My Fire you knew somebody was getting laid.... maybe even three or four somebodies. Ensemble. I don't know about Bill, but by 1971 I was on my second copy of The Doors album.

Now, I am sure that you will never, ever have the ghost of a chance of getting either Hillary or Bill to, as we used to say, cop to any of this. But it happened that way, a long, long time ago, in a stoner's universe far, far away.

Believe me, the last thing Hillary Clinton wants is for anyone on her campaign or any other campaign to start looking into drug use. Especially for Candidates shacking up in Berkeley, just down from Telegraph Avenue, in the lovin' summer of 1971.

The guy apparently missed last week when Clinton attacked Obama for being power hungry and referencing one of his kindergarten papers. I thought the drug use comment was reasonable in comparison. It is a weakness for Obama in the general election, but who exactly was Bill passing the toke with?

What I love is Mitt (and Republicans) are said to be going negative when they point out statements and policy positions of their opponents. Hillary (and Democrats) are said to be using Rovian tactics when they use innuendo and rumor to destroy the character of an opponent.

Reality based community my butt.

Actually I think the last thing the world population in general wants is the combination of Gerard Venderleun's sex talk and the image of the Clintons...

I know I'm already fighting the nightmares and I'm still awake! ;>_>

Maybe a better tactic would be for Obama's supporters to ask if Hillary was the Dem's Dan Quayle, and has nothing to worry about from these questions.

The drug issue could have some interesting ramifications.

How many of us know the National Review declared The War on Drugs is Lost in 1996. They also said it was conditioning the United States for a totalitarian police state. Remember, these people are highly respected social conservatives.

There is a great deal of ugliness going around with regard to the drug war. When -- not if -- it becomes common knowledge that some prominent social conservatives came out publicly opposing the drug war in 1996 there will be hell to pay in our society.

Considering the author here despises the current government
drug policy, it is odd to see the author snidely writing about
Senator Clinton's potential history with drugs.

Oh that's right, it's a Clinton which means that any vicious
slander is allowed.

Oh, that's right! Its anonymous retard so any totally phucked in the head comment is allowed!

Considering the author here despises the current government drug policy, it is odd to see the author snidely writing about Senator Clinton's potential history with drugs.

I'll try to say this with small words, since you're apparently a moron (and an anonymous one--what shock!).

I'm not writing about Senator Clinton's "potential history with drugs," but about the hypocrisy of her using this against her political opponents, given that history.

And just because I'm against the War On (Some) Drugs doesn't meant that I shouldn't take candidates' prior drug use into account in voting. If you weren't an idiot, you'd understand that. But sadly, you are.

So what position did you take on George Bush's
cocaine use?

So what position did you take on George Bush's
cocaine use?

Jeez, another anonymous moron.

First of all, I don't know if there was any "cocaine use" by "George Bush." If he did, I don't really give a damn, at this point, or any other.

But second, while I know that this will be difficult for you to comprehend, because you're clearly a moron, this post has nothing to do with my opinion about the usage of drugs by a political candidate. It has to do with their hypocrisy about it and using it as a campaign tactic against a rival.

Simberg shoots. He scores.

Nothing but Net.