Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Our Next President: Barack Obama
Posted by: Dale Franks on Saturday, January 27, 2007

James Lileks tosses out a victory prediction for Barack Obama:
Obama is a smoker. Who knew? I like the way this story raises the issue – they’re concerned about the effect on his voice if he stops smoking, don’t you see. Hah! I’m waiting for the candid shot of Obama having a smoke – if he’s in a good suit, giving off that Rat Pack vibe, it’ll set the anti-smoking cause back ten years. It's he's wearing a fedora, which would add a jazzman / forties twist, I see a fifty-state sweep. Or maybe not. Given how cigarette smoking has become a moral issue, it’ll be interesting to see how this gets played. A humanizing frailty? A surprising character flaw? DID HE SMOKE AROUND CHILDREN? Doesn't matter; the more I look at this fellow, the more I see a fifty state sweep.
Although, if Obama really had stones, he'd spark up a Lucky in public at the start of speech, and give his oration with the smoke curling up around him like Ed Murrow on See It Now. The shrieking response to such an act from the Permanently Affronted would truly be a thing of beauty to behold.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

That Obama was a cigarette smoker certainly surprised me when I read that piece, I simply had never thought that a public figure would risk having a habit that would be, inanely enough, a political liability. There hasn’t been a tobacco-user in the White House since pipe-smoking Gerald Ford. He may well be able to turn it to his advantage in making a public effort to quit.

It would be amusing if he could undermine the anti-smoking lobby, not because I think that more people should smoke, but because any group that has so appropriated an air of serious-minded righteousness, therefore become nigh insufferable, is fun to mess with.

It intriguing that so far most of what is "coming out" about Obama is trivium, that his middle name is Hussein and the like, that makes, at best, fodder for juvenile pundits like Rush Limbaugh. I think someone’s head might implode when substantive revelations or criticisms begin to emerge.

Obama should smoke a pipe, pipes are a hundred times cooler than cigarettes.
Written By: Paul A. Brömmer
I predicted that a candid photo of him smoking will hit the blogosphere during the primaries, courtesy of Hillary’s campaign.

He might be able to get some sort of "sympathy" for this, he certainly seems made of a reflective teflon substance - mud doesn’t stick and is instead reflected!

Also, Paul, supposedly Laura Bush sneaks the occasional cigarette, so there is a smoker in the White House, so to speak.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"There hasn’t been a tobacco user in the White House since pipe smoking Gerald Ford."

Monica might beg to differ, Paul.

And Obama would do a lot to change my image of him as en empty-suited, gauzy-rhetoric’d weathervane if he told the anti-tobacco Nazis to F off.
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
Obama says that he’s currently on the wagon. Also, his voice is quite clear, which is why I’m surprised he’s a smoker. But then the article says he’s only an occasional smoker.

Most likely, he hasn’t suffered much real damage. Therefore quitting wouldn’t change his voice either.
Written By: Adam Herman
Obama is the latest “Great Minority Hope” to rise to notice by the News Media, like in past years, Harold Ford and Henry Cisneros. Like a shooting star they flash across the sky, only to disappear over time. The question is, will Obama avoid the fate of others and become a Political notable? Not if Hillary has anything to say about it.
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
The issue as to whether or not Barack Obama would be qualified, or electable to serve as President because he smokes cigarettes, I assume was raised because of health concerns. The ones more notably that come to mind are lung conditions such as lung cancer, emphysema, etc, etc. Obviously, we’ve been inundated as of late by reports from the media and health care industry specifically noting that these conditions are a result of smoking, so it’s completely understandable how people might refer to that as a basis for their concern.

However with regards to this issue, there’s a dirty little secret you might be interested in knowing about, that the healthcare industry has conveniently forgotten to mention over the years. In addition, it’s quite apparent they have no desire to come forward and divulge this to the public any time soon, much less make an effort to correct/dispel any inaccuracies or rumors associated with the issue either. Yes, it appears they’re quite content the way things are - no matter how many people may be affected by their silence, or omissions. But with reference to the healthcare industry, there can never be any good that will ever come out of dishonesty, or blatant omission, so I feel strongly the public has a right to know, and absolutely deserves to know exactly what our "medical professionals" (or shall I say, the medical mafia) has been deliberately keeping from us. Having said that, what I’m about to tell you is really just the tip of the iceberg as far as what they’ve truly been able to distort, and keep under wrap. And keep in mind, if they can get away with misleading the public about one thing, is it not logical to assume they might very well be doing the same thing in other areas of concern as well? - Say, for example heart disease, obesity, etc., etc? Just remember, if there’s a profit to be made in some way, often times that far outweighs the desire to be forthright. Case in point ... our state health departments literally make millions of $ each year off the backs of smokers (through higher taxes, etc), so is it any wonder they would ever want to upset the gold-filled apple cart, and do anything that could possibly jeopardize that income? Well, I think it’s about time the truth comes out, and our so-called medical professionals are held accountable for the chaos they’ve enjoyed inflicting on the public - all in the name of good health.

What this is about is called: Alpha-1 Antitrypsin - commonly referred to by doctors as Alpha-1. What it is basically, is a genetic deficiency linked to all kinds of lung problems - including lung cancer, emphysema, asthma, etc, etc, R-E-G-A-R-D-L-E-S-S whether a person smokes cigarettes or not, whether they’ve ever smoked in their life, or have ever even been around cigarette smoke - period. In other words, if for example there were no such thing as cigarettes, people would still get lung cancer, emphysema, etc, etc., simply because some of us are already genetically predisposed for having lung problems. A simple blood test in a doctor’s office can determine whether or not you have the deficiency; but unfortunately, chances are, doctors are not going to willingly offer that test to you. But this is why there are some people who get lung cancer who have never smoked a day in their life, and this is also why other people might smoke 50 years, and never have lung problems. Again, it doesn’t matter how much they try, and try, to put blame for this on a person’s lifestyle ... The fact is, there IS a genetic link to these lung conditions. But again, the medical community would prefer we not know about this, because otherwise, that would interfere with their true agenda - which is to put as much blame as possible on individuals for the medical conditions they may have. It’s really a shame we’ve allowed them so much power that they’ve been able to get away with this; but from their perspective, it’s better for them, and of course easier too, just to concentrate on blaming the people themselves for certain conditions/illnesses, and they can just wash their hands of it. That way, they don’t have to worry about wasting valuable time studying genetics at all anymore if they don’t want to, and they certainly wouldn’t have to worry about being hounded to get a cure/treatment for something if they could just put the blame for that condition on the people themselves anyway. And of course, need I be remindful as to what happens when there is a cure for something, ... for example, polio? The Doctors are the ones who end up with less $$ in their pockets.
Written By: WhistleBlower
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks