Ridiculous. The NY Times ran an article about Obama, Friends Say Drugs Played Only Bit Part for Obama, questioning whether he really used drugs as much as his memoir portrays. It seems like quite a stretch to try to discredit Obama's drug use. People don't overstate their drug usage; they downplay it. One might even consider that Mr. Obama admitted to drug usage to take the wind out of any later revelations that might have come out. Mr. Obama's friends aren't talking. If you've heard him or met him, you understand he can be compelling.
Is this what all the books about George W. Bush are like? Do they also get everything wrong, talk to people who know nothing, and come up with ridiculous claims out of the writer's own imagination? In a way it is disillusioning. I mean it wouldn't be that hard to come up with some genuine journalism if one did the research. There is enough public information to make for some interesting writing. Are journalists lazy or just trying to make tight deadlines?
