The Washington Post is running a major story on Barack Obama’s admitted drug use in high school (ending when he was in college), as if this can and will be held against him as he considers a run for office. The admission was made freely, eleven years ago, in a memoir he wrote at the time; Obama has been open and honest about his past, a past he has clearly learned from and uses to benefit others.

In contrast, we have George Walker Bush, a man who was clearly a user of the same drugs Obama used–but Bush used them not as a confused teenager, but for many more years until he was middle-aged. Bush has consistently lied and dodged questions about it. The media let the story die even after Bush gave a non-denial denial–a weasel, in short–about how he wold pass certain government tests which only meant that he hadn’t used drugs recently. He also lied about being arrested for drunk driving with his underage sister in the car. In short, he used illegal narcotics and was a drunk who drove illegally, far beyond the time one experiences “youthful indiscretions,” and then lied his ass off about it. What a sterling example of high moral fiber.

The media has given him a free pass on all of this for the past eight years, in addition to the latter part of his first presidential campaign. Bringing it up in the press is apparently verboten.

Maybe Obama should have simply kept using drugs well into middle age, then become a Jesus freak, and cover up and lie about his usage. Then he could have qualified for President under the standards of the Republican Party. For that is what appears to pass as “moral,” “honorable,” and dignified” among Republicans.

But hey, we’ve got a liberal media at work here. One which lets the Democrats get away with anything, and won’t give Bush a single break–right?