This political season has produced, arguably, the most outlandish attack ads in recent history and castigated candidates at unprecedented levels. And for some, the narrative hasn’t been about opposed political ideologies and policy, but rather charges of dabbling in witchcraft, worshipping the ‘aqua Buddha’ and identifying with Marxism – all attached to the formative years of candidates.
To what extent should a candidate’s youthful indiscretions be measured in order to determine if they are suitable for public office?
I considered this question after reading a recent article in the New York Times by Gail Collins. In the column, titled ‘Department of Childish Errors’, Collins deduced a candidate deserves to be able to throw a cloak of invisibility over their past transgressions committed in college and they not become permanent impediments to a professional career.
While my position, essentially, is in accord with Collin’s sentiment, we both logically ask to what limit should these innocuous acts of rebellion be excused? I believe they have merit and are relevant to the current political discourse.



November 4th, 2008; The day America was revolutionized.
Saturday, November 1 2008; Atlanta, GA