How refreshing — a politician who admits he experimented with drugs when he was a teenager. Senator Barack Obama told a high school audience in New Hampshire about his past drug use and added, “It’s not something I’m proud of. It was a mistake as a young man.”

In retrospect, Obama’s admission that he inhaled when smoking marijuana (“That was the point. The point was to inhale.”), really wasn’t as brave as it seemed. In his 1995 book Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama talked openly about his use of marijuana and even cocaine.

Even if he hadn’t mentioned it in his book, there’s a very good chance that someone from his past would have come forward and spilled the beans. It’s smart PR and media relations to be the first to release the story, so you can frame it the way you want to.

But to actually give a straightforward answer about drug use to high school kids while campaigning for President is still a bold move, one which has gotten much debate. Should a so-called “role model” tell easily influenced young people about his past indiscretions?

Rival Mitt Romney thinks Obama was too honest. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani respects his candor saying “One of the things we need from our people that are running for office is not this pretense of perfection.” (Of course Giuliana has faced plenty of questions about his own personal issues.)

I agree. We’ve all made mistakes. The hope is that we, and the people we look up to as leaders, have learned from them. I know I’m very different from the person I was as a 17 year old in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, and I would not want to be judged by the stupid things I did back then.

The kid Obama was in high school is not running for President. The adult he has become — the one who realized drugs was not the right path for him — is our candidate.

The sad thing, though, is what a recent poll from Pew Research tells us. 45 percent of Americans would be less likely to support a candidate for President who had used drugs.

I’m hoping we’re smarter than that — that when it comes down to it, we evaluate our candidates for who they are today, not who they were before they were even old enough to vote.

I was sorry to see the report in the Wall Street Journal on a new study about what traits make a CEO successful. Apparently, the traits I would value in a boss, such as good communication and listening skills, enthusiasm, and respect for employees aren’t as important as “hard skills” like persistence and efficiency.

The study was done by three University of Chicago business-school professors using detailed personal assessments of CEO candidates.”We found that ‘hard’ skills, which are all about getting things done, were paramount,” says author Steven Kaplan. “Soft skills centering on teamwork weren’t as pivotal. That was a bit of a surprise to us.”

It surprises me as well. I’d always wondered why so many CEOs I encountered as a reporter and media trainer were such horrible speakers. How could they keep such high-powered jobs with such poor communication skills? Now the study gives me my answer.

I’m afraid this just gives CEOs more license to run roughshod over employees and anyone else in their path. It may also give them more fuel for the belief that, “No, I don’t have to be good at giving presentations or media interviews as long as I’m focused on the bottom line and willing to get rid of low performers in the company.”

The good news is the study looked primarily at CEOs of buyout companies, a position that may attract more hard-charging types. It doesn’t really address those at public companies with more diverse constituencies. Maybe the soft skills I admire are more important for leaders at those companies. I sure hope so.

Imagine winning the Nobel Prize in 1962 for your trailblazing work on the structure of DNA. Imagine spending more than 40 years at the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York as a respected and honored geneticist. Imagine, at the age of 79, being forced to retire and slink away in shame.

That is the sad, but somewhat predictable, tale of Dr. James Watson, and a lesson for anyone who talks to reporters. In October, Watson told a writer for Britain’s Sunday Times Magazine that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa,” since “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas testing says not really.” He also said that even though he would hope all people are equal in intellectual capacity, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.

Not only was it a despicable, racist comment, but it was also a scientifically unproven theory, as the eminent scientist himself later admitted. Condemnation was swift, and even though Watson apologized profusely, he soon found himself humiliated and out of a job. Rightly so.

Watson is not the first person — nor will he be the last — to suffer the consequences of an outrageous, offensive statement in the media. But for Watson, it seemed almost inevitable. Throughout his career, he’s gotten away with audacious public statements: that fat people don’t get hired because they lack ambition; how sunlight (and darker skin) is the source of the “Latin lover” libido.

Even with Watson’s recent offensive comments, it’s hard for me not to feel a little sorry for the way his distinguished career ended. In his defense, one colleague believes that the same characteristics that allow him to make such incendiary statements — a brash, risk-taking approach to life — have also made him such a successful scientist.

I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt — he’s a misguided, befuddled old man, not a loathsome racist.