Harry's Place

Is there a question mark over Obama’s eligibility for the Presidential contest?

I read on another blog that there is some doubt he was born in the USA and if he wasn’t then some other rule applies relating to his mother applies and this also has not been fulfilled.

Is this just Republican black propaganda? Or, as with Mad Jeremiah’s Hate Fest, is there something to this?

Is there a question mark over Obama’s eligibility for the Presidential contest?

No. He was born in Hawaii (part of the US) in 1961. The only question mark I’ve seen is over John McCain, who was born in the US-controlled Canal Zone. But fortunately nobody is making a serious issue of that.

Obama and McCain could have been born in Red Square aboard a T-72 tank on May Day. If there Mom and/or Dad was an American citizen, so are they.

As to the rest of the article, I’m just praying The Guardian launches another letter-writing campaign to tell us stupid hayseeds how they should vote.

How WE should vote, I mean.

To clarify: Both candidates are natural-born American citizens. Period.

The guy is right – Obama is really popular with a lot of European assholes.

with bad teeth.

And surely Obama is right when he says (as he does repeatedly and proudly): “In no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”

This may be true; but its certainly also election time rhetoric, which is full of patriotism and flag waving in US elections. Obama has a compelling personal story, which is inevitably turned into rather repetitive electioneering.

As for the attitude of “European elites” (whoever they may be), they are probably much more pro-American than Gene thinks, since most of Europe is actually pro-American, even countries with quite different political systems and cultures. “Anti-Americanism” in the west is over-emphasised often by those who tend to interpret all criticism as some sort of “anti-Americanism”.

Did you see the stats, Gene?

A poll in late May of five major countries — Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia — showed Sen. Obama getting 52% support, compared with 15% for Sen. McCain. In France, 65% favor Sen. Obama, compared with 8% for Sen. McCain, according to the poll for the United Kingdom’s Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Another poll published online Saturday in Belgium’s Le Soir newspaper showed Belgians prefer Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain 74% to 12%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121295864168055409.html

I dunno what Weintraub means about “someone with Obama’s social background and political style” exactly, but it seems to say as much about his view of Europeans as his perception of their views on America.

All that said, you don’t get many seeming sincere peddlers of hope rising too high in these parts. I’d vote for Obama, but I don’t think his sincerity necessarily corresponds to a capacity in office to deliver on hopes.

That said too, I loved his comment to the NYT last week about being a Rorschach test, which might disappoint people and teach them something about themselves…

with bad teeth.

You wanna buy me a new smile, bigmouth?

Er, that’d be “seemingly sincere”. And it’d be time for my bed time.

I’m a European with bad teeth Raoul, and I dont even have an NHS dentist, so you’ll need to get your own.

There is no question of either McCain or Obama not being a US citizen. Obama, as Gene says, was born in the state of Hawaii. McCain was born in the US Panama Canal Zone and anyone born there after 26 February 1904 is a US citizen. Both qualify under Article 2 and the 14th Amendment.

I’m a European, but I would have been a whole lot happier with Hillary Clinton.

I dont even have an NHS dentist, so you’ll need to get your own.

I recommend the people on Tower Bridge Road. They were still taking customers the last time I got a new gumful of ersatz coke.

I can’t stand Obama, due to his horrible fake persona and his fanatical iPod-owning poseur moron ’sorry everybody’ ‘hay let’s re-fuck-up-Iraq’ followers. But (especially being a European and all), it’s probably also for the usual reason people don’t support him. You know the one. {straightens pointy hood}

hasan: I don’t want to belabor this, but where the candidates were born has nothing to do with the eligibility. Both are eligible due to the citizenship of the mother (Obama) or both parents (McCain).

A lot of American kids were born in Panamanian hospitals, which have historically been superior to the American ones. They have not forfeited a shot at the Presidency by doing so.

Anyhoo, I am really looking forward to disappointing the Euros next November by electing McCain.

I reckon europeans would have been pretty happy with Clinton either tbh. Seeing as the republican nomination’s been tied up for months we’ve not heard much from mccain, least not in britain, i’d suggest thats largely the reason for his poor polling.

And surely Obama is right when he says (as he does repeatedly and proudly): “In no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”

Any Obama, in any of the other countries in which someone like him might possibly emerge would say that. I don’t mean that as a criticism (and certainly not in the intolerably supercilious tone Benjamin has adopted for want of anything worthwhile to contribute). It’s just that politics occasionally throws up some gloriously unlikely figures who rise to the occasion in a manner that suspends the norm.

The reason America has not had its Thatchers and Disraelis is that it hasn’t produced anyone quite like Thatcher or Disraeli. Similarly, there isn’t a British Obama, because we haven’t really had anyone like him. (I might also add that Churchill, Attlee, Andrew Jackson, Reagan and Lincoln were, in their very different ways, surprising people to land up the top job).

However, you’ll note all of these were successful partly because they broke the mold, and partly just because like all successful politicians they managed to convince enough people that their policies and personal qualities were just what was needed at the time.

So Obama: he offers the hope of a better country, makes people feel better about themselves and inspires them (compare that with Gordon Brown). People have voted for that in Europe too – even in Britain – it’s just pretty rare you get anything like that.

Yes interesting. Amongst the public I don’t think there has been the euphoria that might have expected. I think this is due to there are similar splits in opinion amongst certain demographic groups in Europe – such as older women – that has there is in the US. Remember that the Clintons are a well known global brand – they were more popular outside of America during their years in power than they were inside America – and a lot of people were disappointed to see the yanks stab Hillary in the back, so to speak, even if it was for Obama. Unlike inside the US, there’s never been wide spread Hillary hatred in Europe. That often tends to be the case when a politician is not in your face every day (though not always, as we see from Bush)

As the article points out, Europeans tend to be more wary of the sort of hero worship that goes on in American politics. Though most people think Obama will be good for the world and America, there seems to be much more awareness outside of the US that Obama will not radically change America in the manner his fainting fans inside America believe. There’s never been anything like that sort of adulation for a politician over here since Hitler.

And then there’s the far left confusion. On the one hand they like Obama, but on the other hand there is legitimate panic that his election will wipe out the rampant anti Americanism across Europe that we have seen in the last eight years.

So, all in all, it’s more of a mixed picture than you’d might expect, though obviously most people would much rather have Obama than McCain.

At the same time, I can’t help noticing some aspects of this euphoric response, especially from western European elites and from the prestige news media, that are disingenuous and even hypocritical.In an awful lot of those responses, the basic message runs along the following lines. Now, finally, there may be a chance (a chance, not a certainty) that those American barbarians might be about to return to their senses–which, in essence, means European senses and sensibilities. In contrast to the cowboy Bush and his dangerous supporters, Obama is practically an honorary European, who can appreciate the wisdom, virtue, and enlightenment typically monopolized by Europeans (which usually means western Europeans).

Gene,

Obama is universally lionized by not just the EU, but most Western democracies and a broad cross-section of their media. THis has nothing to do with the colour of his skin. It has nothing to do with LEft/Right politics. It has nothing to do with his gender.

ANd it has very little to do with his policies except for the most important and subtly implicit one that’s been central to his message from day one and has the rest of the world entranced…

Change?

Nope. Because, domestically, Obama’s changing nothing – in fact he’s regressing to a more protectionist, reactionary economic model.

He’s certainly not becoming more “leftist” – the US Democrat working class all voted Hillary and are, therefore, detested by the middle class European elite – like Flanker.

Nah… the reason the rest of the world has annointed Obama as their US President of choice is because Obama’s consistent message has been one of US isolationism. It’s nothing to do with snobbery or enlightenment – this is as obvious as it should be to any Yank who observed the easy ride given to the Obama campaign.

Now Obama’s won the primary and addressed an AIPAC conference, just watch as the pseudo-left turn on him. The Republican’s won’t have to spend a penny for the next two months as the pseudo-left realise that “Yes we can” doesn’t mean quite what they thought.

All I can say about the coverage in the UK is this:

Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote; that Clinton won every single major State crucial to winning a national election – and all of this while her campaign’s every gaffe was International news…

And despite the fact that the Reverend Wright story broke so late, and despite every hope that Obama had put it to sleep, the Reverend Wright, true pseudo-left scorpion that he is, came out to the national Press and told the world that Obama is lying and really agrees with everything this pseudo-left nutter has preached…

Despite all of this evidence that the 2008 US Presidential election had incredibly been gifted to a maverick Republican candidtate because a certain story broke a few months too late… –

The slant over here has been “Why is Hillary desperately and hopelessly clinging onto this race?”.

Is everybody an idiot? Wasn’t it blindingly obvious after Super Tuesday and the Reverend Wright story breaking that Obama is incapable of carrying the States the Democrats need to win the election?

Western Europe, both the elities and the general population are far more pro-American then is popularly imagined due to media reports that America is disliked because of Bush Jr. Trouble is the last three elections in major European countries, France, Germany and Italy resulted in the election of the candidate who was openly more pro-American then their opponent. The American Media, which outside of Fox (Faux) News, etec., is fiercely anti-Bush have reacted to this evident refutation of their America is unpopular and hated because of that stupid cowboy Bush line by doing what they usually do, ignore it!

Note: Expect constatnt uninterrupted smearing of Obama by the Republicans from now untill Election Day. With gasoline at over 4 dollars a gallon, the Republicans do not have much else that they can do.

Phomesy, I think you reveal a deep misunderstanding of Obama and US politics.

I agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech came as a shock to some of his would-be supporters (probably more so outside than inside the US)– although to those of us actually paying attention, it was perfectly consistent with what he has been saying for the past couple of years. And frankly I don’t think he has to worry too much about what the “pseudo-left” says about him. What it may mean is that a handful of obsessive anti-Israel types vote for Nader or McKinney instead of Obama.

And it’s not fair to write off Obama as an isolationist. I know it’s fashionable in some circles to dismiss what Obama actually says about things, but did you read his foreign policy speech last year? (Also check out the Update with Matt Stoller’s comment.)

Anyway it won’t break my heart if the European love affair with Obama starts to cool as some of his positions become clearer.

And it’s obvious to me that Rev. Wright didn’t like what Obama said about him and was trying to sabotage his campaign. Obama has clearly moved beyond the politics of racial grievance, and his election would essentially put the like of Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton, etc., out of business.

Nope. Because, domestically, Obama’s changing nothing – in fact he’s regressing to a more protectionist, reactionary economic model.

Nah. Look, in the primaries, both Obama and Clinton talked to “blue-collar workers” and, according to the Economist, played to their “prejudices”. You see, in a democracy, politicians have these pesky things called elections, where they have to appeal to a wide range of people, including not only the beneficiaries of globalisation, but its losers.

The reality is that neither Hillary nor Obama are going to be protectionist.

As for the primary, Hillary only won the popular vote if you include Michigan, where no candidate campaigned and Obama was not even on the ballot.

I am still waiting for Gene to define more clearly these “European elites”, whose apparent “default attitude” is to show “snobbishness and contempt” towards the “American people”.

This bold assertion does not discuss how these ill-defined “European elites” show any more contempt or snobbishness towards Americans than they do anyone else, or indeed how they are in any more snobbish or contemptuous of American people (presumably here Gene means ordinary working folk, “main street”) than US home grown elites; the US is after all, one of the most unequal democracies in the world.

Is everybody an idiot? Wasn’t it blindingly obvious after Super Tuesday and the Reverend Wright story breaking that Obama is incapable of carrying the States the Democrats need to win the election?

It was as blindingly obvious that Hillary Clinton was the one candidate who might get the Republicans out to vote for John McCain, that she was a uniquely polarising and divisive figure.

And it is blindingly obvious that there are Republicans lamenting the fact they have chosen someone who is old and with an alarming, and increasingly apparent propensity, to have senior moments, has cancer, can’t win over his own party’s power base, is being dragged down by the staggering unpopularity of his party, and is tied to an upopular war and failing economic policies. Oh, and this is important, is having trouble raising funds while Obama is raking in the donations. (If only they’d gone for Giuliani or Romney who might raise the cash to win the states the GOP needs, this character might lament).

The thing is: Obama and McCain have unique strengths and weaknesses. It’s a curious race, and I don’t think it’s going to be business as usual. The states the Democrats need change with different candidates, anyway, what counts is the electoral college. Anyone who says for certain that one or the other can’t win is as sorely deluded as Hillary herself.

That said, I think Obama will win. But I’d be fool to say it’s a certainty. Here’s some polls, if you want evidence for this:

Rasmussen: eight point lead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Gallup: seven point lead

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107791/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Lead-Appears-Stabilize.aspx

Real Clear Politics. Plenty of state by state data, with lots of key swing states in play. Their Electoral College map looks better for Obama at present, despite the brutality of the Dems’ contest and McCain’s easy few months.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

And it’s not fair to write off Obama as an isolationist.

Absolutely. What kind of isolationist President would want to submit how I eat, drive, and where I set my thermostat for international approval?

Apologies to all members of the European elite who do not regard ordinary Americans with contempt. I hope they will turn out to protest Michael Moore’s future appearances in Europe. I hope they will stop saying things like this at their dinner parties.

Years ago, I was riding a train in Norway. I was young, just out of high school. My Norwegian was just good enough that I blended in with the local kids in the eyes of the middle-aged American dude who joined us in our car.

This guy was bursting to to trash all things American, from President Reagan to Chevrolet. What he thought he was accomplishing I can’t begin to guess. A weird sort of cosmopolitan vanity, i suppose.

At any rate, for every ugly English dinner-party conversation, there’s an American tourist or ex-pat who would love nothing better than to join in.

BTW, Gene, this thing about Zimbabwe looks pretty good. I ahven’t read it, but I intend to.

Joshua Hammer in New Yourk Review Of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21531

We had Hitchens on Australian TV the other night talking about Obama etc. He basically said that he was the least worst of the 3 candidates but that folks shouldn’t get their hopes up because virtually none (in his opinion) of Obama’s promises would probably be achieved in the face of reality.

It was as blindingly obvious that Hillary Clinton was the one candidate who might get the Republicans out to vote for John McCain, that she was a uniquely polarising and divisive figure.

Obama’s radical associations, his lack of experience on international affairs, and the realisation that Hillary is better at attracting working class whites, makes that view out-dated. It was just a reflexive thing people would say when thought she would win.

Phomesy, I think you reveal a deep misunderstanding of Obama and US politics.

Well the question was about European perceptions of Obama and US politics.

And, sorry Gene, but I think I’m bang on the mark…

I agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech came as a shock to some of his would-be supporters (probably more so outside than inside the US)–

The latter being the entire point of your thread…

although to those of us actually paying attention, it was perfectly consistent with what he has been saying for the past couple of years.

Exactly! This is why the while “Change” theme has been a complete and utter fabrication from the beginning.

And frankly I don’t think he has to worry too much about what the “pseudo-left” says about him. What it may mean is that a handful of obsessive anti-Israel types vote for Nader or McKinney instead of Obama.

Tell that to Al Gore’s campaign manager…

And it’s not fair to write off Obama as an isolationist.

Well… He is. But that’s beside the point – which is that the European elites in the subjectof your post ALL EXPECT OBAMA TO BE ISOLATIONIST.

Anyway it won’t break my heart if the European love affair with Obama starts to cool as some of his positions become clearer.

Of course not. They all know he’s going to lose but they’re already blaming Hillary for that!

And it’s obvious to me that Rev. Wright didn’t like what Obama said about him and was trying to sabotage his campaign. Obama has clearly moved beyond the politics of racial grievance, and his election would essentially put the like of Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton, etc., out of business.

Hmmm… I think you’ve missed my point.

What I was trying to illustrate was that the International media slant on the Democrat Primary race was that the Hillary campaign was delusional and destructive and illogical for not pulling out of the race earlier.

It was as if her popular vote, her wins in New York, FLorida, Ohio, California and Pennsylvannia – counted for nothing. As if the Reverend Wright debacle counted for nothing. She had no right to remain in this race.

Can’t you imagine what it must have been like from her campaign’s POV? They’ve won every state that counts in the national election. More importantly Obama’s LOST THE STATES THAT MATTER.

Then, late in the campaign, Obama’s family preacher is revealed to be a pseudo-left nutcase – and Obama seems to miraculously salvage the situation with a brilliant speech….

But then this supposed close family friend and spiritual guide – who Obama compares to his white Grandmother who was once a little afraid of black men – this pseudo-left preacher GETS UP IN FRONT OF THE NATIONAL PRESS GALLERY AND SAYS “OBAMA’S LYING BECAUSE HE’S A POLITICIAN. HE REALLY AGREES WITH EVERYTHING I SAY”

And that’s the Republican campaign right there.

It’s over, Gene. Unless McCain goes nuts or dies, this election is over. Easy Republican win. And all because the pseudo-left assassinated Obama just at the moment the Democrats couldn’t back off from nominating him.

Everyone knows this, Gene. It’s why Gore Vidal is hoping Obama gets killed by some redneck. That way the pseudoleft won’t have to take any responsibility for fucking this election up.

But the most fundamental reasons run deeper. A number of European countries have elected women to high political office, even the highest. (Score that one for the Europeans, at least some of them.) But as Jerry Karabel and I pointed out, none of them has ever elected a non-white person of any extraction to its highest political office–that is, head of state or head of government. (Actually, no predominantly-white country in the world has ever elected a black person to its highest political office.)

Eh. Disraeli was elected PM. I know, I know, he wasn’t black. But it shows that at least some European countries are happy to elect minorities to senior political office.

Phomesy, there’s no doubt that Obama has been undermined by his associations and losing the popular vote, etc, but things are so bad for the Republicans this year he is still favourite to win.

My guess at this stage is it will be a landslide. McCain maybe up there at the moment due to his recognition factor, but in the long run I think someone like Romney – extremely articulate, younger, and has sharper elbows – would have a better chance against Obama.

The only way the Republicans stand a chance is to hit Obama hard on everthing and scare the shit out of the public, but that’s just McCain’s style.

Not McCain’s style.

He will try it, yes – national security is his big card – but I just don’t think he is that good at it. Way too laid back.

I hate to burst your bubble, Phomsey, but the Wright thing is done and dusted, and was small potatoes compared to to the problems the other candidates have. Obama has repudiated Wright and the issue is dead. Could Clinton have repudiated her husband, whose on-going corruption controversies, whilst ignored in the primaries, would have become the only issue in the campaign if she’d been the Democratic nominee? And can McCain repudiate Bush?

It’s not impossible for McCain to win – though, at the moment, Obama is odds on not only to win the White House but to give the Democrats a super-majority in the Senate. But there’s no easy way for him to beat Obama as he would have beaten Clinton, there’s no trump issue he can claim at the moment and no point of attack which can’t be countered.

Hillary had a much wider and reliable base of support and had a much better chance of reaching out to the people that pollsters say will decide thie election – women swing voters. People thought she was tough as well so it would be harder for McCain to play the security thing.

I think Bill Clinton’s connections would have played about as much as Tony Resco will with Obama – not a great deal.

Remember that Hillary was beating McCain by a larger margin in all the key states before she got out of the race. I think she would have gotten a much bigger bump in the national polls if she was the nominee than Obama has gotten so far since she dropped out. He should be 20 points ahead.

But going back to the issue, I think most anti Americanism in Europe is superficial and the elites will be largely fobbed off with Obama’s new style. And if he doesn’t change a lot, people will simply blame the republicans for blocking him, as they did during the Clinton years. It’s win, win.

Only the hard left hatchet faced ground will carry on the fight.

Well, there does seem to be a bit of truth to it at least:

“The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung has a reputation for leftist social sensitivity. All the more bizarre then was its choice of a cover to mark Obama’s victory in the race for the Democratic Party nomination: a photo of the White House under the headline “Uncle Barack’s Cabin.”"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,557861,00.html

Of course it was quite nice to read how happy the Europeans are for us for us having taken a step toward overcoming our racism.

Say, whatever happened to the affirmative action plan Sarkozy had promised once?

Regards,

Inna

“Eh. Disraeli was elected PM. I know, I know, he wasn’t black. But it shows that at least some European countries are happy to elect minorities to senior political office.”

Wasn’t Disraeli a Christian? I’m not sure what aspect of minority your referring to? Converted Jew – I guess thats a minority.

The problem is that for every swing voter she’d have got, Clinton would have more on the left. And a lot of the people turning out for her in the later primaries would not have stuck with her. Many of those were Republican voters trying to stop Obama, and in the actual election they would have voted McCain without hesitation. Up against an ultra-conservative like Huckabee who’d scare the Democratic base and left-wing independents into turning out for her, she would have had a chance. But against McCain, she’d have won the swing states and lost the solidly blue ones.

As for the Rezko thing, like Wright, the bolt has been shot there already. Obama came clean about everything and it turned out to be nothing, and the Republicans can’t hammer the point because now the attention is turning to their involvement with Rezko. Compare this to Bill Clinton’s continuing refusal to be open. The first questions in every Presidential debate would have been “so, Senator, when will your husband reveal who donated to his Presidential library”. The spectre on the attack ads would have been the Emir of Dubai, with the question “who’s really paying for Clinton’s campaign?” It would all have been about the money and secret donors.

The problem is that for every swing voter she’d have got, Clinton would have lost more on the left. And a lot of the people turning out for her in the later primaries would not have stuck with her. Many of those were Republican voters trying to stop Obama, and in the actual election they would have voted McCain without hesitation. Up against an ultra-conservative like Huckabee who’d scare the Democratic base and left-wing independents into turning out for her, she would have had a chance. But against McCain, she’d have won the swing states and lost the solidly blue ones.

As for the Rezko thing, like Wright, the bolt has been shot there already. Obama came clean about everything and it turned out to be nothing, and the Republicans can’t hammer the point because now the attention is turning to their involvement with Rezko. Compare this to Bill Clinton’s continuing refusal to be open. The first questions in every Presidential debate would have been “so, Senator, when will your husband reveal who donated to his Presidential library”. The spectre on the attack ads would have been the Emir of Dubai, with the question “who’s really paying for Clinton’s campaign?” It would all have been about the money and secret donors.

We can already think about how things would have been different if Clinton had won. Would she have kept Dean on as DNC Chair? I think she’d have been more likely to try and get revenge on behalf of her New Democrat friends, and booted out the man who ended the Dem’s decade-long losing streak. Would she have imposed the ban on money from lobbyists and PACs? I don’t think so.

Sorry for the double post, I thought I was previewing my draft post the first time round. What happened to the preview option on the comments?

Sounds like Dick Morris baloney.

The Wright issue, and Obama’s other associations, are more toxic because they are political rather than finanical.

I don’t buy that these voters for Hillary would have all switched to McCain. Apart from most of the ones she won being closed primaries, Obama actually got more republicans switching to him in the ones where they could. The fact is Obama is not as good at getting white working class democrats or women.

I very much hope she would have gotten ride of Howard Dean. The current political climate has nothing to do with him. He was very unhelpful.

It was Dean’s strategy that won the 2006 mid-terms. Without it, the Dems would have lost as they had been doing since 1996. But you’ve nailed it: Clinton would have got rid of Dean and tanked the Democratic campaign, just as she would have made good on her campaign’s threats to punish any Democrat who didn’t support her in the primaries. We’d have had a few months of her personal quest against Democrats who broke faith with the cult of Clinton, of her getting hammered again and again and again in the campaign, and then McCain would have won a landslide and the GOP would have taken back control of the House and the Senate.

It was Dean’s strategy that won the 2006 mid-terms. Without it, the Dems would have lost as they had been doing since 1996.

Eh? It was the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the strategy of allowing centrist, blue dog, democrats to run against republicans that won the election.

This strategy was not devised by Howard Dean.

Jackie Mason weighs in on Hillary and Obama.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZTEFVJUYspk

Wow, Jerry Seignfeld turns up at the end of that video.

It was Dean’s 50-state strategy and the rejection of triangulation that won it. And the majority of the Dems who ousted Republicans, in the House and the Senate, were progressives not “blue dogs”.

mesquito is wrong: the citizenship of your parents has essentially nothing to do with whether or not you can be president. Being born outside of the US is a disqualifier, no matter who your parents are. Presidential candidates must be “natural born citizens” (born in the US, not the children of citizens) or have become American citizens something like 220 years ago. Now, the “natural born citizen” thing isn’t described in the Constitution, so there is debate over what it means. Essentially everyone agrees that it means “being born inside the USA” but there is some disagreement over whether or not this includes territories, military bases, etc. McCain was born on a military base in central America, Obama was born in the US (unless there has been a really long-term conspiracy I haven’t heard of). The Constitutional law geeks have been having arguments about McCain’s presidential eligibility for months, but they haven’t been seriously arguing.

Of course, all this is untested. We’ve never elected someone born outside of the states, and almost no one born in a territory has ever been even a marginal candidate before McCain.

Tim–

It was Dean who steadfastly refused (point blank refused) to take any leadership whatsoever on Florida and Michigan. And there’s already fallout from that:

“Boren’s comments come a day after Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney also said he has no plans to make a formal endorsement.

The freshman Democrat, who replaced Republican Rep. Mark Foley after a House page scandal, told the Palm Beach Post that he plans to remain an uncommitted superdelegate and may not even attend the convention.

“I wasn’t elected to be a role model as to how people should vote,” he said. “People in my district are smart enough to decide.”"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/boren.obama/index.html

At least two Democrats in not-safe districts feel the need to distance themselves from Obama. And this need started in (where else?) Florida.

IMO, had Dean taken charge of the situation; had he not had a temper tantrum and penalized Florida and Michigan by completely stripping them of delegates (he only had to reduce the count by 50%–but hey, they didn’t do what Dean wanted so…) we would be in much, much better shape right now.

Regards,

Inna

Ultimately, Americans voting in the primaries thought that Obama’s ’story’ was more compelling than Hillary’s, in that it supported their own national self image best; that is, after he had proven himself a worth and capable candidate and equal to Hillary.
He’s certainly on the left of mainstream american politics, which makes him a centrist in euro terms, though quite what his real understanding of the world is, other than a touch naive, is hard to fathom.
What the europeans who are fawning over him should think about, is that he is a tough, go for the jugular player, as shown by his earlier history in politics, who can also play a fine and subtle game when required.
With Bush, you knew exactly where he stood, and that made him easy to handle. Obama will be much tougher for the european, and world, leaders.
As a Democrat, he is much better situated to make a military move than were he a Republican, just as the Republicans, as the hawks, are much better placed to make moves towards peace, as with Reagan and the USSR and Nixon and China. The exceptions were Bill Clinton, who didn’t take military actions when, arguably, he should have, and Bush who did when, arguably, he shouldn’t have.
To elect a non-white ( black ? ) person to be president of the U.S. would ‘get it over with’ in the U.S., which would be a release, not unlike electing the first Catholic in Kennedy, and would give the U.S. an immense propaganda boost in much of the world.
One point that europeans don’t appreciate is that the U.S. president is both extraordinarily powerful as a political leader, and almost equally weak, in many senses weaker than a U.K. P.M. There is no party whip, as there is in the U.k., and no one can tell those elected to the U.S. congress how to vote with any real effectiveness.

It turns out Obama was a Muslim and so was Rev. Wright.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/765631/obama-and-the-giant-blogosphere-conspiracy.thtml

The point I was making, mesquito, was merely that both candidates are US citizens and eligible for the presidency.

Article 2 of the Constitution states:

‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.’

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’

Therefore there is no impediment to either candidate being president. A child born in Panama whose parents were not US citizens may not do so.

Gene says: “The only question mark I’ve seen is over John McCain, who was born in the US-controlled Canal Zone. But fortunately nobody is making a serious issue of that.”

That’s misleading on two grounds. First, Obama has refused to release his birth certificate — which very naturally leads to questions about what he might be hiding. (Just as Bill Clinton’s refusal to release his medical records in 1992 and afterwards led to questions about what he is hiding.)

Second, The McCain Canal Zone birth was an issue for our major news organizations. For example, the New York Times ran a couple of articles on it, citing constitutional authorities who said the question was not settled. The Senate passed a resolution saying that McCain was eligible, but they are hardly the last word on constitutional questions.