Comments on: Obama: American exceptionalism at its best?

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:08:06 +0000

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.

By: hasan prishtina

hasan prishtina — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:15:59 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:57:01 +0000

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

By: scarf

scarf — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:36:32 +0000

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.

By: Inna

Inna — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:53:20 +0000

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

By: Careless

Careless — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:48:59 +0000

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.

By: Tim H

Tim H — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:43:14 +0000

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”.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:41:25 +0000

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

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:38:52 +0000

Jackie Mason weighs in on Hillary and Obama.

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

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:37:34 +0000

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.