<p>So BO himself has to post here, on this message board, in order for us to comment on his statements? Thanks for the clarification. </p>
<p>Even several pro-O media experts (Howard Fineman, for one) noted today that it was a bit off-putting of BO to complain about how “that’s the way they play the game” when he himself was “playing the game” by choosing Johnson as his VP vetter to begin with!</p>
<p>I haven’t heard any news reports about Obama complaining about how he’s being treated. That’s why I posted that. Did I miss something?</p>
<p>Yes I guess you did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>poetsheart, you’re not the only one who missed something. I have not seen any reports about him complaining about how he’s being treated, either prior to or since Jim Johnson made the decision to step down.</p>
<p>BO:<em>“This is a game that can be played.</em> Everybody who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters.” (Some might call this whining.)</p>
<p>Dan Baltz in the Washington Post said: “But in the meantime, for Obama to suggest that Johnson is floating in some outer orbit of his campaign <em>raises questions about the candidate’s willingness to deal forthrightly with controversy.”</em></p>
<p>As I said, Howard Fineman and others in the media remarked on the same thing today. </p>
<p>I understand it’s impossible to read and hear all news commentary!</p>
<p>NPR had a piece today discussing how he seemed to fade down the stretch losing most of the last elections and not seeming to enjoy many aspects of politics on the big stage. He also was called testy and dismissive of questions he did not like to answer.</p>
<p>He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, right?</p>
<p>It IS a “game” – first the media and the McCain campaign slams him for working with Johnson – so Johnson leaves (remember, its a volunteer position, a lot of work for no pay, so no particular reason to stick around for the public humiliation) – and McCain slams Obama for letting him go. (Of course it seems like McCain fired almost all of his own campaign staff a month ago because of their own lobbyist connections… but apparently the same rules don’t apply). </p>
<p>Now today I saw pundits on t.v. debating whether Obama was “setting the bar too high” – they were saying that he won’t be able to get anyone with any sort of experience to work for him because all people with an inside, working knowledge of Washington by definition have all sorts of connections that could be questionable.</p>
<p>Here’s what I’ve noticed: Obama has now been running for President for 16 months now and so far no one has been able to find any fault with anything Obama has done, other than some very small potatoes level “so-what” kind of stuff, so the game pretty much seems to be to find fault with everyone around him. Since he can’t manage to elevate everyone he has ever met or worked with to Sainthood, that game works pretty well – there’s bound to be some sort of dirt that will show up. </p>
<p>So yes, it is a game. </p>
<p>And Barrons, “testy and dismissive?” -I don’t think Obama can hold a candle to McCain in the anger department. (I saw McCain flare up this morning while doing a town hall at some question or other that got him ticked off, probably missed by the media because it was a minor issue – I just happened to be watching the live broadcast).</p>
<p>How exactly does a Chicago politician “set the bar too high” when said politician gets a felon convicted of politcal corruption to buy half of his house for him? If that “smell test” bar were any lower, it would be on the ground.</p>
<p>Who’s next to step down? Obama’s inexperience continues to be self evident with each passing day! This is what you get when you don’t vet!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The consitutional language is just “natural born citizen,” </p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States](<a href=“http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2]U.S”>http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2) </p>
<p>so any person born anywhere who is a citizen of the United States by facts of birth would be eligible. McCain’s parents were both United States citizens and he surely had a claim to United States nationality from birth wherever he was born.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s my LOL of the day. Of course it must be shown to someone’s satisfaction that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally eligible to be president, but that doesn’t seem to be in doubt. The rest of this is just rumors by the water cooler.</p>
<p>This is too good to pass up:
[Chron.commons</a> | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=michaeldh&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=michaeldh&plckPostId=Blog%3AmichaeldhPost%3A68e70020-9db7-4ce7-b98d-3201115ddd45&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest]Chron.commons”>http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=michaeldh&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=michaeldh&plckPostId=Blog%3AmichaeldhPost%3A68e70020-9db7-4ce7-b98d-3201115ddd45&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually if one is born to citizen(s) of of the U.S. who are residing outside the country, one would still be a U.S. citizen. Know that for sure. DH was born out of the country as were all of his sibs. Parent was a U.S. citizen. So are DH and all of his sibs…always were.</p>
<p>wow, i see that self-interesteddad has hardly let up in his selective reading and selective reasoning despite losing his credibility a few threads ago.</p>
<p>Interesting story: [Exclusive:</a> Obama’s Rumor-Fighting Plan - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1813663,00.html?cnn=yes]Exclusive:”>http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1813663,00.html?cnn=yes)</p>
<p>Was just going to post that exact same story… the website has been the talk of various morning shows here on the east cost as everyone wakes up.</p>
<p>I suggest any gullible individuals out there that have a tenancy to believe everything they read or hear keep monitoring this website to put a rest to some of the nonsense that’s out there: </p>
<p>[Fight</a> the Smears | Fight the Smears Home](<a href=“http://www.fightthesmears.com%5DFight”>http://www.fightthesmears.com)</p>
<p>A very smart strategy in my mind… rather than just denying all rumors create a website that not only links directly to the material, but shows up the authors for the no-good lying sleaze balls they really are! 
The truth is their worst enemy.</p>
<p>the TIME article says Fight the Smears website has a pdf of his birth certificate, but i can’t find it anywhere.</p>
<p>It says there are plans to put the birth certificate up.</p>
<p>I think it is a smart move for the campaign to prominently fight the smears. If they fight off a bunch of smears early on, it might ‘immunize’ them from other smears later. The smear-mongers will develop a ‘crying wolf’ problem.</p>
<p>of course, what they SHOULDN’T do is highlight the smears that most people don’t already know about. it’s a tricky thing to decide which smears are high-profile enough to warrant a full-throated declaration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s going to be my third son’s claim to citizenship if he ever runs for President. 
When he was born, my wife (naturalized United States citizen) and I (citizen from birth by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution) were living in a country in which citizenship comes through the child’s father, and NOT from the soil on which the child is born. My son has NIL claim to citizenship from his birthplace, but has a plain and irrefutable claim to United States citizenship by parentage. We just submitted a consular notice of birth abroad (a form mentioned earlier in the thread) and he was issued a United States passport before he had ever set foot in the United States.</p>