There's a bit of buzz about the "October surprise" that Barack Obama was allegedly not born in the U.S. and has never become a legal U.S. citizen, therefore is not legally a Senator and could not be President.
Here is a video about this:
And here is a website that gets into excruciating detail.
Believe it or not, the same concern has been expressed about McCain -- the New York Times covered the question, and here is a forum post taking the question seriously.
My response is: Knock it off, people.
It?s a technicality?I suspect if you held a vote on this birthplace requirement today, a reasonably large majority would overturn it.
Where Obama was born has absolutely no bearing on his ability or right to hold these offices other than the fact that there are a couple of rules about it. Rules enacted at the Presidential level, if I recall correctly, for starkly partisan reasons to keep a particular person from being able to run for President, not out of any general belief that being born somewhere else somehow means something significant.
It?s true Obama used technicalities to get other people thrown out of a race so he could run unopposed, but that doesn't make this right.
The proof of the unworkableness of such a requirement is that we currently have two Presidential candidates who both, potentially, can be challenged based on their birth place. It?s ridiculous and destructive.
Personally, I just can?t support pursuing an avenue like this that has nothing to do with Obama?s qualifications or the vote of the people. Denying the majority the candidate they chose (if they do choose him) through such a path is wrong and dangerous. The backlash may be unimaginable.
To win through this kind of technicality is to lose, and lose big time.