Like the Chris Rock routine says, you don't congratulate folks for doing what they're supposed to do.

But is Obama really 35 years old? I want answers!

Too many people like to set themselves apart by "knowing" the obviously untrue - "they" say it takes all kinds you know.

We are still left with the question of why the Obama campaign was so reluctant to divulge that information. Why not, for instance, just have obtained a stack of copies of the CLOB and hand them out at a press conference when the issue came up? When I have discussed this with people, I have yet to have one person provide a plausible explanation. They always divert to "conspiracy theory" and "he doesn't need to prove he's legally eligible for the office", the first of which is pure diversion and the second (to me) utterly bizarre.

Now, one theory I toyed with early on was the the proliferation of conspiracy theorizing was the goal, that the release so was restricted and dragged out precisely to cause the effect we saw. But I couldn't get anyone to engage on that, because questioning Obama's motives on this subject was a priori suspect.

But my primary view is that Obama obfuscates, delays, and lies about personal information as reflex, because he's got a huge pile of buried bodies and it wouldn't do to lead people to them by being resistant only on those subjects. We're seeing a replay of this very thing on the Governor Blagojevich issue, in which Obama would seem to be not guilty of anything serious, yet dove in to full cover up mode the instant he was asked about it. All I can say is, get used to it.

"Now, one theory I toyed with early on was the the proliferation of conspiracy theorizing was the goal, that the release so was restricted and dragged out precisely to cause the effect we saw."

That was my first thought. The honey trap, and it worked like a charm.

"But my primary view is that Obama obfuscates, delays, and lies about personal information as reflex, because he's got a huge pile of buried bodies"

Well, i think it's just as likely that because of the political background Obama comes from, as well as being a lawyer, he is just well trained never to give anything away for free.

I agree we should prepare for much more of this, i do think its in his nature. But just like a lot of the executive privilege stuff we have seen- just because someone is hiding something doesn't mean its damning. Its actually a pretty clever maneuver. If you hide everything as a matter of practice the stuff you need to hide isn't is obvious.

Bush's problem is he never managed to hide much of the damning stuff and seemed stubborn on the stuff that didn't much matter. The fact that Guantanamo, FISA, Abu Graib, rendition, etc got into the media is what (I think) really set people on fire about it. Liberals especially tend to believe the government (at least the republicans) is always up to this kind of thing secretly (they are often correct). Its one thing to be against something in theory but not really want to know too much, and another thing to stare the facts in the face and HAVE to deal with it.

Maybe all the leaks were inevitable in this day and age (and with elements of your government actively hostile to your agenda) but that is ultimately still Bush's problem. Obama will have similar problems, but if he can keep the contentious black op stuff quieter i think he can make his obfuscations in general more seemly. Once you get burned on something big the 'no comment' answer stops working.

We are still left with the question of why the Obama campaign was so reluctant to divulge that information.

I think there’s an old saying that when your opponents are getting ready to shoot themselves in the foot – let them.

There was no practical downside to Obama letting some of his critics waste their time and energy trying to disprove his American citizenship just like there wasn’t any downside for Bush letting his opponents try to find “evidence” that he ever used illegal drugs or in Bill Clinton’s case letting his opponents go out to prove that he sold them and murdered a bunch of people or whatever the Clinton Chronicles alleged.

Most people either aren’t going to care about or believe such allegations and they almost invariably end up backfiring on the people making them (and tarring the people who are rightly or wrongly seen on their side). In addition while they’re wasting time, energy and resources going after that big juicy red herring, they’re not spending it going after an issue where he might actually be vulnerable.

Not to mention the fact that they did divulge the information. Some refused to believe it and claimed it was a forgery. Obviously, those folks would do the same with copies.

Now, one theory I toyed with early on was the the proliferation of conspiracy theorizing was the goal

A pretty easy goal to attain when this sort of stuff keeps flying around:

But my primary view is that Obama obfuscates...because he's got a huge pile of buried bodies

mark;

Yes, how conspiratorial of me to think that of someone who trained in Chicago politics and built his political career in the company of some of the most corrupt politicians in one of the most corrupt city and state governments in the nation. Surely decades of watching those politics should have convinced me that there's no reason to be think such things.

Well, Joe, so much for your and Kessler's hopes.

Old Guy: It was my impression that whatever digging for the "huge pile of buried bodies" the RNC and right-wing nutso bloggers didn't already do, Hilary did.

What'd they get? His step-auntie has overstayed her visa; he once held a fund-raiser at Bill Ayers' house; his pastor sometimes sounds like a caricature of a Black Nationalist, and there's a rumor that he was really born in Kenya. (and one that he is a secret Muslim, and that he is a secret Maoist. . . )

Oh, yeah, and he was unwilling to shoot off his mouth about Blajo, with a Fed investigation ongoing. Of course, then there's that inconvenient quote on the Blajo tapes in which the good Guv COMPLAINS that he couldn't shop a deal to the Obama people. . .

I guess that proves he must be really good at burying those bodies, 'cause that'd be the only possible explanation for their failure to appear....

Tony Rezko. Obama couldn't have bought his house without Rezko and his wife. I'm SURE that was just a happy coincidence. But its the Chicago Way. I've always had the opinion that Obama is no dirtier than any politician that makes it out of Illinois. In other words, fair chance he'll end up in prison, but in the meantime he may actually do some good. So let him try.

I think we should all take a blood oath to do everything we can prove That Barack Obama was not born in the United States, in return for not mentioning it any further on the site.

For me it was never in question that Obama was born in the US.

However, speaking purely academically: I seem to recall that in some jurisdictions, birth certs include a "Religion" field to be filled in; I'm not sure why. I've wondered if Hawaii was such a place at the time in question. Not that it matters to me, but I've had the offhand thought that that might make the original document impolitic to release.

Overall an Obama "disclose as little as possible in every case" philosophy is adequate explanation for me WRT the birth cert vs CoLB kerfuffle.

Part of the problem is that the term "natural born citizen" is an incredibile source of mischief. The term was introduced into the Constitution in committee without explanation or debate. Before that every colony had its own naturalization rules and ideas of citizenship.

Anybody with an exotic past, and that would be McCain and Obama, can be threatened and unable to "prove" anything with such nebulous concepts. The solution:

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the "natural born citizen" requirement;

Barring that, let the people decide with their votes.

"Tony Rezko. Obama couldn't have bought his house without Rezko and his wife."

Rezco, who was broke at the time and fortuitously received money from Nadhmi Auchi in time to help out.

The constituition contains three requirements to be President. All are satisfied by the production of a valid birth cerificate.

I do not understand why proof of birth is not a requirement for all candidates.