I understand your point of view It seems that a procedure should have been in place by this point in time that all candidates would have to submit certain documents to prove compliance with the constitutional requirements for citizenship and eligibility. It is beyond me why there isn't. I feel the number one question for Mr. Obama should be with what passport did he gain entry into Pakistan, at a time when Pakistan was on the State Dept blacklist. As far as his college records, it is my speculative guess that he was "gaming" the system by saying he was a foreign exchange application. Anyway, a transparent and open qualification system would make all of this speculation a moot point.
Either this is naivete or stubbornness or something. You don't really believe that all of Obama's enemies of substance were just being nice by not bringing his birth certificate up? John Kerry's character was absolutely destroyed by swiftboaters. The swiftboaters had no decency or honor and were simply scum(I assume you know who was behind swiftboating?). But if I had the same mentality as you people I would be forced to believe that Obama was treated with kid gloves because the republicans are "nice people". Karl Rove destroyed the career of valerie plame. If he could destroy Obama he would.
Well, let the arguement be divided into two segments: 1) It appears that there is not a system to clearly, openly submit documentation that a candidate meets the constitutional requirements. Snopes.com is not quite good enough, in my opinion. Being elected is not quite good enough. 2) Since item #1 is not in place, then speculation is bred. A possible answer to your "Kerry" scenario is quite simply that in the beggining, Obama was viewed as another Jackson or Sharpton, or for that matter Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.......The 1st seeds can look upon the 12th seeds as "brothers in arms" because they don't have a prayers chance of winning. Once Obama started to show strength, it was too late. Attacking Obama is a completely different ballgame than a white political machine attacking a white Kerry. HRC attacking Obama would have destroyed the Democratic party.
You are kidding? So suggesting that someone who was in Vietnam had "superficial injuries" and did not deserve 3 purple hearts is ok but attacking a black candidate is not?
I am not approving of any personal attack on anyone, I am just saying it would be a completely different ballgame. Do you remember any attacks on Jackson, Sharpton, Paul, etc. ?
Obama was not jackson or sharpton. He had a legitimate issue to run on -"anti-war". He was derided as giving a "speech". Hillary expected the primary to be a coronation and was trying to dance around the iraq war issue. When your speeches always begin "when I am president" before you even won the primary, it irritates people to no end.
Kerry had no character and the swift boat guys were right in doing what they did. Clinton did not attack Obama because she was stupid enough to believe she didn't have do plus she has more skeletons in her closet then Obama. John
Personal attacks on Paul, not necessarily, although even "conservative" Fox News blatantly censored him. Was rather surprising to see CNN as the main one giving him the time of day.
In order to be mindless drones of talk radio they'd have to progress to the point where a head-on collision with a post would no longer be a meeting of the minds. You assume basic comprehension of language after all. Any language.