The Journolist must be scraping under the bottom of the barrel for anti-birther arguments - Ezra Klein floats an utter laugher today:
Imagine Barack Obama was born in Kenya. So what?
This isn't like Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster and running drugs through the Arkansas airport. It's not like George W. Bush having foreknowledge of 9/11. As I understand it, the argument here is that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but that his mother said he was born in the United States and even had relatives lie to that effect. Presumably, she also told young Barack that he was born in Hawaii. The big reveal here is...what? That Barack Obama's American mother desperately wanted to be certain that her infant child had American citizenship?
Seriously? My goodness, sometimes the cover-up is a bigger deal than the crime, or so I am told.
First, as best I know not all birthers have rallied behind the scenario that makes more sense to me, namely, Ms. Dunham and her parents phonied up Baby Barack's documentation in 1961 because they saw benefits to his being an American citizen. At one time some people believed that a conspiracy to document Obama as natural-born was launched by his advisers and supporters following his election to the Senate. People forging documents in 2005 and lying about it in 2007 (and thereafter!) ought to rank as a cool conspiracy. That said, the discovery of two contemporaneous birth announcements did take the wind out of those sails (I hope...)
But even if it was just a 1961 "conspiracy" of three relatives, it becomes a much bigger deal if Obama has been aware of this fact and keeping it secret. Surely it speaks to the character of the man who promised the most transparent Administration in history but won't release his college transcripts, his senior thesis, his law firm billing records, or much of anything else not in his carefully packaged auto-biography.
That said, I have to support the conclusion reached by the Anon Lib, since I said a few days back that no court will touch this.
The Anon Lib closed with a question:
Well - I don't know if I qualify as a birther, but here we go. First, if the imagined, hypothetical news of Obama's foreign birth was as much of a surprise to Obama as to the rest of us, well, fine. But is that plausible? And if he has been covering it up for years, would that really not change your sense of the man? Do you imagine it would change other people's sense of the man?
And since I am answering a question with a question, why was the story of Bush AWOL such a big deal? Why were rumors of Bush's youthful cocaine use so intriguing and problematic? Did those really impact assessments of his tax cuts or his vision for the Middle east? Yet I recall endless fascination from the left with these points.
I guess the answer is that character counts when it is convenient.
THE DAY WILL COME: Let me tax my friends on the left with this seemingly easy question: the day will come when Obama is no longer President, and he will be spending his time gathering documents for his Presidential Library. Do you think that the Presidential Library will ask the State of Hawaii for originals (or copies) of the records of his birth?
Of course they will, unless they want to give historians conniption fits forever. What kind of an excuse for a President Library would it be lacking those documents?
In which case, why the wait? If Obama is going to request those documents and make them available some day, why can't that day be now?