And here is a critical point. Is the question worthy of discussion, as it has been run through the courts on numerous occasions, and state governments are crafting laws so this doesn't happen again.
Instead of looking at the source and dismissing it, how about looking at the question in question and the activity surrounding it.
McCain seems to have been held to one standard, and Obama another.
Statements by state officials are meaningless. Let's have the hard evidence before the Senate at a minimum... as McCain was forced to do.
Is it asking too much when talking about the the presidency? We do have rules for this, do we not?
PS. At least I will give credit that this hasn't been bumped to conspiracy theories. It's a question of law that seems to be unresolved.
His live birth record doesn't satisfy for some on legal grounds; just as a Canadian Passport isn't a viable primary source of identification to get a Driver's License!!! Who woulda thunk it?
McCain had to do this before the Senate. But Obama? His status is still in question by a significant portion of the population. If it is easy enough to clarify, then do it. It's not like total idiots have questioned his eligibility to be commander in chief. Some folks with a record of tremendous service to this nation have done so. In one case the court has acted queerly. Denying the defendant access to critical records.