Even if he was born in Kenya, Senator Obama is, by every definition I can find for it, a "neutralizing" American citizen as long as he had at least one properly qualified American citizen birth parent. No one has suggested that his mother wasn't a US citizen at the time of his birth, so the question is not one of eligibly for the office of President. He is. The question is why the reluctance to provide a certified physical copy of his Hawaii COLB for examination by the press and public?
My personal feeling is that there is a whole mythology that has been built up by Senator Obama over the years about his parentage and background. (After all, he has already been discovered to be exaggerating in other areas of his past.) These myths will unravel if the real facts about his birth and early years become public. If they do become known, he will still remain technically eligible for the office (after all, being a known truth bender/outright liar has never disqualified any other politician for office before) but his credibility will be shredded with the public. So, like the other Hussein, he may have no choice but to evade, dissimulate, ignore, counter, and rebuff to the bitter end because preserving the myth is so central to the appeal/power he has.
The situation will only come to a head if forced by a strategic series of law suits filed in key battle ground states. They would need to allege that Senator Obama is unqualified under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution for the office of President of the United States because he is NOT a "natural-born" citizen of the United States. To defend successfully, he would not only have to provide his own birth certificate but the birth certificate of his mother as well.
This would be a lawsuit he cannot ignore because losing it would cause his name to be removed from the ballot in each of those states.
Winning the lawsuit (proving he is not a natural-born citizen) would have tremendous consequences no matter when it was decided. If decided before the election, he would be denied the electoral ballots needed to win the election. If afterwards... well, if the Democrats thought 2000 was bad, let them imagine the effect of electing someone subsequently found to be constitutionally unqualified for the office.
In losing the lawsuit (he proves he is a natural-born citizen but perhaps undoes some or all of his mythology), it would be best if that occurred before the election for the effect it would have on his credibility. Now the critical period in losing the case would be from before the Democratic Convention to the election. Ideally, it would be sometime AFTER the convention when it was too late for the other Democratic candidate (Senator Clinton) to mount an effective campaign as a substitute candidate.
If it turned out that he was a natural-born citizen and he was telling the truth about his birth and early past, it would at least raise questions about his character and the advice he was getting on political matters. (Why are you acting like you have something to hide?) And that could raise enough doubt in voters' minds to be the critical difference.
The selection of the courts to file the suits in would have to be done carefully. After the case is decided (win or lose), we don't want the case file and supporting evidence to be sealed by the presiding judge (a la Kennedy and Chappaquiddick).
However, if the COLB issue is really problematic for Senator Obama, I suspect that the real Obama COLB will show up prior to the Democratic Convention and that it will be supplied by the Clinton camp.
Fraking spell checker!
Second paragraph “neutralizing” should be “natural-born.”
Assuming he was indeed born in Hawaii, it would suffice to produce his own birth certificate, because, in that case the citizenship of his parents would be irrelevant.
Your post is another one of those that leads me to want to question your reading skills.
No. If he was born in Kenya, he is neither a US Citizen nor eligible to hold the office of president.
A person born outside the US to two parents who are married to each other (in any kind of legally cognizable relationship) where one of the parents is a US Citizen, the other an alien, is a US Citizen under 8 USCA Sec. 1401(g) only if the the citizen parent was a US resident for ten years prior to the birth of which five were after the age of 16. Since the citizen parent was the mother who was 18, she failed by definitiion.
Which word is a problem?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts
Obama and McCain: Citizenship And Eligibility—Legal Issues