Show me where Obama identifies that picture as a wedding picture. I told you before that I MISTAKENLY identified it as a wedding picture from the Time magazine early on this thread, . To my knowledge Obama never said it was and Time never said it was. I mistakenly said it was and later apologized on this thread for having started that idea.
If you have evidence that Obama said it was their wedding picture post the source or link to that quote.
Sorry. That's the second time I have done it to you. I have not posted a response. I think I have him saying either "wedding" or "wedding dress" but I will look again and if it is only your post I will give up and post that. I'm out of the office so I can't look until tonight but will make it a point to do so.
From Spunky: "Show me where Obama identifies that picture as a wedding picture. I told you before that I MISTAKENLY identified it as a wedding picture from the Time magazine early on this thread, . To my knowledge Obama never said it was and Time never said it was. I mistakenly said it was and later apologized on this thread for having started that idea.
Well your original comment obviously had wide influence. It has been picked up other places as well as here. But you are clearly correct--the only source for this point is your original post.
I remain of the view that a probable explanation for how they got to Kenya in the first place is that they went there to get married because a marriage by Obama Sr. in the US would violate criminal bigamy statutes; in Kenya, it would not be a crime--multiple wives were a common practice.
Removing the airport picture as factual support for the proposition doesn't make that course of events any less likely.
Obama says he has researched the marriage but didn't ask too many questions because he might not like the answer. The answer he really would not have liked would be the Kenya location. And I tend to doubt that the investigative effort that has been made has focused on the marriage which I see as an important objective.
I do hear former President Clinton's comments as echoing an eligibility challenge. As we can see looking at the record before us, researching this issue is difficult and from personal knowledge of some of the people involved, I don't credit the Clinton's with omnipotent powers on technical matters. That is support for the "Clinton's got there late" line of analysis which I think is correct and is the explanation for why Mrs. Clinton did not attack Obama on these grounds earlier in the campaign.
On the other hand, President Clinton's obvious effort to avoid going further than a statement of the Constitutional principle is a pretty clear indication of a conscious decision not to pursue the issue at this time. I have heard (from Republicans) that the reason is that the Clinton's are attempting to use the issue as leverage against Obama to force Mrs. Clinton on to the ticket in the VP slot.
Someone with a substantive interest in the subject is in fact involved in looking at the issue. Madsen's release identifies "Republican dirty-tricks operatives".
It is unreasonable to identify this kind of research into your opponent's eligibility to hold office as a "dirty-trick". However from what I can learn, at least the organizational Republican's have not been involved for the reason that the McCain supporters remain nervous about the impact of the issue on their man's candidacy. On the other hand, the R's who are active in the party seem to be aware of a factual record suggesting that Obama was born in Kenya.
As yet, there does not seem to be anyone on the Republican side with a clear view of how to use the knowledge to their advantage.