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.
MG // August 5, 2008 at 8:35 pm I went on the Hawaii State Judiciary website, which anyone here can do provided you conduct your search within the Hawaii Standard Time parameter: http://hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us/jud/Hoohiki/main.htm?spawn=1 Its very simple - Once you’re reached the page provided above, click on “Enter” and you will be connected to the court’s server which takes about a minute or less. Then, a Search window will appear. Enter in the name you wish to search for in Search Option #2. Unfortunately, the system provides records dating only back to 1983. As such, I was only able to pull up a Dissolution: STANLEY ANN SOETORO VS LOLO SOETORO Although this case was initiated on 8/20/1980 it was terminated on 11/26/1988 which is why its probably in the system: its post-1982. Those interested may wish to check this out. The Case number is: 1DV00-0-117619 I couldn’t find anything online for Barak Obama. If he has indeed done a name-change, that would be either (depending on the jurisdiction) Family Law Court or Civil Court. I checked under both for years 1983-1987 and found nothing. Since he claims to have been over the age of 18 when the name change was filed, then it should be public record. In any event, usually for name changes, the party is to file an Order to Show Cause (as its termed in CA courts, could be termed something else in HI) for Change of Name. Part of this filing is to provide the court with proof that the Order to Show Cause was published in an approved (by the court) publication once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks. Anyone who can do a search (in person) can find these published documents in the Name Change Petition that was file. I hope I am making sense here. It means you do not have to search day-by-day in the newspaper archives. The court Petition would have a proof of publication filed with it. AFTER the name change is granted by the court, *then* the birth certificate is amended to show the new name. Note to Practitioners: I have posted a *very simple* outline of the name-change procedure. MG
I thought the Divorce Record info interesting since Lolo Soetoro supposedly died in 1987 yet the proceeding was not terminated until 1988 per this record. Maybe they were never officially divorced? I wonder if this somehow comes into play if Lolo Soetoro did adopt Obama as a child.