[Tedro]

For most of the states the certifications were the same in all the years.

So Hawaii wasn't the only one to change then? Shouldn't this fact lend more credence to the likelihood of simply a somewhat arbitrary change?

The bigger question - as I said in the post - is why the HDP didn’t certify eligibility in 2008.

Whether or not it was certified by the HDP isn't an issue at all, the issue is whether or not it was verified, which I doubt the HDP did. Pelosi clearly certified that he was eligible on the first DNC document, but it is highly unlikely that she actually verified anything; instead she merely took the eligibility for granted, just like so many others. We know for a fact that the MSM didn't verify anything, but they clearly de facto certified him. I'm curious to see these HDP documents when you get them up, but I'm sorry I just don't see there being an actual issue here. If indeed Obama was not born in Hawaii, I just don't think the conspiracy is as widespread in the government as some of you other's believe. I find it much more likely that it's a widespread case of arrogance and naivety but not that of intent (for most), much like that in the general population.

[butterdezillion]

As far as I know Hawaii was the only state where there was any monkeying around with the certificates but I haven’t seen the certs from all the states either. It was pointed out to me that a follow-up to the CFP article I cited claims that both versions of the DNC certs were used in both 2000 and 2004, but if they were used in 2004 it was not in Hawaii.

Without seeing all the certs for all the states in 2000, 2004, and 2008 I have to hedge my words by saying “most” rather than “all”, since I don’t know the case for all the states.

But I do know what Hawaii sent me, so that’s what I’m analyzing.

I know that the DNC claims they added the eligibility language to be cautious. But since the HDP and DNC obviously coordinated their certs and had Sandler send it to the Hawaii Elections Office all together in 2008, it defies reason that they would abandon what had worked before in favor of a combination of certs that had never been tried before in an attempt to be CAUTIOUS. If they had wanted to be cautious they would have had both HDP and DNC certify eligibility.

So the point at which their argument breaks down is with the HDP’s change to LEAVE OUT the eligibility language. They had to change their certification form in order to do that; this wasn’t just an oversight. It was a deliberate move to remove the certification that had worked in the past, to switch to a new certification that had never been tried - supposedly in the name of caution.

I don’t buy it.

And especially I don’t buy it because the HDP refused to give any information on how that decision was made, and because the DNC claims their certification is based on the states certifying. If Obama’s alleged home state refused to certify eligibility then Pelosi herself should not have certified eligibility.

You’re absolutely right that nobody checked anything. We know Obama is not eligible because he has no legally-determined birth facts, no documentation in Hawaii that is legally valid, since his BC was amended in 2006 (actually almost certainly only COMPLETED in 2006). So there’s not a person in this world who can LEGALLY say how old Obama even is, much less where he was born or to whom. There is no way he LEGALLY qualified to even be a citizen (unless via naturalization documents), much less legally qualified to be POTUS.

At best, Pelosi knew she hadn’t checked Obama’s eligibility.

What the HDP’s actions show is that most probably Pelosi ALSO knew that the folks in Hawaii who had possibly seen Obama’s actual birth certificate were not willing to sign their names to an oath that he was Constitutionally eligible. According to the DNC’s own claims of who is supposed to vet the candidates, that should have meant that Pelosi herself would refuse to sign ANY certificate of Obama as the DNC candidate.