“the statements are so veiled it’s hard to tell who was digging a whom.”
All I’m saying is that it was Serrano, not Thomas, who kept poking away at the issue. And given Thomas’s generally respectful tone immediate prior to engaging in this banter, it seems improbable (though surely not impossible) that he was trying to “poke” the Dems with the birth certificate issue.
Of equal importance, had Serrano realized Thomas was attempting this, he likely would have called him out on it, pressing him to state publicly whether he believed president was born in Hawaii. The Dems have to date succeeded in making those who argue the “birther” position be subjects of ridicule (which preempts the necessity of discussing the issue rationally or using actual evidence). Serrano would have been happy to ingratiate himself to Nancy Pelosi by exploiting this opportunity to score a debating point.
You make it sound like a flip of a coin. In contrast, I believe the weight of the evidence (though not 100% of it) leans in favor of a benign interpretation of this exchange. Had Thomas wished to send a message to either birthers or Dems, he could have and would have done so.
Again, its not about the BC. At least not to a first order. It's about the very meaning of Natural Born Citizen. If it means, "born in the US", then the BC becomes important. If as I have come to believe, it means "Born in the US (with exceptions) of parents who are citizens" then Obama is not an NBC, unless the BC shows someone other than BHO Sr, a US Citizen someone, as his father.