[concerned about politics]

1. Barack claims to be born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. He claims to have provided an electronic version of the original birth certificate (not the original or a photocopy of the original).
3. Hawaii was a state by 1961.
4. Perhaps most importantly, the State of Hawaii has confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for him, but have prevented anyone but his immediate family from seeing it.

1. His mother was 16 and in Kenya already.
2. That was his adoptive birth certificate.
3. Ok, you get one point.
4.They said they had a record of birth, not a U.S. birth certificate. He could have been born on the moon, and they'd still have the same paperwork.

All he has to do is show his bonafide certificate. McCain did. Why can't he? Is that too much to ask? It's a piece of cake.

[FourtySeven]

Again, what is the difference between a “record of birth” and a “birth certificate”? Why would a state have a record of birth for someone not born in that state?