I should’ve added: There’s a difference between THINKING something and saying something with malicious intent (libel), or publishing lies with malicioius intent (slander).
Now, in this particular case, in looking at the actual laws on the books in Missouri, Obama has no grounds to do this - and a VERY tough time even suing for libel or slander as a public figure running for election... :-)
Also, there are laws that this may violate in regards to elected and appointed state officials and officers of the court acting as an official part of an electoral campaign, but that’s separate from these speech issues anyway (well, for the most part they are).
“I should’ve added: There’s a difference between THINKING something and saying something with malicious intent (libel), or publishing lies with malicioius intent (slander).”
No need to add that. Libel and slander are malicious because they harm something, namely the victim’s reputation. It is my contention that our reputations do not belong to us because they are no more than thoughts in other people’s heads. If someone harms your reputation, I say you slap them with your glove and challenge him to pistols at dawn (or flame him in an internet chatroom at dawn). Leave the courts out of it.