[Non-Sequitur]

That's what I thought, and that's why your post confused me. You were making an argument for McCain having standing, but McCain was a defendant. Hollander is the one who needed to show standing.

From the Hollander decision: "To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or the party's own chances of prevailing in the election...but that notion of 'competitive standing' has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate."

About the only person who could truly demonstrate standing in a suit against Obama is McCain himself. Because he is the only one who can demonstrate that an allegedly ineligible Obama caused the potential damage that cost him the election.

[curiosity]

Oh, okay, I see your point. You weren't arguing about standing in the Hollander case, where McCain wasn't the one needing to show standing.

You were arguing that only McCain could have standing in a hypothetical lawsuit against Obama. Got it. I agree.

Hollander didn't have standing against McCain (like everyone suing Obama) since he wasn't a serious candidate in the primary.

[El Gato]

Apparently under the “standing” doctrine, as it has evolved since the early 1920s, no resident of Chicago would have standing to sue Omar bin Camelhumpn over his contruction of biological weapons, on the grounds that any one residents possible death would be no more particularized than that of any other resident of the city.