I have always maintained that this is a non story, too. But, I have to admit that the nagging question of why it can't be settled keeps finding a way to make my suspicions rise. I have always hoped to hear or see a substantive explanation of why the DNC filed different official certification documents in many states, especially Hawaii where specific language about being legally qualified to serve was omitted.
This was all done well before there was any question of eligibility. So, it seems there was some concern within DNC circles early on. Without clarification, that bothers me.
I have always maintained that this is a non story, too. But, I have to admit that the nagging question of why it can’t be settled keeps finding a way to make my suspicions rise. I have always hoped to hear or see a substantive explanation of why the DNC filed different official certification documents in many states, especially Hawaii where specific language about being legally qualified to serve was omitted.
This was all done well before there was any question of eligibility. So, it seems there was some concern within DNC circles early on. Without clarification, that bothers me.
A House of Representatives Special Investigative Committee could answer all the nagging questions and could subpoena the Obama birth certificate.
The DNC certificates questions seem to be related to the fact that different states have different laws requiring different information on their forms. Hawaii law, in particular, changed during the 2008 election cycle.
If you haven’t seen the following, note that the DNC sent two forms to Hawaii and the Republican administration in Hawaii accepted them as proof of eligibility:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf