
Check out this video, courtesy of Blue Mass Group, in which, after praising Sarah Palin, Massachusetts Senate hopeful Scott Brown appears to suggest he thinks Barack Obama was born out of wedlock -- a false claim which has been advanced frequently by members of the 'birther' movement.
You can watch the key moment here:
Brown: Barack's mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?Guest: And married!
Brown: Well, I don't know about that.
Now the factual record on this is clear. Obama's parents were married February, 1961, and Obama was born in early August of the same year. So his mother was certainly married when he was born.
Complicating matters for Brown is the fact that, around the time the video was taped, the fringier elements of the conservative movement were advancing this theory--that Obama's mother wasn't married when he was born--as a related matter to the more important "Obama was born in Kenya" theory.
We have not been able to independently authenticate the video. But we believe it to be legitimate. It is also unclear what turns the conversation took after Brown tossed the allegation out there.
When contacted by TPM, Brown spokesperson Felix Browne provided this response: "This is a non-issue. Scott's comments are being distorted by supporters of Martha Coakley who are trying to tear him down."
midnight rambler
January 16, 2010 8:46 PM
I'm not sure this damages him much. He can just claim to be an idiot who genuinely didn't know if Obama's parents were married, which may well be true, and it probably wouldn't hurt him much with any fool who would vote for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
January 17, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to midnight rambler
Why isn't TPM updating their post with this MSNBC article: [Obama's] own mother, [Michelle Obama] said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him." And, Obama added, he has observed his wife's attempts to reconcile motherhood with her career aspirations.
And, to help avoid pathetic attempts at spinning, if by "had him" she had meant "raising him", she would have said that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pakaal
January 17, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
As long as Michelle Obama is correct in what she believes to be true--and I can't see why she would make a mistake like that for no reason--then it would appear Barack Obama was born out of wedlock.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=msnbc+obama+mother+single&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Not that I care, I'm a bastard child too, according to the Catholic church. And?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pakaal
January 17, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to pakaal
...I'd stick to going after him about that whole endorsing Sarah Palin thing, the ice is pretty thick under that argument, it'll hold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
Funny how FACTS get in the way of right wing talking points. Just because someone says something (and it is taken out of context to fit the desired propaganda) doesn't make it true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Antineocon
January 17, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to midnight rambler
So if I get this, Scott is condemning mothers who have children out of wedlock. Well, how about grandmothers allowing their unmarried daughter to shack up with a boyfriend and then getting a grandchild from a daughter who didn't marry the baby's father?
And then there is the story of a young women who gave birth to a child during a journey with her betrothed husband-to-be. That baby created a whole new testament in the Bible and apparently he was born out of wedlock, too.
Neocons continue to use their own ignorance to change history. But Mary was only basically engaged to Joseph, according to the Bible, when her firstborn was born.
I guess Scott believes Sarah Palin's oldest daughter was married when the kid was conceived and born. But the facts are that the young girl, who got preggers at 17 never married the baby's father and that is quite fine with Scott.
Hyprocrite is another identifier for a neocon and nothing has been offered to change that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 16, 2010 8:50 PM
Out of wedlock birth is BAD except when it's a conservative; "The most important thing is that "she" (a family vales christian conservative no doubt) chose to keep the child". Cheating on your spouse is BAD except if you are a conservative; The most important thing is that god forgives. Lying is BAD except if you belong to the republican party. Journalism is biased and BAD except if you report for FAUX news. Delusion is BAD except if you are a conservative and living in Bizarro World mostly populated with compassionate christian conservative republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
January 17, 2010 1:53 AM in reply to AhTrini1
What is it turns out that Sarah had Levi's baby. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 2:19 AM in reply to BaileyWu
Uh, no, that would just be disgusting. Totally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 16, 2010 8:56 PM
This is the male nude model? Who is saying that Barack Obama's parents weren't married when he was born? Even though it was announced in two local newspapers?
And this guy wants to be a Senator, WHY? Oh. Yeah. To ruin health care and any other work that could be done for people instead of Wall Street.
I don't believe it will happen unless Diebold pulls another fake election out. If they do, this will be #3.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
January 16, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Believe it. I'm a MA resident who will vote for Coakley on Tuesday, but I'm scared because of what I've seen :
- driving through town today, this morning there were 2 people holding Coakley signs and 2 holding Brown signs, but when I came back there were 8 Brown signholders and no Coakley ones
- I've been seeing Scott Brown lawn signs for weeks now, only today did I see my first Martha Coakley sign
- radio (sports radio) has been plugging the hell out of Scott Brown - have yet to hear a Coakley interview
Anyone thinking that this couldn't happen should throw away that notion right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 17, 2010 12:46 AM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
Thank you for raising the alarm. Some on here need that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 1:57 AM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
That's the same sort of thing I saw in Virginia in last November's gubernatorial election. And as a result, we just inaugurated a Republican governor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
January 17, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
Money can do strange things: "Hey, Buddy, got nothing to do today? Here, $50, just stand here and hold this sign for 6 hours".
Or: "Howdy Neighbor, see the sign on my yard? It don't mean nothing to me, some guy just renting the spot. That is 3 mortgage payments for just keeping it there. Wanna know who that guy is?"
See what I mean? Perception delivered on greenbacks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 17, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
The mobilization of sign carriers in a neighborhood holds zero significance, even if Brown ultimately wins. What gets me is that they could have reversed this whole mess quickly and easily.
How? Do what the Republicans do, and what Democrats never seem to have the stomach to do: bash the other PARTY as extreme. To wit: run last-minute TV spots, showing this exact clip, using the words "BIRTHER! and "TEABAGGER!", nice and loud, and generally sliming the Republican Party in general.
Think: have you ever heard Obama say Negative Word Number One... about the Bush administration? By name? You know, the guys who palmed this whole mess off onto him in the first place, for him to clean up and make whole, and get blamed when he can't?
Nope. Not one mention of "Bush" or "the Republicans", ever. Just the occasional veiled reference to "those who would oppose us", or some such limp-wristed horseshit (God forbid we should be considered "shrill"!). Meanwhile, the Republicans are calling Democrats "terrorists" and hinting that Black folk from Hawaii are "exotic" (and other such dog whistles to latent Klansmen and -women).
Is there any wonder why the Dems are considered generic weaklings? In the Coakley campaign, so much kneecap-whacking that could have totally destroyed this Ken doll... and just nada.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
January 17, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
"Think: have you ever heard Obama say Negative Word Number One... about the Bush administration? By name? You know, the guys who palmed this whole mess off onto him in the first place, for him to clean up and make whole, and get blamed when he can't?"
And Obama won - taking states blue that had been red for generations. What he did worked for him. People didn't want to hear that blame stuff - they were desperate for hope and change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Munguza
January 16, 2010 9:08 PM
Coakley will win Tuesday's election with a result completely in line with every other US Senate race of the past 15 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
djagusch
January 16, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to Munguza
Well he was sure conceived out of wedlock (Feb to Aug=6mo). If you believe in life at conception he would be correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 16, 2010 11:14 PM in reply to djagusch
No he wouldn't. The key phrase being "had him when she was, what, 18 years old?" Implying when he was physically born, not the date of sexual act. He is a birther in sheep's wool. His liberal act is not gonna cut it. He will be an obstructionist (it'll take 80 votes to pass) Republican from Massachusetts if he is elected. Plain and simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 17, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to mophan
Oh, grow up! And ride away on the horse you rode in on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Someone has a crossed hair up their bottom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 16, 2010 9:21 PM
This stuff should have been dug up weeks ago. Coakley's campaign fell asleep, but so did the net roots.
This guy is a full-fledged teabagger who was allowed to frame himself as the everyman who drives a truck with 200,000 miles on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 16, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I think it is just indicative of how asleep at the wheel the whole Democratic Party is lately. They are still operating under the premise that it is still the honeymoon phase a week after the inauguration. The audacity of hope has been followed by the atrophy of hype.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 16, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to Libertine
You are both right. However, three days before the election is not the time to start pointing fingers. It smells of defeatism.
Now is the time to roll up your sleeves and go out there and do something about it. The ramifications of a Coakley loss in this election is not one I am willing to contemplate. As a Missouri resident I know I will pay a high price if she looses, just as we are all now paying the price for Connecticut (my apologies to the voters of Connecticut who did everything they could).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 16, 2010 11:36 PM in reply to mophan
Yeah I was kinda doing a post mortem on the election before it happens. It is still very liberal Massachusetts we're talking about here so there is a better than 50% chance Coakley will prevail but in no way, shape or form should it be this close. But no matter how it turns out it doesn't change the fact that...Houston we have a problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 12:12 AM in reply to Libertine
I wish I had your confidence. I do not feel a Coakley win is a given, I don't even give her a 50-50 chance. Unfortunately, Brown has her against the ropes hoping for the bell to ring with two minutes to go.
Connecticut is a recent example of voters choosing between two individuals whom they felt wasn't much of a difference. We face the same danger here. Add-to-the-conundrum the localized anti-establishment rampant corruption attitude against anointed candidates. Her task is far more difficult than Ned Lamont's. Lieberman was a beltway candidate while Brown is running as an outsider.
I only can say I hope the voters of Massachusetts will realize in time the importance of electing a Senator that will continue the legacy of Ted Kennedy, instead of electing a person who has already stated they will be the 41st vote against health-care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 17, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to mophan
Well to say I am optimistic is stretching it...really. But all things considered I still think in the end Coakley has to be considered the favorite still but the circumstances are against her right now.
Well at least Dodd is handling it right and we'll probably have a very liberal senator replacing him. But then again Lieberman will never be 1/10th of the politician that Dodd is. Next time up Lieberman is toast
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
January 17, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to Libertine
Nate a 538 was saying this was a very good race for Republicans because of holidays interrupting campaigning, and the short duration of time.
He's calling it a toss-up, but still thinks Coakly will pull it out.
I'd be more interested to hear what GOTV folks are saying then polls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 17, 2010 1:20 AM in reply to Bwakfat
Yeah, I agree Bwak. And I think it'll all come down to the D's GOTV effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hyla Brook
January 17, 2010 9:27 AM in reply to Libertine
Yeah, I have to plead guilty to the assumption that when Martha won the primary she'd won the election.
I think there a number of things in Brown's poll numbers than dislike of Coakley.
Part of it is voter anger towards other MA Democrats, as well as Coakley's lackluster campaign, anger over some of the things she did as AG, and just a desire for something 'new' after the same democrat Senator for decades.
I'm making lots of calls urging people to get out and vote for Coakley. Brown is NOT change we can believe in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 2:05 AM in reply to Libertine
Well, it's fair to say that a few Democrats have been sort of busy with stuff like, say, HEALTH CARE REFORM.
Someone mentioned the irony that the special election for Kennedy's seat may be what scotches the bill that he spent most of his political career working for. The further irony is that Kennedy himself was responsible for the fact that his seat is being filled by a special election and not a gubernatorial appointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 17, 2010 2:21 AM in reply to slb
Yes but does HCR mean it is ok for the DSCC, the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and the Coakley campaign not do what they were supposed to do? C'mon people took this for granted and were asleep at the switch...oblivious to the mood of the public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
January 17, 2010 2:07 AM in reply to Libertine
Personally, I've developed the audacity to harp at him for all his broken promises. In fact, I'm thinking it was all a game of who-dat from the very beginning. Bamboozled again. The level of duplicity is approaching the evil of Richard Cheney himself. Someone should call Pat Robertson to cast the demons out of the Obama Administration. I'm sure Rahm Emanuel will be the first to jump into a pig and oink his way across the Atlantic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 3:03 AM in reply to BaileyWu
I normally don't reply to the misguided individuals who have placed all hope of change on Obama, but to compare him to Richard Cheney really flabbergast me. You think Obama is governing in the same manner O' Dick Cheney would?
The same Dick Cheney who doesn't feel the need to consult the legal system that is in place to deal with constitutional law? The Dick Cheney that would have us in a third war with Iran right now? The same exact Dick Cheney who professes an esteem knowledge of civil liberties for all Americans?
To say that he approaches the same level of evil as Dick Cheney, the same Dick Cheney that sees nothing wrong with torture and has no problems breaking the Geneva treaty for his own purpose, is just too far.
I really do understand what you are trying to say and hope your desperation in the faith you placed in Obama got the best of you, but Obama and Cheney are way farther apart than your attempt at misinformation. Don't misguide folks just because you are disillusioned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Renman42
January 16, 2010 10:02 PM
No more lying idiots in DC, please ... Get out there, Massachusetts!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 16, 2010 10:04 PM
Daily Kos down? Nefarious hackers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 16, 2010 10:10 PM
Too little too late?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hystoryan
January 16, 2010 10:22 PM
Wow. You all got from that video clip that this guy is a birther? Incredible desperation -- and oh-so- typical of smear politics. Anyone who lives here, and has paid any attention, knows this guy is basically a liberal Republican (verified by recent research by political scientists at reputable universities like the University of Chicago). This is just disgusting, what's going on -- and some of you want more of it! Scream to the heavens about Rove-style politics, and do the same thing. when the shoe's on the other foot. This right here is a big reason why this guy might actually win up here -- people are disgusted with the Democratic Establishment (here, and now in Washington). It's certainly not Republicans who are going to elect this guy, if he gets elected. Or, rather, if Coakley is defeated -- an out-of-touch hack politician who couldn't care less about her constituents (seriously, you all should talk to people here who've had dealings with her).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cah89
January 16, 2010 11:12 PM in reply to Hystoryan
He's a two-faced liar is what he is. He says he'll lower taxes when he voted to raise the gas tax, he claims to be both pro-life and pro-choice depending on the venue he's at, he supported the Mass health care bill but opposes the senate health care bill which is basically the same. He's just an opportunistic pretty boy who can con people into believing his duplicity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
January 17, 2010 1:39 AM in reply to cah89
Our president said no mandates.. said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than 250,000
Guess who's doing his best to tax insurance benefits?
Why not tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income? Because that's a tax on the rich... Why let the inheritance tax law expire like they just did?
He said he'd not make deals behind closed doors with men like Billy Tauzin, but that was one of his earliest stabs in our back.
Our President has lied to us. Please hold him to the same standards you expect from others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
And you would prefer Bush or Cheney instead?
No, I don't think Obama has been perfect, far from it. Unfortunately, politics is politics. One person was voted in. There are still 538 others he has to deal with, along with the entrenched corporate lobbyist. You cannot place all your misplaced hopes in legislative advancement on him. Have we forgotten there are three branches of government?
Call me an apologist, I really don't care, but some here have the impression that Obama is superman, and is capable of transforming our political system over night. I am under no illusion. Anyone who thinks he can just needs to get real. It took many, many years for our system to be the way it is, don't expect it to change in the blink of day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
January 17, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
The excise tax is on the insurance company. Take your disinformation campaign somewhere else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
January 17, 2010 3:01 AM in reply to clonecone
Is that why it will apply to families? Is that why Labor was fighting against it? Fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
January 17, 2010 4:10 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
It won't apply to families. It is a tax on insurance companies. You should probably read the bill before you spout off and make yourself look stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to cah89
In other words: a Mitt Romney clone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miraclelurker
January 17, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to Hystoryan
Oh you must mean caring about constituents like this ....
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/16/justify-denying-911aid/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
January 17, 2010 1:27 AM in reply to Hystoryan
I agree, this smacks of desperation.
This is not substantive, people!
I don't live in MA, but isn't his policies and record more important than focusing on this tawdry crap?
Ix Coakley really the best candidate, or i this just about giving Corporate Dems a continued monopoly on the senate so they can shove expensive junk insurance down our throats and use the IRS as a collection agency? The mafia provides some mandatory crap security coverage too.
The HC bill is crap. Do you like being real important right up until the election is over and then it's it's back to shit sandwiches?
Dont play party politics for them, that's who is benefits. Vote for the best candidate MA!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 17, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
Is this rbeats under a new name? We are certainly getting the same talking points, whether or no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 2:27 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
You accuse Coakley of being a corporatist politician but say nothing of Brown's dirty hands? You have no creditability. Don't waste my time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sangsue
January 17, 2010 1:46 AM in reply to Hystoryan
Scott Brown is a relatively liberal Republican...
Yeah and pigs fly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
January 17, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to Hystoryan
Dude, "Libertine" is not the same thing as "Liberal." Same root, though "root" brings ambiguities all it's own when considering this guy's candidacy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a SC mom
January 16, 2010 10:32 PM
EVEN IF Obama's mom wasn't married and gave birth to him in Keyna - so what? she was an American citizen at the time of his birth. doesn't that make him an American citizen? edumacate me, please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Verified
January 16, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to a SC mom
It's code for....see how irresponsible black men are? They impregnate pure young white girls and then abandon them. A subtle way of implying that Barack Obama will screw our pure innocent country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 2:20 AM in reply to a SC mom
Actually, as the law in 1961, it could have been problematic had Obama's mother given birth to him in Kenya at age 18. Since his father was not an American citizen and his mother had not lived in the United States the requisite 5 years (or was it 7?) past the age of 16, it's possible she would not have been able to pass citizenship to him had he been born in Kenya.
But it's clear from his birth certificate that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii, so that legal point is moot.
But I think what Brown was getting at wasn't so much questions about his citizenship. This discussion had to do with Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The woman on the left is making the point that it raises questions about the Palin family values, the family values that Republicans are always yammering on about. Brown was trying to cast Obama's mother in the same light as Bristol Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sj
January 18, 2010 12:09 AM in reply to slb
It's not at all clear that the residency period was intended to apply to individuals such as Obama's mother, who were simply too young to have resided in the U.S. for the required number of years. If interpreted that way, it might well fail the rational basis equal protection test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
January 16, 2010 11:55 PM
IIRC the Birthers' contention was that Obama Sr. was still legally married to another woman when he married Obama Jr's mother, making their marriage invalid.
Bill Clinton is also illegitimate by this standard.
As was, incidentally, conservatives' favorite Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton. I don't think his parents even pretended to be married. (Note that Sarah Palin couldn't remember even Hamilton, when asked for her favorite Founder.)
Besides which, what is the relevance? Are the wingnuts claiming that being born out of wedlock would make Obama's *presidency* somehow "illegitimate"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 2:26 AM in reply to Nancy Irving
Hamilton is the conservative's favorite FF? Hamilton, the über-Federalist? Hamilton, who wanted more centralized control in the government? Hamilton, Jefferson's bitter enemy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 17, 2010 2:28 AM in reply to Nancy Irving
This is before the election, remember. I think Brown was just trying to put the "stain" of illegitimacy on Obama and at the same time neutralize the negatives from the revelation of Bristol Palin's pregnancy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
defendglenn
January 17, 2010 12:12 AM
Uh, is Michelle Obama a "birther" too?
She said Obama's Mom was "very young and very single when she had him" (7/10/2008)
Source: http://is.gd/6qiQw
You guys have NOTHING on Scott Brown. why not just join the Cape Cod Times and endorse him! Or are you just evil Yankee fans like Curt Schilling?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 12:30 AM in reply to defendglenn
By "had him," she was obviously talking about the struggles of a single parent raising a child, since that was the WHOLE context of the speech. Or should I just be naive and say when one is married, obviously it must mean there is equal effort put in by both parents in raising the children. In fact, harmony and bliss abounds.
Don't be a turd and take the words out of context. The fact remains Obama's mother was married to his father when he was born. His father might have been a dead beat father, but I did not know that would prevent him from being the dully elected President of the United States according to right wing constitutional standards.
Get over it already. It's been over a year. A black man is President. Say it to yourself over and over again. It may help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 12:28 AM
By "had him," she was obviously talking about the struggles of a single parent raising a child, since that was the WHOLE context of the speech. Or should I just be naive and say when one is married, obviously it must mean there is equal effort put in by both parents in raising the children. In fact, harmony and bliss abounds.
Don't be a turd and take the words out of context. The fact remains Obama's mother was married to his father when he was born. His father might have been a dead beat father, but I did not know that would prevent him from being the dully elected President of the United States according to right wing constitutional standards.
Get over it already. It's been over a year. A black man is President. Say it to yourself over and over again. It may help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 12:32 AM in reply to mophan
My apologies. The above post is a response to defendglenn. I reposted under his comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 17, 2010 12:37 AM
Danny Glover is the President's real father.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 17, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to inokeah
Speaking as a bigot yourself, how does the Glover connection make you feel?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
January 17, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to inokeah
When that great dane mounted your mother, unfortunately the best part of you ran down his legs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
defendglenn
January 17, 2010 12:43 AM
Ok, "A black man is President". Ahhh, I feel better already. Thanks. However, you still haven't explained how you are going to bring down Scott Brown with his comment that he didn't know whether Obama's mother was married or not. Sorry to pour water on your BOMBSHELL!!! but I just don't see it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 17, 2010 1:58 AM in reply to defendglenn
Really? A bombshell? Please, I would hardly call it a bombshell. Anyone who has been paying any sort of attention to this race, and knows anything of Brown's opportunistic history, is not the least bit surprise towards the recent revelations of his comments. I point you to my postings further up.
Plus, you only said it once to yourself. You need to say it over and over again... LOL.
Seriously, I'm not trying to make YOU "see it." Trying to make anyone "see it" who makes false assertions based on inaccurate interpretation of statements is a lost cause. You obviously don't understand the reasoning to my response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 17, 2010 2:02 AM in reply to defendglenn
Wow, this certainly smack of lying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 17, 2010 6:11 AM in reply to defendglenn
You don't have to be sorry. Anyone watching the tape can see that he is plainly beating up on a black woman who has a good observation about Palin hypocrisy, and he jumps from that *directly* into casting doubt on whether the President was born legitimately. That is the only conceivably meaning of his aggressive, denigrating snigger: he is saying the President seems to be a bastard.
So your sorrow or lack thereof, and what you see or don't see in it, are supremely irrelevant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
delmoi
January 17, 2010 3:32 AM
Eh, he was comparing Bristol Palin to Ann Dunham, he wasn't try to slander her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trevzb
January 17, 2010 6:42 AM
Distorted?
How is that? You can watch him mouth the words on video. That makes it pretty difficult to distort Brown's comments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
livingamongthehoodwinked
January 17, 2010 8:14 AM
Didn't Michelle O. say Pres O's mom was single ...in a speech not too long ago....Either way, does it really matter if his mom wasn't married! Does it really matter?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unnamed Former Party Official
January 17, 2010 8:22 AM
Latest Brown robocall is from someone calling themselves the "Catholic Alliance" and claims Martha Coakley thinks devout Catholics shouldn't work in the ER.
He is clearly embracing the lunatics that are increasingly at the core of the Republican Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hyla Brook
January 17, 2010 9:32 AM
We gave Brown a pass on posing nude in Cosmo 25 years ago, but here's Brown claiming Obama is illegitimate which is a LIE.
Everytime a Republican is reminded on the hypocrisy of their party they try to turn it back on the Democrats.
I hope this guy loses. One plus is if the election is close there's no point to the Republicans trying to drag out the recount, we at least have a Democratic Senator until the next one is sworn in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weitberg
January 17, 2010 10:34 AM
Somehow I have to believe that anyone who looks at this race and thinks "Brown's got my vote," isn't gonna change the channel when the veiled slander starts to come.
TheWeekinRebuke.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 11:07 AM
Scott Brown believes in WMD in Iraq.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 11:09 AM
9/11 and Iraq have something happening. Scooty Libby in prison. Wondering why George Bush is Obama's puppet. A giant mushroom cloud is George Bush's hair cut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
January 17, 2010 11:12 AM
I am immensely saddened by the way people, right and left, project onto Obama. Recently on Open Left a blogger called Obama the same as Harold Ford, saying they are both 'accommodationists'--but really only because both are light-skinned African American politicians. I know this isn't in the same league as the birthers and those totally suffering from Obama-Trauma, that a black man is president!!--but it shows that even thinking people have failed to understand their own unconscious prejudices.
Politics has become the realm of the totally stupid. Obama understands community building, and so what he tries for consensus, which is the right way to go about that, rather than violent confrontation. But both right and left seem only to understand the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
January 17, 2010 11:29 AM
Mass. State Senator Scott Brown:
# Panders to the teabaggers (while protesting his ignorance of the movement);
# Refuses to pay health benefits to his campaign workers, labeling them as independent contractors (which may be a violation of the FEC);
# Prioritized building a golf course over aiding 9/11 volunteers;
# Has notorious anti-gay NOM make robo-calls for him;
# Protects big banks from paying back their TARP money;
# and allegedly, is about to be endorsed by none other than Democratic turncoat and McCain BFF, Joe Lieberman
see link
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
January 17, 2010 11:41 AM
I'm just amazed that it might be Massachusetts, of all states, that elects the first US Senator in history who has willingly posed in the nude for purposes of public titillation; I would have guessed it would be California or Nevada. For some reason I have always thought of MA residents as being a bit more serious than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kellyd
January 17, 2010 11:52 AM
i don't get why this is such a big deal. there are plenty of other things to go after brown about. this looks like desperation. especially when michelle said herself that barack's mother was single when she had him:
"Obama used the roundtable audience, as she did yesterday, to describe her husband's understanding of women's issues through the prism of the strong -- but sometimes struggling -- women in his life.
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1193601.aspx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RectoNoVerso
January 17, 2010 12:00 PM
Indirectly highlights how feckless Martha Coakley is as candidate to be challenged by this idiot in a very blue state.
http://rectonoverso.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RememberKeithWinfield
January 17, 2010 12:08 PM
Well, Michelle told everyone he was, so it's not like it is a big deal. It's about the 10th paragraph down:
http://www.showmeprogress.com/diary/1297/
Barack saw his mother, "who was very young and very single when she had him" , and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 17, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to RememberKeithWinfield
try to raise he and his sister
There--you said it yourself. She was young and single when trying to raise Obama and his younger sister.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kellyd
January 17, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to CT Voter
that's not what the quote said... michelle said his mother "was very young and very single when she had him."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 17, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to kellyd
Uh, uh. Nice try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kellyd
January 17, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to CT Voter
did you read the article and read the quote from michelle? or are you just trying to play stupid? if it's the latter, go away. adults don't need your childishness in grownup discourse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sj
January 18, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to kellyd
Given that other sources with good indicia of reliability indicate that Obama's parents were married when he was born, it makes good sense to interpret Michelle's remarks in a manner that is consistent with them. Given that the purpose of Michelle's remarks was not to provide a detailed life story of Barack, but to encourage support for single mothers it makes sense to interpret her remarks as being an attempt to (correctly) identify him with their plight and not to regard her comments as a particularly definitive answer to whether or not Barack, Sr., and Stanley were married at the moment Barack, Jr., was born.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AirBoss
January 17, 2010 12:28 PM
Just wondering: is Orly Taitz Scott Brown's love child?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 12:39 PM
Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a "Certification of Live Birth," which he
posted on his website under the title: "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate."
At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted "Official Birth Certificate," as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.
In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing, with each one having a different degree of reliability and trustworthiness that affects the weight that should be given to Obama's posted Certification of Live Birth.
I'll sum it up for you - A legitimate record (Hawaii-issued Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted) that summarizes a record (original 1961 vital record) that lacks an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Now here is why the NBC issues are so important:
The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to forseti
I decided to research the issues for myself. What I discovered opened my eyes, so much so that I tracked down the owner of the parked domain http://www.birther.com, bought it, and then yesterday I forwarded it to my own website that has my above findings.
It is interesting to note that when I bought this domain my hosting provider godaddy.com parked it on one of their advertising pages. The very first ad that showed up at the top of the site was barackobama.com. Funny how Obama's people claim there is nothing to the birther issue, but yet they still felt compelled to buy up advertising space for the keyword birther.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
January 17, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to forseti
Your entire post is just more grabbing st straws because you can't accept that you lost. But I do have to mention two things:
1) Do you know anything about how internet advertising works? Ads are posted to websites based on the content of the site. So, if your website is entirely about Obama, it's not a conspiracy that you're getting ads about him. It doesn't prove anything but that your company's ad program is working as intended.
2) I love how people carry on and on and on about Obama's birth, but they never mention McCain's. Hypocrisy at it's best, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Kuyleh
The barackobama.com ads were on the parked site birther.com before it was forwarded to a live website with info about Obama. Therefore, Obama's barackobama.com ads on the initial parked page were a direct result of Obama's people paying for the keyword "obama."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to forseti
Correction - Therefore, Obama's barackobama.com ads on the initial parked page were a direct result of Obama's people paying for the keyword "birther."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Kuyleh
McCain did not get elected President, so his Article II NBC issue is moot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 17, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to forseti
Wow, you sound so reasonable and so diligent as you spew your unsubstantiated nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 17, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to farnsworth
I cited the facts and the law in my birther.com post. You, on the other hand, do not let the facts and the law get in the way of your reasoning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sj
January 18, 2010 12:14 AM in reply to forseti
I get that you're not satisfied with the posted certificate but is there a shred of real evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
forseti
January 18, 2010 12:21 AM in reply to sj
Good question. Unfortunately, Obama has been suppressing all evidence that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii? He says prove it, but has also locked down any evidence that would allow the "birthers" to prove it.
In any event, the burden of proof is on Obama to prove that he meets the NBC requirements to be President. His posted summary (Certification of Live Birth) wouldn't satisfy any of the three major burdens of proof.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sj
January 18, 2010 12:16 AM in reply to forseti
For instance, have any of his mother's contemporaries come forward and stated that she disappeared for a few months around the time Barack, Jr., was born? How would she have afforded the costs of travel to Kenya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 17, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to forseti
Go away, and take all your birther friends with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 17, 2010 12:45 PM
Bottomline: This guy is your typical GOP Scum. GOTV!!!
And pray that Mass. doesn't pull a Connecticut like move.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
January 17, 2010 12:50 PM
I have two things to say.
1: Get out the vote! If we get out the vote (even if 15% go for Brown) we will win.
2: If it's close, drag out seating him with a Franken-type recount.
3: If she loses, pass a robust, universal-type healthcare reform via reconciliation. Pass EVERYTHING via reconciliation. Come Nov. this year, Dems will lose seats, so NOW's the time to ram through progressive things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
January 17, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to ilovebacon
sorry, three things...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
January 17, 2010 1:08 PM
I thought we had gotten past caring if someone's parents had a piece of paper when they were born...What the hell does it matter? A piece of paper stating that you stood in front of a minister/judge and said a few words doesn't mean you're a good parent...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oaktown1
January 17, 2010 1:27 PM
Excuse me, why is this news? Why do we even acknowledge such an outmoded notion that a child born out of wedlock, whether he become president or not, is something to be reported on, discussed, or regarded as important to anyone, except perhaps the parents? The parents are both dead and the child now is close to 50 y.o. What's up with that, TMP?
If conservative folks want to fan flames so we can continue to have smoke in our eyes, we better start wearing protective masks, because this kind of thing JUST AIN'T IMPORTANT! We need to stay focused on stuff that is important.
OK, I'll say one thing that's important that TPM could spend more time on: paying attention to the ideology of white supremacy "hiding in plain sight" in this faux controversy of Obama's birth as well as Rush Limbaugh's rantings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 1:50 PM
These Obama attacks aren't recommendating a leveling off of the playing field. A great site to folow up for this: democratic governors.org. You'd get to it, get the facts straight, get it together. Heck of a job, Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 5:13 PM
Thinking twice, this is the dumbest question I've ever heard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 17, 2010 6:40 PM
let's check Bristol Palin's birth records because that c-o-x sucking slut was younger than 18 nad bye the way the tramp was not married and used as a poster child for sluts in training
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
January 17, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to dem4life
Is your mommy looking over your shoulder? This is the internet...You don't have to worry about naughty words. And for the record, it's "by." "Bye" is what you say when you leave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 7:40 PM
Put the guy in prison for defamation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 7:43 PM
Put the guy in prison for defamation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 17, 2010 8:38 PM
Easily a guy not belonging in office. Couldn't ask for a worse candidate in Scott Brown. Call 'em out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
January 17, 2010 8:54 PM
Is there any right-wing scumbag that sister sarah doesn't get linked to? He actually says that she has good core values & is a hard worker. He's obviously preaching to the choir because quitting her elected, sworn to duty job, after allowing her unmarried teenage daughter to shack-up with a casual boyfriend under her nose & make babies isn't exactly in line with his statement.
Oh yeah, voting against funding the 9/11 volunteers was pretty sleazy (conservative) too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
January 17, 2010 9:13 PM
WOW! This seems like it is a huge issue to this man.....Extolling the virtues of Sarah Palin while distorting and condemning the mother of the President of the United States!!! OH PLEASE PEOPLE OF MA....YOU CAN"T SERIOUSLY BE CONSIDERING THIS GUY AS YOUR SENATOR!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
January 18, 2010 12:26 AM
I guess Brown is such a fucking idiot he doesn't realize that if Obama was born out of wedlock, the he most definitely IS an American Citizen. What a nimrod.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ju
January 18, 2010 1:02 AM
So if he wins, will he grace his official Senate.gov photo with this:
http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/thegaggle/picture1135766.aspx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lexingtonave
January 18, 2010 4:13 AM
Brown's character is absent. He lacks integrity. His claim about when President Obama was born (as if it really matters - come on, it's 2010) is specious. He is a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
January 18, 2010 8:53 AM
And we care WHY? WHO gives a rat's ass about this? Most children back then were either born out of wedlock or, they were married while mommy was VERY pregnant. Get a life/grip you idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
January 18, 2010 10:42 AM
Wait, do people think being born out of wedlock makes one ineligible for the Presidency?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?