While finally Barry got a clue - house is on fire, maybe I should put it out.

It looks like you're applying Hanlon's razor ("Never attribute to malice to that which can be adequately explained by incompetence") where I might not. A more cynical approach would be to wonder if there's some other news event he's trying to get the media to ignore.

Not to go around and around on this, but in one political strategy sense it doesn't matter what "every GOP candidate" is saying if the national media - ie the media the low to moderate information voters watch or read -- isn't either covering or not making a big deal about it.  That was the difference with Trump.  There was a moment when every outlet was trying to get his interview with him and allowing him to have the airwaves.  The other day it think it Chris Matthews played a clip of Jeopardy where none of the contestants could give the question to the answer who was majority leader in the House.  Poor Eric. 

Apparently you believe someone has credibility if you believe they deserve credibility.  Trump is a joke in my eyes.  But he is a celebrity and we all know how Americans are with celebrity.  I mean who care that Oprah chose to support Obama during the 2008 campaign. Politically, what credibility did she have really.  But it was a big deal.  Whether you like it or not, Oprah is politically potent.  Moreover, the other day I was listening to people on a call-in show talking about how smart he was not only because he was rich, but that he was able to become rich, lose it all, then get rich again (regardless of the actual truth in that scenario).

Apparently you also believe that if an issue continues to float about that it inherently then a significant issue that needs to be addressed by a politician. I guess you think the Clintons should have continued on a regular basis address the Foster issue since that is still out there being talked about by conservative wingnuts. 

As it stands (as far as I know - willing to see evidence to contrary( there is no evidence they had it in their possession all this time.  So judgment based on the idea they had it but chose not to produce it is faulty. 

In fact, here is WH statement:

"The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting." 

What you might need to do is show how easy it would have been for Obama back when he was just a candidate to make Hawaii make the exception (before the tremendous volume).  But as long as that statement is valid, then there is nothing confusing about the actions of the president on this matter.

When I heard the Trump bullshit over Obama's grades and affirmative-action guess to get admitted to Harvard, I thought of the calls to compare Kerry's and Bush's college grades.  Pretty funny altogether that Bush's were just a tad higher than W's.

I hear Jack's frustration, yours, and others, but I also read Jack about Obama selling Van Jones down the river.  I wonder if he had loomed large and defended him with his big megaphone, how different things would look now.  Of course, that would likely have meant that he would fight for anything much other than the ACA...so there's that.

I just would not want Jack to think that assholes like Trump are holding up progress on black and other color/racial acceptance; this may just be the last hurrah before the old freaks die off.  I hope.