A final answer on Sen. Obama's birth certificate

There was a Chicago Tribune article about the Obama birth certificate controversy in the Oct. 30 edition. I wrote the author to ask about a specific point.

Dear Sir:

The argument I heard on The Savage Nation from the guy who runs www.obamacrimes.com is that Sen. Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is actually a "Certification of Live Birth" and is not a valid birth certificate. Did your research reveal any evidence to that effect?

Great article. Thanks for clearing up the conspiracy-fueled confusion.


--Ken Salkover

His response:

Ken, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, Janice Okubo, says the Certification of Live Birth IS the birth certificate. The two terms are interchangeable. Obama’s certificate, when shown to her, looks identical to hers, she says (except for the name).



I followed up with your exact question to her today. Her response is as follows:



“There is no difference. Both terms are interchangeable.



Janice”



Thank you for reading the Tribune, and for your questions.



-- James Janega
Chicago Tribune
jjanega@tribune.com

It's different in swing states

It’s different in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia

Here in a solidly blue state, the presidential campaign is just a rumour. Oh, sure, Obama ’08 National Headquarters is somewhere in River North, near downtown, and his home is in Hyde Park. But he’s rarely here, and there have been no official candidate visits, as far as I know. We don’t see presidential campaign commercials, unless they’re aired to bleed into northwest Indiana.
The first three aforementioned states have been swing states since at least 1992. But the other three haven’t gone Democratic since 1964 (LBJ landslide) or earlier. With Sen. Obama’s geyser of cash fueling an unprecedented advertising and campaign appearance onslaught, he made those three red states competitive. So much for assumptions! As I just noted, it benefits all of us when votes are not taken for granted. That’s true on a voting bloc level as well. Democrats should target Christian conservatives and other values voters. Republicans should target black and Jewish voters. Democrats should target married couples (among whom they perform poorly), and Republicans should target single college graduates.
I read an interesting article about Ohio voters, who put up with constant ads on tv and radio, mailings, phone calls, and volunteers knocking on doors almost daily. They’re exhausted! The media in Ohio and other swing-state markets are counting the money as campaign funds flow in for more advertising. Onslaught, assault, wall-to-wall—they all apply, and most voters in swing states will probably be glad when it’s over on Tuesday.

True blue states

After a political discussion with a friend in California (oh, fine, Anne Marie), I realized California and Illinois have something in common: their recent electoral history. They both gave Ronald Reagan strong majorities in 1980 and 1984. They both barely went for Vice President George H.W. Bush in his 1988 run for president. By 1992, both states were leaning “blue,” voting strongly for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. The next two presidential elections weren’t any different, and that isn’t expected to change this year. So it’s been 20 years--a generation of Democratic victories in two states once considered swing states and major electoral prizes for a presidential candidate.

What happened?

If the Republican Party can figure that out, it might have a chance at recapturing Congress and rebranding itself instead of entering the next decade as the embarrassment it is now. If McCain wins on Tuesday, I don’t think the GOP will care about its underlying problems. That would be a missed opportunity.

We all suffer when there’s no territorial competition. The GOP conceding the Northeast Corridor and the Midwest (except for Indiana) hurts that party and us. The Democrats conceding the South hurts that party and us. I would add the West as well (Mississippi River to California’s eastern border), but the Democrats are now making a play for that region. So good for them.

What is the deal with Kissimmee?

And please don’t ask me how to pronounce it. I’m not sure whether the emphasis is on the first or second syllable. Anyway, when it’s not an automatic stop for presidential candidates—and I’m still trying to figure that out—it’s mostly notable for having dozens of hotels that provide easy access to nearby Walt Disney World. So Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) stopped by with former President Bill Clinton earlier in the week, which I noted because the Chicago Tribune reporters accompanying the campaign wrote that Clinton won Florida twice. (Thanks to me, a correction appears in today’s Oct. 31 Tribune on page 2.) Now I come across a Tribune photo of Gov. Sarah Palin (R.-Alaska) appearing at a campaign rally in Kissimmee. I guess one explanation of Kissimmee’s prominence is that it lies along the I-4 corridor, considered the swing part of the most populous swing state. BTW I-4 is an “interstate” highway that is entirely in Florida. Odd.

Prop 2 wants Calif. farm animals to have more room

A few days ago, I wrote a critical item on Michael Savage and his radio show, The Savage Nation, because I felt he had descended into demagoguery as far as the presidential campaign was concerned. On yesterday evening’s show (Nov. 29), he spent a lot of time talking about Proposition 2, a ballot measure in California easily overlooked due to the hotly-contested Proposition 8. Prop 2 requires that farm animals have more room in their confinement, and Savage was very, very supportive. He even cited the kosher laws as early anti-cruelty measures. (He also incorrectly stated the Torah’s ban on pork is strictly for food-poisoning/trichniosis concerns. No, it isn’t. But that’s another matter.) So I’m glad he stuck his neck out for animal rights here on a measure the Big Farm lobby strongly opposes. Betsy, Anne Marie, and Susan: this is far down your ballot, but don’t forget!

Bill Clinton hits Central Florida with Sen. Obama

There was an article in this morning's Chicago Tribune (Oct. 30) about former President Bill Clinton appearing with Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) in Kissimmee, Fla., a town full of hotels just a few miles from Walt Disney World. The article mentioned that Clinton won Florida twice. I thought that was incorrect, and here is my email exchange with one of the article's authors.

Dear Reporters:

I just read your report about former President Clinton campaigning with Sen. Obama in Florida. I believe a review of state electoral victories would reveal Clinton won Florida in 1996, beating former Sen. Bob Dole, but not in 1992, losing to President George H.W. Bush. Your article said Clinton won Florida twice.

Great report otherwise.


--Ken SalkoverRE: Clinton won Fla. once
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:40 -0500
From: MDorning@tribune.com
To: ks445@hotmail.com; McCormickJ@tribune.com

Thanks for your note. I erred in writing that story on deadline and failed to double-check. You are indeed right. And I have set in motion the internal process to publish a correction. Apologies for the mistake. And thanks for taking the time and attention to so thoughtfully read our work.

Mike Dorning.

Sleeping at work

One point on which my wife and I wholeheartedly agreed: every workplace should have a facility where employees can bust a nap. I remember reading a New York magazine article in April, 2007, as we sat at the departure gate at O’Hare waiting to board our flight to LaGuardia. The article was about a growing trend among companies to offer in-house napping facilities. It pointed out the high number of employees—I don’t remember the statistic—who unintentionally fall asleep at their desks. It said that eighty percent of employees who do nap at work are forced to do so in their cars because there are no sanctioned napping facilities at their offices. (Costanza credenza, anyone?) This isn’t always feasible; either there is no car, or the outdoor temperature/sunlight combination does not allow for comfort without running the engine.

With each new position, I have often struggled to adjust to the hours or commute time, with sometimes disastrous results—falling asleep in meetings (like President Reagan obm) or in front of other people. At two positions, my solution was napping in vacant offices. And at one of those, I had a lot of company! I certainly cannot admit to napping at my current position, but I will concede being very sleepy for two reasons: staying up late working on pressing legal matters; and getting to work very early to make up hours lost to yontif and shabbos. Waking up at 5:10am to begin work at 7am is quite a shock to the system.

Workplaces should offer separate-gender sleeping facilities for those who choose to lie down during their lunch hours.