Except that in Obama's case, it impacted directly on the perception of his legitimacy to hold the highest US public office.
I'd argue it's the same situation, in that both the Palin birthers and Obama birthers are challenging their target's credibility in public office. The Obama birthers happen to have latched onto something that, if true, would legally disqualify him from the presidency, but the true goal is to suggest that he's actively deceiving the electorate and is undeserving of his base's support. That's the goal of the Palin birthers--to deal a mortal blow to her political career by suggesting she not only lied to the nation about her pregnancy but so in a half-assed, incompetent manner. George W. Bush's alleged absence from National Guard duty? Same thing.
Whether any of these claims are true, have merit, or warrant a response is not the issue. The bottom line is that it the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. That's why these are all still fringe theories, because years later the only "evidence" in each case is a supposed lack of response/cooperation from the subject. That's where we start getting into "If he has nothing to hide he should answer the charges" territory, which has not been a good place to go, historically.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 04:27 pm (UTC)I'd argue it's the same situation, in that both the Palin birthers and Obama birthers are challenging their target's credibility in public office. The Obama birthers happen to have latched onto something that, if true, would legally disqualify him from the presidency, but the true goal is to suggest that he's actively deceiving the electorate and is undeserving of his base's support. That's the goal of the Palin birthers--to deal a mortal blow to her political career by suggesting she not only lied to the nation about her pregnancy but so in a half-assed, incompetent manner. George W. Bush's alleged absence from National Guard duty? Same thing.
Whether any of these claims are true, have merit, or warrant a response is not the issue. The bottom line is that it the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. That's why these are all still fringe theories, because years later the only "evidence" in each case is a supposed lack of response/cooperation from the subject. That's where we start getting into "If he has nothing to hide he should answer the charges" territory, which has not been a good place to go, historically.