Whoopi Goldberg | 08/28/2008 5:00 pm

Whoopi Goldberg on Barack Obama's Nomination

Tonight, of course, is Barack Obama accepting his place in history as the first African American nominee. I think it’s very interesting that the other side has sort of been saying, "Oh, he’s such a rock star." Of course, he’s in a giant stadium with pillars that look like they come directly out of antebellum — the antebellum south you look at where he’s going to be talking. In a funny way it looks like the opening of "Gone With the Wind," but the Republicans sort of equate this with a rock star’s status. This is a status that they actually applied to Ronald Regan. Remember, he’s the great orator. He could mesmerize crowds and of course we’ve placed this directly in our own hands, in our own laps, because we don’t want a president who doesn’t have that feel. Because we want people to come out of the woodwork wherever our president goes, and here’s what he has to say. We want him to be good-looking. We want him to be articulate.

They were all over Obama today because, if he’s not on the teleprompter, he’s not as smooth. Well, my gosh, if I’m not up on a teleprompter on "The View" I’m not as smooth. No one is as smooth as they are with a teleprompter, so let’s hope John McCain adapts to that teleprompter, because he could use some help. It’s a shame no one ever said to George W., "Hey, man. Try a teleprompter or something."

I’m listening to all of this and I’ve seen some of the attack ads that are coming out and I am wondering if the Democratic attack ads are going to be the same as the Republican attack ads, showing the various other people who ran for president, talking about the person who gets the nomination, which we’re assuming is going to be John McCain on the Republican side. Can you imagine — all the talking heads like Rudy Giuliani talking about John McCain, how he’s not a real republican, and all these other guys who were running around, talking about how John is not a real Republican? And he doesn’t hold the Republican values? This is going to be a riot.

It’s a kissy-face-fest whenever you do the conventions so, of course, the Clintons have gotten on board and they took care of business last night. I thought Bill was extraordinary and Hillary was extraordinary. I have to say, I tip my hat to Hillary Clinton because one of the things that didn’t happen during the campaigns –because no one really stopped and said out loud, "Is this a little femophobic?" (That’s what I call it when people go after you because of your gender.) They couldn’t go after Barack for his color because, my goodness, that would have totally rocked the boat, so everybody felt free to go after Hillary for her gender and no one really talked about it. They talked about it a little at the end of her campaign but not a whole lot, but I think she pulled it together and it will be interesting to see if people can tell the truth — why they’re afraid of Barack Obama.

Are they afraid because they think, "Oh, my goodness. I’ve seen black men in rap videos and how do I know he’s not going to turn into that?" I know that sounds silly but I’ve heard stranger things. I’ve heard John McCain say he’s not like us. Well, I don’t know how he’s different except that he’s black. And of course some of his ideas were the same as Barack’s ideas, but John has changed his mind on things like choice. At one point he thought it was a woman’s right to choose what she was going to do. He personally didn’t feel that it was a decision that he should be making. He thought a woman should have the right to choose. Of course, now he’s changed all of that. He once thought that illegal immigrants should be dealt with with dignity and clarity and figure out a way to make it work for everybody, but no more. He’s taken up that other banner. I guess he’s going to start building a up a new wall. It will be interesting to see how tonight goes and what the future brings.

Read more about: Barack Obama, convention, John McCain, News, Politics

179 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Tiresome, isn’t it.

By Mugsy Peabody on 08/29/2008 5:26 am

e-mail alert

Ms. King, How sad to read such a comment in this day and age.

By Brooklyn Gal on 08/28/2008 8:34 pm

e-mail alert

Facts? According to his birth certificate: Born in Hawaii two years after it joined the United States, making him a citizen under section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Mother’s race: Caucasian Father’s race: African His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British. According to the CIA World Factbook, Kenya (as of 21Aug2008) is in Africa. A US citizen with African ancestry is considered African-American. Goats are not traditionally considered slaves. Perhaps you are suggesting that his grandfather was the servant of British slavers? Helen, I feel confident that you do, indeed, disappoint Whoopi.

By Zera Lee on 08/29/2008 1:53 am

e-mail alert

John McCain, on the other hand, is not a citizen according to section 1 of the 14th Amendment. He was born in Panama while his father served in the Navy. Yes, he deserves to be able to run, but the issue requires a determination by the courts not a resolution from a Senate committee. Thousands of children have been born overseas when their parents served in the military, and they are told they must challenge in the courts to qualify. Seems elitist to me. Peace and grace

By beth willis on 08/29/2008 12:41 pm

e-mail alert

Good point, beth. I guess I always assumed that someone born to a parent who was an American citizen would automatically be a citizen too. But I can see how starting life with a foreign birth certificate would inject a bureaucratic gauntlet into the process of proving US citizenship. You are quite right about the courts too (I hope). I am not sure what resolution you are refering to (I have missed so much over the years), but taking that route (especially while in Congress) would go past elitist and into misuse of power for personal gain. imo. By my interpretation, “natural born citizen” means citizen from birth as opposed to naturalization.

By Zera Lee on 08/29/2008 6:04 pm

e-mail alert

Zera Lee, My daughter was born in the Azores, Portugal, when her dad was teaching for the Department of Dependents Schools..I gave birth in a military hospital on the Air Force Base. At that time, I remembered that george Romney had considered running for president, and he was not born in the continental United States. He changed his mind, but I wrote to our congressman, Jim Wright, who generously wrote back and confirmed that the issue would have to be challenged in the courts because the definition as used in the Constitution was not clearly delineated. That was in 1978. Of course, Goldwater ran when Arizona was a territory, and no one questioned it. On the internet, I found that Senator McCaskill from Missouri thought McCain’s situation was a travesty because he was a war hero, and she thought something should be done immediately…….but that was just last spring. A court process would take years. The elitism comes in to me in that this issue existed 4 years ago when McCain ran and the republicans did nothing about it…they ‘assumed’. I’d never want my daughter to be president, but she should have the same rights as Senator McCain. She is an American citizen, not naturalized…all dependent children are. My understanding is that there are law suits in place in California. McCain is a war hero and I respect that, but to cavalierly pass a resolution to make him eligible, to me, shows that there was doubt of his eligility. In addition, if the issue is not specifically decided, we may me opening the possibility of anyone to run for president. I never want a ‘Kissinger’ in the White House. I believe it was the Senate Judiciary Committee that passed the resolution. I’ve contacted all the politicians I can and never received a response except for the fact that they received my inquiry. I’ve written on this site as well. Thank you for your response. Peace and grace

By beth willis on 08/29/2008 6:30 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks for sharing your story, Beth. Sounds like you’ve had an interesting life. I lived in Michigan when George Romney was governor, the auto industry was healthy, and I did not know mitt about politics. My aunt taught children on a military base in Iran in the days of the Shah, but we’ve all been born in the lower 48 for generations - which is why I never really thought about the finer points of citizenship. The things we take for granted… I can see how a Senate resolution might be able to bestow naturalized citizenship on a foreign national, but I do not see how it could possibly be used to bestow elegability for President. They could go directly to the Supreme Court, but only the judiciary can make a determination under the law (other than impeachment). The casual disregard that Republicans show for rule-of-law is not just disturbing, but threatens the Republic, the very country they claim to put first. I thought this had been settled, but now I feel the need to investigate further myself. Peace and Grace, Beth Willis, for you and yours.

By Zera Lee on 08/31/2008 3:16 am

e-mail alert

Zera Lee, thank you for your response. The latest information I have found on the internet indicates that Senator Leahy and Senator McCaskill presented the resolution to the Senate and it was passed unanimously. However, the wording says that all children born of active duty military would be eligible. That still leaves children of teachers,employed by the Department of Defense ineligible. The resolution is “not binding” whatever that means. But you are correct, this is a matter of judicial interpretation. Thanks for your kind words. Please let me know what you find out. Peace and grace

By beth willis on 08/31/2008 11:30 am

e-mail alert

My dear Beth Willis, have I got a tale for you. I have heard so many vague or contradictory descriptions of pending laws, from the media as well as politicians, that I have learned to go right to the horse’s mouth for the facts:

From the Congressional Record (Senate - February 28, 2008):

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

…

By Mrs. MCCASKILL:

S . 2678 . A bill to clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

…

Senate Bill S2678 status

Title: A bill to clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President. Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 2/28/2008) Latest Major Action: 2/28/2008 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Senate Bill S2678 Text

S 2678 IS 110th CONGRESS 2d Session

S. 2678

To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 28, 2008 Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.

This particular item is a Senate Bill, not a resolution. It was introduced to the Senate by Sen. McCaskill and approved unanimously on Feb. 28, 2008 then passed to Sen. Leahy’s Judiciary committee.

In my opinion, the bill is poorly worded. For one thing, it does not specify location - it redundantly includes children born on US soil. (harmless) It does, however, only include children of citizens serving in the armed forces. It does not include the diplomatic corp, citizens working abroad, exchange students, simple travelers, Doctors without Borders, the Peace Corp, well you get the idea. It could also be narrowly interpreted to mean that the mother has to be the one serving in the armed forces. It avoids the ‘natural born’ language at the heart of the confusion. As a clarifying law, it leaves much unclarified. It also fails to help US citizens abroad in general.

This bill, if enacted, would direct the courts to interpret the Constitution in a particular manor. I have to investigate further to see if this is Constitutional. Currently, this bill has no legal standing - it is a work in progress.

It was later returned to the Senate by Sen. McCaskill in the form of Senate Resolution 511

[110th CONGRESS Senate Bills] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: sr511ats.txt] [Agreed to Senate] 110th CONGRESS 2d Session S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

April 30, 2008 Considered and agreed to RESOLUTION Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

This is not a law, it is a Senate Resolution. There did not appear to be a corresponding House Resolution.

Simple resolutions are designated H.Res. and S.Res., followed by a number. A simple resolution addresses matters entirely within the prerogative of one house, such as revising the standing rules of one Chamber. Simple resolutions are also used to express the sentiments of a single house, such as offering condolences to the family of a deceased member of Congress, or it may give “advice” on foreign policy or other executive business. Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.

A resolution is the equivalent of an op-ed piece. All this means is that the Senate will not challenge McCain’s right to be President. It does not bestow such a right, and I suppose a later Senate could challenge his Presidency. The House of Representatives is not part and party to this resolution.

I started tracking through the history of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, 1816, 1824, 1934, et. al.) when it occurred to me that others had already followed that trail. I also gained new respect for how much effort goes into researching the law. It also occurred to me that those who had followed the trail concluded that McCain has not established clear eligibility to be President, thus the Congressional actions above.

I suspect that S 2678 got hung up in committee due to questions of Constitutionality. S.Res.511 suggests to me that nobody wants the backlash of challenging McCain’s eligibility to be President. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more.

My conclusion is that: 1) McCain has not followed the proper procedure to establish his eligibility. At this point, he cannot go through the process without admitting ineligibility - which would make him look the fool. 2) Challenging his eligibility in court would give him the mechanism for establishing his eligibility. Any challenge would ultimately look foolish, even though it would force him to adhere to the law. 3) There is a lot of special privilege being thrown around here.

All McCain has to do is ignore the law and act offended, and he will successfully evade the requirements of the law. That feels like 4 more years of Bush lawlessness to me. I would also add that, from a technical standpoint, the above legislation sucks. Given the number of lawyers and the years of experience in the Senate, I expect a much higher standard than this shows me. Too much marketing, not enough R&D. “Good luck and good night.”

By Zera Lee on 09/04/2008 3:29 pm

e-mail alert

Zera Lee, you are magnificent. I could not seem to get myself to your level of research, but sit here now with tears in my eyes that this issue exists—I continue to label it elitism, frustrated that I seemed to be tilting at windmills. This is a huge injustice for all the reasons you list, and now we have the documentation. More later, and thank you so much for your due diligence. I had asked a lawyer friend of mine last spring, and she said, “No they can’t do that. Why didn’t the damn republicans take care of this.” Actually, McCain has two Constitutional lawyers working on his defense. Where Is Walter?? Peace and grace

By beth willis on 09/04/2008 4:33 pm

e-mail alert

Thank you, beth. I believe that serious questions demand serious answers. I have gotten tired of he said, she said, we said, they said, half-said, unsaid, sound bite “explanations”. While all answers are responses, not all responses are answers - and in these times, we need real answers. I was reluctant to post such a large message, but this had not been resolved for so long that I wanted to put the information out where everyone could see it and make up their own minds. To be fair, the evidence on court requirements is mostly “anecdotal” and “circumstantial”. But it is also reasonable, believable, and uncontradicted. Otherwise, I would have to dig further as a matter of due diligence. My research did get far enough to find where evidence and court juristiction began. To think that it all started with word-of-honor… Walter? I am really missing Walter Cronkite on the job.

By Zera Lee on 09/06/2008 5:19 pm

e-mail alert

Zera Lee, I hope that you do not mind that I e-mailed your information to Mugsy. She seems like a person who would care about this issue. She will get back to me and either post here or I will let you know. You have my greatest respect. Peace and grace

By beth willis on 09/06/2008 6:28 pm