The image of the certificate, made available on the White House website (PDF), appears at the bottom of this post.

Following the document’s release, President Obama held a press conference to address the “birther” conspiracy. He told the White House press corps that the birther movement amused and puzzled him, but that the media’s attention on birthers in the midst of the debate over the budget moved his administration to address the matter so that the national conversation might move on to more substantial issues. Obama said that the nation had no hope of taking on the very real challenges facing the country if it continued to be distracted by “sideshows and carnival barkers.”

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” the president said. “We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do.”

President Obama also acknowledged that the issue would remain alive for the most hardcore conspiracy theorists in spite of the freely available long-form birth certificate (his short-form birth certificate (PDF) was made available nearly three years ago).

Indeed, birthers on rightwing forums, maintaining the significance of a meaningless distinction between a “certificate of live birth” (the term used by the state of Hawaii) and a birth certificate, have already dismissed the new copy as either a forgery or as evidence that Obama doesn’t satisfy the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution as part of the eligibility requirements for American presidents. A sample comment, from the user “sten” on FreeRepublic.com:

so now we know his father was not an American citizen when 0bama was born

on to the next issue.

how could he be a natural born citizen… if both parents are not American citizens

This muddled take on natural born citizenship is characteristic of the birther movement.  As most Americans well know (and have recently expressed opposition to), citizenship is granted to anyone born in the U.S. While the term “natural born citizen” is not specifically defined in the original Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

If the recount process and subsequent litigation drag out through the beginning of 2011, current Gov. Tim Pawlenty will remain in office until a winner is certified. After Republicans gained control of both the state House and Senate on Tuesday, a prolonged recount battle and continual lawsuits could play to the GOP’s favor, allowing the legislature to pass conservative bills with a friendly face in the governor’s mansion before Dayton could possibly take the seat.

Pawlenty’s office did not return requests for comment on the article, but the governor addressed questions from the state press corps late Thursday afternoon. He once again affirmed he will not abdicate his role if no winner is declared by Jan. 3 — the date when the next governor is currently scheduled to assume office — but stayed mostly mum on the details of how he would operate if that situation occurs.

“In the event that it goes beyond Jan. 3, and again I hope it does not, then I will address matters as they arise and as they need to be addressed but obviously we will just be addressing those things as they need to be addressed and as they arise,” Pawlenty said in his opening remarks at the press conference. He continued to use the same language in response to most of the questions posed to him. He continually hedged and never satisfyingly defined what he meant with his most frequently used term, “arise.”

“If an emergency were to take place for example and I needed to call in the national guard I would certainly do that, or respond to an emergency. If something were presented to me that required action or lack of action or a signature or a decision, I would certainly undertake that,” Pawlenty said.

So Pawlenty himself might not push new legislation — at least not publicly — during this potential period of limbo, but a newly empowered Republican majority might not hold the same reservations. Based on Pawlenty’s statement on signatures and decisions, it seems he has not ruled out signing new bills that come across his desk. The conservative legislature could become proactive, passing numerous conservative bills that a Gov. Dayton would be inclined to veto.

Even if the House and Senate decide to wait until the recount concludes to begin crafting their legislation, Pawlenty would quickly face key decisions if his stay in the governor’s mansion continues through January. The governor must present a budget in early February, and as part of a deal between Republicans and Democrats during the last legislative session, there is a Jan. 15 deadline for the next governor to decide whether to opt-in to an early Medicaid enrollment program with the federal government. That choice would fall to Pawlenty if litigation prolongs the recount.

At the press conference, the governor reasserted his opposition to the program, indicating that the state would not accept the funds if he remains in office. “I’ve already made that decision as for me and my administration and as long as I’m here that will remain,” Pawlenty said. He pointed out that despite the current deadline, the legislative body has the option of changing it.

“It’s in the hands of the next legislature and the next governor to alter that in any way that they want,” he said. However, a Republican controlled House and Senate would be unlikely to allow any governor to have that choice again.

While Pawlenty was less than clear about how he will act if his tenure is extend, the governor did clearly state his preference for the recount situation to be resolved by the beginning of 2011. “I earnestly, genuinely, sincerely hope this is resolved by Jan. 3. It is not in anyone’s best interest to have this spill over and have a holdover situation. I hope that doesn’t happen, but in the unlikely event that it does, I will fulfill the responsibilities as required by the constitution. Not because I want to, but because I am required to,” Pawlenty said.

Prolonging his stay in office may be beneficial to implementing policies favored by state Republicans, but it could also interfere with the timing of Pawlenty’s probable 2012 presidential bid.

Whether Pawlenty gets his wish of leaving office in two months will be decided by the state parties, and whether they choose to file lawsuits challenging the results of the recount. On Friday, the secretary of state released a proposed time line for any possible recount. The process would begin on Nov. 29, and results would be settled by Dec. 14. That would leave little time for a gubernatorial transition, but would still allow Pawlenty to leave office on schedule. But with such high stakes in the race, either party is likely to extend the recount process through litigation, dragging the ordeal into 2011.

MPR captured video of the whole press conference:

Pawlenty preser on transition from tommy scheck on Vimeo.

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter for The American Independent.

1. Reduce the federal deficit

2. Promote a clean energy economy

3. Make sure our children are the best educated in the world.

No mention of cap-and-trade, no mention of immigration reform. Pushing health care reform when he had a large majority in both chambers made sense strategically. Pushing education reform and investments in clean energy makes sense now that he doesn’t.

Co-founder Mark Meckler tried to pre-empt expectations among the faithful that Washington would shrink and the federal deficit would close overnight, instead alluding to a “forty-year plan” that the group was busy working out with its members. The plan, according to Meckler, was a highway with four lanes, only one of which was explicitly political. The other three were educational, judicial and cultural.

“All civilizations and empires have fallen because their cultures became decadent,” Meckler said. “We need to lift up conservative culture, family values and wholesome things by supporting conservative musicians, writers, artists and producers.”

As far as immediate steps, however, the group’s other co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin, announced that the Patriots would be hosting a freshman orientation, to which they were inviting incoming legislators of both parties. “If they uphold our values, we’ll give them the political backing to stand up to insiders in Washington,” Martin said. “If they don’t pay attention to that pressure, we’ll be back in two years to do it all over again and get people who will do it right.”

Martin’s comments illustrate the intense pressure that freshman GOP legislators, and really all Republican House legislators for that matter, will face upon taking office. With Democrats still in control of the Senate and the White House, they’ll have to compromise in order to see any part of their agenda enacted, but in doing so they’ll risk facing the wrath of the groups that put them in office.

Meckler underscored the complicated Tea Party attitude toward compromise when he reminded GOP House Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the “American people are not in a flexible mood,” but told President Obama that the group is “happy to work with [him]” to the extent that he supports the values of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.”

One might reasonably argue that the president is already a supporter of all three concepts, but the Tea Party Patriots certainly aren’t intending to imply as much. Instead, the group is essentially willing to work with Obama to the extent that he is willing to enact exactly the agenda — repealing federal health care reform, cutting taxes — that the group demands. It’s a strange vision of how politics works, but it makes sense if you are convinced that your vision represents the dead center of American politics.

“Americans know that the center of American politics is with fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets,” Martin concluded, “and we encourage all parties to move to the center.”

Council of Economic Advisers: Obama formally announced that Austan Goolsbee, an economist currently on the three-person council (also an advocate of letting Chrysler fail, a skeptic of business tax cuts’ impact, and a funny guy), will become the head of the CEA. Christina Romer, the prior head, returned to the West Coast earlier this month. The president said that Goolsbee will provide “continuity” within the White House economic team, meaning no big shakeups within the administration.

In reply, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) tweeted, “Instead of ‘continuity’ w/ Goolsbee, President Obama should appoint someone who has actually created jobs in the real world.”

Things are still bad: Obama said outright that Americans are “frustrated” with how the government has handled the recession, and admitted that the recovery has been “painfully slow.” Still, he praised the administration’s efforts and said they made the right choices. He said the White House has “hardly [been] Johnny-come-lately on this issue.”

“It worked,” Obama said of the stimulus. “It just hasn’t done as much as we needed.”

This stimulative proposal is definitely not a stimulus! Someone asked Obama if his recent proposal of business tax cuts is a stimulus. The word apparently polls horribly, as Obama gave a, well, awkward answer.

“There is no doubt that everything we’ve been trying to do, everything we’ve been trying to do, is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. That’s our entire agenda. So I have no problem with people saying the president is trying to stimulate growth and hiring. Isn’t that what I should be doing?”

Probably Warren: Obama called Elizabeth Warren — progressives’ and bookies’ favorite to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — “a dear friend.”

“She’s somebody I’ve known since I was in law school. I have been in conversations with her. She is a tremendous advocate for this idea,” he said. That said, he did not say he would name her to the post, instead saying “I’ll have an announcement soon.” It will be shocking if it is anyone other than her at this point — and the delay has some in Washington a little confused, if not really concerned.

Job growth: Jobs came up often during the 75 minutes of questions. Obama said he is focused on fostering “broad-based job growth and broad-based economic growth” to help all Americans, especially poor Americans. “I am constantly thinking about how do we create ladders for communities and individuals to climb into the middle class.” He said he wants to create a “virtuous cycle” to sweep up all workers and lift wages.

On November: Obama denied that the November midterm elections will be a referendum on the economy, though he did say the choice is between recovery with the Democrats and regressive policies with the Republicans.

Small businesses: The president again pilloried Republicans for holding up a bill of small business tax cuts and funding to gin up lending to small businesses. It has languished in the upper chamber since June. He praised by name Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), retiring this year, for saying he will cross the aisle and vote for the bill, giving it the 60 votes it needs to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Kerry cited the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, issued Monday, as an impetus to spur Congress to action on climate change. “This week, in the EPA’s endangerment finding, the Obama administration sent a clear message about the serious threat climate change poses to public health,” he said. “They also sent a crystal-clear message to Congress: Get moving.”

“I believe our collaboration has presented the best opportunity for our nation to become energy independent since I’ve been in Congress,” added Graham, who has taken heat from conservatives for his cooperation with Democrats on the climate issue. “I believe the green economy is coming. It’s not a question of if it’s going to happen; it’s when it’s going to happen.”

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to move its climate bill, co-sponsored by Kerry and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), to the full Senate on Nov. 5 by a vote of 11-1, with all Republicans boycotting the vote. But by that point, it had already become clear that players outside EPW’s rather liberal Democratic caucus would play a key role in crafting the bill that ultimately received a full Senate vote. On Oct. 10, Kerry and Graham had written an op-ed in The New York Times in which they pledged to work on bipartisan legislation.

Add Lieberman to the mix — a co-sponsor of a previous (failed) bipartisan climate bill and a progressive on environmental issues, despite his growing conservative streak on foreign policy and health care — and you’ve got the tripartisan bill that was unveiled today.

The White House quickly responded to the press conference with praise. “Today, Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham took another significant step in the effort to pass comprehensive energy reform with the release of their legislative framework,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “The President believes this is a positive development towards reaching a strong, unified and bipartisan agreement in the U.S. Senate.”

But a final bill may still be a ways off. “We’d like to underscore the point that the framework we’re releasing today is a starting point for the negotiations going forward,” said Kerry, who hopes to pass climate legislation early next year.

Update: EnviroKnow has the text of the framework here.

I haven’t seen the proposal so I don’t want to express an opinion on something I haven’t seen. What I have said is my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva conventions, and we abide our traditions of rule of law and due process as we vigorously go after terrorists who are doing us harm.

My view is also that nobody is above the law and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing people should be prosecuted just like ordinary citizens. But generally speaking I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

Kudos to The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein for asking the question, but unfortunately, the answer isn’t really any different from what Obama has said before. The president does acknowledge that if evidence comes out of “clear instances of wrongdoing,” — such as, for example, torture and other war crimes — then it will be very difficult for him to refuse to prosecute, or to obstruct a congressional commission.

Leahy’s call today for a commission (though it’s not clear if that commission would have any power to prosecute, or even to recommend prosecution, as Bob Fertik pointed out this afternoon) is just the latest in a growing chorus of members of Congress calling for some sort of investigation of lawbreaking by the Bush administration. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has proposed an investigatory commission in the House, which has about ten co-sponsors. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today came out in favor of Leahy’s proposal, and has made similar statements of his own in the past. And human rights and other advocacy groups have been demanding an investigation for months now; Democrats.com even won enough popular support for the question of whether Obama will appoint a special prosecutor that it topped the change.gov’s list of questions for the president by early January.

All this further ratchets up the pressure on the president to start being more forthcoming with the evidence of what exactly happened over the last eight years. But as the administration’s performance in a federal court of appeals earlier today suggests, the notion that that pressure will produce results anytime soon may be wishful thinking.

After two of President Obama’s prominent nominees withdrew from consideration because of tax concerns, Robert Gibbs took tough questions from the media at his daily press conference. And he didn’t enjoy a bit of it.

At first, he danced around the questions about the Tom Daschle scandal, even pulling a Blagojevich as he changed the subject to the recent peanut butter contamination. “I thought about it the other day when I was making a sandwich for my son,” he said, to the annoyance of the press.

But when the questions about Daschle’s vetting process continued, a visibly impatient Gibbs began shooting them down. “I’m not gonna spend a lot of time up here looking through the rear-view mirror,” he said on three separate occasions.

Finally, he began to take out his frustration on the press. When NBC’s Chuck Todd interrupted him to ask a follow-up question, Gibbs cut him off. “We need lights like the debates,” he said. “At least wait for mine to turn yellow.”

And a minute later: “You know what I’m gonna do from now on? I’m gonna have you write down your questions.”

He did provide a substantial piece of information, though, in confirming that Daschle had withdrawn from both of his prospective posts: secretary of health and human services and White House “health czar.” He also said of the Daschle debacle, “We all take responsibility. The president takes responsibility.”

All in all, not a fun day for Gibbs. Get this man a whiskey.

“The House’s action today was not a surprise; it was a foregone conclusion,” Blagojevich began calmly. “They’ve been talking about doing it for years.”

He went on to describe his accomplishments as governor, and the state House of Representatives’ efforts to hinder his health care reforms. Flanked by a motley crew of Illinoisians who he said “have benefited from some of these initiatives,” he ranted for minutes on end about breast cancer and kidney conditions.

But he made absolutely no mention of the core issue: his attempted sale of Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, as alleged by federal prosecutors. Instead, he seemed to think that he had been impeached for his crusade to save lives.

Over and over, he described his health care programs and asked rhetorically, “Is that an impeachable offense?”

The only moments that did not seem thoroughly surreal came at the end of the press conference — but not the very end, when he once again quoted a British poet to prove some point that eluded me — as he maintained his innocence.

“Let me reassert to all of you once more that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” he insisted. “I’m confident that at the end of the day I will be properly exonerated. In the meantime I have a job to do for the people.”

Go save lives, Blago! Godspeed!

UPDATE: Here’s the video:

A month ago, Vilsack was considered the front-runner for the agriculture position, but in late November he told the Des Moines Register that he had not been contacted by Obama and was “no longer” in the running. Yesterday afternoon, reports surfaced that would indeed take the helm at agriculture.

Rumors of his selection drew criticism from Michael Pollan-mold food policy advocates, who argued that his support for ethanol and corn subsidies — Iowa is the country’s largest grower of corn — would get in the way of significant reform of the Department of Agriculture. Apparently addressing concerns that the pragmatic Vilsack might hew to the status quo, Obama said that “as fiercely protective of family farms and the farm economy as he’s been, he’s also forward-looking” on issues of energy and sustainability.

Salazar, accepting the nomination in a cowboy hat and bolo tie, emphasized the importance of faith to his ancestors, who helped found the city of Santa Fe, and said, “Today, as I stand here, I see their faith shining brightly on Barack Obama.” He laid out some of his priorities, which include reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, improving infrastructure, preserving parks and working with Native American nations.

Salazar’s appointment has been criticized by some liberal Democrats who would have preferred the progressive Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). According to NPR, “The only ones pleased with the rumored pick were those in the agriculture and mining industries. During the campaign these folks, generally, were counted as supporters of Republican John McCain.”

But Obama said that Salazar would be “at the cutting edge of environmental of energy policy so that commercial interests are just one group among many groups.” And liberals may actually stand to gain from his appointment. Salazar, who worked in environmental law before becoming a senator, is considered more progressive on the environment than on other issues. His Senate seat may now be filled by a more liberal legislator.

Once again, Obama could not dodge the Blagojevich scandal when he took questions from reporters. Asked when his report on his team’s interaction with the Illinois governor might be released, he replied that the delay was “a little bit frustrating” to him and assured reporters, “By next week, you guys will have the answers to all your questions.”