goldengrain -- perhaps, I can help you find a way out of your confusion? I certainly hope so! I enjoy being helpful! (actually, it's also my job! ;);) ) Ok...first of all, the Sunday night C2C was not a pre-election show, per se. Oh, sure -- Sunday night was before the election. However, George certainly didn't schedule the show as a special. He'll be doing that show on Tuesday night, once the election is over. I do hope that clears things up for you, a little. Also, George actually performed a service to his country by having Phil Berg on, again. Because, Berg isn't suing over some minor issue, my friend. In fact, his fervor emanates from within the very core of our great country's most sacred foundation -- The Constitution of these United States! So, it's likely that you missed that important point, having tuned-in late. :? Also, I wouldn't want you to remain confused about a couple of other items you've mentioned -- 1) the official position of C2C involves an open invitation to any representatives of the opposition, in order to refute the guest's claims. So, had the Obama Campaign wanted to comment on Phil Berg's statements, they needed only to call-in, and make their wishes known. Obviously, no one from the Obama team did so. But, I'd imagine they're pretty busy, too. Of course, Berg originally filed back in August, so....Obama has had a few months to produce his authentic birth certificate, and put the whole question to rest. And, I'm not usually a suspicious person. But, doesn't that seem a little odd to you, too? 2) Quoting "factcheck" or "snopes" is much like quoting "wikipedia." Those who've studied these sites, as have I, (again, it's my job! :) ) know better than to consider the bulk of their material as fact-based. For instance, the full name of the former is "The Annenberg Political Fact Check." And, anyone who's paying attention would also know that "factcheck" was orginally funded through the efforts of a particular Senator from Illinois, back in 2005. You've never heard of the Chicago Annenberg Project? Well, it shouldn't surprise you that big bucks are often used to buy big favors! So, why would "factcheck" bite the very hand that's been feeding it $$, all along??? Then too, it's certainly no secret that the Mikkelson's are having similar difficulties suppressing their own political biases, at their beloved "snopes." Too bad they've not formatted their site to accept public comment on the articles they post there. I suppose it's because they're not too keen on honest criticism....or perhaps -- just honesty, in general. At any rate, it's becoming more and more apparent, within the internet community, that neither "factcheck," nor "snopes" are disseminating anything other than biased opinions. So, to use them as a resource -- especially, for something as important as legally qualifying a prospective U.S. President... is certainly a serious mistake! Again, I hope this was helpful to you!