'Birthers' no longer 'suckers'?

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal is a smart guy.

Sometimes smart guys outsmart themselves – meaning they think too hard and too long about issues and actually end up taking the counterintuitive, illogical position.

That's just what he did when he joined the rest of the Big Media flock and staked out a position that anyone raising questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate and constitutional eligibility was crazy and barking up the wrong tree.

But now he, too, seems to be coming around – at least conceding that perhaps this issue has gone so viral (58 percent of Americans don't buy Obama's birth story) that it has become a major liability for the White House occupant.

It seems Taranto was surprised to see MSNBC's Chris Matthews cajoling two other lefties the best strategic step for Obama to take now would be to release the darn thing and prove he's a "natural born citizen" of Hawaiian origin. He also noticed new Hawaiian Gov. Neil Abercrombie taking a similar position.

TRENDING: Trump exposed the left's plan to cancel the right

On the edge of a constitutional crisis … learn the facts in WND's comprehensive "Obama Eligibility Primer"

"So we now have three or four liberal Democrats – the 'Hardball' trio and possibly the Aloha governor – taking what had been a birtherian position in favor of releasing the archival certificate," wrote Taranto.

And now here's Taranto's delicate retreat: "Our view has long been that the birthers are playing a sucker's game – that they are aiding Obama by making it easier for his supporters to depict his critics as wackos and divert attention from real questions about his political character. This change in liberal attitudes may be a sign that the game is no longer working to Obama's advantage. It could be that his baneful policies have led more Americans to harbor doubts about his very legitimacy."

Taranto doesn't speak for the Wall Street Journal officially, so when he says "our view," he's really talking about his view. And it certainly sounds like he is now leaving room for the possibility that this issue has become central to Obama's viability as a re-election candidate – which is what I have been saying all along.

But my bigger concerns with this issue have always been moral and legal.

I've been asked many times if I would take such a high-and-mighty advocacy position if George W. Bush were occupying the office with the same questions swirling around. Those questions are usually asked by people who have no familiarity with my work from 2001 through 2008 – when I was persona non grata at the White House for much tougher questions than "where's your birth certificate?"

I simply believe the Constitution should be followed in both letter and spirit.

I also simply believe that journalists are paid to ask tough questions – even unpopular questions – and to seek the truth without fear or favor.

Silly me.

My main concern has never been about what is the best tactical political position to take.

Personally, I think the scandal of Republicans and media types being in lockstep on this issue for so long rivals the scandal of Obama's secrecy and evasiveness.

I fully expected Obama to stonewall on this issue. I didn't expect to be nearly the sole media figure responsible for raising such a fundamental question of national security and constitutional integrity.

But here we are.

The ice is breaking.

It's almost acceptable now, in establishment company, to be curious about the birth certificate.

Amazing.

It's like Jay Leno joked a few weeks back: "Obama is so unpopular now even Democrats are asking for his birth certificate."

Maybe, sooner or later, even some journalists – besides the WND staff – might begin asking.