Now, I'll be up front and say that I think McCain SHOULD be eligible, and that it'd basically be ridiculous if he weren't. With that said, the NY Times has an article about whether the fact that he was born in Panama makes him ineligible to be President:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
From the article:
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
Apparently, the issue has never really been resolved as to the definition of "natural born". I had always learned in school that it meant "Born in the US", but it's clearly a bit muddier than that.
I'd almost like to see it brought to court just so that the issue can be resolved decisively (and, like I said, I think McCain is probably eligible). What does everyone else think?