So in other words, even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt is not good enough for you?
That’s not “in other words”. That’s a completely unrelated set of words.
To give someone the benefit of the doubt, there must be some doubt to begin with. In this case, there isn’t any. It’s just a little ball of right-wing catnip to keep the birthers riled up.
I think that in general agents don’t write blurbs. Agents definitely don’t write PR material. Marketing people at the publishers do. Marketing people are great, but if they make an innocent mistake here or there which sells more copies of the book, they aren’t going to lose a lot of sleep. Obama being born in Kenya might be an assumption based on his father, or it might have been seen as making the book an immigrant experience book, but it isn’t exactly proof of anything.
AH) Choo.
(Stupidity makes me sneeze.)
Having been alive in 1961 (and living in Africa at the end of the year) I can tell you that if I wanted to groom a baby for a future presidency I’d make sure he was mixed race, the child of an iffy African and an atheist left wing mother, and that he would spend his early years in that center of the political network Indonesia. What could go wrong?
There is nothing false about the existance of the pamphlet put out by people working for him or the information that existed for 17 years on the related web-site.
The official WP blogger calls it a “typo” 
But the information contained in the pamphlet is clearly false, which brings us back to it not being newsworthy. Imagine if Bill Clinton’s literary agency had published a blurb that said he was married 3 times. Would it be “news” today?
Technically it would not be a “typo” but rather an “error”.
Which is still a long, long way from “deliberate deception”.
AI) was not a great movie and the ending didn’t make much sense. But it made a lot more sense than treating errors in copy written by a literary agent in the '90s as having greater evidentiary value than contemporaneous documents about Obama’s birth from 1961. I’m not sure even a Birther could construct a logical argument for that.
My point proven once again … your kind is plenty happy letting the fair and balanced media make that call. I’ll bet you fuly approved of the effort and the results of the investigations/reporting done in Alaska three years ago too.
“Your kind”?
“Insanity-challenged”.
I don’t approve of anything done in Alaska. Too cold. Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?
Is your theory here that any time anyone accuses someone of something, the media should uncritically repeat that accusation because that’s the “fair and balanced” thing to do?
No, that’s ridiculous. Only for certain special someones.
“Fair” and “balanced” are not the same thing. “Balance” means bullshit like giving creationism equal time with evolution.
AJ)ax himself would have trouble coming up with more options for this poll once we hit the B’s.
No… unless your theory is that a document produced by a book agent on Obama’s behalf is absolutely not newsworthy. If so, then all bets are off.
No, the “document” is not newsworthy. Under what set of circumstances is it news, exactly? Obama says in the book that he was born in Hawaii. Doesn’t that have much more evidentiary weight than a release written by his literary agent? The agent fucked up, end of story. Even if we’d never gone through the rest of this nonsense about the birth certificate, if a man writes a book and says he was born in one place and his literary agent says he was born somewhere else, who would you figure was probably right?
AK)bar says, “It’s a trap!”
At this point, why are we wasting pixels and energy on such a ludicrous nontroversy? It’s just a picayune distraction from the real battles looming before us.