No, the agency acted faithfully as Obama's agent and put out a story Obama and they thought would enhance interest in him and sell books for them and him.
If Miriam Goderich had said it was an editing error, a slip of the copy and paste, I might be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But, no, she maintained it was a "fact checking mistake". She lies. She had the real issue in her mind and thus could not bring herself issue a credible lie, editing errors and facts being separate mental categories, so she settled for fact-check error. LOL! Stoopid bitch! As if she ever checked any facts! LOL!
Obviously, the only reason it ever came up was that Obama aspired to higher office than Mayor of Da Sh¡tty of Chicagah, and Adjunct Con Law Professor Obama knew about Section 1 of Article 2 of that document he loathes. Up until that time, no problem: being a Kenyan immigrant with a compelling bio who is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" was kind of neat, right?
Of course, Obama's lie in the book blurb notwithstanding, the evidence is quite overwhelming that he was no immigrant, that he was born in Honolulu and thus is eligible to elected to the highest office by the clueless Sheeple of our land. The Constitution only requires that he be a natural born citizen. It doesn't bar frauds or traitors from the highest office. It's only a Constitution, after all. Deciding who is a traitor and who should be President is up to the Sheeple.
What exactly are you suggesting? That when the agent approached Obama to pitch the book she wanted him to write, she had no idea where he was born? And Obama opted out of the blue to lie about his birth place? Why would he do that? The agent was already anxious to represent him. In the event he had no idea what happens to authors who sell themselves on the basis of a blatant and obvious lie, the agent would have told him. It’s not pretty. The deception may, and often does, hold for a while [the length of time depending on how easily discovered the truth happens to be]. It doesn’t hold up indefinitely, however, and when the truth hits the fan the author is tainted for life—and his/her agents don’t fare a lot better.
You really think Obama wanted to begin his post-Harvard career being known as the ‘lying fraudulent author’ he would certainly have been exposed to be? That was his idea of a career enhancer?
Your theory isn’t practical. Either Obama had a suicide wish, career/future-wise, or he was willing, back in the day, to tell the truth. No third option.
Though the agency can still be acting faithfully (i.e., acting in Obama's interest with no conscious knowledge of impropriety) while nonetheless making an inadvertent mistake.
But, no, she maintained it was a "fact checking mistake"
It that necessarily different in this context from "proofing error?" The agency put together a short bio to include (along with a host of other author bios) in a pamphlet to distribute to some publishing companies. It's dubious to assert "born in Kenya" came from Obama, given the year prior he quite obviously told the New York Times and Washington post he was born in Hawaii. (4Zoltan puts forth the rather plausible theory that the agency simply conflated the idea of "son of a father born in Kenya.")
But "fact checking mistake" and "we didn't carefully proof-read what we wrote" seem about the same thing here.
Of course, Obama's lie in the book blurb notwithstanding, the evidence is quite overwhelming that he was no immigrant, that he was born in Honolulu and thus is eligible to elected to the highest office by the clueless Sheeple of our land.
I've been challenging the tunnel-vision approach taken by some here where conclusions about the agency bio are made in complete disregard for the other evidence on point to the birth question. Your comment here saves me yet another post on that point.