Thank you for the link. The attempt at journalism (using the term journalism in an extremely loose manner) was difficult to plow through. Thanks to the Chief for the tie in to your analysis. The Chief’s rendering was also difficult to read (due to formatting issues) but Chief meant well, and it was greatly appreciated. No harm, no foul. ;o)
I can only read and comprehend so many of these BHO-BC threads and subset posts, before my mind begins hurting.
LOL sorry about the formatting I take the easy way with a gibbled arm. As I mentioned last night I shattered my upper right arm and take as many shortcuts as possible including formatting!(I am right handed) My mind is usually running about 50 miles per hour as I remember what I am talking about and trying to convey it to others. A teacher I am not!
Chief likes it because he is more familiar and involved in the story. For someone else, less familiar, less invested, it would be difficult to follow the phrase by phrase scrutiny. It is a thing rarely seen done. If I had to teach it to a class of older high schoolers or adults it would take at least an hour, maybe two periods. With college students it would depend on the class, might be able to get through it in less than a period.
The point is that the article being analyzed is itself suspect for being an attempt to cloud some issues. To make it seem that the issue has been considered and resolved, when actually there are many questions open.
Did Obama'a mom actually ever live with Obama Sr.? That's one question. Were they ever married? That's a second question. How can we resolve such questions?
I don't know, but I do know that the reporter did not resolve them, and by reading the article carefully it is seen that the reporter was gathering facts that opened up more questions, yet was reluctant to admit that facts did not fit a simple narrative and were becoming incoherent with the marriage narrative.