As soon as you point out another president that went around pushing the idea he was born in a foreign country and had a foreign father.
You get right on that, okay?
I predict a fail on your part again, and another round of my mocking you.
Well you haven't been right yet, but it's rather obvious that that doesn't impede you.
In 1990, the year before that bio blurb was created, Obama told the NYT, WashPo, Chicago Tribune, and L.A. Times that he was born in Hawaii. This was when he was interviewed upon becoming President of the HLR. So in 1990 it was reported nationally (these were top circulation papers then) that Obama was "born in Hawaii."
Do you seriously think it credible that Obama the next year sought to get some advantage out of stating a Kenya birth? Anyone doing a Lexis/Nexis search would find the immediate problem.
No, rather this bio was one of about 80 which the literary agent put in a pamphlet (it wasn't on the book cover or in Obama's book, contrary to frequent Birther claims) which was then circulated only to an handful of potential publishers.
Nationwide media versus a pamphlet sent to some publishers. Can you grasp the difference in import? Yet you seriously think Obama wrote that bio and thought it somehow advantageous when the prior year he had told those major newspapers he was born in Hawaii? Duh. Understood in context, the explanation that the lit. agent cobbled this together and didn't check it carefully makes sense. And it existed in obscurity until the internet age came in full and the agency uploaded things onto a webpage.
Though on second thought, this is much like your reliance on Samuel Roberts, another obscure source that no one cited until Google Books made him discoverable.
Yet get a point for foolish consistency.