That has been a reasonable position all along.
However, we havenow been through multiple forged Kenyan birth certs, the fact that "Obama's Grandma says he was born in Kenya" was actually a distortion from a spliced-up interview, attempts to nitpick the birth cert # that actually only confirms its a valid one, simliar critiques of newspaper announcements that have actually confirmed the validity of them. So we need to get back to a simple "the official story is considered valid based on evidence thus far until a shred of *real* evidence to the contrary crops up." None has.
It would be great to see the original birth certificate, but we need to get off the narrative that lack of it indicates a deep dark secret or a foreign birth. A lot of people have invested a lot of energy into proving or showing Obama wasn't born in Honolulu, yet every additional piece of data has ended up confirming the 'official story' that he was indeed born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. It remains just a likelihood, but is more of a '99.99%' likelihood than a 50/50 one.
Why should the “tweeted and blogged” argument apply only in Bummer’s favor?