So, this is what passes for rebuttal....sigh....
You haven't presented a case, a rebuttal is not necessary.
Pointing to the bad penmanship on a college paper and comparing it to an EDITED, PROOF-READ piece of Literature is stupid. There's no more eloquent word to describe your case than STUPID.
Eloquent indeed. Terrific use of vocabulary!
Denial is not rebuttal.
The item to which you purposely refer as "a college paper" has been clearly identified as a published article in a well-known college newspaper, the Columbia Sundial, the finest college in the nation- at least- under Obama's byline.
It's evident that it is to your advantage to suggest that it was merely a homework assignment of some sort, on which one might suppose limited efforts would be applied...
This is not the case. The student in question had aspirations, high aspirations, and his article would be viewed by thousands, and as a reference of his views for years to come.
Yet you suggest he put no efforts into it?
Hogwash. It represented his abiltiy.
Don't forget, no one 'assigns' articles in the newspaper: one seeks the right to write same.
Here is the original article:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html
I challenge you to read it, and to then state it represents the writer that would produce "Dreams."
The terms of acclaim are clearly stated earlier in this thread.
Thence, we can conjecture as to the author.
You might consider not responding at all if you simply intend to repeat the vapid denial that no case has been made, as Thing 1 and Thing 2 have done repeatedly.
I get it: that's the best argument your side has.
But if you have something new to bring to the table, by all means, bring it.
So you're presuming that a typo by Obama in College, and his EDITOR missing it, means that since the Editor of his new book was better and didn't miss shit, that that should lead people to believe (in conjunction with your other childish wild-eyed non-evidences) that he couldn't have written it? Really? REALLY?