Remember Hillary’s lie about who she was named for?
Yes, and I remember how much people made out of that, as if it mattered at all. That of course was a bit more serious, but not MUCH more, since a simple fact check could have cured her of any misconception she had.
That’s why Barack’s statement is more serious, because again the timeline is simple.
Also in both their cases, there is no way they could have meant their claims in anything but a literal sense, as figuratively they make no sense at all.
Surely you can tell the difference between the three cases. In two of them, people claimed actual events were provoked by OTHER events that had not happened yet.
In Mitt’s case, he is recollecting something that is almost entirely correct, with the only error being that the MLK march his father was in was actually 6 days AFTER MLK marched in a march his father was invited to but turned down because of it being on a sunday.
In other words, not only was Hillary NOT named after Sir Edmund, there is NO WAY SHE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But it is entirely possible, and in fact was ALMOST a fact, that Romney marched WITH MLK in the literal sense — it was only a matter of scheduling that they didn’t march together, and they most certainly would have otherwise.
So to remember it the wrong way doesn’t reflect at all poorly on his powers of thought — in fact, EVERYBODY believed the story, so believable it was, until someone who wanted to throw a gotcha at Mitt dug up some people who in fact got almost EVERY aspect of the story wrong (wrong date, wrong place, wrong about Romney marching, wrong about Mitt not talking about it, wrong about Mitt being out of the country).
THe only thing they got right seems to be that it was an MLK march, but MLK wasn’t in it.