Will Dalia Sussman & Marina Stefan of NYT correct their false statement about Hawaiian officials?

When making a bold statement of fact it's generally a good idea to get all your facts right. Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan of the New York Times have definitely done the first, but they failed at the second. From "Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll" [1]:

President Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. A scanned image of his birth certificate released during the 2008 presidential campaign says he was, and Hawaii’s health director and its registrar of vital statistics have confirmed it.

Note the near-religious certainty of the first sentence, which is fitting: Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan are going on faith and not the facts, since they've gotten a major fact wrong.

Please humor me and read the only two official statements from the Hawaiian government; the first is from 10/31/08 and the second is from 7/27/09. Only the first references the Registrar, the second does not. And, only the second says he was born there, the first only says that he has a valid certificate on file. The facts contradict the claim made by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan, but to them it doesn't matter: they're going on faith and not on the facts.

Obviously, some people don't "get it" (or pretend not to get it). Others realize that if someone is going to make bold claims they better have the underlying facts right, otherwise we can't trust those bold claims.

And, once again, none of the above means that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. It just means that those who claim it's been proven have not in fact made their case. They're simply attempting to bully others into accepting the official line and not ask any questions.

[1] thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/
obama-and-the-birthers-in-the-latest-poll