I think historically parsing Palin's off-the-cuff statement to try and work it out to something or other is a bit of a reach if you ask me. Palin made a mistake in not just laughing at the idiocy of the media here.

A rational person would have never assigned her informal statement any importance, but the media went psychotic over it, just like they do anything that Palin does or says. The professor kind of rubs the newswoman's nose in the sheer weirdness of it toward the end.

Obama once talked about Hirohito signing the Japanese surrender papers with McArthur. Not a peep from the media.

Unless you're an idiot savant, nobody's going to remember every specific fact they ever knew off the top of their head. I don't know who DID sign the Japanese surrender, but I can find it in five seconds if I need the information.

This whole "Paul Revere" flap was a load of crap from the beginning, and it's a bit pathetic to see how they're grasping at straws.

Test question in the context of recent events: Is a person who forgets a historical fact less qualified for high political office than a person who is a moral thug and serial liar?