Final answer:
The question addresses the philosophical issue of defining personal identity through memories, which is circular because it relies on the existence of the very memories that shape identity. This approach is uninformative, offering no objective criteria for identity, highlighted by the fallibility of real memories.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to the philosophical problem of identity, specifically as it concerns personal identity and the reliance on real memories to define it. The 'Obama case' mentioned doesn't relate to a specific legal or constitutional issue, but rather seems to allude to a conceptual situation in which personal identity is tied to memories.
If one's account of their identity is based solely on real memories, this can become circular, because it relies on the very thing it seeks to define: the person's memories that constitute their personal narrative. It is 'uninformative' because it does not provide any external, objective criteria for identity outside of those memories themselves,
Which can be fallible as illustrated in the incorrect recollections President George W. Bush had of 9/11 over time. Drawing from both the political context and philosophical inquiry into identity, it's clear that there is a tension between who we believe we are and the ways in which our identities are externally recognized or misrecognized.