The tragic thing about the Clinton presidency is that it didn't have to happen, and we could have been spared all of the scandals, including Lewinsky, had there been proper coverage and investigation of him before the election. In fact, the media could have even gotten a different Democrat president, had they simply aired Clinton's dirty laundry during the primaries. It was, after all, a Democrat year, particularly with Ross Perot in the mix to siphon off votes from George H.W. Bush. But they fell in love with Bill Clinton and, as we all know, love is blind. The problem, of course, is that when the major media wear blinders, the rest of us don't get the view. That was particularly the case in 1992 when the web had just been invented and the only people using the Internet were nerds.
Well, now the media have found a new paramour with a checkered past, and they (with a few exceptions) are once again lovingly carrying (or at least attempting to carry) the non-blushing bride across the electoral threshold. Just as few bothered to go to Little Rock in 1992, the media haven't been able to spare any reporters from their vital duties in checking library records in Wasilla, Alaska, to take a trip to Hyde Park to see just what this new candidate is and was about.
Fortunately, this time there are a few individuals who have been doing so, and unlike 1992, they have their own printing presses, in the form of blogs and web publications. And what they've found is potentially disturbing, and certainly information that the voting public should have a right to know before it buys another pig in a poke.
Looking at the comments and at other talking points, the primary defense of Obama's supporters seems to be "We already know all we need to know about Obama and McCain." "Obama's been running for two years therefore he has to have been vetted." "This is just McCain being distracting."
None of the Obama supporters address the notion that if the tables were reversed they'd be crowing (and rightly so) about McCain. They don't seem to admit or realize that things are.. odd about Obama and his past.
Speaking of enigmas... what might happen under an Obama presidency?
Slublog admits that it's very hard going, because Obama has kept his core views so closely held now and has such a thin record of acomplishments.
What an actual President Obama would do could be better or worse than what I've written here. Still, I'm not encouraged by the fact that Obama seems to have political instincts that run contrary to mainstream American values. Obama answers criticism by threatening legal action. He has his own television channel and is far too comfortable with the cult of personality that has been created around him. And as an employee and financial supporter of the hopelessly corrupt ACORN, Obama may have unwittingly abetted voter fraud. As president, he could by omission or commission strengthen that organization, making truly fair elections harder to achieve.
In summary, the list is: Trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, remove the 22nd Ammendment, remove the electoral college, more traiditonal "liberal" tax and economic policies, and nautrally tilt the Supreme Court and use it to revisit 2nd Ammendment stuff like Heller.
Which all work to reduce and silence Obama's critics, enable him to be in office for more than two years, and no longer need to worry about rural voters in "Flyover country". For a taste consider the cries of racism and thugish behavior that Obama is leveraging as just a candidate.