I don't believe in bashing anyone for their past, if they admit the mistakes of youth (or later) and distance themselves from them. But if they try to hide them, or still embrace them? It's fair game at showing what you stand for, or that you're lying about what you are based on where you came from and believe. With Obama we have:
- Obama's Books: he lied about writing them: he used ghost writers, some that came forward, some other actors that didn't. Then there are the lies in the books about his history. And then the truths revealed in the books are often denied or glossed over by him and his allies in the media, in his campaign. That subterfuge is a problem. Are you proud of being a drug-abusing lay-about, that hung out with anti-American communists or ashamed of it? Why did you make up this rough youth thing, when you were a spoiled white kid? And so on. The media would have crucified a Republican with questions, Obama got them deifying or defending him.
- His wife's payola at the University
- Questionable associates:
- Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger goes to church of radicals for 20 years, never notices their extremism?
- Emil Jones, Saul Alinsky, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Frank Marshall Davis
- His campaign was started at the house of an anti-American Terrorist and radical (Bill Ayers).
- Obama's illegal alien family members, porn star mom, marxist Dad, and so on.
Again, it's not that he has a past, or owns all his family members -- it's that he tried to hide them and the media was culpable on not only not vetting him, but attacking anyone that raised legitimate questions about him. His past was the least discussed of any President in my lifetime, or probably in history. And that lack of transparency is a problem for a democracy and the media that is supposed to defend it.