Obama's ability to get a security clearance is irrelevant. The people decide who their leaders are, not the security experts. Those leaders, however, can set security requirements for the people they appoint (to fill roles in government. There is no significance or problem with the fact that Obama could not be appointed to a sensitive position but can still be elected president.

Frankly, his inability to get clearance is one of the few positive things to be said about him. I want a president who has a background, who hasn't spent his entire life preparing to be president. Ok, so Obama has spent his entire life preparing to be president, but at least he hasn't lived like it.

You're right, and I like him for not being squeaky clean, but of course that alone doesn't qualify him either.

BTW, not to violate Godwin's Law, but I forgot to point out that Himmler would not have been allowed to join his own SS.

:)

In theory the public scrutiny involved in a national campaign should screen a candidate as well as the security clearance process does. In reality I fear that Obama may have more weak spots in his background than even his political opponents know.

As a former career intelligence professional for over 20 years with the highest security clearances, I can attest that Obama would never be able to get a top-level (Top Secret with SCI access) security clearance if he were a staffer or subordinate. Having gone through the excruciatingly invasive process myself throughout my career (every five years a periodic re-investigation is done), the primary red flags for Obama would be his associations (e.g. Wright and especially Ayers) and any financial issues. The illegal drug use may or may not be an issue depending on the type of drug, frequency, and when the drug use occurred. For example if it was infrequent marijuana use in college, not a big deal. The primary focus of these background investigations is character (again associations, temperament, lifestyle) and financial history/responsibility.

Now, regarding the security clearance double standard for the top-level feds (whether it's the Executive branch or the Legislative) and everyone else, it has always infuriated me. There is something inherently wrong with a system that not only allows the top tier individuals to get a pass for behavior or choices that would automatically disqualify (and rightfully so) me and everyone else access to sensitive information, but allows them to sit in judgment and/or set policy on the same process! Unbelievable.

For those of us who had to play by the rules, go through incredible scrutiny of our personal lives to include our families, and to constantly be on guard with regard to friendships and acquaintances, it's particularly galling to have, say, a President Clinton (one of many examples), lie under oath on an affidavit to a federal investigator and get away with it. That's called perjury folks. If I had made a false statement just ot my background investigator, not only would I have lost my clearance, but I would have been fired and have faced criminal charges. I didn't give a sh*t that slick Willie was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office. What mattered was the he lied about it. He was the President, the Commander in Chief and the top federal law enforcement officer in the land. Once he lied under oath, that did it for me.

Maguire said: "Obama's ability to get a security clearance is irrelevant." I respectfully disagree. IMHO it's very relevant, at least to me. Character matters.

Every nation gets the government it deserves.

I do have a security clearance although if Obama wins next month, it will be at least 4 years before I re-enlist.

I am with Maguire, in that the people decide who will make the rules, and with JD on the ever important character of all of us, but leaders in particular.

I want to vouch (sorry, I cannot vote for) eric's and Simon's character. I have been "talking" with them for well over a year now as they have kept up with Senators Obama and McCain for the distance run to be NUMBER ONE RULE MAKER. Both are eloquent in their own ways and are working in our best interests. ((?) or something like that). One is more polite, and people-oriented, the other speaks with a bit of an edge about the things he feels strongly about. One can speak on nearly any topic, with that broad-brush approach that makes us all feel comfortable and engaged. The other has deep knowledge about a few areas that are vitally important to our collective survival as humans.

Have you noticed how alike eric is to Obama, and Simon to McCain?

Well I have, and while I can't vote for either one, yet vouch for both who I believe to be of good character, yet not security cleared of course...when it comes to this national election, I will vote for the man I believe will make the FEWEST NEW RULES as the number one rulemaker in this land. Either candidate could get bonus points from me for undoing any former rules not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

I appologize for the anger in my voice, and it is there, but what I want to know is why the heck our local and national "leaders" have not had the courage to stand up for doing NOTHING!

It is high time that the better and better organized squeaky wheels get a smile and a nod and a "Hey, good luck with that!"

Followed by, "Let us know how you made this succeed so we can pass that on to others in similar circumstances".

There are many out there who will need a pat on the back, or even a hug. Leaders should be sure to do that too, in addition to nothing. Fine line, fine line, but hey, it's why we call them leaders.

For now? The pendulum has swung and STUCK in a very dangerous place that has ever increasing numbers of us saying, ME TOO!

I, for one, want to know where our NEWLY DEFINED, do NOTHING leaders are when we need them?

Ohhhhhh right! Busy undoing the legislation they have graced us with for ever so long.

This is no yolk, folks. The chicken is choking; the cow's about dry.

Tonight, this calls for JUST the right song, Simon. Tomorrow, eric will be here to see how we prefer our albumin, or whatever else we might have hiding in our cupboard, past prime dates notwithstanding.

The public and transparent process of running for public office, ideally, should replace the secretive process of vetting clearance holders.

I've never run for office. But I have held a TS/SCI clearance. I am by nature shy and insecure, so the clearance was easy for me. I have no major skeletons in my closet. Campaigning for office would be infinitely harder for me.

Obama is my polar opposite; loaded with skeletons but he's charming and a good public speaker. Are we equally deserving of the same clearance? No.

Is life unfair? Yes.

Will we both die? Yes.

But hopefully not together in a disaster of his making. (Though at least in the metaphysical I'd have the moral satisfaction that my clearance meant more ;)

I too have a security clearance and have had one since reaching adulthood. One, I am more than a little bit bemused that some consider that a character flaw (news flash - I too have a "background," have "done things," have "lived a life," whatever it is that you think people with clearances can't do).

Two, what will yank a clearance faster than anything is documented falsehood. Lie on the application or during the investigation, and you're done. "Interesting" material in your past can be handled, trying to cover it up will not be. And that's what cheeses me off about Obama, that he is a serial liar, that his life history changes depending upon whatever circunstances he finds himself in, that his deeply held beliefs and ocnvictions are situational. He has no backbone, no integrity, and that to me is his worst characteristic, even more so than his incipient socialism. The later can be buffered and restrained by the checks and balances of our government (assuming that enough people are hardened against the inevitable charges of "racism" for opposing his policies), the former has limits only Obama knows.