Full-field investigations are definitely more intrusive than colonoscopies.

The drug use thing may or may not be a problem - the question would be does he he lie about it when he gets fluttered. (or at least that was true at one time in one context) Association would be more of an issue, I think. The Willian Ayers thing could hurt him a lot ( still could ) and Michele's thesis and some other stuff might be very problematic. But depending on the clearance (or context <s>) the real issue may be more about being honest about everything. (back when being gay would keep you from getting DOD clearance you would be okay in other contexts if you were completely up front in vetting sessions)

Obama may make it since I don't think he has a serious problem with honesty, but I'd give a lot to watch HRC take a polygraph and see how genuinely surprised she was when the needle went nuts <g> The thing I find rather fascinating about both Clintons is I believe they lie so well (and often) because that have that rare capacity for sincere self-delusion to back up the lie (hmmm - come to think of it she may actually *beat* the box <s>)

>When I was vetted they went back 15 years and spoke to kids I had been in grade school with. They interviewed people I had worked with, checked all of my financial information and current and previous bank accounts. They interviewed my neighbors and relatives. They dig DEEP. If there is any question of previous drug use, knowledge of drug use in others, any possible relationship with anyone who may be a threat to this country or any financial situation that is questionable then you are denied clearance. Hillary's previous financial dealings (not to mention her tendency to lie) and Obama's prior drug use (see his books), his relationship with his pastor and William Ayers who was a member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department in the 70s would not be vetted. Any hint of a possibility of a connection would deny the person vetting period.
>
>
>>>>In a way I think all the talk about experience, or lack of it, is misguided. Every new President who takes office is inexperienced in that job when they start. Every single one. The only thing we can try to evaluate is whether we think they will be up to it.
>>>
>>>You're missing Tracy's point : "If Obama and Hillary had to be 'vetted' for the job, they wouldn't make it. They wouldn't even qualify for a secret clearance let alone anything else based on the information available now."
>>>
>>
>>I didn't miss it, I just didn't attach too much importance to it since it was so subjective. Vetted by whom? And who is to say what the vetters would have decided? That's only speculation, possibly projection.