Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of this year’s presidential election is the steadfast refusal of voters and media outlets to more fully vet Barack Obama. Many questions remain about his experiences, relationships, and past—questions that would have destroyed the political prospects of any other candidate. The surge of support for Obama can be explained in only one way: Voters have deliberately decided to turn a blind eye to the many problems with his candidacy.

The willingness of voters to take such a huge risk on a man who is (for all intents and purposes) an unknown quantity is bewildering, to say the least. Presumably some voters are motivated by Bush-hatred and a desire for change. They fail to question where they are going as long as they can leave the current situation. Other voters (for better or for worse) are motivated by racial considerations. They want to see a black man elected president. They are so intent on their goal that they have forgotten to ask if this black man should be president.

These voters are so tunnel-visioned that they have deliberately ignored aspects of Obama’s life that should make them think twice (or three, or four times) before casting their vote for him.

First, Obama’s supporters have chosen to ignore a lack of experience that should make them shudder. Obama may be charismatic and articulate, but he has never acted in an executive capacity. Worse, his tenure in the Illinois state senate demonstrated his occasional inability to make tough decisions. Nearly 130 times, he failed to decide whether legislation should be passed or rejected, instead voting "present." Today, Obama serves in the U.S. Senate. Yet his accomplishments in that body are so vague and illusory that his supporters have often been unable to cite examples of them when directly asked. Indeed, Obama has held the job for less than four years—and he’s spent most of that time on the campaign trail. As a result, the experiences that he’s gained in the Senate have done little to prepare him for the more daunting task of serving as the nation’s chief executive.

Honestly, the fact that Obama bothered to put "community organizer" on his resume at all should have served as the first, glaring clue that his resume is thin. Much too thin for the future leader of the free world.

Second, voters have been willfully blind to Obama’s naiveté when it comes to foreign affairs. They excuse his early and ill-advised statement that he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of [his] administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." Obama since seems to have recognized his rookie mistake—although it’s unclear if he thinks the mistake was meeting with these leaders or saying out loud that he would meet with them. Either way, the statement should have gotten voters’ attention. Voters similarly ignored Obama’s uncertainty regarding the right course of action during the Georgia-Russia dispute this summer. They should pay more attention. Such imprudence and uncertainty in decision-making will take a toll on America’s national security.

Third, voters have not questioned Obama’s contradictory statements on several important issues. For instance, Obama often allied himself with pro-Palestinian individuals in the past. But as a presidential candidate, he’s changed his tune, claiming that his true sentiments are more pro-Israeli. Similarly, he once stated that his administration would withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of what American commanders advised. Now he’s softened that stance, claiming that he would listen to the commanders’ advice. His positions on other economic and energy issues have likewise shifted over time. But no one seems interested in investigating his inconsistent statements.

Finally, Obama’s relationships with a whole host of questionable characters are (mysteriously) deemed unacceptable topics of conversation—the type of claims that only conspiracy theorists would discuss. But if John McCain’s political career had been kicked off from the home of an unrepentant domestic terrorist, voters would hear no end of it. And, of course, if McCain had once given a speech in which he described a pro-Palestinian terrorist as someone worth learning from, every network news anchor would consider it worth discussing ad nauseam. Finally, if McCain had purchased (one of his seven!) homes in a sweetheart deal with a convicted felon . . . Well, you get the picture. Obama’s relationships with these and other individuals are important. But they have instead been lightly dismissed as irrelevant.

This columnist joins the ranks of those who want the Bush administration to be over. And she joins those who think that election of a black president would be good for racial harmony in this country. But neither goal justifies a failure to fully investigate the background of one of the two major parties’ presidential candidates.

America’s failure to vet Obama will come back to haunt us if he is elected on Tuesday.