Bush was involved in his share of "questionable deals"-- for instance, as an insider executive at Harken Energy, with full knowledge of the company's financial situation, he sold his stcok in one of his failed oil companies just days before it anounced crippling losses and the stock tanked.  Bush was not ignorant of the rules regarding insider trading-- he had been advised by Harken's general counsel not to sell his stock given the circumstances, but he did it anyway.  Of course his father had appointed cronies to key positions on the SEC, so no charges were filed against Bush, but if it were you or me, we'd have done time.

As for McCain, whom you are implicitly supporting despite being "not a big fan", but whom you still implicitly support with your attacks on Obama:  he's had his own questionable dealings, particularly as a member of the "Keating Five", where McCain did political favors for a crooked S&L exectutive in exchange for free trips to extravagant resorts and large cash infusions into his campaign coffers; and more recently, his relationsip with telecom lobbyist Vicky Iseman, a relationship that close staffers considered to so questionable that they intervened.

But yet you are troubled by the judgment of Obama over the fact that a former "close associate" got a plum deal on some loans-- a deal Obama had nothing to do with.  And before that you were troubled by Obama saying "57 states" when he meant to say "47 states".  And of course you are troubled by Obama's middle name.  And of course there's the matter that he won't release his birth certificate-- it's so very troubling that he won't release that!   How about Obama releases his birth certificate when McCain's heiress wife releases her financial records.