all of which I wouldn't care a fig about - except in a candidate for the President of the US.
Most all info we have on him is from his own mouth. The information is much to thin - and elusive - to take such a chance on.
I have a brother, son, and grandson who, in their job capacities, have had background checks that included talking to people and documenting every place they lived, went to school, worked, etc etc., from the time they were born.
Here, people seem to blithely accept his word - and a very sketchy one - on his background...for the President of our country!
This is not meant as an endorsement nor an approval of Obama, but pretty much the same can be said for all political figures. The accuracy of the info we have depends on the extent to which the individual is truthful about his/her past. Opposing candidates have an opportunity to call each other on whatever lies or dirt they can uncover in one's background. That's called opposition research and is one of the basic functions of a political campaign. Of course, statements made by candidates or their opponents about someone's past are often subject to "filtration" by a biased media before most voters can hear or see them. That's why we need to be active in seeking accurate information from the most objective sources possible before we make up our minds.
As a general rule in today's American politics, "conservatives" do a better job in describing their past accurately than do "liberals." But that's only a general rule. I can appreciate your suspicions about Obama, and your unwillingness to "take a chance" on him. Hopefully, almost all of us here on FR would not vote for him because of his left-leaning ideology, regardless of the other personal baggage he may or may not carry.