While I understand your position and appreciate it, I believe there is more to this.
Of the 50+ million votes Obama got, how many of the voters knew:
1. His cousin is in power in Kenya and that Obama campaigned for him over there?
2. His sister is an illegal alien living off public assistance in Boston?
3. He was adapted by an Indonesian and became Barry Soetero?
4. He had British citizenship at birth?
5. He traveled mulitple times to Pakistan and Indonesia as a child?
etc, etc.
Not a single Obama voter I have talked to knew any of these things.
How many Jackson voters knew he had killed two Brits in cold blood?
How many Lincoln voters knew he had opposed the Mexican war and the annexation of California?
You can play these games all day. People vote for a variety of reasons. The similarities here to the late 1990s are stunning, and I'm really surprised (guess I shouldn't be) that Freepers haven't learned their lesson: in the late 1990s, Freepers kept saying, "If the voters only know this or that about Clinton, then they'll support impeachment and conviction." Er, no.
Did it occur to you that the voters (including many of our own) make up their minds based on what they want to make up their minds about?
Do you think ANY of the Perot voters in 1992 knew that he didn't have a clue as to how government worked? Did it matter?
This is really, really stupid and dangerous to keep thinking that "if the voters only know" they will support me/us/my party. It's a far better strategy to assume that they DO know why they elected the guy, and to find a way to deal with that.