I don't know. I'm sure, or at least I hope someone is looking into it. It's not an easy discussion to have. It requires most people to reconsider a lot of things that they take for granted (things we'd all like to take for granted). The alternatives aren't pretty. Maybe some journalists are fearful.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
There are a couple of weak justifications that could be made, but you pretty quickly wind up in conspiracy territory. Not that this is unprecedented, but most people quickly dismiss anything from anyone who sounds like they are advancing a gov't conspiracy theory. You don't want to put things like that out without a firm footing.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
I agree that this is another problem with his story; cui bono? This would be an extremely high-profile, probably criminal overreach by the NSA, of a person who had nothing resembling the public profile he has today, to what benefit?
There are a couple of plausible scenarios -
(1) the NSA was running surveillance on all political challengers,
(2) Obama was running against Alan Keyes who had ties to the state department and served on the staff of the National Security Council under Reagan so he could easily have had spook connections, maybe he called in some favors looking for dirt on his opponent.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
There are a couple of weak justifications that could be made, but you pretty quickly wind up in conspiracy territory. Not that this is unprecedented, but most people quickly dismiss anything from anyone who sounds like they are advancing a gov't conspiracy theory. You don't want to put things like that out without a firm footing.