Maybe they were afraid of fanatics who feel people should not be allowed to write books and become wealthy. Making money from writing books is just a terrible thing to do. Obama would never write a book in order to acquire wealth. Oh wait he did, just not nearly as successfully.

Maybe they don't want anyone to know how much they gave to charity. I guess Obama and all of their supporters must give more than 10% of their gross to charity.

Maybe they wanted to hide that they did not dodge their civic duty and in fact paid a much higher percentage of taxes than people in their income range. I wonder if Obama paid a much higher percentage in taxes on his return? After all this tax-return-fuss, I imagine Obama supporters would really want to know.

"Yes we can"

is not to be confused with Deval Patrick's

"Together We Can"

even though it is easy to not only confuse Obamas and Patricks slogans but entire speeches as well. (Is Obama the Axelrod Puppet like Bush the Rove puppet?)

Anyways, this tax-return-non-story, that was created and promoted by the Obama machine, is another excellent example of, "Yes we can" be sleazy and unethical and still convince the masses we smell like roses.

Blacks and women have disparate issues manifested differently in different parts of culture and points in history. This conversation is focused on who can have ultimate authority as president of the united states. Americans still prefer a man over a women in that regard. Obfuscating by suggesting it's about Clinton and not women in ultimate power is denial. Too bad.

The same people who are so quick to call out the race card, (obama himself continues to use the race card to his advantage), are just as quick to deny sexism and accuse Clinton of playing victim all the while denying evidence that shows sexism has worked against Clinton as well as racism has worked for Obama so far.

At this point Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are both talking past each other. The substance of the conversation does not matter - it's about winning and only winning.

It's too long, MI and FL is fukked up, add the bizarre mixing of bizarre caucus and popular voting rules and you have a cornucopia of different flavors of disgrace.

Dis-enfranchising MI and FL voters should never have been an option, it is and was not a solution to anything. Whatever positions either Clinton or Obama take, they are both going to come out looking like a-holes.

...Obama giving a speech swaggering around the stage with a cigarette like Sammy Davis Jr used to do.

Now there's a picture, Obama pointing his cigarette at people while enforcing a point.

all of these useless candidates would explain how they want to spend our tax dollars. The too much taxes is a smoke screen to avoid the country really looking at itself and it's priorities.

The federal government is spending 20% of the federal budget on security, 14% on National Defense, another 6% for cops and prisons, 20% on Medicaid/Medicare payments, 12% on Elementary and high school education. Interest payments on borrowed money is the 5th largest single expense item in the budget. and then a lousy 2% on Highways, .5% on air transport.

Can at least one empty headed politician actually define a priority in terms of spending priorities.

Just for examples, "We need to spend the same amount on infrastructure (highways, bridges, air traffic) as we do on National defense - 8% for Defense and 8% for infrastructure."

or "We are not getting our moneys worth spending 12% of our budget on education. The amount is right, the execution is wrong."

or "Spending only .2% of our budget on Public libraries is a disgrace. Knowledge is power and libraries are great sources of knowledge. The country needs to grow this power."

or "Spending 20% of federal revenue on Medicaid/Medicare, in addition to the non-tax expenses Americans pay in direct medical cost and health insurance premiums show Medical costs are wildly out of control. We need to cut Medicaid/Medicare costs to 10% by "governing" Medical costs and bringing them back in line with socially responsible levels."

Instead we get dumb ass "too much taxes", or "not enough taxes", or "tax the rich", or "trickle down economy", or "Stop taxing the poor" or other stupid political bromides.

...the only anonymous sources telling the truth are the ones that favor your candidate. Go figure.

In the latest Rasmussen Tracking poll McCain is winning by 6% head to head with Obama and 4% Head to Head with Clinton. In the latest Gallop Tracking poll McCain is ahead by 2% over both candidates.

So is Bush.

So what?

Obama is surging in the polls in PA and McCain has been surging in head to head polls with Obama and Clinton. Go figure, the better Obama does, the better McCain does.

WES knows the bottom line, Obama and Clinton will head to the convention with neither having enough delegates to win. The super delegates will decide.

Most like to say we got to follow the rules, but some say we need change we can believe in, change like cowardly and dishonestly ending the contest before the game is over.

"...and further denied that excessive socializing among reporters makes them less adversarial."--Cox

Cox is delusional.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors can remain adversarial and maintain very good social relationships because access to the court room is not controlled by one or the other and there is a judge to make sure they both play within very well defined rules. There are no such controls or structure within politics that can maintain the integrity of the adversarial relationship regardless of the social relationship.

An effective journalistic relationship between a reporter and politician has to have almost zero socialization, otherwise socialization is really just another name for collusion.