The NY Times titled its editorial the other day as "Show Us The Money". The editor was referring to a decision by the Clintons not to produce their tax filings prior to candidate selection by the Nominating Convention in late August 2008.

And the NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton ! The small matter of a $5 million dollar check to the Clinton Campaign signed by Hillary prompted the request.

Barack Obama has shown us his tax records and it is time for Hillary Clinton to do the same.

re your comment: "It's very much frowned upon, even actionable if one of the parties, is a subordinate, as was the case with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky.... With Bill Clinton, there was always a huge power in-balance between him and the women he chose to have affairs with, or even worse, that he allegedly harassed."

Well that would be so if what you're saying were true. But it's not true. Neither Paul Jones nor Lewinsky were Clinton's "subordinates." Paula Jones didn't work for Clinton, and, technically, neither did Lewinsky. At the same time, Lewinsky herself has very famously noted she deliberately set out to seduce Clinton. None of which excuses philandering, but to twist the situation to suggest harrassment doesn't work in Bill Clinton's case.

It's particularly interesting that after the Paula Jones case was settled, Paula Jones continued to show up at Arkansas events where Bill Clinton happened to be. It began to look pretty stalkerish.

the fact that Barack Obama was raised by two women would have any significance. I know his grandfather, Sidney Dunham, was there for part of his childhood but it seems that it was his grandmother who was the more level-headed and stronger character. He was uprooted from Hawaii and taken to a foreign country, Indonesia, where English is not the lingua franca. As you seem so aware of dysfunction and all that, any comments you might make on Barack Obama's early years might prove enlightning. Since his destiny was shaped by two women, would that have any effect? His wife, Michelle, is also a dtermined, strong-willed person and some psychologists will surely look into the effect that women have had on Obama's life. Maybe you will be the first. Bill Clinton's life has been analysed to bits and it's time to move on to something more exciting and unconventional.

It's late here now and, although I asked ages ago whether Obama or Clinton would be the more astute in dealing with Kosovo and the fury of the Russians with US policy in Europe, I haven't seen any response. This happens all the time. I ask a question about American foreign policy - which affects everyone - and the flurry of accusations and counter-accusations continues unabated, as though I'd never asked the question. I hope it's not the American way to ignore questions or, alternatively, to denounce the questioner as a troll, a Botox-user, an Al-Quaeda operative, a covert Republican, a leprechaun, a racist - it really gets monotonous although fleetingly amusing.

What if he had said, "I understand that the Clinton campaign, periodically when they're feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost their appeal." ?

The line is more condescending, than sexist per se, though to be fair, women have often been put in their place with subtle put downs. But put downs are part of the give and take in a hard fought campaign.

It's a little confusing to see Hillary talk about how tough she is, and then get all flustered at a little zinger from Obama. The "my feelings are hurt and he's being a sexist!" thing, is actually a campaign tactic in itself, a way to get sympathy from women.

Well, whether I'm young or old depends on your point of view, but what I definitely am is liberal, and by that standard Clinton was not much of a president. You know, welfare "reform, trying to turn health care over to HMOs, NAFTA, bombing Iraq, spending 18 months of your presidency incapable of functioning because you couldn't leave the intern alone, etc.

But of course you somehow managed to miss the rather clear point of my post - that Bill was bad for the Dem party which is so demonstrably true as to be uncontroversial. I mean he was not a majority president and all the Dem majorities I mentioned evaporated under his and the DLC's leadership. It astonishes me that Democrats don't see the obvious - that Clinton's way of getting into office worked for him (only because of Perot and Buchanan), but screwed everyone else. Ask any Dem and they'll bewail the Nader effect in Florida, but they never seem to stop and think "gee, if we hadn't stampeded headlong away from our liberal base, maybe those Nader voters would have been Gore voters." It's politics 101.

"It's a little confusing to see Hillary talk about how tough she is, and then get all flustered at a little zinger from Obama." I hear a lot more noise from posters here than from the HRC campaign.

Does HRC post here? What's her pseudonym?

When football players and coaches draw a referee's attention to unsportsmanlike behavior from the opposing team, are they fragile? Or are they simply insisting that the game be played fairly? (I suppose in sports, as in politics, it's standin up for justice if your team has been poked in the eye, and playing the victim to gain the advantage if it's the opposing team with the poked eyeball).

When Team Obama belittles every Clinton victory ("I don't need to give a concession speech because I 'really' won Nevada;" "HRC may have won NH, but it doesn't matter" etc.), is that a show of strength?

And I'd say that Team Obama speaks out about any possible perceived slight against them by the HRC campaign: if he's "tough" but she's "fragile" when they exhibit the same behavior, how is that not sexist?

about this statement so far and not one of the many people claiming that it constitutes misogyny has explained why Obama would want to alienate half (or indeed over half) the voting public. I sure can't figure it out for myself, so you'll have to help me.