"Clinton is still saying that McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. Not exactly the best way to woo superdelegates I'd imagine."

So I guess she should just lie or shut up? For the last few months she's been called a race-baiter and a fear monger(er). I suppose that is a great way for the Obama campaign to woo superdelegates? At least her charge has the advantage of being true.

Its' "Its Own Shadow," not "It's Own Shadow."

It's "It's," not "Its'." Duh.

Why won't Obama produce his calendar and schedules from his time in the Illinois legislature? What is he hiding?

The Obama campaign is finally starting to give as good as it gets -- it's now calling on Clinton to release her tax returns from the period after she left the White House.

You must be joking. "Give as good as it gets"?

Please. After all the handwringing about Clinton going negative, what does Obama's campaign do?

Go negative.

I hate to rain on the Obama barbecue but has anyone ever learned anything remotely relevant about a candidate from his or her tax return?

No. Nor do voters decide about which candidate to support based on their tax returns.

What a bunch of little girls.

"Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

does not equate

"Clinton is still saying that McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama."

Entirely different meanings and intentions. In its original context (not included here), she was only saying she'd be able to better counter his "lifetime of experience" argument, not that he was any "better" than Obama.

But I guess since it was Clinton it must have been intentioned treason.

What do people think about this story on dailykos? "Obama "blacker" ad no accident" http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/14345/50395

I wonder, if McCain were, say, Armenian, would it be OK to make a play on the "-ian" part of his name? I guess some forms of "word play" are acceptable.

As for the group, I'll give you one guess whose money is behind it.

corinne writes:

I hate to rain on the Obama barbecue but has anyone ever learned anything remotely relevant about a candidate from his or her tax return?

Hillary Clinton. speech in Ohio, Feb. 19, 2008:

We also have to reward work more, and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million than a teacher or a nurse or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That’s very discouraging to people.

Bloomberg News, Dec. 17, 2007:

Securities and Exchange Commission documents and financial- disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton show that Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. LLC.

My guess: In the last two years, the Clintons paid income tax at an rate substantially (and embarrassingly) below what the average voter paid, because of the advantageous tax treatment of hedge funds that Bill Clinton worked with.

The Obama campaign's memo to the press of earlier today suggests they've guessed this too:

For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:

Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it...

My guess: In the last two years, the Clintons paid income tax at an rate substantially (and embarrassingly) below what the average voter paid, because of the advantageous tax treatment of hedge funds that Bill Clinton worked with.

But you don't know. And if they did, all it means is they have an excellent tax adviser.

For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:

I'm sorry but did the Obama's provide their returns, accompanying schedules and attachments too? If they did, please show me how they could afford a $1.65 million Chicago mansion.

Clinton is still saying that McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. Not exactly the best way to woo superdelegates I'd imagine.

Not going to do much for her with Obama supporters in the general, either...

Obama supporters are going to vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination.

corinne writes:

But you don't know. And if they did, all it means is they have an excellent tax adviser.

If Clinton is going around saying that she'll fight to make sure hedge funds managers are taxed more without disclosing that her family benefits from that tax treatment, that's less than ideal but I don't think it's a mortal sin. I can't see any reason why the Clintons should pay more taxes than the tax code calls for.

I'm mostly interested in trying to figure out what the reason is for the delay in turning over the returns. It's not going to be something horrible -- we're not going to learn on Schedule C that she shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

I'm sorry but did the Obama's provide their returns, accompanying schedules and attachments too? If they did, please show me how they could afford a $1.65 million Chicago mansion.

They have done that. She had, until recently, a pretty well paying job, and he did pretty well on his book sales. And they didn't pay cash for the place; they have a mortgage.

"Obama supporters are going to vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination."

About 10% have indicated they would not vote for Hill - they haven't indicated they would vote for McCain.

On the other hand, about 20% of Hill supporters will vote for McCain if she doesn't get the nomination.

So Hill supporters win that argument.

What a lot of those who were always opposed to invading Iraq (and I was one of them) don't want to face is that a large number of voters who are now against the war were for it at some point. They see it as a mistake now, something not worth the cost, but they don't see it as a crime, because then they would have to admit to being accomplices.

Exactly what so infuriates much of the anti-war Left about Hillary-her refusal to apologize for her vote-is exactly what makes her appealing to those who previously supported but now oppose our occupation of Iraq. She is telling them, you made an honest mistake, you don't have to feel guilty, the important thing is not who supported what back then but that we all want out now.

Obama and Hillary have the same plans going forward, but for those who at some point supported the war (which is most Americans) voting Obama demands an admission they aren't going to want to make. Which is why Hillary, not Obama, is actually better positioned to handle McCain on the war.