why are these particularly significant? I find this to be another silly Clinton distraction.

And by the way, Ben Smith of Politico asked that question. It's funny how you two link each other.

He is hiding how he paid cash for his mansion with Rezko money.

One caveat: The years 1997-1999 were completed mostly before the "small town" flap broke out.

I remember posters here screaming for Clinton to release her tax records.

Now,

crickets.

Shame on you.

Could someone please enlighten me. This article from the Chicago Tribune pretty clearly shows that the reporter reviewed Obama’s tax returns from 1997 through 1999.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

So what’s the story? Did he just release them to the press? It seems to me that there has been scrutiny of his tax returns, they just aren’t publicly available.

Greg: You may want to contact this reporter that wrote the story about Obama's tax returns in 1997.

bsecter@tribune.com

lol, who cares about the 90s? I love that she is trying to be self-righteous now that she was FINALLY forced into showing her financial records.

Maybe Hillary should demand he cough up his mom's tax returns as well.

This just in..........Clinton Campaign demands Obama release his financial aid applications for every year he was in school.

Aw shit. I keep messing up my tags.

Horrible response, people.

Yes, it is yet another distraction. But by saying "but Obama did not demand records from the 90's" you are only giving ammunition to the distracters.

Yes, I think he should release those records and he will. In fact, several articles actually reference his 1998 returns and the Chicago newspapers had apparently been given permission to review all three years earlier (and they found nothing out of the ordinary.)

He should probably go ahead and release everything up to his kindergarten years because the Clinton campaign will be demanding 1994-1996 when they cannot find anything in 1997-1999. And then 1991-1993 and so on and so on, three years at a time all the way until the Convention in August just so she has some reason to stay in: "I am not irrelevant! You have to pick me! Obama's 1965-1966 return has some real dirt on it from his lemonade stand racketeering operation proceeds!"

What the media really wants to see is her 2007 tax returns, so this is just a silly distraction on her part. They're looking REALLY desperate.

By the way,I believe John McCain is supposed to release his this week.

NAFTA and Columbia Trade agreements:

Hillary is trying to distract people from hearing about how she still has Mark Penn on her payroll, and that Bill Clinton has been paid $800K from pro Columbia Trade deal agents.

Hillary is the Bride of Unfair Trade Deals.

Well, this is the same Hillary Clinton who voted for the bankruptcy bill.

Tell me again how she's going to help economically depressed areas, where people might need to file bankruptcy? She's made that impossible for most people now - you can't get out from under your debts anymore.

Next up: Hillary-Joe will advocate Debtor's Prisons.

Greg gets snookered (again) by chug-a-lugging the Hillaryland kool-aide. From the Chicago Tribune back in April 2007:

Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington. ... Obama signed two book deals worth nearly $2.3 million before entering the Senate. He received about $1.2 million of the book money in 2005, but tax records show the Obamas lived comfortably before then.

From 1997 through 2004, Obama earned dual paychecks for his work as a state lawmaker and as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Over the same period, his wife, Michelle, worked first for the University of Chicago and then for the University of Chicago Hospitals. Their household income also was augmented in most years by thousands of dollars Obama earned from practicing law, giving speeches or serving as a director of charitable foundations.
...
From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

He released those returns to the Chicago press. This is a non-issue.

Thanks SCMadden. I should clarify. I was talking about the Clinton's and the phony controversies.

This is only a means for Obama to give the people the illusion the Clinton's are trying to hide something. None of them are obligated to release their returns unless they actually become the candidate. The pressure works, so the candidates are responding with releases.