No dodging here anymore than you are dodging by asking this instead of answering my question. Why and how much restriction of information which could bring the president down should not be limited to what other presidents revealed when they were in office. It should be based on what the citizens ask for in great numbers. Politicians and elected public officials willingly ask for the limelight- and part of that limelight shines on the their past - with good reason. I don't think David Duke ought to be able to hide his past and get elected because voters do not know about his past. I implicitly distrust politicians and want to know about the dark secrets they wish to hide- so I ask- as millions do. I'm an independent and have no side to back- so I could care less if the limelight seeking person is from the left right or Mars. People's natural tendency is to not ask those questions if they 1) Like the politician or 2) Trust politicians. By far #1 is more common as we can postulate from those that ask and those that deride those asking- just look at the makeup of each side. Overwhelmingly the left seeks to say no- he's not hiding and the right says ok then let's see the info he's not hiding.

You are asking for GWB's records- why? Your claimed reason is that all politicians should only release what others have released otherwise it's a witch hunt for the one which is asked to reveal more. BHO should not reveal what others have not. It's good point- but clouded by the fact you are a ardent BHO supporter. What about that those that are not? Should he be trusted? Should any politician be trusted? I say no and your answer is yes.

How about zero.

It SEEMS like the people pushing the Soetoro issue still can't be bothered to actually research deeper than their inbox...

It also SEEMS like these same folks are routinely confused by the difference between baseless accusation and evidence. Because Obama's step father had the last name Soetoro, reasonable people would entertain the possibility that that name had been applied to Obama by people unfamiliar with his birth name. However, Obama deliberately using that last name has not been shown. The only 'evidence' at this point is a photoshopped college ID, which is not even the format of the student ID when Obama was at the school, does not have Obama's (or Soetoro's) student number, and was made public on April Fools Day.
Not very convincing.

Don't remember you asking a question, aside from the one that I answered as directly as possible.

Is this a question?? "Why and how much restriction of information which could bring the president down should not be limited to what other presidents revealed when they were in office."

Level playing field is the ideal. Masses of ardent Obama detractors demanding every piece of personal information they can dream up goes far beyond FOI and becomes badgering, a witch hunt even. Every time their smoke and mirror schemes fall flat, they dream up another supposed smoking gun that they can only show by digging deeper into the president's private life.

We don't own the president, we elect him (or her). They are entitled to the same level of privacy as the ordinary citizen.

I never said that any politician should be trusted. However, one needs to ask these questions before they elect the person. Seems like a simple enough idea to me. The problem seems to be the sour grapes out there who detest Obama and will stop at nothing to try and tear him down. If they had put in this level of work before the election....
And just for the record, I did not vote for Obama. I don't agree with all that he has done during his first term, and I see his mistakes clearly. I do believe that he has done a pretty good job considering what he inherited, and he has learned a lot of things of which he was ignorant (and occasionally outspoken) during his campaign.
If I were giving out the grades, he would receive a B.

I can't think of ANY politician that I have ever trusted. Anyone gullible enough to trust a politician deserves whatever bad that comes of it. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people willing to trust B.O. I'm not sure what he has to hide, but it's extremely clear that there is something. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Anyone who believes he is squeaky clean is drinking the kool aid. This is not to say that a person is gullible if they agree with his ideologies. I'm saying they are gullible if they believe that he is squeaky clean.

"...it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." - Douglas Adams


“The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It's come to the point where you almost can't run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip on each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

Back in the early part of the 20th century there was a fad of naming boys with letter's and no name. Like "S N" or "SN".

There's a story (probably more accurately, a legend), in which a young man reported for the draft and, having tired of explaining his name as letters, not abbreviations, entered his name as FIRST NAME: "L only." Middle Name: "B only." Last name: "Jones".

Yep, in the Army he became "Lonely Bonely Jones."