i think this election more than any will define the leadership in this country as being out-of-touch with the average american ... the focus on the personal wealth and ritzy lifestyles of the candidates is at fever pitch. 

just think, the criteria to be a US president (as stated in Article II of the US Constitution):

The REAL criteria for being President:

it's pathetic to think that the clown who gets elected (regardless of which party) will, without a doubt, have no idea what 90% of this country experiences in everyday life ... i think the Constitution's criteria better serves "we people"

If that's "modest" then I must be dirt poor (I make less than 1/3 of Obama's salary)...and yet, I have a roof over my head, I eat well, and in addition to having everything I need, I have most of the things that I want (except for an underground lair inside an active volcano on a tropical island guarded by my henchmen) and I even put money in savings every month (I'll eventually have enough saved for my underground lair).

I am not against anyone making loads upon loads of money. I am against people that make more than three times the per capita GDP of $43,500 that try to project the image of being a "regular guy" of modest means (or when a news agency attempts to project that image for someone). It is dishonest and a slap in the face to people that work extremely hard for less money that still manage to eke out a living and provide for themselves and their families. 

Also, to most congressmen and senators, their congressional salries are mere pocket change to their other forms of income/wealth.

"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt

Obama's family income at only $1.4 million. Well that could be considered modest if one is comparing it to John Edwards' $7 + million last year.

Then again, in a global warming enviroment, a greenie candidate who lectures Detriot on gas guzzlers while driving "that V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C," is considered what? Only 'modestly' hypocritical.   

All a matter of context. If it's Obama, 162K is "modest." If it's tax cuts, $162K is rich and satanic evil to these morons.

It looks like the word modest was pulled right from the AP story on this subject. The line read :

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported assets ranging from $457,000 to
$1.14 million — far more modest than most of the other leading
presidential candidates."

Compared to the reported assests of "13 million to 45 million" of Giuliani, from the same article, that is modest.

Also, compare Giuliani's reported income of 16.1 million to Obama's 1.2 million.

I'll agree that Obama's income is not modest in comparison to most of the nation, but it is when compared to "most of the other leading presidential candidates," as the original article said.

I feel so bad for Obama....he needs a raise.