I have yet to see one of these "legitimate" news organization describe the difference between a "vault copy" or long form birth certificate, and the document that Obama purports to be his "Certification of Live Birth". And more importantly, why that central difference is so critical to this entire discussion.
The article addresses that point. It argues that the short form establishes his place of birth and thus the long form is not needed to establish eligibility:
As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, [Hawaii Department of Health spokeswoman Janice] Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.
The article goes on to quote a reporter who looked up the two newspaper birth announcements and established that they would have come from the Health Department and were not placed by a family member:
Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.
Of course, there are lot more details in the long form. You can view an example of a 1962 Hawaii BC here. So, it's possible Obama's long form contains something embarrassing (that we don't already know). But not disqualifying.
As for why he doesn't release it, I think he's just toying with the birthers. Unless their contentions gain traction with the public at large, he'll continue to do that.
And as for the million+ the birthers claim he's spent keeping it secret, I'm sure the total is far less. His total legal service expenditures were just under $1.2m, or about one sixth of one percent of his campaign's total cost. The portion of those expenses to respond to birther actions is probably one sixth of one percent of the one sixth of one percent. It's not as if the courts have required him to do much in the way of a response.
