Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

I. Rodriguez, Weslaco, Texas — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:15:02 GMT

Why doesn't MSNBC ever bring up Paul v. Clinton. There you will really find a questionable campaign fund.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Lisa, New Britain, CT — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:16:21 GMT

I hope that the Philadelphia debate focuses on the economy with special emphasis on the struggling middle class and the outright poor in our society. Our society goes NO WHERE if we do not shore them up. That is the Edwards influence on me. Edwards was my first candidate of choice and I wish he were still out there in a lot of ways. The war (our spending there of which has influenced the economy) and the economy are our biggest issues and I want to hear on them.

In terms of the earmarks, I'm happy we have Obama's to question. I'm sure there would be a lot to question in the Clinton earmarks but of course, we don't see them. Again, it is the troubling pattern of secrecy and a profound lack of transparency. If she gets away with it now, we can look forward to more secrecy and things will blow up when they blow up (probably at some critical point in a potential Presidency). When politicians are transparent we all get a chance to understand, discuss, become informed, and then have an opinion. Without transparency, they can get away with so much more.

The monster comment is old news, not worth discussing anymore...it was not nice but dragging it out more doesn't help us stay focused on issues.

Woman for Obama 08

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

JM_HB08 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:21:36 GMT

Regarding Obama's earmark for a defense contractor - What's wrong with helping defense contractors a bit so they can keep jobs here in the United States? I'd rather help our local companies keep Americans employed than let the overseas companies take away jobs...at a time when our economy is sinking into the cesspool there should be no questions on things like this. Earmarks can be GOOD - it's the highway to nowhere or the ridiculous pork spending that needs to be brought out into the open and removed.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Jarrad T — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:29:57 GMT

Obama has heavily used earmarks since he got to the Senate, but now he says he's against them. This doesn't sounds like change to me. It sounds like old style politics. Obama talks the the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. He's no different then any other Senator.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Rob, Indianapolis — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:37:03 GMT

She's release her earmarks... right after she releases her full (non-redacted) White House records and tax returns for the last 6 years...

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Kym — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:38:20 GMT

Jarrad T, are you serious? You say "HEAVILY", you clearly didn't even look at Clinton's 2007 earmarks, she was one of the leading people with earmark request. Anyway, I have a question for FIRSTREAD, why can't someone just research and find out what earmarks she sponsored, why is this something we have to wait for her camp to release, after all isn't it public information? I guess I am just confused?

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Ron, TX — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:40:59 GMT

I think it's important to point out what the $8million earmark was actually for, before insinuating that there might be some kind of wrongdoing... I don't see what's so bad with helping advance our nation's military technology, especially when it has a direct effect on our troops safety and lives. I mean, what's next? Is one of the heads of a child's funding program Obama helped secure going to come under scrutiny for donating to Obama? Heaven forbid! Obama traded a donation to help children! DEVIL! Are we just no longer allowed to support a president if that president helps us in any way? Should we just disregard ALL reasonable sensibility?

Obama Requested $8 Million And Helped Secure $1.3 Million For The High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program. In 2006, Obama requested $8 million and helped secure $1.3 million for High Explosive Air Burst Technology funding. Through General Dynamics, this project supported the 25mm Bushmaster cannon, the primary weapon on the Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) and the US Marines’ Light Armor Vehicle (LAV). Under contract for System Design and Demonstration (SDD), GD-OTS is developing a Family of Ammunition for the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) to include a High Explosive Air Burst (HEAB) round. This program will upgrade the capability of the current forces BFV and LAV. Additional funding for the 25mm HEAB for the SFV and LAV will ensure this program will run effectively during its planned service until 2051. [House Report 109-676 (109th Congress); Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 2006]

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:41:15 GMT

Do people not realize how many fewer jobs there were be if earmarks were not in place? Some people like to define them ALL as "pork", but it is funny that it is not considered "pork" as long as it is spent in your area and helping your local economy.

I think trying to secure $8 million for a local Defense contractor (especially in the grand scheme of how much is spent on Defense), is a little more legitimate that trying to secure $1 million for a Woodstock museum (not that I wouldn't mind seeing it someday as long as it was paid for by private donations).

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

SHARON,LARGO,FL — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:43:17 GMT

I AGREE JARRAD
OBAMA IS FULL OF HOT AIR THAT AND HYPE IS ALL HE HAS GOING FOR HIS CAMPAIGN,...EVERYTIME YOU TURN AROUND HE BECOMES A GIRLIE-MAN CRYING OVER THIS OR THAT..IF
YOU CANNOT HANDLE IT NOW WAIT TILL THE REPUBLICANS GET A HOLD OF YOU....OUR PARTY WILL NOT BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IF PEOPLE KEEP BLINDLY FOLLOWING OBAMA..
WAKE UP!!!!!

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:47:37 GMT

Jarrad T (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 9:29 AM):

Obama is not against earmarks. That is how congresspersons get money to fund projects in the States they represent. What Obama is for, is being transparent about your earmarks. On what projects was money requested, spent and to whom. He has released his earmark money, how about Hillary? Also, what about Hillary's tax returns?

Obama is doing his best to be transparent and to provide the Amercian people with information they should know. Hillary refuses to release her tax returns and now states she will perhaps, at some time, release her earmarks, but maybe not all of them. Now who is trying to be honest here and who is trying to hide things? The answer is obvious.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

iowan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:28 GMT

Frankly, I'm concerned about 'funny business' at the Iowa county conventions. No one in his or her right mind would attend one of these damned things, so the 'usual suspects' will and weird things could occur. The process ceases being 'democratic' between the actual, participatory caucus and the convening of the zealots. Beware this.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Jaime, Lantana, FL — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:28 GMT

What I don't understand is why, as Barack Obama is being transparent and this one earmark is apparently the only red flag, why is the press not pressing (no pun intended) more on the issues of the following:

1. Hillary won't release her previous tax returns for another month, though I am sure there is a photocopy machine readily available.
2. Hillary won't release her earmarks, I assume becuase it is well-known that she holds hands with lobbyists.
3. Hillary won't release her White House records as first lady.
4. Hillary and Bill have only released 1/2 of 1% of the filings in Bill Clinton's presidential library, though tax payers are footing the bill for it.
5. Hillary Clinton is involved in legal red tape in the California case of Paul v. Clinton.
6. Hillary has grossly mischaracterized and exaggerated her foreign policy experience.

Furthermore, though she claims to have been vetted in the 90s, this is a new decade and the PRESIDENTIAL RACE. She needs to be vetted NOW--especially considering the number of new voters involved in this process. They need to know about Travelgate and all the other scandals her name is synonymous with.

Please, please, PLEASE do your job, MSNBC. And that goes for all the other media outlets as well, and anybody else reading this post. DEMAND ANSWERS FROM HILLARY CLINTON!!!

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Hillary's Transparency ???, (NB, NJ) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:51:24 GMT

CLINTON'S EARMARKS --- INCREDIBLY, AGAIN. SHE REFUSES TO RELEASE THEM TO THE VOTERS AND THE MEDIA...And the media will give her another pass ... and, yet, she will whin that she is being treating to tough by the media. THE MEDIA IS DECEITFUL.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Pat Huntington NY — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:52:59 GMT

As a NY'r, I am very proud my Senators have brought back some federal funds to my state. We pay out in medicare and medicaid to the federal gov't wayyyy more than we can back, the worst in the entire country. So, I say, its payback with the $340 million in ear marks for NY. And, after all, don't forget, we got attacked on 9-11, and a lot of that money I am sure, goes for security...also, I know for a fact it is going to repair and expand infrastructure, so at least, it's going to real projects, not the Republican Alaska Bridge to Nowhere. And yes, I do not support the mone for the Woodstock Museum. That one was stupid.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

I. Rodriguez, Weslaco, Texas — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:53:50 GMT

MSNBC, you failed to quote something from the Washington Post article. Your failure to do this gives the impression that you are Clinton biased. The article contnues to state, "In an e-mail, James Crown said he has "never discussed any General Dynamics program or contract issues with the Senator" and was "unaware of this request." Next time report the entire story.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Jordy68 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:54:08 GMT

The Clinton Runaround
WSJ
March 14, 2008

Have you ever been to a government office to pick up a document — your driver's license, say — only to be sent to another window, where the clerk sends you to another window, where a clerk sends you back to the first to start all over again?

That's what it feels like these days asking Bill and Hillary Clinton about their White House records. Last weekend, USA Today reported that it had finally received some records from the Clinton Presidency four years after making a Freedom of Information Act request. Except that hundreds of pages pertaining to the handling of Bill Clinton's 140 last-minute pardons had been redacted or withheld by the helpful folks at the National Archives.

The Archives told USA Today that they had referred all the excluded and redacted material to lawyer Bruce Lindsey, the longtime keeper of Clinton secrets who's responsible for vetting the records. But Mr. Lindsey refused; apparently he doesn't want to second-guess the Archives. The Clintons themselves, meanwhile, say that everything is in the hands of the Archives and Mr. Lindsey, even though the Archives are acting pursuant to Bill's personal instructions, and those instructions include a provision to allow Mr. Lindsay to second-guess the Archivists.

If you can't easily follow all that, maybe that's the idea.

Last October, NBC's Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton about the White House records at a debate. Her answer: "The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves." So, while she is "fully in favor" of releasing the records from her time in the White House, those bureaucrats were holding things up. As for the records that her husband had requested remain under seal until 2012, as permitted under the law, "That's not my decision to make," she said. In other words, you'll have to ask at Window 14.

Then in February, Mr. Russert asked again, noting that the Archives had actually turned over 10,000 pages of documents about Hillary Clinton's schedule as first lady to the Clintons for their review, and they were sitting on them. Her answer was again, in effect, "It's not my job."

Those scheduling records are now due to be made public later this month, but the pardon records are stuck in limbo. The Archivists say that it's up to Mr. Lindsey, but also that Mr. Lindsey won't look at them. The Clintons say its up to the Archives, and Mr. Lindsey — well, his window is closed, we guess.

Then there's the question of the donors to the Clinton Foundation, which raised more than $135 million last year alone. Hillary Clinton says she's in favor of a law that would require disclosure of the donors to Presidential foundations. So what about voluntarily disclosing while a candidate what she favors making mandatory after she's elected? "Well, you'll have to ask them," she said back in September, referring to the foundation. Who runs the foundation? Why, Bruce Lindsey, of course.

So, has Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Lindsey and Bill do the disclosure that she claims to favor? "Well," she told Mr. Russert in New Hampshire in September, "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband." In other words, this window is now also closed — at least until the election is over.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

David, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:54:43 GMT

Earmarks are only a fraction of the much larger problem that is pork barrel spending. And McCain is quite amusing proclaiming to have 0 earmarks, while supporting the $15B per MONTH debacle in Iraq.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:57:23 GMT

You can have ten more debates - its nothing to me. I intentionally missed the last one and won't watch another until its Obama debating McCain.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

BL, Cincinnati OH — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:11 GMT

Hopefully the rules in the next two debates include NO TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE. I'm sick of 20 minute diatribes on health care. We got it already. I could repeat word for word both of the positions. Start talking about other things.

Housing crisis
Jobs
Taxes
Border Security
Social Security reform
Medicare/aid reform
Economic policies
etc

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

BT Owens, Memphis — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:04:37 GMT

Jesse, Burnsville, MN - Do people not realize how many fewer jobs there were be if earmarks were not in place?

There would be more jobs because private industry would put the capital to better use. There would be less corruption because it wouldn't be worth the lobbyists time to lobby the politicians. Less money would be spent to political payoffs and more money would stay with hard working Americans in the form of lower taxes.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

SHIRLEY AR. — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:07:38 GMT

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH SHARON,LARGO,FL.
I CAN'T BELIEVE THE WAY THIS MAN HAS WHINED AND IS STILL THE MEDIAS DARLING BOY.
HILLARY HAS TO MEASURE EVERY WORD AND SHE IS ATTCKED UNMERCIFULLY. SHE HAS PROVEN WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT SHE CAN TAKE THE ONSLAUGHT OF ATTACKS THAT WILL WITHOUT A DOUBT COME FROM THE REPUBLICANS. I REALLY DON'T THINK OBAMA HAS SHOWN THAT HE IS A STRONG ENOUGH CANDIDATE HE REMINDS ME OF A HOT AIR BALLOON, THAT IS DESTINED TO START LOOSING AIR AND DRIFTING BACK TDOWN TO EARTH.
I REALLY WANT TO SEE ANOTHER MORE SUBSTANT DEBATE. I KNOW HILLARY CAN TAKE THE HEAT.
I DON'T THINK HE CAN----HE WILL WHINE!!!!

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Mox — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:16:45 GMT

I hope the debate ask Obama what his change plans are for the whites of this country.His pastor says from the pulpit We are the worst of the worst. I see now where the vile comes from that is being spewed. His Pastor(now retired so he is out of reach,but still Obamas mentor and on his religous committee)spews this racist talk and mongering from the pulpit is unbelievable.Ranting his parishners into a hate frenzie against whites and Hillary by name.I know you dont have to agree with everything but my lord how in this day and age could anyone sit through one of these tyrades not to mention 20 years of them.And he (wright)says God Dam America.Our uniter comes from this????????????????????????????

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Immune to the Spin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:17:21 GMT

So Hillary will make public her earmark requests "this year." Is anybody fooled by this woman anymore (outside of Pennsylvania, I mean)?

Of course we know what that means. It means that she'll make them public either 1) after she loses or 2) after she wins. And, we all know that if either of those happens, she won't do it anyway.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

twocanpete — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:17:35 GMT

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Maybe HRC should have thought twice before she dissed the caucus process. Obama won Iowa because he worked his tail off. It wasn't Hillary who went door to door and asked for votes it was Barak Obama that did that. While she was taking 'down' to people he was talking 'to' them.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Enrique, Chicago — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:18:35 GMT

I hope those Iowa delegates that John Edwards won consider how Hillary and her campaign regard Iowa as a "boutique state." In their eyes, Iowa doesn't really count since it held a caucus.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Fresh Air — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:18:36 GMT

Shirley in AR,
Please go for a walk or yell at your cat. Your "all caps" rants are unnecessary and reflect poorly on your candidate.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

twocanpete — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:18:59 GMT

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Just shut up and send me my earmark. I need the money okay, so just send it.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmark wars

Pat, Arkville, NY — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:20:00 GMT

Has everyone forgotten that Bill Clinton was impeached? The only group that did not vote to impeach him were the Republicans. He was a political and international embarassment. He overlooked terrorist threats because he was leaving office and left it "for the next guy". Hillary is cold and haughty as a result will not be what is needed to improve diplomacy. A female would be great, but she is not the one.