Clinton Won't Release Earmark Requests Like Obama

Newsday:

Close observers of yesterday's reports on the efforts of McCain and Obama to get Sen. Clinton to disclose her earmark requests going back to 2001 may have noticed a strange thing about the statement her office issued at the end of the day.

It said all manner of things about earmarks, and moratoriums, and funding, and accountability. But it never said whether she would disclose her earmark requests going back to 2001.

We spent today back-and-forthing a few more times by e-mail with her press office, and the exchanges made it pretty clear that the oversight was intentional. The plan seems to be that since the NY press has never obsessed over Hillary's earmark requests, she can safely not release them as long as she doesn't say she won't and doesn't say why she won't.

Keep reading

-or-

Read how Clinton donors are threatening to withhold funds from the DNC

-or-

Read how Obama has admitted more extensive ties to Tony Rezko

-or-

Read a HuffPost blog written by Barack Obama.

Read the whole story: Newsday

Comments

[Tizzy]

While the Clintons will never come clean baffles me when they keep going throwing mud at Obama themselves and also using surrogates and the press that is in their tank. Her tax returns will not be released just like her White House 'experience filled years' memoirs. Do not expect to see her release on her Earmarks. Yet she wants Pennsylvannia to get her campaign to boost again after losing 4 in a row since Ohio. She lost Texas, Wyoming, Mississippi, Iowa 2. CNN Campaign Trail and Candi Crawley cannot get right who won Texas. Obama should rightly be credited and the colour dark blue painted over Texas on the Map. Obama's superior delegate haul in Texas is being diminished thereby assisting Hillary to stay on when its obvious she should quit. Obama still expanded his delegate lead at Iowa on Saturday. It was the same at California and I believe that once New York's recounting is concluded in 88 Precinths where Obama's votes were mis recorded Zero Votes, he would have gained close to 20 more delegates than Hillary. The idea to redo Florida and Michigan is not necessary since it will move the finish line from 2025 to 2228. It will not help any of the candidates except Hillary that needs the 2 states to get closer to Obama's delegate tally so as to use the closeness of the tie to make the argument to Super delegates on electability. It time for the DNC to look the Clintons in the eye and tell them to quit in the interest of the party.

[irishgawdess]

With the news of Clinton not releasing her list of earmarks, I went to the Seattle Times earmark database and looked up her earmarks. For FY 2008 *defense spending* alone, she had 66 earmarks totaling $151,524,000 (give or take a million). 83% of her earmarks were for military related programs.

Percentage by keywords:
83% (55 earmarks)
Army
Navy
Marines
Air Force
War-fighter tactical communications
Bio-chemical research
multi-lingual text mining for intel analysis
wireless data detection
real time data collection in military environment
robotic warrior
satellites
land attack
etc.

10.6% (7 earmarks to various NY institutions)
NY Nat'l Guard
Civil Patrol (3 different earmarks)
anti-terrorist
viral research for military manpower effectiveness

6.06% (4 earmarks)
Military personnel and vets health

To be fair, Obama's FY 2008 defense spending, 9 earmarks totaling $34,440,000. At least 7 out of 9 are for his home state.

Percentage by keywords:
77.7% (7 earmarks)
Body armor
solar backpack
fuel cells/robotic defense systems
intel gathering
light emitting diode for fast wound healing
Rock Island arsenal - roof replacement; building used for manufacturing, shipping & receiving of body armor

22.2% (2 earmarks)
nano-tech cancer research
national service member outreach program

And to be even more fair: John McCain - zero earmarks for FY 2008 defense spending.

A list of campaign contributors is available for each congressional member on the same site in order to cross check to earmarks. Quid pro quo and all that...

[treadway123]

These were not all her ear marks. These are only what the seatle times could find! if you want to trueth and the only trueth---------they must come directly from the senate floor where Obama's came from and released by the Senate Floor on her pemission. She refuse's to give full permissiokn for that release. Poor irishgawdess, you been hood winked and fell right into their trap. also, forget the full disclosure of he campaign contributors---------I know for a fact that they are not all listed there , just like her ear marks. Good try, irishgawdess but not cigar! You also forget she sold a lot of her names for campaign contributors to another company, would you like that list for comparison? You have a few surprise's comeing to you.

[irishgawdess]

"... she sold a lot of her names for campaign contributors to another company, would you like that list for comparison?"

Well yeah, that would be great. Gimme what you got! The data above is what I could find on FY 2008 defense spending only. There is more data for all federal reps in the main database http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/ I don't know that I was "hoodwinked," more just lulled into thinking that the info in the database was all inclusive. In that respect, you're right.

The investigative reporters for the Seattle Times report, David Heath and Hal Bernton took on this mammoth task and put it together in an extensive database. David explained his methodology on Bill Moyers' Journal a couple of weeks ago. They started out looking for earmarks of Washington State’s federal representatives, and then found lists of corresponding campaign donations by earmark recipients. Why not take it a little further. They said the process was tedious; the information isn’t readily available. E.g. the wording of the earmarks on the final bills was so cryptic so they went to the committee notes to determine who gave how much to whom and for what. I’m sure there was much more to their investigation.

I’m sure there are volumes of data that I’m not aware of and wouldn’t know where to find them. If I did, I’d be a paid investigative reporter! What I don’t understand is how one senator can keep her work on the floor of the Senate from the public? Looking forward to your list of campaign contributors for comparison.

[Independent voter]

incomplete list. sorry

[skidz12]

If I can't vote Obama then at least Mccain kinda tells the truth, and kinda rejects lobbyist power and kinda seems authentic and sincere. Hillary kinda seems like a more corrupt female version of Mitt Romney, they both are the pre-eminate say anything do anything politicians of this cycle.

[irishgawdess]

There are a lot more issues to compare between all the candidates before making a decision. The lobbyist/earmark issue is important, but so are many others. e.g. Do you think our troops should be in Iraq for another hundred years? How about a million?

[mcfried]

Given that Clinton voted to put them there and voted with McCain on the Iran bill. I'm not sure why you think she will be any different when it comes to the war. Because she says so - come on nothing out of her mout this whole campaign has been truthful.

[osusuzyq]

The voters of New York need to demand her earmarks, her tax returns, and total transparency. She will NEVER do it. I will never understand why anyone would vote for her. She has no one else's best interests at heart - only her own.

[waynesmyer]

"I don't got to show you no stinking! Uh, badge? Tax records? earmarks? library funds,? GOP backers?
bank accounts? off-shore holdings? Gringo? HRC

[dadw5boys]

EAR MARKS ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!!!!!!

THE PRESS WANTS HILLARY TO SPEND MONEY TO DO THEIR WORK???

THEY DIDN'T DO THIER JOB WHEN BUSH WENT TO WAR LET THEM DO IT NOW!!!!!!!

[Independent voter]

hillary has a secret - and she doesn't want you to know

[kingshmoopy]

It isn't her earmarks, it is her earmark REQUESTS that she won't release. Her earmarks are public record, her requests are not--this is the difference. In the interest of transparency, we should be able to see her requests as well as the earmarks.

[robotfog]

That's what I thought. Public record. The press sucks. I hope all their pants fall down next time they are standing in front of a camera.

[skidz12]

Here, this is for all you Clinton people who have bought the spin. Would you buy a used-car from someone who refused to disclose the accident and major repair history? Would you buy a house from someone who refused to allow an inspection? This so-called leader "loaned" her campaign 5 million dollars and then used that as some sort of reason to motivate her supporters to donate more on-line. I guess she can lead after all as long as it's sheep she leads. Let me ask, if she loses will your contributions be returned as some sort of "loan" or will ol' Billy pocket some like his buddy Spitzer did and use your hard earned money on a couple hookers himself? It really makes me sad and sick to know you people are willing to blindly send your hard earned money during extremely difficult economic times to someone who refuses to be forthright with even her own supporters. Yes she's had it hard as a woman, and as a Clinton but she's no victim, she knows exactly what she's doing and she's playin' ya'll like a fiddle. You should demand disclosure and transparency if you really want to trust her with your hard earned money and passion. She owes the American people that, especially those of you who truly want her to be the next President. She can't do it though, her hole has already been dug and it's to deep to get out of now. Her and Bill sold out long ago and they know it would be political suicide to lets us in on the truth.

[SShaw490]

The Jeremiah Wright thing is more sensational, but much less substantive than Hillary's unwillingness to release her tax returns, her earmark requests or the list of donors to Bill's various charities. All of that will come out eventually - it's best to just get it out there and deal with it, rather than hope somehow to win the nomination while keeping it secret then have to deal with it in September when it'll matter a lot more. But Hillary doesn't care about anything except Hillary. If she can keep thing hidden for a while until she gets the nomination, she doesn't care if those things would have mattered to the superdelegates that vote for her in ignorance. I guess any superdelegate who votes for her should know what they're getting - a bushel basket of substantive scandals to deal with in September. If a superdelegate votes for her in ignorance, they're truly very, very ignorant.

[Tyrione]

For a click that claims to be the most educated you seem to be the most inept at using the Internet to find out the earmarks for all members of the Senate and the House. They are there.

[anthonylee]

What?!? It's called "accountability", taking "responsibility" and "standing" up for what you believe . . . .

Finding dirt on the "internet" has far greater repercussions for a Candidate than volunteering said "dirt" with the requisite and prepared "spin"! - Campaigning 101

[kingshmoopy]

Again, it isn't her earmarks that we are asking for her to release, those are public record, it is her earmark REQUESTS (which are not public record).

[jsinclair]

No earmarks.

No tax returns.

No library donor list.

No vetting.

[rojo7449]

It's not her library.

Obama has only released his 2006 tax return, please make sure you request his 2007, but be polite about it.

The earmarks are public record and have been published in my local daily newspaper, The Seattle Times. Get on your newspaper and tell them to do their job.

I wish the Obama supporters could come up with a new tune.

[Independent voter]

The Saudi Royal family gave $10M to the 'library'
How much did the binLaden family give to the 'library'??

Seems mildly important to me to know who paid for these horrid people and who expects favors in return for building the $500M library.

[mcfried]

Voted for the war, against the cluster bomb ban in civilian areas.... Better? didn't think so.

[mesuki]

And I wish you Hillary people would get your head out of the sand and see Hillary for the corrupt ,and self centered politician that she is. She's a damn train wreck waiting to happen,thats why the republicans loves her so much. She's doing the job of destroying the democratic party for them.

[PardonMyFrenchFries]

Geez, the demands on here are funny. Damn that hillary, she isn't releasing her records fast enough.

[riverhouse]

She's not releasing them at all. Nothing. No post presidential tax returns. No White House papers. H Clinton library donors. And now a refusal to release her legislative earmarks. She's had plenty of time if she intended to do it. I expect she'll give us either a filed separately tax return for '07 or a well scrubbed one that will be amended after a safe length of time when it no longer matters. She'll never let the public see their post presidential returns because they must hide the questionable way they have accumulated such a fortune in such short order.

[MRb1000]

HILLARY WITH ALL THESE SECRETS!!
I CANNOT TAKE IT NO MORE. WHY DON'T SHE STOP FULLING AROUND AND GOING AROUND THE TOWN SPREADING RUMOR AROUND AND LET THOSE EARMARKS FALL ON THE FLOOR. LOL

[irishgawdess]

Earmarks added to 2008 Defense Bill - by candidate:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/specialreports/congressionalearmarks.html

Database of earmark recipients and campaign donations to lawmakers:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/

How Seattle Times investigated earmarks and campaign contributions
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003786270_webearmarksabout.html

[dadw5boys]

EAR MARKS ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

THE MEDIA IS TOO LAZY TO DO THE RESEARCH AND WANTS TO MAKE HER SPEND MONEY TO DO THE WORK.

I DON'T BLAME HER TELL THE PRESS TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH.

[authorship]

Ms. Clinton's tiresome reference to her experience, invites scrutiny. She uses the megaphone to declare her interpretation of her opponent's profile, while cloaking hers in a smoke screen. This is one more in a growing attempt on her part to obfuscate, in the manner of the past 8 years. IF her record is as golden as she postulates, she should be as willing and anxious to unmask them, as she is to distort her opponent's accomplishments.

The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year may surprise you. Check it at the Library of Congress Website.

A well researched documentation for each of the candidates can be found at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 (Never mind that this is the kitchen where one Clinton supporter has gone on strike...obviously it got too hot!)

Clinton has blown her own cover...her transparency is crystal clear !

Instead of putting her factual records forward, it is obvious that Hillary prefers to hypothecate with her haughty declarations that she brings out of her so-called achievements grab bag.

An example caught my attention when I listened in dismay to Clinton when she claimed a pivotal role in the Northern Ireland resolution! That, as with her other declarations, has been viewed by those who DID have a grasp on reality.

As for the Irish reference she boldly made, Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland said; "It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women's groups. It helped, I suppose," Coogan said. "But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics."

Earmarks, on the other hand are factual...not so easy to twist in the wind! Hillary prefers to live in her bubble, her Disneyland. Again, she's confirmed it!

The Clinton campaign doesn't seem to understand that the depth of Obama's appeal comes from his openness and willingness to look forward with optimism instead of over his shoulder in fear. When he says, "We need to talk to our friends, but we also need to talk to our enemies," he is speaking for every mother and father who has a son in Iraq or one who might end up toting a gun for an amorphous cause that few can any longer explain.

We are all tired of this. We all have Bush-Clinton fatigue. We need a hopeful, fresh start. Hillary might have made a fine president. But she has turned into an ugly campaigner, whose voice was echoed by her co-pilot, old Ferroro, who just fell off of the broom...

This is not her time. We've - as American citizens - already endured our purgatory!