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

[truthyguy]

Make that: "And when I say "who" I am EXCLUDING (1) anyone with something to gain personally from her getting the nomination, (2) those who are paid Hillary campaign workers and (3) Republicans."

[Beckinspate]

It isn't just that she won't do it, but also the constant manipulation--surprise, surprise.

[truthyguy]

Earmarks - Income Tax Returns - Donors to the Bill Clinton Library

Does anyone really think Hillary will release any of this damning evidence against her?

You cannot trust anything Hillary says. Who has not learned that by now? And when I say "who" I am excluding (1) anyone with nothing to gain personally from her getting the nomination, (2) those who are not paid Hillary campaign workers and (3) Republicans.

[passport]

Clinton will not release documents directly related to her job as a public servant, Meanwhile the MSM searches 30 years of Obama Pastor Wright sermons. Oh well....God bless America.

[robXdion]

wow, OK, what more do people have to see that the Senator is hiding so much it HAS to be ridiculous. She is implicated as a principal in 2 upcoming trials and refuses to release any records of her 8 years as 1st Lady, her schedules, and now this. She only escaped Ken Starr because records vanished and were shredded. C'mon people. Can you not smell the stink???

[billrott]

Ok, earmarks are a normal part of the governmental process. They are meant to provide needed resources to key services that serve the public. With that said, earmarks also need to be limited due to the limited resources that our nation has. Only the most beneficial and imperative earmark projects should be getting approved.

If Senator Clinton felt that the earmarks were truly important and necessary enough to sponsor them, why won't she release such information to the public? Don't the voters deserve to know these details?

[DennyCrane]

Lemme guess. She'll release that info once she becomes the nominee. Why does anyone support someone so secretive? We already have a President like that. We don't need another one.

[butchie65]

Gee, what a shock ! She won't release her taxes and now Earmarks. Wake up people !

[Tankan]

Well now, there's a suprise!

Perhaps she's playing hard to get!

[Montanamotor]

No earmarks, no tax-returns, no list of donors for Bills bibliotheque published - does anybody but me see a pattern in this? Whenever she could deliver, she fails. A shape of things to come.

[Democrat08]

Obama only released the earmarks from the past year

[drmavis]

Why won't the candidate running on the claim of experience release any data for voters to evaluate her experience in government on? I don't get it.

[globality]

Are these not part of OUR public record that WE pay for