Wait a minute, everyone!

While the Michael Moore Liberal Utopians try to figure out a way to blame all this on Hillary Clinton.

You probably won't be seeing too many Barack O'Bummer supporters commenting on this article.

It takes too much imagination to flip-flop the spin. And Barack O'Bummer supporters are not well know for imagination.

It's repeat the same old tired arguments over and over again until you Barack O'Bummer fans convince yourselves that someone actually believes your spinning.

Yep, it's little ol' lonely me against the hordes of swarming Liberal Utopians supporting Barack O'Bummer.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 1:03 PM ET | 03-14-2008

This is great that Sen. Obama has modeled transparency, by releasing records pertaining to his earmarks.

Hospitals are good ventures to invest in because they benefit the community at large.

Senator Clinton has also brought funding to hospitals, and if you do a little investigating, I believe you will see that she and perhaps also Sen. McCain may have accomplished such contributions for their constituents in their states. This is one example of both senators accomplishing something beneficial to the wider community.

Did the writer of this article investigate as to whether the funding to the General Dynamic company produced jobs, or led to other productive outcomes that were beneficial to the community, or did the writer stop in attempting to draw a point to raise as an issue concerning the company head being a financial advisor to Sen. Obama) and the company receiving funds?
I think the greater question is: what did this action produce? Was it something that benefitted the community? Did the writer attempt to investigate further, or was the intent to stop at attempting to draw a shallow line that goes nowhere?

Or is the writer suggesting that Hospitals should not receive any financial funding when a relative of a politician has worked there in the past?

Will the writer of this article be investigating all the matters of corruption being investigated regarding individuals involved in questions concerning unethical conduct as it relates to campaign financing and Mr. Hsu and contributions to the Clintons, Mr. P. Paul's lawsuit against Mr. Clinton ( claiming fraud) and the entire R. Burkle matter, as well as contributions from Mr. Reczko to the Clintons and where all that money went from Mr. Reczko, or any of the many other matters regarding federal lobbyists funding that raises many questions about personal gains to the Clintons as well as other matters that involve individuals being investigated for criminal conduct / and or in cases as with P. Paul, that involve claims of fraud against former President B. Clinton and illegal campaign financing ( if I understand correctly)?

I suppose all kinds of parallels could be made in very general ways between legal contributions, legitamate earmarks that benefit a community and contributions that benefit the community at large in the work of both Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton.

But here's the issue: there is a tremendous amount of secrecy surrounding the Clintons that does not surround Sen. Obama or at least on appearance, Sen. McCain.

Why is this buffer of secrecy surrounding Sen. Clinton not being investigated by the media and instead, we see a steady stream of subtle innuendo directed towards Sen. Obama, when there is substantive evidence of concern to investigate serious matters involving Sen. Clinton and individuals or decision making involved in her personal investments, and campaign financing?

There are serious questions that need to be raised on behalf of the public, that involve not only ethics in journalism, but ethics in government, ethics in politics, ethics in upholding the public's trust.

Is it unreasonable for the public to want the truth investigated?

Is it unreasonable for the public to want these matters researched so that we are informed and can choose?

In all honesty, it makes me wonder: Is there more to this appearance of a bias in the media that the public may not be aware of? I hope this does not sound ridiculous, but I honestly am beginning to wonder whether that could be possible.

For example: Has the media been enaged at any level with foreign investments on behalf of or in relationship to the Clintons and or their associates / or partners ( as in the Yucaipa investments Mr. Clinton was handling where he received profits from drawing other investors into the company he was negotiating for) and would such political and financial posturing not present concern for conflicts regarding Sen. Clinton's ability to represent the public's best interest, and - if those approached by Mr. Clinton were involved in the media ( Television, print, electronic) would this not present serious questions about whether the media was capable of conducting themselves in a non-biased manner in their duty to inform the public, and to pursue the truth?

I do not know whether such business transactions have taken place, but it certainly makes me wonder whether the media has been compromised in their duty to uphold the public's right to the truth, because of what might be perceived as apparent conflicts of interest between business partnerships they have invested in that perhaps are related in some way to the Clintons?

I hope that doesn't seem like a silly question. It's just that I can't fathom where the bias that so many are speaking of is coming from particularly if there is a serious lack of balance in HOW the media handles its duties to investigate, to inform the public.

It's a frightening prospect that I've been reading about. I can't help but wonder whether this could at all be true - and if it is, where can one turn to for un-biased and truthful reporting that places the public's right to know above personal gain, personal interests, corporate gain, corporate interests?

Sent by Hope | 2:24 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Update: The Obama campaign sent out a press release this afternoon that points out that Sen. Clinton has not released any of her earmarks requests during her time in the Senate.

Well, there you go. The first attempt to spin the Obama connections so that Hillary looks guilty.

Yep, the Obama people don't even try to answer their involvement in either case. Right off the bat, it's let's try to throw the spotlight on Hillary. Nice radical try, there, fellows.

Yep, if you asked Barack Obama what day it is, he'd say that Hillary Clinton doesn't know.

All in all, not a bad try. I'd say it was more like a horrible try. But, I asked how it was that someone would attempt a spin from the Obama camp.

Basically this all comes down to the typical Obama tactic. Change the subject. Never, ever answer for yourself when you can blame it on the woman.

Worse comes to worse, call somebody a racist if it's not enough to blame it on the woman. Spin and spin like no Republican ever spinned before.

Whatever the Obama camp does, they never answer direct questions about what they do, what they have done.

Okay, so, any other Obama spins on this subject? We are all curious to see.

We have gone beyond the question of whether this Democratic campaign is between liberals and conservatives, to the questioning of how much radicalization of American politics is involved in the Obama campaign tactics.

Radical tactics involve spinning like radicals accuse Hillary of spinning.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 2:37 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Earmarks are corruption, pure and simple, not withstanding if they go to hospitals or create jobs. It is a racket by which politicians make people indebted to them just as old politcal machines did with government jobs. The undeniable fact is that Members of Congress are not qualified to judge between different providers of the same service or the relative needs of different parts of the country. They have an inherent conflict of interest as well since they are pushing the economic interest of their own "employers", not the national interest. Congress should alocate funds and set policy directions, but decisions on specific programs should be made by professional administrators with technical expertise in the respective government departments. They should be making decisions without regional bias which individual members of Congress can never do. Merit, not connections to politically powerful member of Congress should be the basis of deciding who gets government contracts. BTW, all other no-bid contracts (which is what earmarks are) should also be outlawed.

Sent by Kevin L. | 3:04 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Thanks for reporting this, but without knowing what kinds of earmarks Clinton has given I really can't do much with this.

The only thing I can do is give him credit for releasing the information. If Hillary doesn't do the same I'll just have to assume the worst.

Sent by Dan | 5:02 PM ET | 03-14-2008

General Dynamics may have gotten the money without an earmark. If Congress is concerned about a defense system, they have the authority to have a hearing, debate and a vote.

I may be missing the point but I like the idea of the US military having the best weapon systems.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that Obama's friend is on the G.D. board but Obama may want the system, it may be a good idea anyway.

I never want our military to die, just to neutralize the enemy.

How about No More Earmarks. Just good legisation and legislators.
Best regards.

Sent by Dave Rosen | 8:51 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Kevin, I think you raise some really good questions, yet, the little I know about this, it seems that there are some earmarks that are indeed used for good causes, and others that clearly are questionable. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole process either, but my understanding is that you can choose to either put them to good use ( where a community benefits) or, you can waste the funds in ways that do little in developing or responding to the critical needs and concerns within a community. Unfortunately, the article did not provide any depth or research regarding earmarks, their use, or any of the records of the candidates and instead, it solely focused on Sen. Obama.

Until the process changes, this is how business is conducted in Congress. I think you raise good questions, kevin, and certainly it seems to me that a responsible person in Congress would be making it their business to insure that HOW those funds are used are respectful of the purpose for which Congress is there to serve in the first place. But sadly, this is not always the case.
All one has to do is look across America and see where there is tremendous suffering and the realization that we can change what we see - but instead, we persist, year after year in failing to remedy the suffering our eyes witness day after day, all across America.

I could not help but wonder how the president today could tout the USA helping other foreign countries, while our veterans sleep on the streets of America, while children live in carcinogenic trailers, while the elderly live parsing their medicines, trying to pay their bills, while young people continue in failing to graduate from high school all across America, while people are losing homes, families are breaking apart under the unbearable stress they feel, fathers can't feed their children, mothers are working two and three shifts.

And yet, I know that if this is the way business is conducted in Congress - until it changes, earmarks need to be used in a manner that benefits the good of the people, in ways that help to create jobs, that help to promote and secure the infrastructure of the community, and so on.

There truly are some cities where hospitals lack much needed upgrades in technology, and services, where the needs of the community exceed the hospital's ability to meet the demand within the community.

You've probably seen the impact of this in your own community where hospitals are now often on codes that indicate they have reached their capacity, and incoming patients cannot be accomodated and end up getting shifted from one location to the next.

When there is such stress on the infrasturctures within a community that help the community to function and serve a critical need, and the hospital lacks the resources, services, technology it requires to accomodate the growing needs within its commmunity, this will ultimately impact how that hospital can deliver services to the public at large.

In many communities hospitals have consolidated, thus putting even greater strains on the ones that are left operating.

If strains already exist where upgrades in technology have not been met, and demands have increased on the number of patients and the regional area that the hospital is called to serve, it would seem to me to be a responsible thing to insure that the hospital has the resources it needs to accomodate the public it must serve ( and that's without considerations of there being terrorist attacks, catostrophic events,etc.) where plans for cities are in place that address where command centers would be set up to accomodate the medical needs of a community, during a crises, depending on the event that is presented.)

It would be interesting to learn how each Senator allocates earmarks, where the money went, how the funds were used, what measures were in place to insure that fiscal accountability was mandated, with outcome measures in place to justify how funds were spent.

Along with that, I think you raise an excellent point in terms of quesioning how Congress determines WHERE funds will be used, and how those decisions will be made in consideration of the needs across the nation.

My heart aches for the homeless people from various states in the south impacted by Katrina who have now learned that their FEMA trailers are carcinogenic time bombs.

How shall earmarks be determined, and what process will be used to determine where they are spent, how they are spent and what should be prioritized?

Why is there not greater collaboration among these UNITED states? I think you raise some excellent questions.

I suppose earmarks can be good or bad depending on HOW they are used and what quality measures are in place to assure that they are managed in a fiscally responsible manner that serves the public's interest.

Dan, I absolutely agree with you.
The point is that Senator Obama has repeatedly taken the position of disclosure and transparency which models the kind of governance and leadership you can expect from him!

Sent by Hope | 9:18 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I have to agree. Senator Obama discloses. I don't understand why Senator Clinton has not. I just don't get it at all. Doesn't she realize that it is just one more reason not to vote for her. And thank you Hope. You made a very interesting comment.

Sent by Jane | 11:38 AM ET | 03-15-2008

Obama's wife sure had a plumb of a job considering she had no experience in healthcare. I wonder if she was hired because she was a state senator's wife. I think this should be explored further.

Sent by tina | 9:00 AM ET | 03-17-2008