Filed under: 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton — Claudia, Assistant Editor on April 30, 2008 @ 10:20 pm CEST
Hillary Clinton may have said that “the tide is turning” but she’s quietly preparing a soft landing for herself in the shape of $2.3 BILLION in earmarks requested for 2009 for NY. That’s 2.3 billion dollars more than what Obama or McCain have asked for.
It may in fact help her be re-elected in New York, but I wonder what superdelegates will think about how 2.3 billion dollars for ONE YEAR will look next to a guy who is famous for never asking for earmarks.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
1 PatHMV
May 1, 2008 @ 1:23 am CESTClaudia, I’ve got to look at the details again, but I think this one is over-blown. If I recall what I read this morning properly, the amount she requested is 3 times what others received. It’s very common practice to request many more earmarks than the Congressman expects to receive.
Not that it’s anything to be proud of, but maybe not quite as out there as the article made it out to be.
2 Claudia
May 1, 2008 @ 12:56 pm CESTPat, I’ve checked and you are correct, my apologies. The post has been edited and a link (which I left out by mistake) provided. I think the general point stands in terms of how this would look next to McCain but no need to take things out of proportion.
3 C Stanley
May 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm CESTI also think there’s a difference between Democrats’ concerns (or lack thereof) over earmarks vs. how Republican voters feel about them. I’ve already seen one article about how it’s perfectly acceptable for the elected officials who go to DC from "net taxpaying" states like Illinois and NY to try to
milk the systembring home money for local projects.4 auditionis.info
May 3, 2008 @ 12:17 am CESTClinton unsure about electability of Clinton…
… (Bill) Clintonian, blatant attempt at slickness. Sorry, the guy is neither as brilliant nor as savvy as he has been advertised to be. (For the record, neither are Hillary or McCain.) I wouldn’t blame him for wanting a smoke, either….