Well now, this is a juicy bit. Earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed an amendment which called for a one year moratorium on earmarks. All three presidential contenders, senators alike, voted in favor of this amendment. However, the amendment failed with an overwhelming majority. Politicians love their pork, after all. One senator in particular seems relieved that the amendment for which she voted failed. Senator Clinton (D-NY) has requested $2.3 billion in earmarks for the upcoming appropriations.

From The Hill:

The total amount Clinton requested greatly surpasses the $837 million secured last year by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee who took home the largest dollar amount of earmarks in the current fiscal year’s spending bills. In those bills, Clinton secured $342 million in earmarks.

Her office contends the requests are for important homeland security improvements and legitimate health projects. However, it appears the documents demonstrating the requests are non-specific and lack detail. Oh, but there is one detail not missing. The justification. Hillary's staff claim the reason for the requests are - are you ready for this - President Bush's fault.

The documents outlining her most recent requests, however, are broadly defined, with few details on precisely where most of the money would go.

For instance, Clinton asked for an additional $750 million for a homeland-state grant program and another $125 million for an urban-area security initiative in the upcoming homeland security appropriations bill. But it does not say which projects the grants would pay for.

Clinton’s office justified the requests, saying the money is needed after a “staggering” reduction in the Bush administration’s budget proposal that left states and localities “ill prepared to prevent another major terrorist attack.”

I know that one came as a big shock, right? Not.

So you may be wondering why Hillary would vote in favor of swearing off pork for a year and then not CHOOSE to do so voluntarily, as has McCain and Obama?

Two possible solutions:

1) As mentioned in The Hill story, perhaps Clinton is softening the landing of a possible political defeat in her White House bid. She needs to stay strong in New York so that she can remain in her senate seat. Gaining favor.

2) My theory, which is not mentioned in the article, is that it is just the same ole, hypocritical pandering. How would it have looked if she had been the only senator running for president who did NOT vote for that amendment? She knew it was dead on arrival. It was a safe bet to fail. Therefore, after it failed she could starting pining away for the bacon.

This will surely be campaign fodder for Clinton's opponents, regardless. Two billion smackeroos for earmarks could make for a lot of "Woodstock Museums", after all. And asking for spending requests after voting for the moratorium could be seen as the political reality written on the wall - a doubtful and weaker candidate, preparing for her inevitable defeat. Popcorn, anyone?