The Obama campaign calls the "bridge to nowhere" some of the worst example of pork.
So, let's get this straight.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden both vote, TWICE, to force Alaska to build the Bridge to Nowhere, which they now claim is useless pork.
Through the hard work of Republicans, the final bill allows Alaska to spend the money elsewhere.
Sarah Palin, running for Governor, is asked about the Bridge, and says that in general she does support infrastructure projects. Not a ringing endorsement, but let's stipulate she supported the bridge before she was in a position to see the details, like Barack and Joe would have seen before they voted TWICE to force Alaska to build the bridge.
Once Sarah takes office, she is presented the full picture of the the bridge and other projects. She takes the money that Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to give to her, but decides to say "No Thanks" to the bridge project.
So Governor Palen takes the money that Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to give her -- and SHE is the one that they think is the problem?
If Obama was caught giving out walking around money to pay people to vote for him, I guess he'd say the real criminals were all those poor people who TOOK the money he gave them -- but we would all know better.
The problem with "pork" is the perception, and often the reality, that legislators VOTE TO SPEND OUR MONEY, in the hopes it earns them votes from the people who benefit.
This is the first time I've ever seen a campaign try to blame the people who GET the benefit for their pork spending. Obama and Biden voted to send our money to Alaska, in exchange for Ted Stevens voting to send our money to Delaware and Illinois.
And now Obama and Biden want to pretend THEY are change agents, and the problem is the people of Alaska, Illinois, and Delaware who took the money they sent.
This probably makes sense to the DailyKos/RaisingKaine folks. But the only way the media falls for this is if they are in the bag for Obama.