PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: A look at where the candidates stand on earmarks:

John McCain abhors them. Hillary Rodham Clinton embraces them. Barack Obama does a little of both.

The leading contenders for president cover the spectrum in their attitudes toward political pork known as earmarks.

In recent years, earmarks have become mired in controversy and scandal — from a $220 million earmark for a “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska to the corruption convictions of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Rep. Duke Cunningham. Still, members of Congress continue to parcel them out, arguing that part of their job is to bring federal dollars back to their states.

Legions of lobbyists coax lawmakers each year to drop thousands of earmarks for their clients into spending bills with little to no scrutiny or debate. The 2008 defense bill bulged with more than 2,100 earmarks, costing $8 billion, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The use of earmarks and the powerful influence of lobbyists on Congress have been hotly debated in the presidential race. As that debate has continued, the top presidential candidates dealt with earmarks as senators in starkly different fashion from each other.

In the defense bill, for example, The Seattle Times found that Clinton sponsored 66 earmarks totaling $150 million. Obama sponsored six earmarks totaling $34 million; all were for nonprofit organizations. McCain didn’t ask for any earmarks this year.

Read the whole thing.