Awhile back, John McCain took some fire indirectly from a fellow Republican, Jo Ann Emerson, when she defended the concept of earmarks. Now it looks like it’s Claire McCaskill’s turn.

Barack Obama recently took a jab at John McCain for voting against  The Water Resources Development Act Of 2007, which appropriated billions for levees and flood control programs:

‘I know that Sen. McCain felt as strongly as I did,’ Obama said, ‘feeling enormous sympathy for the victims of the recent flooding. I’m sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it even more if Sen. McCain hadn’t opposed legislation to fund levees and flood control programs, which he considers pork.’

McCain voted against the measure because he doesn’t believe in earmarks, and the bill was filled with them. But as McCain was all too happy to point out (h/t Political Fix), Claire McCaskill voted against the same bill for the same reason.

So who’s right? Barack Obama and Jo Ann Emerson are. Earmarks are not in and of themselves a problem. As a whole earmarks constitute approximately $18 billion (only .65% of the federal budget) and address many local needs. Of course, the process needs to be reformed to curtail the influence of lobbyists and increase transparency on which member of Congress is requesting an earmark, when they are doing it, and why. But Barack Obama has already done brilliant work on all those fronts and he’s only going to press harder once he gets in the White House.

Sorry you got dinged in the crossfire, Claire. But Barack is correct on this one.