On the September 9 edition of MSNBC Live, co-hosts Tamron Hall and John Harwood did not challenge the false “contrast” that McCain campaign political director Mike DuHaime purported to draw between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Barack Obama on earmarks. DuHaime claimed that Palin has “cut half a billion dollars in spending when she was governor using her veto,” whereas Obama has “asked for a billion dollars in earmarks.” In fact, Palin, by her own account, has requested hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for Alaska in her two years as governor, and according to The Seattle Times, her earmark requests this year* amounted to “more, per person, than any other state.” Hall and Harwood also did not dispute DuHaime's false claim that Palin “saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars” by “kill[ing] the Bridge to Nowhere.” *

Since becoming governor of Alaska, Palin reportedly requested at least $254 million in earmarks in 2007 and $197 million in 2008, totaling at least $451 million, or an average of $330 per person each year based on Alaska's estimated 2007 population of 683,478. By contrast, since becoming a U.S. senator, Obama has reportedly requested $853.3 million in earmarks for Illinois, a figure that “exclud[es] earmark requests for national programs, such as breast cancer research”; he has reportedly requested a total of $931.3 million in earmarks over his Senate career. The figures include earmarks Obama requested in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (for the subsequent fiscal years); he reportedly requested no earmarks in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009). Based on Illinois' estimated population for 2005, 2006, and 2007 (12,719,550, 12,777,042, and 12,852,548, respectively), Obama's earmark requests for Illinois since taking office amount to an average of approximately $17 per person, per year. Using the higher overall earmark request total, which includes earmarks for national programs, Obama has requested an average of approximately $18 in earmarks per Illinois resident, per year.

While both Hall and Harwood noted that Palin initially supported the “Bridge to Nowhere,” neither corrected DuHaime's false assertion that when Palin “killed the Bridge to Nowhere ... [i]t saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.” In fact, Palin reportedly kept the federal funds for Alaska that had been originally designated for the bridge, so its termination “saved” federal taxpayers nothing -- it meant that the federal government's money was spent on other Alaskan transportation projects. Indeed, the press release announcing Palin's decision against “proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge” outlined her plans to do just that:

The Department of Transportation has approximately $36 million in federal funds that will become available for other projects with the shutdown of the Gravina Island bridge project. Governor Palin has directed Commissioner Leo von Scheben to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds, while the department also looks for a more affordable answer for Gravina Island access.

DuHaime was responding to Hall's statement that "[w]e know there's a new ad saying that she [Palin] originally supported it [the Bridge to Nowhere project] before she was against it" and that PolitiFact.com had said “earlier today [on MSNBC] ... that her statement about not supporting it is 'barely true.' ”

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on September 9:

HALL: Of course, we're pointing out -- you're pointing out a lot about the enthusiasm, but the Obama campaign and their surrogates are pushing back against Palin. For example, they're talking about this Bridge to Nowhere. We know there's a new ad saying that she originally supported it before she was against it. We had PolitiFact on earlier today saying that her statement about not supporting it is “barely true.” Are you concerned about the discrepancy, and why is the campaign choosing to follow this line for the Governor Palin when there's been so much pushback including, again, from PolitiFact.com?

DuHAIME: Well, listen, at the end of the day, she killed the Bridge to Nowhere. She absolutely did. It saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. She killed it. There's no doubt. That is an indisputable fact. So --

HARWOOD: It was a long day before the end, though, Mike.

DuHAIME: Listen, the bottom line -- you see the Democrats, what they're talking about, you know, they want to attack Governor Palin. And we understand it. That's the -- I guess this is the new kind of politics that Senator Obama has talked about. Just attack, no matter what, at the end of the day, the ultimate facts are.

So, she killed it. She's somebody who, you know, cut half a billion dollars in spending when she was governor using her veto. Compare that with Barack Obama, who asked for a billion dollars in earmarks. I mean, this is an unbelievable contrast. If they want a contrast on who's more fiscally responsible --

HALL: But Mike, is that really an attack? Because we see Governor Palin -- she, from the convention up until today, has continued to -- and, I mean, I'm sure your supporters feel rightfully so -- point out the differences between the campaigns and point out the things that she feels are wrong about Senator Obama. So is it an attack when the Obama campaign comes back out and says, “Listen, that Bridge to Nowhere, which she is using as a rallying cry, she supported at one point in time”? Is that really an attack?

DuHAIME: Well, I mean, I think the bottom line is, they're trying -- if they want to have a conversation about who is more fiscally responsible, I think we can have that conversation. It's one that Governor Palin would win every day against Senator Obama or Senator Biden. They have not -- they have shown no fiscal restraint. Their plans for higher taxes, more government spending. If they want to have that conversation and they want to point to one specific project that she actually killed at the end of the day, then we can have that conversation. I think that it's one that we'll win every time.

HARWOOD: Mike, let's talk about the map for a second. I think both sides would probably agree Alaska has dramatically fallen off the table because of Sarah Palin. Barack Obama had played there before. What other states do you think she specifically changes the dynamic on in a way that helps your candidate?

DuHAIME: Well, she changes it in almost every state in a positive way. I think you can look at some very specific states like Pennsylvania, like Michigan, where you're going to have a great deal of enthusiasm in the base, but at the same time, Governor Palin reinforces Senator McCain's well-deserved reputation as an independent, as a maverick. And I think in some of those suburban areas that, you know, had not always been comfortable voting Republican, I think they're going to see a pair here in Senator McCain and Governor Palin who are truly independent, truly reformers, truly mavericks.

We've seen increases across the board, but I think in some of those battleground states that maybe people thought were leaning Democrat, I think are moving back toward our direction, and that's a very good sign for us.

HARWOOD: How long does this bump last? When does it fade and settle back again?

DuHAIME: Well, we'll see. Right now, I mean, I hope it's lasting. Certainly, we feel very good right now. But this is a race that we've always thought would be very close, and I think it's going to be close right down to Election Day. I think we're well-positioned right now, but we know it's going to be close right down to the very end.

HARWOOD: Mike, thanks for joining us. We'll talk to you again soon.

This item previously stated that The Seattle Times reported that Palin's earmark requests during her two years as governor were “more, per person, than any other state.” In fact, the Times article reported that about only her 2008 earmark requests (for fiscal year 2009). Media Matters for America regrets the error.