Since McCain asked for a lot less earmarks, and given the usual superficial analysis by the punditry and the blogosphere, Barrack looks bad. If you start digging into it, or even think about it, requesting means a lot less when compared to voting for them, and here John fails the test (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/09/26/debate_reality_check_earmark_r.php). McCain could probably argue that he voted for those bills despite the earmarks and that someone like Obama only voted for some bills because his earmarks were tagged to them, but that's conjecture. Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/368907_mccain20.html) has a succint backgrounder on earmarks and McCain's crusade against them. Somewhat related, WaPo's Dobbs Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html) covers nicely McCain's claim about eliminating earmarks.

So, after about an hour of googling and reading a few articles I can say that Obama does not look as bad as McCain tries to make him look, although he (Barrack) did abuse the earmark loophole like everyone else until only one year ago, conveniently enough. Conversely, McCain doesn't look quite the earmark slayer he portrays himself to be as long as keeps voting for them. In a few words, McCain is better than Obama on this issue, although whether the difference is significant or superficial is in the eye of the beholder.