The other reviewers correctly point out the unfairness of the article and the headline. Both imply presidential favoritism, even though the article eventually goes on to contradict the suggestion that Illinois somehow had an inside track. It's probably not right to blame the reporter for the headline. In most shops, an editor would have written that. But the headline does reflect how the article started out, so it's not surprising to see that. Since Illinois is the fifth largest state in population, it's not surprising to me that it would rank high in the number of stimulus projects. It would have been appropriate to mention that. Florida, at fourth largest, and Ohio, at 7th largest, will have had sizable bundles of stimulus money at their disposal. That brings us to perhaps the biggest flaw, the failure to mention how the money is being distributed. As it was explained to me by one of my state's district highway engineers, the biggest part of the transportation money was parceled out to the states according to their size, and the state departments of transportation subdivided it to regions from there. Local and regional planning agencies were to pick "shovel-ready" projects on which to use the money, and the state was to ratify the choices upon confirming that they met pre-existing standards for federal transportation aid. It's not like Ray LaHood or someone in the White House was leafing through the applications and stamping OK on some and Reject on others. So, grade this article down both for suggesting what is not there and for omitting the background that would have shot down the writer's own thesis. So, Illinois had more projects. So what?