The comments regarding Jacob Goldstein’s Health Blog in the Wall Street Journal made me want to run for cover. His article, Health Insurance May Stop Charging Women More Money evoked the haters on the Right to come out in full force. Goldstein discussed Senator John Kerry’s proposed new legislature, The Women’s Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation would effectively end higher insurance premiums for women, deny gender discrimination and require maternity coverage. Imagine that. I’ll refrain from my usual diatribes about the evils of insurance companies. I’d like to give my hypertension a rest.
Gender discrimination is a life-long battle and affects every aspect of our society. I had to ultimately “fire” my dry cleaner, (although he performed excellent work) because of his inequitable pricing practices. My husband’s shirts cost $1.29 to be cleaned, my blouses were $3.50. His suits were $8.50; mine $12.50. Every time I questioned the discrepancy, he’d give me a litany of incoherent excuses that made absolutely no sense.
According to actuarial tables, women outlive men by a factor of seven years, but does that justify charging us higher premiums? Oh, excuse me. We get pregnant -- as if that’s a crime. Does the testosterone-dominated crowd over at WSJ realize that every living species on this planet enters life through the uterus of a woman? In the world of my youth, when a man or a corporate entity exploited a woman financially they were commonly called in the language of street vernacular . . . a pimp.
The insurers’ acknowledgment of a disparity against women gives me a glimmer a hope despite their attempt to arm-wrestle the government from providing Universal Health Insurance. Kudos to Senator Kerry for writing this outstanding bill. Healthcare reform may not arrive in the morning but at least we’re taking small steps in the right direction.
I guess I’m not giving up on AIG until someone is behind bars or there’s some dare good answers to questions of “Who took our money and what was it used for?”
Right now I should be authoring postings on the G20 and how our President is fairing with the European leaders who feel we should report to them on all matters American; but I still hung-up on AIG and how any corporation felt it was above the law and dictated its terms and conditions to us the taxpayers.
Today the Wall Street Jounrnal published this online article, informing its readers there was an auditor that was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
For me the issue is “Why didn’t this come to light earlier”, this could have solved many a questions, time and especially money. So, is there some darkness unknown to the Obama administration, because I’m sure had this administration learned of this auditor’s existence sooner, appropriate action would have been rendered, by bring this auditor into the shinning daylight of our gloomy economic burdens we’re facing.
Below is the article from the Wall Street Journal, authored by Ryan Grim and entitled: “Congress Wants AIG Mole’s Documents”.
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.
The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.
Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”
The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.
“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
The McCain campaign continually promotes the idea that Sen. Obama lacks the experience and judgment to be president. On tonight’s Real Time With Bill Maher, Wall Street Journal writer Steve Moore negatively compared Obama’s experience with that of Sarah Palin.Hmm, let’s see. Sen. Obama manages a campaign that has raised the most amount of money in any presidential election such that he has not had to take public money. Not taking public money for the first time in a presidential election is by itself an accomplishment that has not received the notice it's due. But Sen. McCain took public money - couldn't that be called an earmark that he is so fond of speaking about? It certainly is taxpayer's money taken without regard to how taxpayer's regard Sen. McCain.
In any event, Sen. Obama has competed successfully on a national level for almost two years to win the Democratic Party nomination. And he has built a countrywide political organization that is the most impressive in history. Seems to me he has proven himself way beyond anything that the governor of a state with a total population of 670,000 and that gets a huge windfall from oil and gas. Oh and let’s not forget that Alaska gets more money from the federal government than any other state. Can’t be that difficult a place to run as proven by the fact that Gov. Palin couldn’t name anything she reads for information, or a Supreme Court ruling beyond Roe v. Wade.
Almost as funny as "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran."I get jokes… when they are jokes: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015040.php
* REPARATIONS TO BLACK COMMUNITY: Opposes before Election Day and supports after Election Day. * FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. ...* FOREIGN RELATIONS: Appoint Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative ...* NATIONAL ANTHEM: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson. And raise taxes.* CURRENCY: Update photos to reflect U.S. diversity: include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury...)
* REPARATIONS TO BLACK COMMUNITY: Opposes before Election Day and supports after Election Day.
* FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. ...
* FOREIGN RELATIONS: Appoint Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative ...
* NATIONAL ANTHEM: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson. And raise taxes.
* CURRENCY: Update photos to reflect U.S. diversity: include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury...)
Download the whole piece here: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42750415.pdf Uhm, don't bother sending comments to media outlets that won't publish or even tally them. Try the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the two most respected newspapers in the country… even Palin claims to read'em: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/henrymu/gGxMqT
If you liked this message, then please have a look at the rest of my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and please consider donating to the campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/PListe4Obama
Henry M
Palins reads... The Economist! (So do I, and Scientific American. Really! Okay, not the Economist.)
Things look bad for the economy but they are even worse for John McCain. The WSJ editorial board has come out against McCain.
In an opinion piece on McCain's scapegoating of Christopher Cox, the head of the SEC, the WSJ editorial board blasted John McCain for "false" statements and being "deeply unfair".
In a rare moment of non-spin, the WSJ pointed out that, "Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution."
Well, this is my first blog. And as they say, first impressions are lasting.
The bridge to nowhere, ironically, is leading Palin / McCain somewhere toward the While House, and it shouldn't.
I'm an undecided, independent voter. Week to week, back and forth I go about Obama. Right now, my vote is up for grabs.
Obama wowed my vote from me during the convention. But then came Palin. Yesterday, I stepped back into neutral. Fickled Independent, I am.
Obama needs to dim Palin's glow. She's stealing some of his, and causing me to sometimes transfix onto hers. The case that "the bridge to nowhere" is an example of Palin's hypocrisy - or mis-spoken truth is good.
But here's the problem...
I know anything too good to be true isn't. Palin is too good to be true. But there is something visceral about Palin McCain has tapped into. She connects like "Bubba" Clinton did -- warts and all, I'm blind when it comes to Bubba's indiscretions. I see no evil when it comes to Obama's experience. I'm not yet blind about Palin's shortcomings, but it can happen.
So, here's what I need from Obama:
A swift boat awakening. It would do me good. Her version about the "bridge to no where" could be serious reason to step out of neutral back to Obama. It mislead me. The Wall Street Journal and AP agreeing with Obama is helping to tone down Palin's glow.
Obama Has a Plan To Manage Our Oil Reserve
By JOHN D. SHAGES September 8, 2008
Energy is playing a pivotal role in this year's presidential election. And a crucial aspect of America's energy security not widely discussed is how to best use America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
Sen. Barack Obama is proposing a simple maneuver -- called an exchange, or swap -- that will help lower the price of oil for consumers, increase the amount of oil in the SPR, increase energy security, and leave taxpayers better off by about $1 billion.
His proposal deserves to be adopted.
In 1975, after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. created the SPR to protect against oil supply disruptions. That reserve now consists of 706 million barrels of crude oil, the largest stockpile in the world. As the steward of that stockpile, the Department of Energy plays an important role in oil markets. Merely announcing oil acquisitions or sales from the SPR moves oil prices. The SPR's drawdown capability of 4.4 million barrels of oil per day surpasses the daily production capacity of Iran, Iraq or Venezuela.
The authority to sell oil from the SPR is contingent on a presidential finding of a "severe energy supply interruption." In the past 33 years, there have only been two sales from the SPR: in 1991 to support Operation Desert Storm, criticized for being too late; and a widely applauded 2005 post-Katrina sale. There is also another, little understood statutory authority that allows the Energy secretary to "exchange" oil from the SPR.
This authority was created to allow the secretary to periodically change the SPR's composition to ensure that it remains useful to refiners and consumers. The Clinton administration used this authority in 2000, exchanging crude for heating oil. Later that year, facing a possible heating-oil shortage, the administration loaned 30 million barrels of oil to the market, which was repaid with interest in the form of additional oil at a later date.
This met two objectives. The swap added oil to the SPR at no cost to taxpayers and it put downward pressure on prices. The Bush administration has used the exchange option extensively. As a matter of policy, however, it has used this option only for minor supply disruptions, and not to intervene in markets due to high prices.
Today, with historically high oil prices, it is time to debate using the SPR. Some argue that the reserve should only be used in emergencies. Others say that we should use all the tools at our disposal to help consumers. Fortunately, we do not have to resolve these philosophical differences. Instead, we can improve the management of the SPR and maximize its value to the taxpayer. The oil in the reserve now is all light crude, which is easier and cheaper to refine into gasoline, a reflection of refining capability at the time the SPR was created.
Over the past three decades, however, U.S. refining capacity has become increasingly sophisticated and complex, because the world's oil is increasingly heavy and harder to refine. Today, about 40% of our refining capacity is configured to handle heavier crude oil. We now confront a mismatch between U.S. refining capacity and the oil mix in the SPR. In a 2007 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that in an emergency this mismatch could reduce U.S. refinery capacity by 5% or over 735,000 barrels per day in total as some refineries scale back production to accommodate the SPR oil.
The GAO recommended that the Energy Department change the reserve's oil mix to at least 10% heavy oil, roughly 70 million barrels. This could be accomplished through a swap. From a policy perspective, this would enhance the utility of the reserve, aligning its oil with U.S. refining capacity, while also putting short-term downward pressure on oil prices.
From a business perspective, the DOE could craft an exchange to either increase the oil in the reserve, yield a cash bonus, or both. Light crude is more valuable than heavy crude (by about $12 to $18 a barrel), so swapping one for the other could bring in about $1 billion at today's prices.
The House and Senate are considering legislation to mandate such a swap, and Mr. Obama has adopted the concept as part of his energy plan.
The public benefits are compelling. Swaps that help energy security, refiners and consumers should be a routine part of managing the SPR.
Mr. Shages is a former deputy assistant secretary for petroleum reserves at the Department of Energy.
___________________________________________________
Comments and Feedback to Wall Street Journal:
We welcome your comments and suggestions about the Online Journal features and content. Contact us at feedback@wsj.com:
By ELIZABETH HOLMES and LAURA MECKLERSeptember 9, 2008
[to write a letter to the editor of the WSJ: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com or Fax: 1-212-416-2255 Attn: Ned Crabb. See http://www.opinionjournal.com/guidelines/ before submitting. Editorial Page Submissions including the Op-Ed page pieces should go to: fax: 1-212-416-2255 Attn: Tunku Varadarajan or email: edit.features@wsj.com]
The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere.
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
A year ago, the governor issued a press release2 that the money for the project was being "redirected."
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
On Monday in Missouri, Gov. Palin put it this way: "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If the state wanted to build a bridge we would built it ourselves."
..............................................................................
But she's drawn considerable fire as result. Sen. Obama's campaign released an advertisement3 pointing out her original support of the bridge. And on Monday, an Obama staffer emailed a photo of Gov. Palin holding up a T-shirt that was made shortly after the bridge caught national attention. It reads "NOWHERE ALASKA" and "99901," the zip code of Ketchikan.
The McCain campaign jumped back with spokesman Brian Rogers calling the attacks "hysterical."
"The only people 'lying' about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they're afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama's nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks," Mr. Rogers said.
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
If this election is all about change, how is that the race is so close? Are the American people so easily influenced by sound bites? Why is it only in Politics that if something is said enough times it becomes true? McCain has been in Washington for over 25 years, his party had been in control of the White House for almost the last eight, and in control of the congress for 12 of the last 14, yet the American public is starting to think that he represents change.
The only thing in this election John McCain is willing to change is his entire belief system. He wants to make people famous for earmarks, but picks Palin, whom the Wall Street Journal reports "Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation."
He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. He thought the war in Iraq would be easy, before he said noone questioned that it would be hard. He said he would stand up against the "agents of intolerance" in the right-wing Christian conservative movement, and now he is happy to have their support, and one as his running mate. He is against the Washington Lobbyists, but has them running his campaign.
How can republicans always make good ideas, be so bad???
Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents? ... Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama's skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy. WSJ, March 13, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A Shooting Liberal StarAugust 29, 2008
Americans last night got their closest look yet at Barack Obama, the shooting star bidding to be our next President. His speech before 85,000 at Invesco Field was as much coronation as nomination. Yet for someone who is so close to being the most powerful man in the world, the remarkable fact is that Americans still know very little about either his political philosophy or what he wants to accomplish.
This is not unusual for the modern Democratic Party. As we've often noted, the party has tended to nominate relative unknowns ever since its animating liberalism fell out of public favor in the 1970s. Sometimes the voters have gone along with the leap of faith (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) and sometimes they haven't (Michael Dukakis). But in either case the voters learned sooner or later that they were sold something more than the "change" they imagined.
From the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121997396071782159.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Well ... we all know who owns that rich Republican ragdoll of a news outlet; their news would be slanted in favor of the worst thing they can find about Obama.
However, those who don't know about "Obama's political philosophies" really don't know what Republicans think they should give a #### about, which is the extremist goals of Republicans that the poor should continue to take care of them like sandal-clad minions and slaves for the rest of their own lives and never see the light of day when it comes to their own lives and children and futures.
This is a fight to the death between rich and poor, not black and white, or even Republicans and Democrats, or blues and reds, or even men and women ...
This is a fight about who's going to continue to eat up the resources of the middle class -- the poor who are lazy and unmotivated, the poor who can't help themselves no matter how much they want to, or the rich who have gotten so accustomed to riding the backs of the middle class (upper and lower), that they not only expect us to slave away at their corporate desks or in their mills and factories until we are drained of life, but who also take OUR money by getting themselves write-offs and tax shelters AT OUR EXPENSE.
I don't mind helping the poor who can't help themselves, but I know what I DO mind: MY tax money being used to take care of the totally lazy and to support the ultra-rich.
And the rich have been playing both sides of the fence (the American workforce on one side and tax subsidies and breaks on the other side) for far too long, from where I am standing.
Earlier this summer, the John McCain campaign began airing ads here in New Mexico which painted an epic picture of John McCain as a "True American" and war hero. Currently, the McCain campaign has begun a series of ads which paint Senator Obama as being form without substance, a self-serving seeker of celebrity, and even the Anti-Christ. Unfortunately, many voters are influenced by such ads in making their choice on whom to vote for President. In truth, many voters know so little about John McCain’s background and his Campaign Strategist has tried very hard to show him as an "average guy" with his finger on the pulse of American attitudes and aspirations. Electing this man as President would subject our Nation to another mediocre politician whose own life experience is far removed from that of the average American. Worse, he is a man still trapped in the last century, still seeing the world in Cold War terms, unable to understand the new world with new realities, technologies and alliances. Here are a few biographical facts about John McCain you may not have known:
As a student, John McCain had little patience and discipline, especially for subjects that didn’t interest him, possibly because he didn’t have to work hard to succeed. The son and grandson of 4 Star Admirals, John McCain came from a privileged background. He attended a private preparatory school (Episcopal High School in Alexandria, VA http://www.episcopalhighschool.org/about/mccaininfo.html). He didn’t have to pay for college because he was admitted to the Naval Academy where all tuition and board is paid by the American taxpayers. His class rank was 894th of 899. While a Naval pilot, he lost 5 naval aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat when, on his 23rd combat mission in Vietnam, he was shot down and became a prisoner of war for five years http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mccain_lost_five_u.htm.
From today's WSJ op-ed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908058761543293.html
A summary:
"American citizens are limited to donating $2,300 to presidential candidates, but there are no limits on gifts to presidential foundations. We don't think there should be limits, but without disclosure the potential for political conflicts, real or apparent, is extensive. Were it not for some enterprising journalism by the New York Sun in 2004, for example, we might not know that notorious trial lawyer William Lerach had made a donation to Mr. Clinton's foundation. Lerach has since been indicted for, and pled guilty to, fraud. Would the Clinton Administration have pursued a similar fraud case?"
It gets better:
"Presidential candidates also aren't allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big."
Maybe this is why Hillary promised to include other Middle Eastern nations in her protective umbrella in the last debate? Not that the moderators were paying enough attention to ask her to elaborate, or let anyone follow up. Weird how her comment has just been completely ignored, when there's a good chance her motives are less than noble.
It goes on. This gets better & better:
"Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba's Chinese homepages posted a "most wanted" list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn't returned the Alibaba money."
and...
"How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There's no way of knowing. The former President insists he's aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons."
And then they say the media is slanted towards Barack. It takes a through-and-through conservative, Murdoch-owned paper to ask what are some really important questions about the Clintons.
ABC News 77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023 Phone: 212-456-7777 General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com 20/20: 2020@abc.com
ABC News 77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023 Phone: 212-456-7777 General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com 20/20: 2020@abc.com
CBS News 524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-975-4321 Fax: 212-975-1893 Email forms for all CBS news programs CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com 60 Minutes II: 60II@cbsnews.com 48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com
CBS News 524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-975-4321 Fax: 212-975-1893
Email forms for all CBS news programs
CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com 60 Minutes II: 60II@cbsnews.com 48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com
CNN One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366 Phone: 404-827-1500 Fax: 404-827-1906 Email forms for all CNN news programs
Fox News Channel 1211 Ave. of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 301-3000 Fax: (212) 301-4229 comments@foxnews.com List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com
List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com
NBC 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112 Phone: 212-664-4444 Fax: 212-664-4426 List of Email addresses for all NBC news programs NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@msnbc.com NBC News Today: today@nbc.com Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
List of Email addresses for all NBC news programs
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@msnbc.com NBC News Today: today@nbc.com Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
MSNBCOne MSNBC Plaza Secaucus, NJ 07094 Phone: (201) 583-5000 Fax: (201) 583-5453 CNBC2200 Fletcher Ave. Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 585-2622 Fax: (201) 583-5453
CNBC2200 Fletcher Ave. Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 585-2622 Fax: (201) 583-5453
List of Email addresses for all MSNBC news programs
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: msnbcreports@msnbc.com PBS 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-739-5000 Fax: 703-739-8458 The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org
PBS 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-739-5000 Fax: 703-739-8458
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org
National Public Radio 635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753 Phone: 202-513-2000 Fax: 202-513-3329 E-mail: Chantal de la Rionda, assistant to the Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org All Things Considered: atc@npr.org Morning Edition: morning@npr.org Talk Of The Nation: totn@npr.org List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs
National Public Radio 635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753 Phone: 202-513-2000 Fax: 202-513-3329 E-mail: Chantal de la Rionda, assistant to the Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org
All Things Considered: atc@npr.org Morning Edition: morning@npr.org Talk Of The Nation: totn@npr.org
List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs
The Rush Limbaugh Show 1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020 Phone: 800-282-2882 Fax: 212-563-9166 E-mail: rush@eibnet.com
Sean Hannity Show E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@abc.com
The Los Angeles Times202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000 Fax: 213-237-4712 Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com L.A. Times Contact Information by DepartmentThe New York Times229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-556-1234 Fax: 212-556-3690 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300 Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com Write to the news editors: nytnews@nytimes.com New York Times Contact Information by DepartmentHow to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors USA Today7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108 Phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400 Fax: 703-854-2165 Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com Give feedback to USA TodayThe Wall Street Journal200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-416-2000 Fax: 212-416-2658 Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com The Washington Post1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071 Phone: 202-334-6000 Fax: 202-334-5269 Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
The Los Angeles Times202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000 Fax: 213-237-4712
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com
L.A. Times Contact Information by Department
The New York Times229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-556-1234 Fax: 212-556-3690 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com Write to the news editors: nytnews@nytimes.com
New York Times Contact Information by DepartmentHow to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors
Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com
Give feedback to USA Today
The Wall Street Journal200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-416-2000 Fax: 212-416-2658
Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com
The Washington Post1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071 Phone: 202-334-6000 Fax: 202-334-5269
Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
Newsweek251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-445-4000 Fax: 212-445-5068 Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com TimeTime & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-522-1212 Fax: 212-522-0323 Letters to the Editor letters@time.com U.S. News & World Report1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-955-2000 Fax: 202-955-2049 Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com
Newsweek251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-445-4000 Fax: 212-445-5068
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com
TimeTime & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-522-1212 Fax: 212-522-0323
Letters to the Editor letters@time.com
U.S. News & World Report1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-955-2000 Fax: 202-955-2049
Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com
Associated Press50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-621-1500 Fax: 212-621-7523 General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and BureauReutersThree Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 646-223-4000 Reuters Editorial FeedbackUnited Press International1510 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202.898.8000 FAX: 202.898.8057 Comment and Tips: tips@upi.com FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to FAIR112 W. 27th St.New York, NY 10001fair@fair.orgWe can't always respond, but we look at everything.
Associated Press50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-621-1500 Fax: 212-621-7523
General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org
Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau
Reuters Editorial Feedback
Comment and Tips: tips@upi.com
FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to
FAIR112 W. 27th St.New York, NY 10001fair@fair.org
A few weeks back I wrote a blog after crunching delegate numbers and predicted after the remaining dozen or so primaries are completed that the Obama delegate lead will remain about the same – around 140.
The Wall Street Journal ran a very interesting story this week about shifting delegate counts as results are certified. In most cases there is little to no change but something interesting happened in California. Final results expected out this week show that Obama won 167 delegates (not the 163 originally reported) and Clinton won 203 delegates (not the 207 originally reported). Increasing Obama’s overall delegate lead by an additional 8 delegates.
The correction in California delegates basically wiped out Clinton’s delegate margin in Ohio.
Yet to be reported are expected updates in New York once the vote fraud investigation and counting is complete. As reported in the New York Times, the “irregularities” could shift delegates into the Obama column.
So I am not revising my estimate for Obama to factor in the unusual counting errors and will project that when the last primary is done (Puerto Rick June 10th) Obama will increase his delegate count by 10 to a total of 152 – not including Michigan, Florida or the Supers.
