Posts with the tag Wall Street Journal

Kudos for Senator Kerry

Linda from Winter Springs, FL — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:46:59 EDT

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.

An Inside Man at AIG - Maybe

Tom Awtry — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:06:28 EDT

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.”

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

The Experience Myth

John DesMarteau, MD — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:48:55 EDT

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.

Senator Biden's Federalism plan for Iraq is the key

Kurds for Obama — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:20:11 EDT

Peter Galbraith, an experienced, astute observer of Iraq recently wrote a response about the innaccuracy of an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Galbraith knows that Senator Joe Biden is still one of the few people in Washington who truly understand Iraq, know how to leave a stable Iraq behind, and know how to bring American troops home.

"I was just kidding..."

Henry M — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:46:12 EDT

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...)

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

Not Just the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times!

Henry M — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:05 EDT

Palins reads... The Economist! (So do I, and Scientific American. Really! Okay, not the Economist.)

Henry M

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Skewers McCain

Sunny — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:35:33 EDT

John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. But on Thursday, he took his populist riffing up a notch and found his scapegoat for financial panic -- Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him." ... more

McCain's Scapegoat

Tim — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:57:02 EDT

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."

Obama, Palin's Stealing Your Glow. Get it back, Man!

Jas from Peoria, AZ — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:24:32 EDT

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.

Another Reason to Write the WSJ: Obama's Management of Oil Reserve Plan Published in WSJ, by John Shages, former deputy assistant secretary for Petroleum Reserves at the Department of Energy.

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:16:49 EDT

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:
To react to something you've read in the Online Journal or comment on our news coverage, email newseditors@wsj.com:Editorial
To contact the staff of the Journal's Editorial page, please send an e-mail to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com.To send an article to the Journal's Editorial page for consideration, please get guidelines at http://opinionjournal.com/guidelines.Press Releases
To submit a press release, please e-mail it to nywireroom@dowjones.com.

Wall Street Journal (Hardly "Liberal Media") Blasts McCain's New Ad and the Palin Disavowal of Her Support for "Bridge to Nowhere." Please, write a letter to Editor of the WSJ to commend them!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:29:18 EDT

Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims

By ELIZABETH HOLMES and LAURA MECKLER
September 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.

Can Anyone Explain "Change" To Me?

Josh and Randi — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:23:45 EDT

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???

THE RACE CARD: Wall Street Journal & The erosion of the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy"

LitGriot — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:49:23 EDT

In response to a bunch of hot ash published on my mother's birthday in the WSJ, which began with the following ridiculous assertion:

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

I am deeply concerned that we have a skewed view of the so-called race card. First off, racism is not a game, and the use of such terms actually promotes racism by reducing the experience of racism to a game. In fact, as an ethnic minority, Black people in America are in no position to influence the destiny of the social construct of white people, not at least in the ways that white people have done in the past and present- so this includes slavery, Jim and Jane Crow, and is evidenced through the continued economic and health disparities that are drawn along racial lines.

Now that you've had 8 years to see how Republiscams work

SRG_Legal — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:50:13 EDT

A Shooting Liberal Star
August 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.

Can America Afford Another Mediocre President Who Cannot Understand the Average American's Life Experience?

Vicki "Hussein" in New Mexico — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:17:18 EDT

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.

He married a former swim-suit model, Carol Schepp, in 1965 and adopted her two sons. They had another child together. In 1969, while John was a POW, Carol had a disfiguring car accident, but he was not told of it until he returned to the US in 1973. POW advocate Ross Perot paid all her medical expenses. The marriage failed and John began an extra-martial affair with Cindy Hensley, 17 years his junior. He left Carol and their three children and married Cindy Hensley, a beautiful multi-millionaire heiress in 1980 one month after his divorce. He and Cindy Hensley moved to her home in Arizona. His less-than-impressive military career precluded that he could succeed to Admiral so he resigned from the Navy in 1981, and began to look at a political career in the Republican Party when a local Arizona Congressman retired and Cindy's father promoted John as a candidate among Republican Party fundraisers. John McCain has never worked in the private sector, nor has he had ever been without or had to purchase health insurance. He has been employed 48 years by the American taxpayers: 22 years in the US Navy, 4 years as a US Congressman (both jobs obtained through the influence and money of wealthy family members), and 22 years as a US Senator. Currently, the McCain net worth is approximately $40 million dollars but with only $50,000 in John McCain’s name only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain. The total wealth of the McCain’s including that of Cindy Hensley (not in his name because of a prenuptial agreement) is estimated to be $100 million http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/18/politics/main4027276.shtml and the family owns approximately 10 homes and properties worth $12,750,000 http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/28/mccain_homes_worth_over_ten_times_obamas_whos_elitist.php .The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch Washington Bureau Chief Rex Nutting wrote the following commentary on "Why McCain Would Be a Mediocre President (It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff)" http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B4914192B-12AF-4623-AB18-5EFE91204B04%7D&print=true&dist=printMidSection

Clinton Foundation Secrets, from the Wall Street Journal

Wafa — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:40:31 EDT

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.

Wall Street Journal Dems have a Nominee article / Link

John From Cape Cod. Ma — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:45:39 EDT

LINK:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=todays_columnists

WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Democrats Have a Nominee
April 24, 2008; Page A11
So what?

Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee.

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma.

Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger says despite her primary win in Pennsylvania, it's over for Hillary. (April 23)
Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans." Make no mistake: Superdelegates with sway took notice.

Former Sen. Nunn is sometimes mentioned as a possible running mate for Sen. Obama. In a better world, Sam Nunn (or a David Boren) would have been the party's candidate for president. Such candidacies remain impossible under the iron law of Democratic primary politics: No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists. The iron law produces candidacies such as McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) or Kerry ('04), who pay so many left-liberal obeisances to win in the primaries that they cannot attract sufficient moderates at the margins to win the general election.

Bill Clinton, who broke that law twice, knows all this. His 1996 triangulation campaign dangled welfare reform and spending restraint. It worked.

Hillary Clinton knows all this. In 2005, just after George W. Bush won re-election buoyed by "moral values" voters, Sen. Clinton reached out to them in a January speech: "the primary reason that teenage girls abstain [from sex] is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this." By "we" she meant that voters still wedded to middle-class respectability, say in Ohio, should embrace her.
Thanks for the memories. Democrats will opt for a new magician.
She has worked hard as a member of the Armed Services Committee to establish her bona fides with general officers, and some have endorsed her. As well, her hedged, equivocal vote "for" the Iraq War was mainly a centrist investment to cash in fall 2008. (The left won't allow it; see iron law above.)

The 2008 nomination was hers. There was no competition. She was a lock to run for the roses against the Republican nominee. Republicans must have had this conversation a hundred times back then: "It's Hillary. She's got it. Get over it."

Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see?

The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing.

But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.

It is hard to overstate how fatigued Democratic donors in Manhattan and L.A. got during the Clinton presidency to have Bill and Hillary fly in, repeatedly, to sweep checking accounts. The Lincoln Bedroom rental was cheesy. Bill's 60th birthday gala (tickets $60,000 to 500K) was a Clinton fund-raiser. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal pushed Clinton contributors toward a milieu most didn't need in their lives. Hillary's 2007 Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was an unsettling rerun of what the donor base could expect from another Clinton presidency.

It was all kind of gross, but the Clintons never seemed to see that. When Obama proved he could perform this most basic function in politics, it was a get-out-of-jail-free card for many Democrats. For some, this may be personal. For others, it is likely a belief that the party's interests lie with finding an alternative to the Clinton saga. One guesses this is what Sam Nunn and David Boren concluded.

Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania prove it won't be easy. Barack Obama himself said Tuesday night, "I'm not perfect." He heads to the nomination freighted with all the familiar Democratic tensions that keep a Sam Nunn off the ballot: race and gender obsessions, semipacifism and you bet, bitter white voters. So be it. For modern Democrats, winning the White House always requires some sort of magic to get near 50%. For the Clintons, that bag is empty. The Democrats have a new magician. It's Obama.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

FAIR's Media Contact List

Mary from Vermont — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:15:20 EDT

FAIR's Media Contact ListLet your voice be heard! Talk back to the media.Network/Cable Television

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

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

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

MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Phone: (201) 583-5000
Fax: (201) 583-5453
CNBC
2200 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

National Radio 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

National Newspapers

The Los Angeles Times
202 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 Times
229 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 Department
How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors
USA Today
7950 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 Today

The Wall Street Journal
200 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 Post
1150 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

Magazines

Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time
Time & 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 Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049
Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com

News Services / Wires

Associated Press
50 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
Three Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000
Reuters Editorial Feedback
United Press International
1510 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
FAIR
112 W. 27th St.
New York, NY 10001
fair@fair.org
We can't always respond, but we look at everything.

Obama Gains Delegates in California! +8

C Dornfeld — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:16:50 EDT

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.

Obama Gains Delegates in California! +8

C Dornfeld — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:14:41 EDT

The correction in California delegates basically wiped out Clinton’s delegate margin in Ohio.

Obama Gains Delegates in California! +8

C Dornfeld — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:12:57 EDT

The correction in California delegates basically wiped out Clinton’s delegate margin in Ohio.

Black Latino Relations (a more accurate view) from today's WSJ, pg. A01

MD Lewis — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:39:30 EST

today's wall st. journal contains an excellent article: "Tightening Races / Latino-Black Relations May Tilt Texas Results" that to me gives a more accurate potrayal, especially as it relates to the upcoming texas primary/caucus tomorrow. i have to say that i've been waiting patiently for someone or the media to present a more accurate picture instead of what we're seeing on (MSM) such as MSNBC, CNN, and what we read on CNN.com, W. Post, NY Times, etc.

my days growing up in Denver, CO, in the 70s and 80s, where Hispanic migration is generations deep, i had to admit i couldn't believe what i've been hearing and reading. it really wasn't my experience and i would offer some of the anecdotal evidence for consideration:

A series of recent polls show that Sen. Obama, who once trailed Sen. Hillary Clinton by 20 points in Texas, now has a slight lead. Evidence is emerging that some of his strength is coming from the state's million-plus Hispanic voters, who had been expected to support Sen. Clinoton.

the article goes on to say:

"The idea that Latinos and African-Americans are divided is an old way of thinking," says Carol Alvarado, a Clinton supporter running for a seat in the Texas House... "We have come together on bond referendums, on immigration. On things that matter to African-Americans and things that matter to our people." ...most analysts say that support for Sen. Obama is growing among Hispanics, and that would mark a sea change for two groups that have had their share of friction...

He acknowledge that "all the population growth in traditionally African-American voting districts" are Latinos but that its having another effect that isn't being discussed:

Blacks and Latinos are forming political coalitions to achieve mutual goals.

For comparison, the writer goes on to say that compared to California, where it is acknowledged that some of this exists primarily attributable to the 1990 riots:

Texans looking at California race relations are turned off by the angry anti-Mexican rhetoric of talk radio, both black and white, and horrified by tales of gang violence. Newspaper stories of Mexicans dueling with blacks in East Los Angeles and of Latino gangs keeping African-Americans off certain commercial boulevards sound here like accounts from a foreign land.

There are areas picked up in the article where repairs have to be made:

"My whole life I never had a Spanish-speaking teacher," says Angel Gonzales, 78, a retiree attending Mr. Alonzo's event in Dallas. Mr. Gonzalex's take on segregation -- "They had their own schools, we didn't" -- reflects a certain Latino resentment toward black empowerment. Like a lot of elderly Latinos, Mr. Gonzales says he is a staunch Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, he admits his grandchildren are for Sen. Obama. "One hundred percent," Mr. Gonzalex says.

In closing I would only ask... who holds the best chance of ending this divide wherever it may exist? Going into the 21st century, shouldn't we be finding ways to heal any wounds from long ago? Which candidate is in the best position to do this?

This article seems to be available online in its entirety here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120451476846207025.html

Response to Karl Rove's 2/21/08 Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal

ex-Republican, moderate — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:07:35 EST

I watched the Houston speech Tuesday night and arrived at a different conclusion than Mr. Rove. I didn't see Obama doing an about face towards leftist policies. On the contrary, he was beating the drum of political change, a campaign mantra that continues to work and sway moderates and (gasp!) on-the-fence Republicans.

The fact is Barack Obama has nothing to hide. The best Rove can do is paint Obama as "left-leaning behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric" and attack his sound bytes. To me, that doesn't signal vulnerability. It only exposes Rove's limp and faint tactics and attempts to embolden WSJ readers. Barack has a clear vision for his presidency and the lack of real smearing from both the Clinton campaign and Rove's op-eds is the reason why Obama continues to win votes. He doesn't have any dirt. And Obama is more of a threat to Rove as a centrist than a liberal, hence the petty article.

I find Mr. Rove's comments on integrity and credibility quite ironic, actually. Given his political demise—TIME magazine source leaks, White House e-mail scandal, the list goes on—he still manages to get published in the WSJ. Joseph C. Wilson, retired diplomat, once said, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." If anyone is a divider, it is Karl Rove, who continues to use members of the Christian right for partisan purposes.

So why is Obama grabbing so many converts? And why is Obama being attacked by Bush-ies, and at the tip of Rove's editorial spear? Obama's record gives us insight on the growing fears of the Far Right.

Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. A legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results."

Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."

There's also his championing of voter rights, Healthcare Insurance reform and the extension of child tax credits.

To me, Obama's strong start signals strength, capability and promise of cross-party productivity. That sounds like a President for all Americans. Conservatives and Liberals.

Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:51:11 EST

What a great op-ed piece by famous Ms. Peggy Noonan making the case that Obam would be the best choice for the Democrats and a nightmare for the Republicans...

WSJ: Why Obama is the better choice for Dems

Grand Moff Joseph — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:52:26 EST

An excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the slow but steady rise of the Obama campaign, and a clear explanation of the advantages he holds in the General Election over a Clinton candidacy.

Pelosi Allies Give Obama a Boost in California

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:01:03 EST

While congressional leaders generally don’t make endorsements in presidential primaries, the addition of California Rep. Anna Eshoo to the list of lawmakers backing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois today may provide clues to where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaning.

WSJ Photo

Virginia S. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:49:49 EST

By the way, I just want to say that I love Barack's pixilated photo in the Wall Street Journal. It shows off his classic good looks and winning smile!

:) Just a quick post to state that!

Obama '08!

Wall Street Journal on Obama

Lucia - Team Coordinator for OBAMAWOOD — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:02:36 EST

Barack Obama and the Dream of a Color-Blind America By JONATHAN KAUFMAN
November 10, 2007; Page A1

Portland, Maine

Isaiah Oliver, a 24-year-old white social worker, grew up in this overwhelmingly white city and attended the predominantly white University of Richmond in Virginia. Ask him why he supports Barack Obama and he says it's because of the candidate's race.

"Because he's black it makes me want to believe that he will change things," says Mr. Oliver, leaving an Obama campaign rally here. "It feels like you are part of something that's starting to change American politics. It's the cool factor. He's a rock star."

As he campaigns across the country, Sen. Obama, the son of a black father and a white mother, is both revealing and tapping into a changed racial landscape, especially among younger whites. After decades of often bitter polarization and racial tension on issues ranging from the spread of civil rights to affirmative action, many whites say they are drawn to Sen. Obama precisely because they think his mixed-race background reflects America's increasingly diverse population and projects a more optimistic vision of the country's racial future.

Sen. Obama's candidacy, whether it succeeds or not, appears to mark a turning point in race and politics in America: It is prompting significant numbers of white Americans to consider voting for him not despite his racial background, but because of it.

"Obama is running an emancipating campaign," says Bob Tuke, who is white and is the former chairman of the Tennessee Democratic party. "He is emancipating white voters to vote for a black candidate."

.....

To read more, click on http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119466546698288951.html?mod=home_we_banner_left

Senator Barack Obama Picks Up Six Percentage Points In Iowa Poll

Zennie — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:33:00 EDT

Even with Presidential Candidate John Edwards recent annoucement of his problems with his wife's spreading cancer, and Senator Hillary Clinton's buying of support for the Iowa governor, Senator Barack Obama picked up six points in a poll of Iowa Democrats by Zogby on March 27th, 2007. It's Edwards 27 percent, Clinton 25 perent, Obama 23 percent, and the error is +- 4.5 points, so it's anyone's race.

This makes the race too close to call, even with the "bought" advantage of Senator Clinton.

Senator Obama Massively Cuts Into Senator Clinton's Sillicon Valley Base

Zennie — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:01:58 EDT

In the past, the Clintons could count on Silicon Valley donors to help build a giant political machine. But according to the Monday Wall Street Journal, that's not the case this time around.
Many high-tech business players are more than impressed with Senator Obama and believe he's more electable than Senator Clinton. That point of view comes from the Journal article, not me, even though I do agree with the point.
For whatever reason this news didn't hit the Washington Post, which elected to focus on the still-developing Health Care Plan. But even the Post picked up on what has been repeated by other news outlet, that Senator Obama observed that everyone has a plan, but the question is do we have the political will to get the plan done?
Senator Obama's right to wait and carefully craft a Health Care Plan that can pass muster. Also, the current focus should be on getting America out of Iraq so we can have enough money for domestic issues like Health Care.
In any case, I urge you to lend your voice to the formation of policy for this campaign and not just in Heath Care, but in whatever area of life you specialize in. If you have an idea, write it down! Also, donate whatever you can, even if it's a dollar, it's a buck the campaign didn't have before that helps keep the movement going. Lastly, TALK about the Senator to anyone who will listen and read his book, The Audacity of Hope, as it's truly a good tome (and on sale at Boarders Books for 30 percent off!). There's a reason why it's a New York Times Best Seller. Check it out.