and Byron Calame at the Times:
public@nytimes.com

I’m not sure about the Globe. Between Calame and Howell, the former is more likely to provide a substantive response.

Joe: Yeah, I linked to Digby’s early prognostication. He’s a better and smarter writer than just about anyone anywhere. That’s what upset me about the Dickerson piece, although he’s not the worst offender: concentrating on the political ramifications without mentioning that even the uncompromised McCain/Warner/Graham effort was heavily compromised.

I would assume that when they receive a specified volume of letters on a topic they feel it is of enough general interest to print some representative views. Either they have received very little mail urging either investigation or impeachment, or they have decided not to print that point of view no matter how many people write to express it.

I frankly don’t recall a single such letter or essay, but I could be wrong (although the Globe ran an essay scoffing at the thought of impeachment and mocking those would broach it, it didn’t follow up with opposing views, and I can’t believe it received none).

Rather than my reading through every copy, I thought it would be quite simple for these papers to produce the statistics: I know they keep records of mail recieved by topic.

Who would I write to request this information? Any suggestions?

As to Weisberg, he’s not alone, sadly. Thus, in 2004 various fraysters etc. tried to get us excited about Kerry since he “was the most electable.” Amazingly, many didn’t see this as quite enough.

W. does know how Republicans gained power in the ’80s, right? Just wondering. btw if Hillary runs, I’m going to scream.