<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Fickle Finger of Fifth Estate Flicks Female From Fray (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882</link>
<description>As the &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4356093&amp;page=1">two &#160;media anointed Presidential candidates fire salvos at each other&lt;/a>, one candidate formerly thought to be a lock for the nomination &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story">begins to cry and complain of bias by reporters&lt;/a>.</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:04:32 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:46:15 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Nameless Cynic: Clinton</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#16</link>
<description>Well, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of Hillary just lately. For the longest, I was happy with either her or Obama getting elected. But her current behavior, with the mudslinging at Obama and the Rovian attitude of "win at any cost" makes me wonder whethe</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:46:15 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>uncarved block: The Freak Show</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#15</link>
<description>&#160; &#160; Well, what you say is true, for the most part, but &lt;i>why&lt;/i> it's true is more interesting to me. Was Hillary being hyped as "inevitable"? Sure, because that was what had worked for Bush in 2000, getting him past initial (and lasting!) doubt</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:46:09 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: Isn't The Media</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#14</link>
<description>Well, right. There could certainly be an oblique inference there, even a drawing out of a &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column">fifth column&lt;/a> reference.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:17:06 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>pO157: Re: Isn't The Media</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#13</link>
<description>D'oh. Or according to this &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate">wiki entry&lt;/a>, the headline could still be factually correct. But it probably should have been 4th.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:04:56 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Isn't The Media</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#12</link>
<description>the fourth estate?</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:03:04 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>snwodttam: Pre-Obamamania bias</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#11</link>
<description>So, yeah, we're in the middle of (imagine your local "Crazy Eddie" car dealer's voice here) O-Ba-Ma-Maaa-nia. &#160;And I guess that's gotta irk the Clinton camp a bit, but then thems the breaks right. &#160;&lt;p>&#10;Live by the sword, die by the sword.&lt;p>&#10;And </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:06:38 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>postillion: Re: sleep in the bed you made</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#10</link>
<description>I guess this is a case of history not repeating twice, or at least not political campaign history.&lt;p>&#10;Bill was the one who won the election by taking an unconventional tactic to the younger voters, by playing his saxophone on MTV and making political campa</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:42:03 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>pO157: Re: sleep in the bed you made</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#9</link>
<description>Sadly you are right. The younger adults in this country frequently get treated like irresponsible second class citizens, and their issues ignored. This won't change until they start getting educated about the issues and start voting en masse to get things </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:59:35 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: sleep in the bed you made</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#8</link>
<description>Just because you can get your message out, doesn't mean that it will find resonance among the populace sufficient to persuade a voting majority. Those who are among the most active on the internet (young people) are also the least inclined to actually vote</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:51:10 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>pO157: Re: sleep in the bed you made</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#7</link>
<description>&lt;i> The internet as an example provides every presidential candidate with quite the bully pulpit. &lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Tell that to Howard Dean or Ron Paul.</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:04 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: sleep in the bed you made</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#6</link>
<description>As I recall Edwards made the same charge when virtually all media coverage was focused on Obama/Clinton prior to him dropping out. If you want to reach people, you need to find a way (to use a bushism) to catapult the media. The internet as an example prov</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:45:29 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>profwhat: Re: To Quote Mr. Nelson Muntz</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#5</link>
<description>Hillary's complaint is not that she is being ignored, but that the press is not being fair in how they treat her versus Obama. &#160;I kind of see her point; St. Barack is getting positive coverage just for having lots of well-attended rallies, while Hilla</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:50:33 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MayorBob: Re: Hillary's Lament.</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#4</link>
<description>It was an especially disingenuous move on her part because it came as a segue from the topic of the Q&amp;A at that point in the debate. &#160;The topic was supposed to be NAFTA, that baaaad treaty she secretly loathed the whole time her husband managed to</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:39:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>pO157: Re: Hillary's Lament.</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#3</link>
<description>Seriously. She is running as the experienced alternative and she has nothing to do at the debates but cry and moan? Come on. Who do they have running the campaign? She should not have even brought that up. That is why your campaign has hatchet (wo)men and </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:32:23 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MayorBob: Hillary's Lament.</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#2</link>
<description>"I've noticed one thing in all these debates. &#160;I always get asked the first question. &#160;Now, I'm not complaining ..." &#160;This translates to "WAAAAAAAAHHHH. &#160;I'M COMPLAINING ALREADY HERE."</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:15:10 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>pO157: To Quote Mr. Nelson Muntz: &quot;Haw haw!&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/27/20491/9882#1</link>
<description>Yes, the media does unnaturally fixate on certain candidates and all but ignore others. I am sure others here will expound on this. &lt;p>&#10;That said, I find it hard to have any sympathy for Hillary. There were other candidates running for nominations (Gravel </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:19:26 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>