<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Fournier Effect</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/08/23/the-fournier-effect/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/08/23/the-fournier-effect/</link>
	<description>Yet another political blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:51:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/08/23/the-fournier-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:24:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=192#comment-157</guid>
		<description>If Obama wanted to project confidence, he could have picked Ronald McDonald.

Then we&#039;d know just how confident he is that he can win the election and govern the country with no help at all. Except the help McDonald can provide in the way of cheeseburgers.

Then they&#039;d say Obama wasn&#039;t confident he&#039;d have sufficient access to cheeseburgers in the White House, which is why he picked a cheeseburger maven as his running mate. (Am I using the word &quot;maven&quot; correctly? Anyone?)

But the &quot;traditional&quot; media loves to beat up on Obama these days, just to show how fair they are. &quot;Fairness,&quot; among people who haven&#039;t been slurping right-wing kool-aid, means launching ridiculous attacks on Obama under cover of supposed objectivity.

I especially appreciate Lee&#039;s reference to the study at the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

I agree with Maddow: we WANT the media to cover John McCain, because the more media scrutiney he receives, the more ridiculous he looks. The media isn&#039;t interested in covering McCain, perhaps in part because they&#039;re afraid to tell the truth about him -- afraid, that is, that if they told the truth about him they&#039;d be accused of trying to smear him.

The truth about McCain isn&#039;t pretty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Obama wanted to project confidence, he could have picked Ronald McDonald.</p>
<p>Then we&#8217;d know just how confident he is that he can win the election and govern the country with no help at all. Except the help McDonald can provide in the way of cheeseburgers.</p>
<p>Then they&#8217;d say Obama wasn&#8217;t confident he&#8217;d have sufficient access to cheeseburgers in the White House, which is why he picked a cheeseburger maven as his running mate. (Am I using the word &#8220;maven&#8221; correctly? Anyone?)</p>
<p>But the &#8220;traditional&#8221; media loves to beat up on Obama these days, just to show how fair they are. &#8220;Fairness,&#8221; among people who haven&#8217;t been slurping right-wing kool-aid, means launching ridiculous attacks on Obama under cover of supposed objectivity.</p>
<p>I especially appreciate Lee&#8217;s reference to the study at the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.</p>
<p>I agree with Maddow: we WANT the media to cover John McCain, because the more media scrutiney he receives, the more ridiculous he looks. The media isn&#8217;t interested in covering McCain, perhaps in part because they&#8217;re afraid to tell the truth about him &#8212; afraid, that is, that if they told the truth about him they&#8217;d be accused of trying to smear him.</p>
<p>The truth about McCain isn&#8217;t pretty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
