<?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: Meet the &#8220;Military-Industrial-Media&#8221; Complex (w/ Update)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/12/01/meet-the-military-industrial-media-complex/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/12/01/meet-the-military-industrial-media-complex/</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/2008/12/01/meet-the-military-industrial-media-complex/comment-page-1/#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=642#comment-534</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Lee for this important post. I totally agree that the issue is disclosure. The post reminded me of &lt;a href=&quot;http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/at_yearlykos_clinton_defends_l.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hillary Clinton&#039;s appearance at the YearlyKos forum&lt;/a&gt; debate in August of last year. A question was asked about the unseemly fact that so many special interests of the business variety had contributed mightily to Clinton&#039;s campaign:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&quot;Twice in the debate, Sen. John Edwards challenged his fellow candidates to refuse to accept contributions from federal lobbyists. The second time he brought up this demand, the narrator, Matt Bai, asked Clinton whether she&#039;d continue to take money from lobbyists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I will,&quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans,&quot; she said. &quot;They represent nurses, social workers&quot; -- here the audience began to boo -- &quot;and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people.&quot; &quot;I just... I just ask you to look at my record.&quot; Never, she said, in her 35 years of public service, had she bowed to the will of a lobbyist. But she would not change her mind.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Clinton&#039;s response certainly struck my ears as utterly tone-deaf. The American public don&#039;t want to hear politicians assure their constituents that they would &lt;em&gt;never, ever, ever&lt;/em&gt; be influenced by lobbyists. They sound like six year olds promising not to eat the cookies on the counter. But Brian Williams&#039; response in the post above -- saying these analysts are &quot;passionate patriots&quot; is another indication that people in Washington seem to rationalize a system that is chock full of conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to Lee for this important post. I totally agree that the issue is disclosure. The post reminded me of <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/at_yearlykos_clinton_defends_l.php" rel="nofollow">Hillary Clinton&#8217;s appearance at the YearlyKos forum</a> debate in August of last year. A question was asked about the unseemly fact that so many special interests of the business variety had contributed mightily to Clinton&#8217;s campaign:</p>
<p>&#8220;Twice in the debate, Sen. John Edwards challenged his fellow candidates to refuse to accept contributions from federal lobbyists. The second time he brought up this demand, the narrator, Matt Bai, asked Clinton whether she&#8217;d continue to take money from lobbyists.</p>
<p>&#8220;I will,&#8221; she said.</p>
<p>&#8220;A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;They represent nurses, social workers&#8221; &#8212; here the audience began to boo &#8212; &#8220;and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people.&#8221; &#8220;I just&#8230; I just ask you to look at my record.&#8221; Never, she said, in her 35 years of public service, had she bowed to the will of a lobbyist. But she would not change her mind.&#8221; </p>
<p>Clinton&#8217;s response certainly struck my ears as utterly tone-deaf. The American public don&#8217;t want to hear politicians assure their constituents that they would <em>never, ever, ever</em> be influenced by lobbyists. They sound like six year olds promising not to eat the cookies on the counter. But Brian Williams&#8217; response in the post above &#8212; saying these analysts are &#8220;passionate patriots&#8221; is another indication that people in Washington seem to rationalize a system that is chock full of conflicts of interest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

