<?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: Protesting Dirty Politics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3184</link>
	<description>Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:02:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ron Chusid</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3184&#038;cpage=1#comment-188698</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Chusid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3184#comment-188698</guid>
		<description>I saw it earlier but didn&#039;t bother responding as it is the same type of whining we&#039;ve been hearing all along. 

The primary problem with Clinton&#039;s whining, as I&#039;ve noted in response to other comments like this, is that they create a false equivalence between different types of criticism. There is a major difference between valid criticism of Clinton and the major complaints about their campaign such as the dishonesty of many of their attacks. They also ignore the fact that the criticism of Clinton&#039;s character came about in response to the dirtiness of her campaign. If she hadn&#039;t behaved that way then her character would not have become a major campaign issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw it earlier but didn&#8217;t bother responding as it is the same type of whining we&#8217;ve been hearing all along. </p>
<p>The primary problem with Clinton&#8217;s whining, as I&#8217;ve noted in response to other comments like this, is that they create a false equivalence between different types of criticism. There is a major difference between valid criticism of Clinton and the major complaints about their campaign such as the dishonesty of many of their attacks. They also ignore the fact that the criticism of Clinton&#8217;s character came about in response to the dirtiness of her campaign. If she hadn&#8217;t behaved that way then her character would not have become a major campaign issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domino</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3184&#038;cpage=1#comment-188693</link>
		<dc:creator>Domino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3184#comment-188693</guid>
		<description>The Clinton campaign has put this out today:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/garinOpEd/?sc=1818&amp;utm_source=1818&amp;utm_medium=e
to begin claiming they are subject to a double standard and they aren&#039;t infact running a negative campaign. Its more whining of course, but you might like to have a thought about a good response to this, because I&#039;m expecting to see a lot more of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Clinton campaign has put this out today:<br />
<a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/garinOpEd/?sc=1818&amp;utm_source=1818&amp;utm_medium=e" rel="nofollow">http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.....m_medium=e</a><br />
to begin claiming they are subject to a double standard and they aren&#8217;t infact running a negative campaign. Its more whining of course, but you might like to have a thought about a good response to this, because I&#8217;m expecting to see a lot more of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
