<?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: Huckabee&#8217;s new fundraising goal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/07/huckabees-new-fundraising-goal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/07/huckabees-new-fundraising-goal/</link>
	<description>Highlighting Emerging Energy Technologies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:22:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bc</title>
		<link>http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/07/huckabees-new-fundraising-goal/comment-page-1/#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>bc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/07/huckabees-new-fundraising-goal/#comment-330</guid>
		<description>I think there is a problem with media coverage of events which is purposefully tilted to where the media wants. A typical example is the issue of raising funds between Clinton and Obama. Your website shows that Clinton have so far outraised Obama but you guys still go ahead stating Obama outraised Clinton. I think this is just an attempt to give Obama a bump. The press i think should be neutral and unbiased, but so far this is not so. 
Also when Clinton tried attacking Obama, the media screemed and blew it out of proportion just to provide a safe haven for Obama. I mean this guy is running for the highest job and we need to know him really. And mind you if he wins the nomination he will freak out under the republican grilling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there is a problem with media coverage of events which is purposefully tilted to where the media wants. A typical example is the issue of raising funds between Clinton and Obama. Your website shows that Clinton have so far outraised Obama but you guys still go ahead stating Obama outraised Clinton. I think this is just an attempt to give Obama a bump. The press i think should be neutral and unbiased, but so far this is not so.<br />
Also when Clinton tried attacking Obama, the media screemed and blew it out of proportion just to provide a safe haven for Obama. I mean this guy is running for the highest job and we need to know him really. And mind you if he wins the nomination he will freak out under the republican grilling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

