<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > 2000 Elections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/2000_elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>O&#8217;Connor: Maybe SCOTUS shouldn&#8217;t have ruled on Bush v. Gore</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/oconnor_maybe_scotus_shouldnt_have_ruled_on_bush_v_gore/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/oconnor_maybe_scotus_shouldnt_have_ruled_on_bush_v_gore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sandra day o'connor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13284669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation," she said]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last week that in retrospect, perhaps the Supreme Court should not have elected to rule on Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that ended the Florida recount in the presidential race.</p><p>"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," she told the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-sandra-day-oconnor-edit-board-20130427,0,1201477.story">Chicago Tribune</a> editorial board in an interview on Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"</p><p>From the Tribune:</p><blockquote><p>The case, she said, "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."</p> <p>"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/oconnor_maybe_scotus_shouldnt_have_ruled_on_bush_v_gore/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/oconnor_maybe_scotus_shouldnt_have_ruled_on_bush_v_gore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Al Gore jokes about 2000 election: It was either let it go or &#8220;violent revolution&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/al_gore_jokes_about_2000_election_it_was_either_let_it_go_or_violent_revolution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/al_gore_jokes_about_2000_election_it_was_either_let_it_go_or_violent_revolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Rose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13191424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["There is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution," Gore said]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In an interview at the 92nd Street Y, Charlie Rose asked Al Gore about the 2000 election and Gore's decision to stop fighting after the Supreme Court ruled against him. Gore joked that he had limited options: “In the U.S. system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”</p><p>Gore continued: “If we as Americans honor the rule of law, then we obey the law ... The fact that it was taken up by the Court and decided by the Court in those circumstances meant that it had the force of law. And ultimately that is not an easy choice, but it's a choice to which there is no viable alternative. And I decided to honor the rule of law.”</p><p><script src='http://player.ooyala.com/v3/1a5c833e9d124ebfab445ab7d010bc74'></script> <div id='ooyalaplayer' style='width:640px;height:360px'></div> <p><script>OO.ready(function() { OO.Player.create('ooyalaplayer', 'M2NTMzOToQx7sndiTkXhU7forE7LMElC'); });</script><noscript> <div>Please enable Javascript to watch this video</div> <p></noscript></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/al_gore_jokes_about_2000_election_it_was_either_let_it_go_or_violent_revolution/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/al_gore_jokes_about_2000_election_it_was_either_let_it_go_or_violent_revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The election commission with no commissioners</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/the_election_commission_with_no_commissioners/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/the_election_commission_with_no_commissioners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter ID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting irregularities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13105031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An organization designed to make elections function better has been hamstrung by GOP obstruction]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite rampant concerns on both the right and left about the integrity of the election, we seem to have dodged a bullet on Nov. 7, at least on the presidential level. There were no serious problems reported -- no hanging chads, endless recounts or credible evidence of widespread dirty tricks -- and <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/15/section-3-the-voting-process-and-the-accuracy-of-the-vote/">97 percent of voters</a> said they had no problems voting this year, aside from waiting in lines.</p><p>It’s lucky that was the case, because the federal commission tasked with making elections function better has been stymied by partisan infighting that has left it with zero commissioners, with Republicans refusing to appoint new ones and blocking Democrats from doing the same.</p><p>Congress created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which allocated over $3 billion to help states improve their election administration and enacted a number of reforms aimed at preventing another debacle like the presidential election of 2000. The act passed with rare and overwhelming bipartisan support -- the House voted 357-48 in favor and the Senate 92-2 -- but the honeymoon didn’t last long and the commission soon fell victim to the partisan bickering that has hamstrung the Federal Election Commission.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/the_election_commission_with_no_commissioners/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/the_election_commission_with_no_commissioners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The &#8220;Saturday Night Live&#8221; of the West Bank</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/03/palestinetv/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/03/palestinetv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2011/09/03/palestinetv</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A hit satire show on the West Bank wrings laughs from the Occupation -- and gets canceled for humor that hits home]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The hit Palestinian TV satire show "Watan ala Watar" began its <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/jawwad1118#p/u/3/3_XfkkjHXts">Aug. 14 episode</a> with a sketch featuring Palestinian Attorney General Ahmad Mughani getting besieged by Palestinians filing lawsuits over "Watan ala Watar" making fun of them. One woman says in Arabic that the TV show hadn't parodied her yet, but she's sure it's going to, so she wants to file suit preemptively. In the middle of the commotion, the frazzled Mughani, played by "Watan ala Watar" co-creator Imad Farajin, gets a phone call: "Watan ala Watar," it turns out, just made fun of him, too.</p><p>The sketch ends by showing Farajin and his "Watan ala Watar" colleagues one year later, silently clowning around, suggesting that even if Mughani and his government cohorts muzzle them, that won't stop the comedy crew's high jinks.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/03/palestinetv/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/03/palestinetv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s still OK to hate Joe Lieberman</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/still_ok_to_hate_lieberman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/still_ok_to_hate_lieberman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don't Ask Don't Tell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/12/16/still_ok_to_hate_lieberman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sure, he's fighting to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He's also still a sanctimonious troll]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks very much like "don't ask, don't tell" will finally be repealed, 17 years after the discriminatory policy was enacted. And it's thanks, in very large part, to the tireless work of independent/"Connecticut for Lieberman" Sen. Joe Lieberman. Yep, Joe Lieberman, the single most annoying man in the United States Senate -- the august home, since the days of our founders, of America's most annoying citizens -- was instrumental in righting a fundamental injustice. Andrew Sullivan <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/joe-lieberman-civil-rights-hero.html">has anointed him a "civil rights hero,"</a> and barring some last-minute betrayal or successful Republican attempt to delay the vote until the New Year, he may actually earn the title.</p><p>But it's still totally OK to hate the guy.</p><p>Seriously.</p><p>Seven months ago the guy introduced a bill that would automatically strip Americans of their citizenship if they were <em>charged</em> with "a terrorist act." He named it "the TEA Act." Why did he do that? Because he's a political troll. Not in the "living under a bridge eating goats" sense, but in <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.satellite.gps/msg/3282b51df4968b32?pli=1">the old Usenet sense</a> of someone who purposefully enrages and frustrates members of a community, while <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Published_research_on_trolling">pretending to have no idea what he's doing.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/still_ok_to_hate_lieberman/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/still_ok_to_hate_lieberman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>126</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maureen Dowd phones in world&#8217;s worst Obama speech reaction column</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/dowd_obama_speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/dowd_obama_speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/09/01/dowd_obama_speech</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times columnist talks about the new Oval Office carpet, and makes ancient Al Gore jokes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Award-winning New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01dowd.html?_r=1&amp;hp">wrote a political column about Barack Obama's speech last night!</a> Of course the column had to be finished in time for this morning's paper, so it was obviously written in 10 minutes or so yesterday afternoon, before the speech was actually delivered. There is a joke about Al Gore and "earth tones" in the very first sentence of this column on Barack Obama's speech about the Iraq war.</p><p>An earth tones joke. In the year 2010.</p><p>The "earth tones" thing was <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030703.shtml">a completely fictional story invented,</a> almost simultaneously, by the entire 2000 campaign press corps, because the narrative everyone had decided on was that Al Gore was a phony and a wacko weakling liberal loser. MoDo led the charge, and has clung to that caricature, despite its basis almost entirely on complete fabrications, ever since.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/dowd_obama_speech/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/dowd_obama_speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>107</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reading &#8220;The Clinton Tapes,&#8221; thinking about Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/01/the_clinton_tapes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/01/the_clinton_tapes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh//politics/2009/10/01/the_clinton_tapes</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president and the historian provide a candid, intimate look at how the GOP became a nasty party of obstruction]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need a break from <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/09/14/obama/index.html">the rhetorical outrage beat</a>. I was going to write about the Newsmax columnist who all but advocated a military coup to bring down Obama, then I was pondering a post about Rep. Alan Grayson's claim that the GOP health reform plan amounts to if you get sick, "die quickly." But I'm tired of overheated rhetoric right now, (plus <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/30/newsmax_statement/index.html">the indefatiguable Alex Koppelman got to both stories first!</a>)&#160;so I took refuge in Taylor Branch's new book, "The Clinton Tapes." I had planned to review it, but it's almost 700 pages, and I have a day job. If I took the time to read it and then write about the whole thing, it would be weeks before I'd get it done -- and I think the book has insights that are supremely relevant to today.</p><p>So I thought I'd try to blog my review, over several days, and ask for your help, if you're reading the book. Every few days I'll write about what I am learning, and anyone who's reading, or curious, can participate in comments. (We could do the same thing with "Going Rogue" next month, but it would probably take us about an hour.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/01/the_clinton_tapes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/01/the_clinton_tapes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>341</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#8217;m so angry, it&#8217;s time to change</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/08/11/anger_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/08/11/anger_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Since You Asked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mental Illness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked//2008/08/11/anger</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever since the 2000 elections I've been angry -- not just at the government but at all of us Americans.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Dear Cary,</b></p><p><b>The past few years my personal life has taken a nosedive. I think the biggest factor is this anger I've got inside, which frequently prevents me from socializing and meeting new people (or just having a good time with people). Basically I've become a very grumpy middle-aged man.</b></p><p><b>This all basically started after the 2000 election. By now, I feel justifiably disgusted by the Bush administration and his supporters of course, but it's bigger than this. I also feel my fellow Americans the past two decades or so have been awash in gleefully/mindlessly practicing the seven deadly sins, of which I believe ignorance should be added as the eighth.</b></p><p><b>Anyway, I know some people go to anger management therapy but I'm not sure that is for me. You associate that type of therapy with people who have snapped, people who have abused people physically as well as verbally. My anger is merely my own; I don't lash out; I just despair, because I know lashing out would cost me (my job, family, friends).</b></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/08/11/anger_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/08/11/anger_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will the youth vote win it for Obama this fall?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/05/29/youth_vote/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/05/29/youth_vote/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 11:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2004 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain, R-Ariz.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2008/05/29/youth_vote</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The likely Democratic nominee has a unique appeal to voters under 30. A look at how a strong youth turnout -- or lack thereof -- could affect this November's results.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just who are you, Generation Y? The salvation of Barack Obama and America? Or just more fool's gold in the Democratic search for El Dorado? For as surely as the sun rises in the east, and Tim Russert's Election Night board will focus on one overhyped swing state (Virginia? Colorado?), so have three electability talking points emerged from Obamamania. You, Generation Y, otherwise known as "the youth vote," are one of them. </p><p>The creed goes like this: The senator from Illinois (who is just about to put the finishing touches on a victory over the senator originally from Illinois) will inspire record numbers of African-Americans, independents and voters under 30 to go to the polls this November, sweeping away all before him like <a href="http://www.salon.com/march97/kamiya970321.html">Peter O'Toole riding into Aqaba.</a> </p><p>The African-American part seems pretty solid. The number of black voters will grow, and Obama will outperform previous Democratic candidates among them, perhaps enough to help him by 2 percentage points or more in states such as Virginia and North Carolina and a crucial 1 point -- give or take -- in other battleground states like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/05/29/youth_vote/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/05/29/youth_vote/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>114</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Party of two: Lieberman and McCain</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/17/lieberman_mccain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/17/lieberman_mccain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain, R-Ariz.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//roadies/2007/12/16/lieberman_mccain</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The senator from Connecticut and the senator from Arizona do what comes naturally.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 2004, <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/joe_lieberman/">Joe Lieberman</a> ran for the presidential nomination of a party that no longer exists -- the hawkish <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/democrats/">Democrats</a> -- and exited from the race after receiving a threadbare 9 percent of the vote in the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/new_hampshire/">New Hampshire</a> primary. Along the way, the Connecticut senator frequently touted his "good friend" <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/john_mccain/">John McCain</a> as his putative secretary of defense in a (please restrain giggles) Lieberman administration. Lieberman even ran a TV ad in New Hampshire boasting of all the McCain supporters in 2000 (mostly independents who can vote in either party's primary) who were now backing the candidate with Joe-mentum. </p><p> Monday morning -- first on the "Today" show and then at an early morning press conference in Hillsborough, N.H. -- Lieberman will endorse McCain for president. It is a fitting match of <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/iraq_war/">Iraq war</a> supporters and longtime globetrotting colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There is also the poetic parallelism that Lieberman (who still bills himself as an "Independent Democrat") is now signing on with a candidate who is also seeking the nomination of a political party that may no longer exist -- Republicans who have not gone off the deep end on immigration, global warming, torture and religion. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/12/17/lieberman_mccain/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/17/lieberman_mccain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How  Cheney took control of  Bush&#8217;s foreign policy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Neoconservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new veep installed crony Don Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, and would've won Paul Wolfowitz the top post at CIA -- if not for Wolfowitz's zipper problem.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much as he loathed <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/colin_powell/">Colin Powell</a>, Vice President-elect <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/dick_cheney/">Dick Cheney</a> realized that the immensely popular general -- the most trusted man in America -- was essential to the political perception of the incoming Bush administration's foreign policy decisions. As former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich put it, "If you're <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/george_w_bush/">George Bush</a>, and the biggest weakness you have is foreign policy, and you can have Cheney on one flank and Powell on the other, it virtually eliminated the competence issue." </p><p>As a result, on December 16, 2000, three days after Al Gore conceded defeat, Colin Powell was flown to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where the president-elect announced his first cabinet appointment: Colin Powell as secretary of state. "He is a tower of strength and common sense," said Bush. "You find somebody like that, you have to hang on to them. I have found such a man." </p><p>Tears filled Bush's eyes. "I so admire Colin Powell," he later explained. "I love his story." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Let&#8217;s abolish the Electoral College</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/electoral_college/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/electoral_college/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rudy Giuliani]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2007/10/12/electoral_college</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Created to protect the slave states, it is championed now by conservatives who fear the power of America's true majority. It's time to ditch the antiquated way we choose presidents.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class='wp-image-10054185' src='http://media.salon.com/2007/10/cover.gif' />The California Electoral College Initiative has been exposed for what it is: a Republican plan to steal the 2008 presidential election. The idea was to divvy up the electoral votes of the nation's biggest state by congressional district rather than give all 55 to the statewide winner -- who would almost certainly be a Democrat. But a <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7036578?nclick_check=1">mysterious $175,000 contribution</a> heightened suspicions that the Rudy Giuliani campaign was behind the initiative, and prompted two key staffers to leave their posts with the group pushing it. </p><p>The collapse of the effort seems to represent a Florida-style cooked-election bullet dodged. But our democracy won't be safe until we disarm the weapon intended to fire such bullets. </p><p>It's time to abolish the electoral vote system. We should do it now. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/electoral_college/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/electoral_college/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>150</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Matthew Dowd&#8217;s not-so-miraculous conversion</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/04/05/matthew_dowd_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/04/05/matthew_dowd_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2004 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain, R-Ariz.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//blumenthal/2007/04/05/matthew_dowd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is the former Bush pollster a true believer turned disillusioned critic, or was he an opportunist from the get-go?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As he tells it, Matthew Dowd's conversion from true believer in George W. Bush to disenchanted critic is a chapter in a "Pilgrim's Progress" through the wilderness of this world. His long quest for agape, <a target="new" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html">as related to a New York Times reporter,</a> begins about a decade ago with Dowd in the Slough of Despond, "frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides," when suddenly a great-hearted figure appears who lights a candle in the darkness. "It's almost like you fall in love," Dowd professed. But his dream turns to dross and his faith into doubt. Bush is not the deliverer but the deceiver. "I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up. That it's not the same, it's not the person I thought." But Dowd is unsure whether Bush is a changed man or a captive. "He's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/04/05/matthew_dowd_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/04/05/matthew_dowd_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why do journalists suddenly love Al Gore?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/al_gore_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/al_gore_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason//2007/03/02/al_gore</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After they tempt him into the presidential race, they'll probably try to destroy him again. And he knows it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a man who long endured more than his share of nasty, unwarranted abuse from journalists, the philosophical Al Gore must be amused by the happy transformation of his clippings. The same press corps that once snarled for his blood is now smooching his boots -- an implicit apology that might be gratifying to the former future president, if only he were still naive enough to value their esteem. </p><p> The sudden fashion for favorable comment won't influence any thoughtful American's opinion of <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/al_gore/">Gore,</a> but it should remind us of the dismal media performance that did such a terrible disservice to him and to the nation. Although Gore himself certainly deserves a measure of blame for the catastrophic conclusion of the 2000 presidential election and the events that led up to it, his hateful treatment by the press slanted the campaign against him from the beginning. (Perhaps only <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/ralph_nader/">Ralph Nader</a> is more culpable for the irreparable harms of the Bush era, but that is an arguable proposition.) </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/al_gore_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/al_gore_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>98</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whatever&#8217;s best for Holy Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/18/lieberman_74/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/18/lieberman_74/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2006 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason//2006/08/18/lieberman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lieberman's racially inflammatory strategy may backfire when people remember his history of pandering to Louis Farrakhan.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary, he has been telling voters that he stands for "a new politics of unity and purpose." Yet he and his <a target="new" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008760">supporters</a> have simultaneously pursued an old politics of division and distraction by drawing attention to the two controversial personalities who stood behind challenger Ned Lamont on primary night. </p><p>The Lieberman campaign is trying to frighten white voters in Connecticut -- and Democrats in Washington -- by reminding them over and over again that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson support Lamont. This week, the senator's aides <a target="new" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16conn.html">told the New York Times</a> that playing the two African-American preachers off against Lamont will enhance Lieberman's appeal on an independent ballot line. "Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party," said Dan Gerstein, the Lieberman campaign's communications director. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2006/08/18/lieberman_74/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/18/lieberman_74/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scalia: Al Gore made me do it</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/11/22/scalia_11/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/11/22/scalia_11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2005/11/22/scalia</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The associate justice says he and his colleagues had no choice but to intervene in the 2000 election.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There's been a lot of talk about <a target= "new" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/17/ucheney.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/17/ixportaltop.html">rewriting history</a> in the past few days, and it seems that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia must be feeling a little left out. </p><p>During a <a target= "new" href="http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58101.htm">speech</a> in New York last night, Scalia said that he and his fellow justices intervened in the 2000 election because Al Gore made them do it. "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people," Scalia said. "We did not go looking for trouble." </p><p>As a general matter, of course, nobody can drag the Supreme Court into anything. As <a target= "new" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html">Supreme Court Rule 10</a> says, "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." Scalia and his colleagues used that discretion to grant review in a case brought not by "Gore's people" but by a man named George W. Bush. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/11/22/scalia_11/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/11/22/scalia_11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Remember the Electoral College?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/08/09/ec_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/08/09/ec_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2005/08/09/ec</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new report raises questions about the way we elect presidents -- and Al Gore has nothing to do with it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On a slow news day in August, a young man's fancy turns lightly to . . . the Electoral College. The old E.C. hasn't gotten a lot of attention lately. The upside-down election of 2000 brought all sorts of ideas about changing the way we elect presidents, but that talk faded as 2004 drew near and pretty much disappeared entirely after George W. Bush carried both the popular vote and the Electoral College count. </p><p>But 2008 will be upon us before we know it, and the Electoral College will be large and in charge again. <a target= "new" href="http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001265.php">Donkey Rising</a> points us to a new study from <a target= "new" href="http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1555">FairVote</a> on the toll it's taking on American democracy. Because the Electoral College system puts the emphasis on winning states, not votes, the race for the presidency of the United States plays out almost exclusively in the states that could conceivably be up for grabs. With each election cycle, that battleground gets smaller. In the 1960 presidential election, FairVote says, 24 states were highly competitive. By 2004, the battleground had shrunk to 13 states, and FairVote says it will get even smaller by 2008, when the only large states in play may well be Ohio and Florida. If a Republican wins both, the Republicans will hold on to the White House for four more years. If a Democrat can get at least a split, it's game on. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/08/09/ec_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/08/09/ec_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ultimate candidate?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/08/harris_14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/08/harris_14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2005/06/07/harris</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Controversial former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris is running for Senate.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Florida's most famous poster person for disputed elections, former Secretary of State and current Republican Rep. Katherine Harris, <a href="http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050607/APN/506070842" target="_blank"> announced </a> on Tuesday that she plans to challenge Democrat Bill Nelson for his Senate seat in 2006. Since her central role in the state's hanging-chad debacle in 2000, including subsequent <a href="http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html?pn=4" target="_blank">reports</a> that she hired a heavily Republican private firm to help purge Democrats from the state's voter rolls, many on the left have seen Harris as a symbol of the U.S.'s urgent need for election reform. One might think that would have put a bit of a dent in Harris' political credibility, but the 2000 scandal seems instead to have cemented her reputation with Republicans. The Associated Press on Tuesday referred to her as "a top fundraiser," "a popular figure among Republicans" and "the darling of GOP activists." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/08/harris_14/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/08/harris_14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Confessions of a liberal</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/08/28/campaigning/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/08/28/campaigning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2004 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2004/08/28/campaigning</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I'm running out of excuses for why I can't go door-to-door to help elect John Kerry.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Although I'd like to help Kerry, each week I have a new excuse. Right now? "I'm not a swift boat veteran." If I were, and had served with Kerry, I'd be suing. <a href="http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/">John O'Neill.</a> Karl Rove. Maybe even the big guy, Dick Cheney. I'd find a friendly little state court in Texas and start taking depositions. I'd allege that they put me in a "false light," which is a tort, or personal injury. If I started the case now, then by October I'd have my lawyers deposing President Bush. But I'm no more a Vietnam veteran than Bush. So if I'm going to help defeat him -- and I'm starting to dream about the guy -- what am I going to do? I'm tired of hearing my own excuses and that of my friends. For example: </p><p>1. "Well, all you can really do is give money." So that's the end of that. At my age, a lot of people are tapped out. Kids in college. Parents in assisted living. But is it true that giving dough is the only thing we can do? </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/08/28/campaigning/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/08/28/campaigning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The other guy Democrats love to hate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/04/12/nader_43/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/04/12/nader_43/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2004 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2000 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2004/04/12/nader</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an interview with Salon, Ralph Nader rejects the spoiler label and says Democrats "need to stop their whining and go to work."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though he failed last Monday to draw enough supporters to make the Oregon ballot, Ralph Nader is determined to run a full-bore independent campaign in swing states, whatever the consequences. And if his comments to Salon are any indication, he intends to bash the Democrats along the way. </p><p>With his February announcement that he would mount a third bid for the presidency, this time as an independent, consumer advocate Ralph Nader cemented his status as the <i>other</i> guy the Democrats love to hate. But it's not just Democrats that question his motives. With the 2004 presidential election shaping up as an apocalyptic, scorched-earth showdown between two major parties vying for the allegiance of an evenly (and deeply) divided country, Nader's decision elicited an explosion of anger in many of the liberal and progressive circles from which Nader drew his past support. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/04/12/nader_43/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/04/12/nader_43/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
