<?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 > Bill Clinton</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/bill_clinton/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:38:24 +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>The wingnut trifecta</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_wingnut_trifecta/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_wingnut_trifecta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Susan Rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Bolton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wingnut trifecta]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13160348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crazy GOP claims that Hillary Clinton is faking her illness slur the country's three most popular Democrats]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right-wing claims that Hillary Clinton faked illness to avoid testifying about the Benghazi tragedy would be funny if they weren't so ugly. It's the wingnut trifecta, smearing our most popular past Democratic president, Bill Clinton, along with our current president, Barack Obama, and the current 2016 front-runner, all with one shot. Imagine birtherism crossed with the worst of the hateful anti-Clinton lies, like the "Vince Foster was murdered" claim. That's Hillary-health trutherism.</p><p>But so far <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/people-who-thought-hillary-clinton-was-faking-her?_tmc=Y4z-nYSU_ZjjWvFQxx8Pbsk_Lw8Lxb5qdlRCW6DG7Q0">right-wingers claiming that Clinton somehow faked her concussion</a> have gone virtually unchallenged on Fox News and right-wing sites like Newsbusters and the Daily Caller. Everyone from Charles Krauthammer to Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton have gotten into the act. Even after reports that Clinton also suffered a dangerous blood clot between her brain and skull, Bolton not only failed to apologize, he suggested that she was dodging Benghazi questions in order to protect her 2016 chances.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_wingnut_trifecta/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_wingnut_trifecta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Triumph of the Tea Party mindset</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/triumph_of_the_tea_party_mindset/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/triumph_of_the_tea_party_mindset/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitch McConnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lyndon Johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13155428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don't be fooled by those who say it's dying: The fiscal cliff impasse proves its spirit dominates the GOP]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two stories that might seem to contradict each other ran in the New York Times this week. One <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/politics/tea-party-its-clout-diminished-turns-to-fringe-issues.html?pagewanted=all">declared</a> the Tea Party movement “significantly weakened” in the wake of November’s elections and on its way to becoming “just another political faction.” The other <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/us/politics/little-sense-of-fiscal-urgency-as-senators-prepare-to-return.html">noted</a> that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell might be concerned about a potential 2014 primary challenge – enough to filibuster any fiscal cliff plan that President Obama and Democrats draw up, no matter how modest.</p><p>The problem, of course, is that the Tea Party’s power resides in Republican primaries, where conservative purists wreaked considerable havoc in the past two election cycles. This included, famously, McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, where the minority leader’s protégé was crushed in a 2010 GOP Senate primary by Rand Paul. Now McConnell has to worry about suffering a similar fate in two years, especially if his handling of the current fiscal impasse evokes cries of treason from the base. How could this square with claims of fading clout for the Tea Party?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/triumph_of_the_tea_party_mindset/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/triumph_of_the_tea_party_mindset/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8 striking parallels between the U.S. and the Roman Empire</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World War I]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World War II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman Empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13155204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is our republic coming to an unceremonious end? History may not be on America's side]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a> Lawrence Lessig's <a href="http://republic.lessig.org/"><em>Republic Lost</em></a> documents the corrosive effect of money on our political process. Lessig persuasively makes the case that we are witnessing the loss of our republican form of government, as politicians increasingly represent those who fund their campaigns, rather than our citizens.</p><p>Anthony Everitt's <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/book/47493/the-rise-of-rome-by-anthony-everitt"><em>Rise of Rome</em></a><em> </em>is fascinating history and a great read. It tells the story of ancient Rome, from its founding (circa 750 BCE) to the fall of the Roman Republic (circa 45 BCE).</p><p>When read together, striking parallels emerge -- between our failings and the failings that destroyed the Roman Republic. As with Rome just before the Republic's fall, America has seen:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The right&#8217;s coming breakup with Hillary</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/the_rights_coming_break_up_with_hillary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/the_rights_coming_break_up_with_hillary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Pick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13150704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Clinton's been one of the "good" Democrats in their post-2008 messaging. But that's probably going to change soon]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage for two decades now, and when it comes to her treatment by Republicans, that time can be divided into two distinct periods.</p><p>The first ran for 16 years, from early 1992, when her husband survived a wave of scandals and emerged as the Democratic nominee for president, and early 2008, when Hillary fell hopelessly behind Barack Obama in their delegate race. For all of that time, Hillary and Bill were the faces of their party and, consequently, faced a relentless, daily, over-the-top assault from the GOP. The precise nature of the attacks differed, but broadly speaking, the Clintons were treated by the right <a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/29/tea_party_gop_base/">exactly how Barack Obama has been</a> for the past four years.</p><p>Which is no coincidence, because the turning point in the right’s relationship with Bill and Hillary came at the <a href="http://observer.com/2008/03/hillarys-new-conservative-friends/">precise moment</a> when it became clear there’d be no Clinton restoration in ’08. Suddenly, there was no day-to-day incentive for conservatives to portray them as The Worst Thing Ever To Happen To American Politics. But there was real incentive for the right to begin giving Obama the Clinton treatment, which it's been doing ever since. In the revised right-wing narrative, Bill and Hillary became symbols of a bygone era of Democratic pragmatism and cooperation – “good” Democrats whose legacy Obama was routinely tarnishing with his radical partisan warfare.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/the_rights_coming_break_up_with_hillary/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/the_rights_coming_break_up_with_hillary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Colin Quinn is excited about Martin Scorsese&#8217;s Bill Clinton documentary</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/colin_quinn_is_excited_about_martin_scorseses_bill_clinton_documentary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/colin_quinn_is_excited_about_martin_scorseses_bill_clinton_documentary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Scorsese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colin quinn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13148916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The comedian and his Twitter pals lay on the "Goodfellas" jokes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like many of us, comedian and "SNL" veteran Colin Quinn is amused by the news that legendary director Martin Scorsese — he of "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver" and "Gangs of New York" and all the best gritty New York films about mobsters and violence and guilt and redemption — will be directing an HBO documentary about former President Bill Clinton. What would a Bubba in "Goodfellas" kind of movie be like? Quinn and friends have a few ideas:</p><p>From Quinn's Twitter feed:</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281106894209298432"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281115994825572352"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281112778369032192"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281112162737475584"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281110478330138624"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281109390331883520"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281109992940109824"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281112005060993024"]</p><p>[embed_tweet id="281107992013844480"]</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/colin_quinn_is_excited_about_martin_scorseses_bill_clinton_documentary/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/colin_quinn_is_excited_about_martin_scorseses_bill_clinton_documentary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Martin Scorsese to deliver Bill Clinton documentary</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/martin_scorsese_to_deliver_bill_clinton_documentary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/martin_scorsese_to_deliver_bill_clinton_documentary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HBO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Scorsese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Documentary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13147621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The legendary director describes the former president as "transcendent"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Legendary film director Martin Scorsese is partnering with HBO to produce a documentary about former President Bill Clinton. "A towering figure who remains a major voice in world issues, President Clinton continues to shape the political dialogue both here and around the world,” Scorsese said. “Through intimate conversations, I hope to provide greater insight into this transcendent figure.”</p><p>Scorsese has the full support of the 42nd president, who said, “I look forward to sharing my perspective on my years as President, and my work in the years since, with HBO’s audience.”</p><p>This will be Scorsese’s fourth collaboration with HBO, including a documentary about American author Fran Lebowitz ("Public Speaking") and the Emmy-winning "George Harrison: Living in the Material World." He also serves as executive producer for the network's "Boardwalk Empire."</p><p>h/t <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/hbo-scorsese-partner-bill-clinton-documentary-69616">The Wrap</a>, <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/martin-scorsese-to-make-documentary-about-bill-clinton-for-hbo/">Deadline</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/martin_scorsese_to_deliver_bill_clinton_documentary/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/martin_scorsese_to_deliver_bill_clinton_documentary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Democrats won on guns</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/when_democrats_won_on_guns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/when_democrats_won_on_guns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dianne Feinstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut shooting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault weapons ban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13146754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gun control advocates want to replicate their biggest ever victory over the NRA. Will the president lead the fight?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who has been at forefront of the debate over gun access for two decades, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html">said on Sunday</a> that she’ll introduce legislation to revive the federal assault weapons ban when the new Congress convenes in January. She also said that she expects President Obama, who vowed at Sunday night's memorial service in Newtown, Connecticut to "“use whatever power this office holds” to prevent future tragedies, to join the fight. But even though there are hints that the political climate on guns really is shifting, the odds of Feinstein's bill becoming law still aren’t that good.</p><p>To understand what Feinstein and other gun control advocates are up against, it’s worth recapping the history of the assault weapons ban, which was first enacted in 1994 and expired without congressional action in 2004. Since then, there has been intermittent talk of trying to bring it back, generally in the wake of mass shootings like the one in Connecticut last Friday. But in the eight years since it lapsed, neither the House nor the Senate has ever voted on restoring the ban, and even though President Obama says he supports doing so, he’s not made it a legislative priority.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/when_democrats_won_on_guns/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/when_democrats_won_on_guns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Re-inventing college for prisons</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/re_inventing_college_for_prisons/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/re_inventing_college_for_prisons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Crime Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sing Sing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bedford Hills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13125750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two ex-inmates are trying to bring higher education to the incarcerated, one maximum security facility at a time]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.thecrimereport.org/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/04/crime-report-logo.png" alt="The Crime Report" align="left" /></a> At the height of the tough-on-crime era in the mid-1990s, prisoners in New York State seeking access to college-level courses were dealt a one-two punch that seemed to deliver a crushing blow to inmate higher education.</p><p>When then-President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, he revoked inmate access to federal Pell grants. In 1995, New York Governor George Pataki followed suit, eliminating Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) funding for prisoners in the state.</p><p>For Kathy Boudin, at the time an inmate of the maximum security Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, it seemed like college programs “disappeared overnight.”</p><p>“When college was removed, instead of having a line of people walking to school, we had people sitting up in the day rooms playing cards, playing dominoes, getting in fights,” said Boudin, now the director of the Columbia University School of Social Work’s Criminal Justice Initiative.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/re_inventing_college_for_prisons/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/re_inventing_college_for_prisons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t be afraid, Mr. President</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/dont_be_afraid_mr_president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/dont_be_afraid_mr_president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newtown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13125768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Barack Obama and his party have been too terrified of angering gun owners to realize they can win without them]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s no disputing that the Democratic Party has regressed dramatically on the issue of gun violence over the past two decades. When a shooting rampage on the Long Island Railroad killed six people and injured 19 others in December 1993, Bill Clinton responded immediately by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/barack_obama_bill_clinton_and_guns/">calling for specific legislative action</a> to prevent future tragedies. Contrast that with the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-2012-12">response</a> of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Friday to a question about whether the carnage in Connecticut might prompt President Obama to pursue gun control measures. “I'm sure there will be another day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates,” Carney said, “but I don’t think today is that day."</p><p>It can be hard to remember now, but well into the 1990s, national Democrats proudly associated themselves with gun control, championing laws that restricted access to deadly weapons. Under Clinton, the Brady Bill, which mandated a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handgun, was passed, and so was a ban on assault weapons. The 1996 Democratic Convention that nominated Clinton for a second term featured Jim and Sarah Brady as primetime speakers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/dont_be_afraid_mr_president/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/dont_be_afraid_mr_president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Must-see morning clip</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/must_see_morning_clip_76/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/must_see_morning_clip_76/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Must see morning clip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matt damon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tom hanks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13121254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the Tonight Show, Matt Damon impersonates Bill Clinton]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt Damon tells Jay Leno what it was like to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOcCfGnM0gQ&amp;feature=g-subs-u">meet Bill Clinton</a> for the first time at a screening of "Good Will Hunting":</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cOcCfGnM0gQ" frameborder="0" width="400" height="225"></iframe></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/must_see_morning_clip_76/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/must_see_morning_clip_76/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Newt still won&#8217;t admit</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/what_newt_still_wont_admit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/what_newt_still_wont_admit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13120157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Once upon a time, Gingrich guaranteed that raising taxes on the rich would trigger a recession. It didn't]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1993, Democrats controlled both the legislative and executive branches, and they used their power that year to raise taxes on the top 1.2 percent of income-earners, creating a new top marginal rate of 39.6 percent. When that budget cleared the House (on a 218-216 vote in which every Republican voted no), the GOP whip issued a bold and frightening prediction:</p><p>“I believe this will lead to a recession next year,” Newt Gingrich said. “This is the Democrat machine’s recession. And each one of them will be held personally accountable.”</p><p>He still hasn’t come to terms with how wrong he was, and neither has his party. Nearly 20 years after Gingrich uttered those words, the debate in Washington carries echoes of that ’93 fight, with Barack Obama and congressional Democrats demanding a return to the Clinton rates for the top two percent of income-earners and with Republicans, who have not provided a single vote for a tax increase in all of the intervening years, doing their best to resist.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/what_newt_still_wont_admit/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/what_newt_still_wont_admit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In defense of 2016 speculation</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/08/in_defense_of_2016_speculation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/08/in_defense_of_2016_speculation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13119074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, it's annoying only a month removed from the last election, but now's when possible candidates start to emerge]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Over at <em>The Atlantic</em>, Conor Friedersdorf mocks the breathless 2016 speculation with a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-race-begins-gearing-up-for-the-2048-presidential-election/266005/">post</a> "gearing up for the 2048 presidential election." It's genuinely funny:</p><blockquote><p>Although it is still early, Mitt Romney, who has 16 grandchildren, is leading among the patriarchs of America's dynastic political families, in part due to the present childlessness of George P. Bush and Chelsea Clinton, whose presence in articles on this subject is an apparent journalistic convention. Starting families now could give the hypothetical grandchildren of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton a head start on the theoretical grandchildren of Barack Obama, whose daughters are years away from having children if they decide to procreate at all.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/08/in_defense_of_2016_speculation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/08/in_defense_of_2016_speculation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republicans&#8217; tax insanity</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/how_the_gop_became_so_unreasonable_on_taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/how_the_gop_became_so_unreasonable_on_taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grover Norquist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George H.W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13113228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How did the GOP become so unreasonable on the issue? Here's a hint: Grover Norquist had nothing to do with it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Claire McCaskill <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/02/claire_mccaskill_who_is_grover_norquist/">pointed out</a> that she’d met Grover Norquist for the first time backstage, then asked a pretty good question: “Who is he?”</p><p>Her point is that Norquist’s visibility and reputation dramatically exceeds his actual political clout. It’s understandable how this has happened. Republicans have evolved over the past three decades into a staunchly anti-tax party, and Norquist is a colorful and endlessly quotable symbol of this absolutism – one who happens to live and work in close proximity to much of the national political press corps. So he gets an awful lot of face time on television and it can sometimes seem as if he and his <a href="http://www.atr.org/petition">anti-tax pledge</a> are the reason no Republican member of Congress has voted for a tax hike in over two decades.</p><p>But, as <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110499/the-illusory-power-grover-norquist">Tim Noah wrote last week</a>, Norquist’s actual power in Washington and within the GOP is illusory. In terms of stature and public prominence, he’s been a major beneficiary of the party’s opposition to tax increases – but he hasn’t been the driving force behind it. The real story of the GOP’s modern evolution on taxes played out in several stages, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/how_the_gop_became_so_unreasonable_on_taxes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/how_the_gop_became_so_unreasonable_on_taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The World Energy Report&#8217;s scariest findings</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/the_world_energy_reports_scariest_findings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/the_world_energy_reports_scariest_findings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[An Inconvenient Truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TomDispatch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Energy Outlook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13108190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. may surpass Saudi Arabia as the planet's leading oil producer -- and the cost could be catastrophic]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rarely does the release of a data-driven report on energy trends trigger front-page headlines around the world.  That, however, is exactly what happened on November 12th when the prestigious Paris-based <a href="http://www.iea.org/" target="_blank">International Energy Agency</a> (IEA) released this year’s edition of its <em>World Energy Outlook</em>.  In the process, just about everyone missed its real news, which should have set off alarm bells across the planet.<br /> <a name="more"></a><br /> Claiming that advances in drilling technology were producing an upsurge in North American energy output, <em>World Energy Outlook</em> predicted that the United States would overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the planet’s leading oil producer by 2020.  “North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world,” <a href="http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/november/name,33015,en.html" target="_blank">declared</a> IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in a widely quoted statement.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/the_world_energy_reports_scariest_findings/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/the_world_energy_reports_scariest_findings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary&#8217;s long shadow</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/hillarys_long_shadow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/hillarys_long_shadow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeb Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Christie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13107382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If she decides to run in '16, Democrats could be in for an unusually suspense-free primary season]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Presidential election fatigue is probably a common condition these days, but that doesn’t mean the next White House race isn’t already underway.</p><p>As Jonathan Bernstein <a href="http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/11/yes-2016-started-already.html">pointed out recently,</a> jockeying by would-be Democratic candidates actually began well before Election Day, and party leaders, activists and interest groups are already seeking to define the terms of the 2016 debate within the party. And now that Mitt Romney has gone down to defeat, thereby assuring that the GOP’s ’16 nomination will be open too, a <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/19/marco-rubios-long-road-to-2016-begins-now/">similar process is playing out</a> on the Republican side. These early days of a presidential election cycle are generally known as the “invisible primary,” although in today’s media landscape, it’s easier than ever to see who’s up to what.</p><p>In the modern era of presidential politics – that is, since the power to nominate candidates was taken away from convention power-brokers and given to primary voters – this process has tended to be more predictable on the Republican side, with a “next in line” candidate emerging from one election as the clear favorite for the next nomination and then going on to win it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/hillarys_long_shadow/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/hillarys_long_shadow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop obsessing over the budget deficit!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/stop_obsessing_over_the_budget_deficit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/stop_obsessing_over_the_budget_deficit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiscal cliff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RobertReich.org]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget deficit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13102755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We can't dimiss the "fiscal cliff" outright, but the truth is it's not even our most pressing economic issue]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish President Obama and the Democrats would explain to the nation that the federal budget deficit isn’t the nation’s major economic problem and deficit reduction shouldn’t be our major goal. Our problem is lack of good jobs and sufficient growth, and our goal must be to revive both.</p><p>Deficit reduction leads us in the opposite direction — away from jobs and growth. The reason the “fiscal cliff” is dangerous (and, yes, I know – it’s not really a “cliff” but more like a hill) is because it’s too much deficit reduction, too quickly. It would suck too much demand out of the economy.</p><p>But more jobs and growth will help reduce the deficit. With more jobs and faster growth, the deficit will shrink as a proportion of the overall economy. Recall the 1990s when the Clinton administration balanced the budget ahead of the schedule it had set with Congress because of faster job growth than anyone expected — bringing in more tax revenues than anyone had forecast. Europe offers the same lesson in reverse: Their deficits are ballooning because their austerity policies have caused their economies to sink.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/stop_obsessing_over_the_budget_deficit/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/stop_obsessing_over_the_budget_deficit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>For crying out loud, we love you, Obama!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/for_crying_out_loud_we_love_you_obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/for_crying_out_loud_we_love_you_obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Going Viral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Presidential Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13067334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A tearful clip of the president goes viral — and briefly thaws our cold, cynical hearts]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeez, isn't it enough you won a reelection; you had to go viral on us too, Barack? On Thursday, after defeating Mitt Romney and making white people all across this <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/its_not_a_traditional_america_anymore/">no-longer-"traditional"</a> great nation of ours <a href="http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/">go all sad face</a> and hilariously <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/trump_youre_fired/">Twitter-rampaging</a>, Barack Obama and his team decided to put a little icing on the victory cake. They released a video of an emotional president thanking his campaign team — and becoming visibly tearful near the end. Cue widespread epidemic of blurry monitors.</p><p>Yes, it was a prepared speech. And yes, the same morons who found it distasteful earlier this week when <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/06/obama_and_christie_its_alright_to_cry/ ">the president got choked up</a> are even unhappier now that this – and I'm quoting a Chicago Tribune commenter here – <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-thank-you-video-20121109,0,5354426.story">"frickin' crybaby"</a> is staying put in the White House. But plenty of others – like apparently every human being on my Twitter feed right now – saw that video as an affirmation of exactly whom we were voting for on Tuesday. It's a video of a leader with a heart.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/for_crying_out_loud_we_love_you_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/for_crying_out_loud_we_love_you_obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Post-election, politicos cash in</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/the_post_election_politics_of_the_revolving_door/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/the_post_election_politics_of_the_revolving_door/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Schmidt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money in politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anita Dunn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13066508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that the votes have been counted, campaign insiders plan their next lucrative move]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are two types of money that corrupt our politics. After a national election that cost more than $2 billion, most of us know about the blatant kind that floods into politicians' campaigns, typically with quid pro quo strings attached. This is the most obvious form of legalized bribery — cash goes in, policy positions and legislative favors eventually come out.</p><p>As powerful as that money is, though, there's also a second, equally corrosive form of payoff — the kind that awaits campaign staff and outgoing government officials if and when they enter the world of influence peddling. This more secret form of influence, which will quietly shape the post-election period, tends to generate far less outrage than ho-hum rationalizations. For this reason, you almost never hear about it — that is, until the last few weeks, when a series of coincidental revelations provided a rare look at how this dark money really works.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/the_post_election_politics_of_the_revolving_door/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/the_post_election_politics_of_the_revolving_door/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The case for legalizing pot</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marijuana Legalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Fix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13063456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tomorrow, three states will decide whether or not to end marijuana prohibition. Here's why it's a no-brainer]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.thefix.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://www.thefix.com/sites/all/themes/thefix/images/logo.png" alt="the fix" align="left" /></a> It's been nearly a century since the first state level bans on marijuana were enacted, and precisely 75 years since Congress enacted marijuana prohibition at the federal level. Since then, millions of Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses—overwhelmingly for possession of small amounts—and billions of dollars have been spent trying to stop people from growing, selling, and smoking pot.</p><p>It hasn't worked. Cannabis is now used by millions of people in the United States, and has been for decades. It is culturally accepted, the stuff of knowing TV sitcom references and sophomoric press puns. Police chiefs say that they have better things to do than bust people for smoking pot (even though they somehow still manage to arrest more than 850,000 a year). Even the commander-in-chief commanded his very own stoner crew, the Choom Gang, in his younger days, while his two immediate predecessors either issued artful non-denials of youthful use (George W. Bush) or famously tried to have it both ways by ridiculously claiming to have toked but not inhaled (Bill Clinton).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama enlisting A-list to act as surrogates</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/obama_enlisting_a_list_to_act_as_surrogates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/obama_enlisting_a_list_to_act_as_surrogates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[From the Wires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Springsteen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/obama_enlisting_a_list_to_act_as_surrogates/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bruce Springsteen, Lady Gaga and others are being deployed on Obama's behalf]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CINCINNATI (AP) — President Barack Obama is counting on former President Bill Clinton and Bruce Springsteen, top surrogates for his campaign, to carry his message. But he also has enlisted an army of A-list performers and public figures — from Lady Gaga to Billie Jean King, from Jay-Z to Crosby, Stills and Nash — to promote his re-election.</p><p>The Obama campaign provided a who's-who of 181 actors, musicians, authors, athletes, mayors, and more that fit any and all demographic groups in the president's target zone. All are being deployed to carry his message to television and radio in the waning days of the campaign.</p><p>The list includes some of Hollywood's big names — Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson.</p><p>Celebrity sells. It remains to be seen if voters buy.</p><p><script type='text/javascript' src='http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=1236&amp;width=420&amp;height=280&amp;hasCompanion=false&amp;shuffle=0&amp;playList=517513990'></script></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/obama_enlisting_a_list_to_act_as_surrogates/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/obama_enlisting_a_list_to_act_as_surrogates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>