<?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">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Hillary Clinton says lots of good stuff on climate and energy]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:03:21 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Bad for Obama?</strong></p><p>This was probably the best speech that Hillary ever gave. &nbsp;Her riff on "Keep going!," based on the heroism of Harriet Tubman, a great woman, AND African-American, AND a New Yorker, AND a favorite of our beloved African-American governor David Paterson, was magnificent, and unlike anything she ever said before.</p><p>
Oratorically, she remains a bit klutzy, especially because she does not instinctively recognize which word in a sentence to stress.</p><p>
Nevertheless, it was a great speech. &nbsp;And we could not help asking ourselves: What with Chelsea's adulatory video, plus the speech, were the delegates in Denver not thinking, "We made a big mistake, we realize now that we do not want Obama as our candidate, Hillary would be far better"?</p><p>
On top of that: I do not know what Kate and DR think, but it strikes me that the acoustics at this convention are far poorer than they were four years ago in Boston (the applause does not carry well); and video angles are dumb (Michelle Obama and Joe Biden were eclipsed by people standing in front of them).</p><p>
Also: On Monday night, Michelle came across as a bit weak -- most uncharacteristically, and surprisingly. &nbsp;And maybe that was the point, to make her look totally unthreatening. &nbsp;But then, it looked dumb, when the video crew kept punctuating Hillary's speech with shots of Michelle glancing daggers.</p><p>
As I said a long long time ago, even long before I saw the light regarding my ex-boyfriend John Edwards (that idiotic jerk!), this campaign is heading for disaster.

<p>Chickens deserve our true friendship!  So do fish!  So do other sentient beings!  Let us learn to be kind.</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Bad for Obama?</strong></p><p>This was probably the best speech that Hillary ever gave. &nbsp;Her riff on "Keep going!," based on the heroism of Harriet Tubman, a great woman, AND African-American, AND a New Yorker, AND a favorite of our beloved African-American governor David Paterson, was magnificent, and unlike anything she ever said before.</p><p>
Oratorically, she remains a bit klutzy, especially because she does not instinctively recognize which word in a sentence to stress.</p><p>
Nevertheless, it was a great speech. &nbsp;And we could not help asking ourselves: What with Chelsea's adulatory video, plus the speech, were the delegates in Denver not thinking, "We made a big mistake, we realize now that we do not want Obama as our candidate, Hillary would be far better"?</p><p>
On top of that: I do not know what Kate and DR think, but it strikes me that the acoustics at this convention are far poorer than they were four years ago in Boston (the applause does not carry well); and video angles are dumb (Michelle Obama and Joe Biden were eclipsed by people standing in front of them).</p><p>
Also: On Monday night, Michelle came across as a bit weak -- most uncharacteristically, and surprisingly. &nbsp;And maybe that was the point, to make her look totally unthreatening. &nbsp;But then, it looked dumb, when the video crew kept punctuating Hillary's speech with shots of Michelle glancing daggers.</p><p>
As I said a long long time ago, even long before I saw the light regarding my ex-boyfriend John Edwards (that idiotic jerk!), this campaign is heading for disaster.

<p>Chickens deserve our true friendship!  So do fish!  So do other sentient beings!  Let us learn to be kind.</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by MAD MAC</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:48:00 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Hillary - she's just not sincere</strong></p><p>She said all the right thing, but it looked to me like her heart was not in it. She is faced with the problem of "I can't endorse Obama now, and run against him in 2012, which I want to do." But she has to support Obama now in order to remain politically viable within the party. Her language tone and body posture said to me "I can't believe I am having to support this uppity nigger who stole my show."

<p>Victory in Pattani</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Hillary - she's just not sincere</strong></p><p>She said all the right thing, but it looked to me like her heart was not in it. She is faced with the problem of "I can't endorse Obama now, and run against him in 2012, which I want to do." But she has to support Obama now in order to remain politically viable within the party. Her language tone and body posture said to me "I can't believe I am having to support this uppity nigger who stole my show."

<p>Victory in Pattani</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Jonk</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:58:28 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/dnc-clinton-speaks/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Cheers on climate inclusion<p>Good fo rher! &nbsp;Discussions of responses to climate change, which to date have been focussed on mitigation (the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) and adaptation (supporting communities to live in warmer and hydrologically more extreme climates), must now consider a fund/no fund response strategy - see e.g <a href="http://www.climatechangetriage.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechangetriage.net<br>
</br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Cheers on climate inclusion<p>Good fo rher! &nbsp;Discussions of responses to climate change, which to date have been focussed on mitigation (the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) and adaptation (supporting communities to live in warmer and hydrologically more extreme climates), must now consider a fund/no fund response strategy - see e.g <a href="http://www.climatechangetriage.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechangetriage.net<br>
</br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>