<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#039;s it take to raze a campaign?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theoryculture.com/103/whats-it-take-to-raze-a-campaign/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theoryculture.com/103/whats-it-take-to-raze-a-campaign/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:17:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jillian</title>
		<link>http://theoryculture.com/103/whats-it-take-to-raze-a-campaign/#comment-288</link>
		<dc:creator>jillian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/whats-it-take-to-raze-a-campaign/#comment-288</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s good to see you posting again, John!  I&#039;m not as familiar with this site of yours as I was with livejournal, but hey, I&#039;ll take it.
I think what you said is right - this campaign is so bizarre.  Do people want Hilary because of the prospect of a re-romanticizing of the Bill Clinton years?  NAFTA is a motherfucker, man.  And she has some very strange, conservative ties.  Too many.  Makin&#039; me nervous.
And don&#039;t get me started on the racism and sexism of this campaign.  On Sunday John Edwards was on Face the Nation and Bob Schieffer (sp) asked him if he thought he was losing because he&#039;s running against the first plausible female candidate and the first plausible African-American candidate.  Edwards&#039; response (roughly): &quot;Of course that&#039;s why, but I&#039;m not one to make excuses.&quot;  This, of course, translates to: &quot;If only these token people weren&#039;t running, white guys would be okay.&quot;  Barf.
And one more thing: I get annoyed with &#039;political correctness&#039; because it is said and referred to so begrudgingly, as if to say that privately these things don&#039;t matter, we only have to attempt &#039;respect&#039; and &#039;tolerance&#039; while out in the polis.  It&#039;s just correct!  No qualifications, no annoyances.  Don&#039;t change your language to be gender-inclusive because it&#039;s &#039;pc&#039;; change it because it&#039;s C!  I could go on, but I will spare you. I hope this made some sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s good to see you posting again, John!  I&#8217;m not as familiar with this site of yours as I was with livejournal, but hey, I&#8217;ll take it.<br />
I think what you said is right &#8211; this campaign is so bizarre.  Do people want Hilary because of the prospect of a re-romanticizing of the Bill Clinton years?  NAFTA is a motherfucker, man.  And she has some very strange, conservative ties.  Too many.  Makin&#8217; me nervous.<br />
And don&#8217;t get me started on the racism and sexism of this campaign.  On Sunday John Edwards was on Face the Nation and Bob Schieffer (sp) asked him if he thought he was losing because he&#8217;s running against the first plausible female candidate and the first plausible African-American candidate.  Edwards&#8217; response (roughly): &#8220;Of course that&#8217;s why, but I&#8217;m not one to make excuses.&#8221;  This, of course, translates to: &#8220;If only these token people weren&#8217;t running, white guys would be okay.&#8221;  Barf.<br />
And one more thing: I get annoyed with &#8216;political correctness&#8217; because it is said and referred to so begrudgingly, as if to say that privately these things don&#8217;t matter, we only have to attempt &#8216;respect&#8217; and &#8216;tolerance&#8217; while out in the polis.  It&#8217;s just correct!  No qualifications, no annoyances.  Don&#8217;t change your language to be gender-inclusive because it&#8217;s &#8216;pc&#8217;; change it because it&#8217;s C!  I could go on, but I will spare you. I hope this made some sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

