<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.campaignmoney.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign Action Fund - Word Choice - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2007/10/30/word-choice</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Word Choice&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Word Choice</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2007/10/30/word-choice</link>
 <description>Michael Dobbs, the &amp;quot;Fact Checker&amp;quot; at the &lt;em&gt;Washington Post&lt;/em&gt; devotes&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/fact_checking_the_fact_checker_1.html&quot;&gt; today&amp;#39;s column &lt;/a&gt;to further parsing the assertions of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards that they would not take money from federal lobbyists.  A previous discussion of this topic set off quite a debate among his readers; and he digs into an exploration of where the line is between a donation rooted in conviction, and one rooted in access-buying.</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
