<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.techpresident.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>techPresident - Ann Dodd - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.techpresident.com/taxonomy/term/23006</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Ann Dodd&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Do you really think Rebecca&#039;s comment was off the cuff?</title>
 <link>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/6594/the_new_family_values_on_the_blogs#comment-1158</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt; I don&#039;t know...but I don&#039;t know her! I was amazed at the firestorm it generated briefly- but more disappointed, really, in how the press spun the story as &quot;Mommy Wars.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:01:58 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Morra Aarons</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1158 at http://www.techpresident.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Behind the Scenes, Media &amp; Mommybloggers</title>
 <link>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/6594/the_new_family_values_on_the_blogs#comment-1140</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s also interesting how the bloggers respond behind the scenes on these topics.  As one of the SVMoms contributors, I saw the public and the private discussion on the topic.  I actually would&#039;ve expected more private discussion, but things took a turn on the blog when Rebecca took back some of her remarks.  Then she and Elizabeth Edwards made up, saying they had learned from each other.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mommybloggers have gradually gotten more attention by the media over the past few years, but this is the first time we&#039;ve been looked to for political commentary in a national election, so I think many people are just learning how fast their words can spread online when they write an off-the-cuff post in 3 minutes and publish it as Rebecca did.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:44:38 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Sarah Granger</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1140 at http://www.techpresident.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>fair enough</title>
 <link>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/6594/the_new_family_values_on_the_blogs#comment-1134</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks Jeff.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:13 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Morra Aarons</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1134 at http://www.techpresident.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>I love the post and linked</title>
 <link>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/6594/the_new_family_values_on_the_blogs#comment-1131</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I love the post and linked to it from my site BUT I do want to note one thing. The Obama&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20406221/&quot;&gt;have denied&lt;/a&gt; that Michelle was talking about Hillary Clinton in that exchange and Jennifer Hunter who originally suggested the line &quot;could be INTERPRETED&quot; that way has since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/522597,CST-NWS-hunter23.article&quot;&gt;explained&lt;/a&gt; how she came to that conclusion and noted she did so without ever checking to see if that was the intention.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The story was picked up immediately by Drudge with that assertion attributed as fact and made the news rounds without anyone checking into it. I only note it because you said &quot; In this comment, she was targeting Hillary Clinton&quot; but you should probably attribute it by saying &quot;In this comment, many believe she was targeting Hillary Clinton&quot; rather than maintaining it as a fact.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other than that, very good and thought-provoking piece.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:47:09 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jeff Commaroto</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1131 at http://www.techpresident.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
