<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Media Matters - David Ignatius</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/tag_rss/david_ignatius</link>
<description>This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve Media Matters items matching the term: David Ignatius</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America</copyright>

<item>
<title>Olbermann named Hannity, &#x3C;em&#x3E;Wash. Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s Ignatius in &#x22;Worst Person&#x22; segments  &#x3C;br /&#x3E;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200712130002</link>
<description>On December 10, MSNBC&#x27;s Keith Olbermann awarded &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington Post &#x3C;/em&#x3E;columnist David Ignatius 
the &#x22;bronze&#x22; in his &#x22;Worst Person in the World&#x22; segment for asserting that 
&#x22;there&#x27;s still a nagging uneasiness about having these two complicated Clintons back together at 
1600 Pennsylvania 
Ave.&#x22; Polling does not support Ignatius&#x27; assertion. 
On December 11, Olbermann named Sean Hannity the &#x22;runner-up&#x22; &#x22;Worst Person&#x22; for 
asserting 
that Rep. John P. 
Murtha had &#x22;gone to the other 
side&#x22; after his recent assessment of 
President Bush&#x27;s troop-increase strategy in Iraq.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200712130002</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:46:45 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ignoring polling to the contrary, Ignatius asserted there&#x27;s a &#x22;nagging uneasiness&#x22; about having both Clintons back in  the White House</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200712090004</link>
<description>&#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x3C;em&#x3E;
 Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E;
columnist David Ignatius asserted of Hillary Clinton&#x27;s presidential
campaign: &#x22;[V]oters are grappling with the unusual questions that would
surround her presidency. And the most important of these is the &#x27;two
presidents&#x27; problem. Whatever you think of the Clintons, it&#x27;s hard to
get your mind around having a current and former president in the White
House.&#x22; But a September
27-30
&#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x3C;em&#x3E;
 Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E;/ABC
News poll found that 60 percent of respondents said they &#x22;personally
feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White
House.&#x22; And in several other 2007 polls, a majority of respondents
stated that Bill Clinton is an asset to Hillary Clinton&#x27;s campaign or
would have a positive effect on a Hillary Clinton administration.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200712090004</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:19:19 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ignatius responds</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612060003</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612060003</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:51:21 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;Wash. Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s Ignatius cast Hagel as among earliest &#x22;national politician[s]&#x22; to criticize Iraq war, ignoring his support for 2002 war resolution</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200611290012</link>
<description>In his &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington
Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E; column, David Ignatius asserted that if Sen. Chuck Hagel
decides to run for president in 2008, &#x22;he can claim to have been right
about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician,
Republican or Democratic.&#x22; However, Ignatius&#x27; claim is undermined
by the fact that Hagel voted to authorize military action against Iraq in October
2002, which numerous Democrats vocally opposed at the time.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200611290012</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:50:29 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Despite lack of investigation, pundits dismissed concerns by Congress and the public over port deal</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030002</link>
<description>In recent days, numerous pundits have summarily dismissed concerns about the takeover of operations at six U.S. ports by a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates, despite the fact that the Bush administration opted not to conduct the 45-day investigation into the deal&#x27;s national security implications provided for -- and, critics argue, required -- by federal law.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030002</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:22:36 EST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>