<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Re: Maximum Damage Theory</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/25/re-maximum-damage-theory.aspx</link><description>Responding to our earlier post , Slate 's James Ledbetter weighs in with a few more reasons Clinton shouldn't count on a 2012 win: 1) HRC is not getting any younger; she will turn 65 in 2012 and 69 in 2016. Multiple presidential bids are going to take</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>