So this post is the last of our little experiment, what have we learned from it, and what have our candidates learned?
It seems that even after a convincing win in the PA primaries that no one as before is really closer to getting elected then before the elections started almost a full 3 months ago. There is not anyone in politics who could have predicted that the fight for a simple nomination would still be going on. I think that it is is really important to realize that history is being made here. For the first time an election matters since past the Iowa and NH primaries, voters are getting a chance to see candidates in a new light.
Both candidates seem to be treading a little more cautiously now, and it looks that they seem to have taken head of my previous post warning the candidates that people were going to get serious, and look for someone who could run this country, someone who was not afraid to start the fight towards change,and a new leadership style that will without a doubt have a profound impact on the way that we do things in the world. Although neither Barrack or Clinton still have detailed information on ideas and policies on the websites, they seem to be at least slightly less ambiguous about some of the more serious issues.
As the Democratic convention comes nearer and nearer, the candidates struggle to see who will end up on top, all the while using funds and resources that many say will be scariness to defeat McCain in the general election this fall. It will be intersting to see if the political analysis is right, they haven't been so far....
see you at the polls.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Global Warming Clinton's Solution
In the online Internet article http://www.hillaryclinton.com/Issues/energy/ one can find Hillary Clinton’s position on Global Warming. On her website Clinton is said to have a very serious stance on Global Warming. According to hillarycliton.com/issues/energy/ Senator Clinton is said to have several plans ready to put into place to reduce green house emissions. This quote is directly taken from her website.
“Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day. Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jumpstarting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research. She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes and take concrete steps to reduce electricity consumption, including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.”
Hillary believes that she can reduce emissions by helping our country reduce its oil addiction. She also says that if we can greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil alone we will be headed in the right direction in reducing our impact on the very environment that gives us life. However, she believes that real long-lasting impact can only be achieved if she has the support of the entire American public. One of her solutions to help prevent Global Warming is to encourage public transportation and work on converting vehicles to go green and become eco friendly. Ironically I am surprised to find myself agreeing with the New York Senator on the severity of this issue. I do agree with trying to use bio diesel and other sources for energy. I do find it a very good and smart idea and I believe this would dramatically reduce the negative impacts we as a society have on the environment.
Hillary and the Gun
In the online Internet article http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm one can find Hillary Clinton’s position on Gun Control. Clinton is said to have a very strict stance on gun control. According to ontheissues.org, Clinton is said to believe that guns, if in the wrong hands, are the cause of crime, violence, premature death, and unnecessary conflict in the United States today. Hillary is said to have supported and will continue to support, tougher gun control legislation. However, she believes that real long-lasting impact can only be achieved if she has the support of the entire American public. With the help and support of one of her colleagues Senator Charles Schumer, she has come up with a solution to cutting down on the crime and violence in the United States. She has purposed a piece of legislation, which would require that all new handgun purchases must be put into a national registry. All citizens seeking to be new gun holders would be required to obtain a state issued photo gun license. She believes that this will help keep children safer and provide a more stable country. Ironically I am surprised to find myself agreeing with the New York Senator on the piece of legislation. I do not agree with trying to outlaw guns entirely but I do find it a very good and smart decision to make it a little more difficult for people to purchase a firearm. I believe this would dramatically reduce the negative impacts guns can have on a society.
Clinton Wants America to “Go Green”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jujkccf5hJg&feature=related (video)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4088
Candidate Clinton wants Americans to do something about the cuurent energy crisis and climate problems that have been occurring over the past few decades. She believes that Americans can stop contribution to global warming and also move in the right direction to make America an energy independent nation. She has an in depth plan Clinton believes that the in order for it to work Americans must believe in the idea of “shared responsibility”. Americans must understand that everyone must take little steps make little changes in their life in orders for there to be big changes. Everyone adds to the problem of global warming in some way. People in America must become educated and understand that global warming is a real issue or else they will continue to add to the problem as they continue on with their daily activates. Driving the car when the destination is in walking distance, leaving lights and televisions on, and wasting running water contributes to the problem. Not recycling, being a liter bug and improper disposal of waste from what Americans consume will ultimately be the end of our world unless our attitudes are changed.
Hillary Clinton has the right mindset that a leader of America should have and wishes to changes the Attitudes of Americans on the issue of global warming. She has devised a serious energy plan that will go into effect if elected president. She also understands the importance of educating people in order to bring about change and that is why she has a citizen’s pledge on her campaign website that as Americans serious steps to help solve the two challenges of global warming and dependence on foreign oil. Clinton is quoted “My plan to meet these challenges is based on the old fashioned idea of shared responsibility. It will take leadership – but also citizenship. It will take a movement for change from the ground up,”
“We can empower individuals with new tools and technology to lead the green revolution one home, one car and one business at a time. These choices determine the energy we use, the carbon we emit, and the world we leave for our children. I believe, when called upon, Americans will choose a clean energy future. This generation can become the Greenest Generation. We only need to light a spark – and that’s what I’ll do as president.” From her statement it is clearly understood that electing Clinton as president will be the right choice. It will be America’s choice to a cleaner, greener and healthier world that the future generation will have. We as citizens of America have the responsibility on our shoulders and we cannot be the ones who will be held responsible for depriving the youth of a beautiful and world that is free from toxins and pollutants.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4088
Candidate Clinton wants Americans to do something about the cuurent energy crisis and climate problems that have been occurring over the past few decades. She believes that Americans can stop contribution to global warming and also move in the right direction to make America an energy independent nation. She has an in depth plan Clinton believes that the in order for it to work Americans must believe in the idea of “shared responsibility”. Americans must understand that everyone must take little steps make little changes in their life in orders for there to be big changes. Everyone adds to the problem of global warming in some way. People in America must become educated and understand that global warming is a real issue or else they will continue to add to the problem as they continue on with their daily activates. Driving the car when the destination is in walking distance, leaving lights and televisions on, and wasting running water contributes to the problem. Not recycling, being a liter bug and improper disposal of waste from what Americans consume will ultimately be the end of our world unless our attitudes are changed.
Hillary Clinton has the right mindset that a leader of America should have and wishes to changes the Attitudes of Americans on the issue of global warming. She has devised a serious energy plan that will go into effect if elected president. She also understands the importance of educating people in order to bring about change and that is why she has a citizen’s pledge on her campaign website that as Americans serious steps to help solve the two challenges of global warming and dependence on foreign oil. Clinton is quoted “My plan to meet these challenges is based on the old fashioned idea of shared responsibility. It will take leadership – but also citizenship. It will take a movement for change from the ground up,”
“We can empower individuals with new tools and technology to lead the green revolution one home, one car and one business at a time. These choices determine the energy we use, the carbon we emit, and the world we leave for our children. I believe, when called upon, Americans will choose a clean energy future. This generation can become the Greenest Generation. We only need to light a spark – and that’s what I’ll do as president.” From her statement it is clearly understood that electing Clinton as president will be the right choice. It will be America’s choice to a cleaner, greener and healthier world that the future generation will have. We as citizens of America have the responsibility on our shoulders and we cannot be the ones who will be held responsible for depriving the youth of a beautiful and world that is free from toxins and pollutants.
Hillary Clinton Views on Energy and Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jujkccf5hJg&feature=related
Hillary Clinton discuses the problem with oil companies and how they are controlling our economy. She believes that we should become independent of oil and find other ways that we can make energy. We have come up with many ways to get energy, but we do not put these into action in the United States. In Norway they use wind to power most things, but we were the ones that actually came up with the ideas. We are starting to try to use our ideas, but now people are just paying money to use oil and let the companies take over our lives. Clinton also discusses Al Gore presentation on global warming and what he has done to make the issue as real as possible. He has started the research and Clinton wants to be the one that finishes his work and save the earth.
This is a big problem today because gas prices are on the rise. The average price of gas now is over $3.50 and is still expected to rise. Clinton picks a key topic to discuss because it will affect us now and in the future. This will help us now if we can find cheaper ways of getting energy because everything that uses oil is becoming so expensive. This is a problem because the economy is falling and will crash again if something is not done. This will also help us in the future because we are killing the environment and our children will have problems with what they can and cannot do. This problem is not fake because I was in Alaska and saw pieces of icebergs that were breaking into the water from warming temperatures. If we do not change to better ways of energies, then my children will not be able to go see beautiful Alaska because it will be underwater from all the ice melting. It is our decision to live the way we want, but Clinton tells us that we cannot live this way because of the effects later in life.
Hillary Clinton discuses the problem with oil companies and how they are controlling our economy. She believes that we should become independent of oil and find other ways that we can make energy. We have come up with many ways to get energy, but we do not put these into action in the United States. In Norway they use wind to power most things, but we were the ones that actually came up with the ideas. We are starting to try to use our ideas, but now people are just paying money to use oil and let the companies take over our lives. Clinton also discusses Al Gore presentation on global warming and what he has done to make the issue as real as possible. He has started the research and Clinton wants to be the one that finishes his work and save the earth.
This is a big problem today because gas prices are on the rise. The average price of gas now is over $3.50 and is still expected to rise. Clinton picks a key topic to discuss because it will affect us now and in the future. This will help us now if we can find cheaper ways of getting energy because everything that uses oil is becoming so expensive. This is a problem because the economy is falling and will crash again if something is not done. This will also help us in the future because we are killing the environment and our children will have problems with what they can and cannot do. This problem is not fake because I was in Alaska and saw pieces of icebergs that were breaking into the water from warming temperatures. If we do not change to better ways of energies, then my children will not be able to go see beautiful Alaska because it will be underwater from all the ice melting. It is our decision to live the way we want, but Clinton tells us that we cannot live this way because of the effects later in life.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Hillary Edges In on Global Warming Buzz
Leslie Yeransian of ABC News wrote the following article http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1999793&page=1 of Hillary Clinton and her new found interest in Global Warming. In this article Yeransian included a piece of propaganda that RJ Matson created. This propaganda as seen in this picture is a definite slam taken towards Hillary Clinton. This picture includes ex-Vice President and current Global Warming activist, Al Gore on his bike riding alongside the side of the road trying to cut back on pollution. Hillary is then seen driving up beside him in a Hummer, completely destroying the environment with huge amounts of pollution being released.
Greg Howard, “a longtime political operative who worked on Bill Clinton's and Al Gore's presidential campaigns in 1988 and 1992, said Gore's PowerPoint presentation-styled documentary must have convinced Clinton that it's a buzz issue she should take a stand on.” Since Al Gore released his video that was aimed to change millions of lives, Hillary then began to see the light on the subject that she had looked past for so long. Howard said of Clinton, “"She's got money out the whazoo. There seems to be an attitude that said she'll be very difficult to beat if she runs." He is referring to the fact that because of the money and power she brings with her, it will be tough for any candidate to stand in her way. His reasoning behind this is simple, Global Warming. Because Al Gore is such an integral part of the Global Warming crisis, having him and his staff on her side will undoubtedly prove to help her out when voting day comes and it is determined who is going to be our next president. Who will be our next president? Will it be Obama, Clinton, or McCain? Well whoever it is, Global Warming will be one of their top priorities and in this article; they believe that Hillary Clinton is currently on top of the standings.
Greg Howard, “a longtime political operative who worked on Bill Clinton's and Al Gore's presidential campaigns in 1988 and 1992, said Gore's PowerPoint presentation-styled documentary must have convinced Clinton that it's a buzz issue she should take a stand on.” Since Al Gore released his video that was aimed to change millions of lives, Hillary then began to see the light on the subject that she had looked past for so long. Howard said of Clinton, “"She's got money out the whazoo. There seems to be an attitude that said she'll be very difficult to beat if she runs." He is referring to the fact that because of the money and power she brings with her, it will be tough for any candidate to stand in her way. His reasoning behind this is simple, Global Warming. Because Al Gore is such an integral part of the Global Warming crisis, having him and his staff on her side will undoubtedly prove to help her out when voting day comes and it is determined who is going to be our next president. Who will be our next president? Will it be Obama, Clinton, or McCain? Well whoever it is, Global Warming will be one of their top priorities and in this article; they believe that Hillary Clinton is currently on top of the standings.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Clinton and the Economy
In his article, journalist Eric Veronikis reports on Hillary Clinton’s aims for undertaking business issues, jobs, trade, and the economy. Making use of the former First Lady’s responses in a candid interview conducted by Central Penn Business Journal, the author reveals what her immediate priorities would be in the first 100 days after taking office as President. Importantly, Veronikis notes that U.S. Sen. Barack Obama declined the same invitation to discuss issues concerning the economy. With Pennsylvania and nearby Appalachian states (Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia) voting then or shortly, individuals like myself may wonder why Obama declined the interview. Though Veronikis concisely summarizes Clinton’s main ideas at the beginning of his piece, he nevertheless includes a decent portion of the word-for-word interview so that readers may delve deeper into Sen. Clinton’s goals. Thus, the author improves his credibility on the subject. In general, the author helped to enlighten me regarding Hillary Clinton’s stance on economic problems with his straightforward, dependable voice.
In the interview, Clinton seems to place substantial blame on George Bush, making references to the incumbent President when commenting on the troubled economy. Declaring how “There is no doubt in my mind that after all these years of President Bush’s irresponsibility that I will be working to change our trade agreements so that they are more in line with the best interest of America,” Hillary seems to attack the character of Bush rather than providing critical readers with specific examples in order to bolster her personal views. The result: she discredits her own candidature. While Clinton indeed possesses a mudslinging attitude at times – along with the other Presidential contenders no doubt – her proposals appear sensible and much-needed in fact. Perhaps the most prominent economic dispute between Clinton and her Democratic rival deals with NAFTA – which has eliminated the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In short, NAFTA has been a major contributor to the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. (This related article explains the subject in greater detail.) While Clinton contends that she will eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement because the bloc encourages outsourcing of jobs, Obama assumes an ambivalent stance on the matter. In addition, I could readily relate to Hillary’s position on unions, arguing how “If you look at America's economy, there isn't any doubt that when unions were strong, there was a stronger standard of living. As we have lost unions, the middle class has become pressed.” Since my father is a member of AFSCME – one of the fastest growing labor unions in the United States – I have certainly grown to realize how such organizations can achieve social and economic justice in the workplace. With a fiery passion – that may get carried away at times – Hillary Clinton is dedicated to improving economic conditions for Americans.
In the interview, Clinton seems to place substantial blame on George Bush, making references to the incumbent President when commenting on the troubled economy. Declaring how “There is no doubt in my mind that after all these years of President Bush’s irresponsibility that I will be working to change our trade agreements so that they are more in line with the best interest of America,” Hillary seems to attack the character of Bush rather than providing critical readers with specific examples in order to bolster her personal views. The result: she discredits her own candidature. While Clinton indeed possesses a mudslinging attitude at times – along with the other Presidential contenders no doubt – her proposals appear sensible and much-needed in fact. Perhaps the most prominent economic dispute between Clinton and her Democratic rival deals with NAFTA – which has eliminated the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In short, NAFTA has been a major contributor to the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. (This related article explains the subject in greater detail.) While Clinton contends that she will eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement because the bloc encourages outsourcing of jobs, Obama assumes an ambivalent stance on the matter. In addition, I could readily relate to Hillary’s position on unions, arguing how “If you look at America's economy, there isn't any doubt that when unions were strong, there was a stronger standard of living. As we have lost unions, the middle class has become pressed.” Since my father is a member of AFSCME – one of the fastest growing labor unions in the United States – I have certainly grown to realize how such organizations can achieve social and economic justice in the workplace. With a fiery passion – that may get carried away at times – Hillary Clinton is dedicated to improving economic conditions for Americans.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/10/INU0UTBQK.DTL&type=politics
My article starts off by saying that Hilary Clinton is an avid supporter of the death penalty. Hilary Clinton is an example of the new moderate democrat. I say this because most democrats are hardcore liberals and are avid opponents of the death penalty. I agree with Hilary Clinton on this issue because people need to pay for their crimes and there are certain crimes that have been committed that are only punishable by death.
Contrary to Hilary Clinton, Obama is opposed to the death penalty. Obama is much more of what we think of when we hear the word democrat. We tend to think of them as being extremely liberal. Obama fits that description because he is a very liberal person.
Another issue discussed by the article was Hilary Clinton’s and Obama’s stance on gun control. Hilary Clinton has supported what she calls “Common Sense Restrictions on Guns.” To me this means that we need to use our sense of judgment on deciding who we can sell guns to. I think Hilary Clinton means that we probably should not sell guns to formerly convicted felons. Hilary Clinton supports requiring gun owners to register their guns with the State and Federal Governments. I generally think this is a good idea because if a gun was used to commit a crime it could be traced back to the owner based on the weapons serial number.
Andrew Nease
My article starts off by saying that Hilary Clinton is an avid supporter of the death penalty. Hilary Clinton is an example of the new moderate democrat. I say this because most democrats are hardcore liberals and are avid opponents of the death penalty. I agree with Hilary Clinton on this issue because people need to pay for their crimes and there are certain crimes that have been committed that are only punishable by death.
Contrary to Hilary Clinton, Obama is opposed to the death penalty. Obama is much more of what we think of when we hear the word democrat. We tend to think of them as being extremely liberal. Obama fits that description because he is a very liberal person.
Another issue discussed by the article was Hilary Clinton’s and Obama’s stance on gun control. Hilary Clinton has supported what she calls “Common Sense Restrictions on Guns.” To me this means that we need to use our sense of judgment on deciding who we can sell guns to. I think Hilary Clinton means that we probably should not sell guns to formerly convicted felons. Hilary Clinton supports requiring gun owners to register their guns with the State and Federal Governments. I generally think this is a good idea because if a gun was used to commit a crime it could be traced back to the owner based on the weapons serial number.
Andrew Nease
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary Is On Fire
This YouTube video is composed of a short song written about the effects of being elected president. While this song is playing, numerous false testimonies are being presented on the screen. There are probably about ten ideas this person is trying to impose on his viewers. All except for two of his ideas are backed up with absolutely no credibility. He does however give two citation about one of the things he is talking about.
He also that Hillary “feels that gun importers, manufacturers, and gun dealers should be able to be held accountable for the misuse of their products.” He gives no factual reason to see this as a good or bad thing; all he does is state this. However, we can assume he is completely against this stance on guns because everything else on this video is meant to put down Clinton. If he would have given some source to where he found this information it would help him prove not just this point, but other points as well. Without sources in his video, he makes himself look uneducated in the topic and causes the viewer to just cancel out of the video and not think anything about it.
He assumes that Hillary is blaming the United States is completely 100% at fault for the attacks on 9/11/01. He is begging the question by doing this. He states the following, "she believes that America is a evil country that imposes it's views on the rest of the world through force and that is why we were attacked on 9/11/01. Simply stated... it's our fault!" This is a terrible statement this person makes about the present presidential candidate. He gives absolutely no credible source backing this up. If he gave multiple sources with quotes of her saying these things, than it would be more believable and reliable, but he gives nothing at all which in turn makes him an un-credable source. He just uses this as a rant to impose his beliefs amongst other people and honestly it's just a waste of time to even watch this video because he just slams Hillary so much that his ad hominem attack is in full force. Ohh and did I mention that this person showed a video of a Hillary Clinton presidential flag burning the entire time while he was slamming her.
Clinton And Gun Control
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7D9173FF93AA35756C0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=Hillary+Clinton+AND+gun+control&st=nyt
Hillary is one who believes that there should be more gun control in our nation. Now there are kids out there that are 18 that are able to have guns (excluding hunting). Back before she was running for president she really wanted to change the gun control because she heard of stories from parents whose children had been killed or injured by gunshots. Having talked to these parents shows that she wants to change the gun control in the United States. She came up with proposals that would change the age to own a gun, the addiction of background checks for people who buy guns at shows, and never allowing juveniles who have violent crimes. Clinton is correct with adding gun control to try to prevent violence with guns.
There are people that are able to get guns illegally, but we cannot stop this because this is happening everywhere. If we never let criminals own a gun it will help cut the number of injuries with guns because usually when someone shoots someone, they will probably do it again. If Clinton can limit the people who have already injured someone, then violence will go down. At high school there were the kids that I imagined owning a gun later in their life. This number was small and if they every used the gun wrong and hurt someone, and got their gun taken, the number would go down for the future. It is sad when children get killed or injured by gunshots and it can affect them the rest of their life. The kids could always be scared and will not be able to live a normal life like they could before they got wounded. Clinton knows what needs to be done with gun control to make the nation safer and more enjoyable.
Hillary is one who believes that there should be more gun control in our nation. Now there are kids out there that are 18 that are able to have guns (excluding hunting). Back before she was running for president she really wanted to change the gun control because she heard of stories from parents whose children had been killed or injured by gunshots. Having talked to these parents shows that she wants to change the gun control in the United States. She came up with proposals that would change the age to own a gun, the addiction of background checks for people who buy guns at shows, and never allowing juveniles who have violent crimes. Clinton is correct with adding gun control to try to prevent violence with guns.
There are people that are able to get guns illegally, but we cannot stop this because this is happening everywhere. If we never let criminals own a gun it will help cut the number of injuries with guns because usually when someone shoots someone, they will probably do it again. If Clinton can limit the people who have already injured someone, then violence will go down. At high school there were the kids that I imagined owning a gun later in their life. This number was small and if they every used the gun wrong and hurt someone, and got their gun taken, the number would go down for the future. It is sad when children get killed or injured by gunshots and it can affect them the rest of their life. The kids could always be scared and will not be able to live a normal life like they could before they got wounded. Clinton knows what needs to be done with gun control to make the nation safer and more enjoyable.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hillary Runs in To Trouble
A recent news story talks about Hillary's newest ads, and how she is dealing with the issues of trying to find voters. What is shocking about this ad is that it shows exactly what very few democrats would want in a typical campaign. This ad is similar to that that George Bush the former ran in his race, simply put the ad looks towards the female demographic, and the republican. I realize that this is not on topic but heres why. If you got to Hillary' Clinton's website, which is adeptly titled hillaryclinton.com you realize that she really has no stand on the issues. There isn't anything there on Habeas Corpus or how it has been gotten rid of in the past few years. Again nothing on the death penalty, or issues on gun control. All of these important constitutional issues that are very likely to come up in the next presidential term, are not present on her website. Why is this?
It is incredible to be that Obama's website is very similar, these issues seem void from the public eye, are we really making the right decision. As another important primary arrives, the polls closing in just under two hours at time of post, it amazes me that candidates still have not set a completely and totally clear view as to where precisely they stand on these issues.
The fact of that matter is this, Clinton if she wants to stay in the campaign must win this evening, she must start showing America that there is more to her then just a face, and some claims of experience. Issues need to be addressed, and they need to be available to the public, on a regular basis not hidden away on outside websites. America is going to want a change in the office this year, possible a member of the democratic party, but if this is going to happen, then first both candidates need to step it up, and make a stand for what they believe in. they can start by displaying it on there personal websites.
Clinton: crime and abortion
http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html
Clinton on: Crime and Abortion
Hillary Clinton stands in favor of capital punishment aka the “Death Penalty” for the most heinous acts committed by individuals. Don’t misjudge the former first lady upon hearing this because she is not the only candidate who stands in favor of this type of sentencing. Her opponents Baracak Obama and John McCain stand in favor of capital punishment as well. When looking at the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton one must check her track record on a stance with such seriousness as supporting the death penalty. Clinton has been a long time advocate for the death penalty but has worked to make sure that the people on death row were the ones who really should be there for the crimes they have been found guilty of. America’s legal system has not always been a fair one and very often justice is never really served. In the United States African Americans account for 12% of the total population but 40% of the people on death row are African American. Many African American men in the past have been falsely accused and charged with crimes that they did not commit and coerced into making confessions to crimes just to stop the police brutality that they undergo while detained for questioning. Until recently with the advancements in technology and DNA testing have the innocent people on death row been able to clear their names.
Even though Clinton supports capital punishment she is different from those running against her because in 2003 she cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act which became a law as part of the Justice for all Act. This bill mandates that funding for post-conviction DNA testing be provided and establishes that a DNA testing process be provided for any person sentenced to death row. She is serious about crime in America and she even lobbied for her husband’s crime bill which expanded the list of crimes that could be prosecuted by the death penalty.
On the issue of abortion presidential candidate Clinton supports it and her opponent Obama does as well. Clinton being a women like many others feels that the decision of abortion is a decision that should be left up to made by the woman and her family. It is a very difficult decision that requires much thought. But abortion should never be used as a form of contraceptive and Clinton feels this way and needs to provide more educating services about preventing unplanned pregnancies. Clinton is quoted that “This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services”.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html
Clinton on: Crime and Abortion
Hillary Clinton stands in favor of capital punishment aka the “Death Penalty” for the most heinous acts committed by individuals. Don’t misjudge the former first lady upon hearing this because she is not the only candidate who stands in favor of this type of sentencing. Her opponents Baracak Obama and John McCain stand in favor of capital punishment as well. When looking at the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton one must check her track record on a stance with such seriousness as supporting the death penalty. Clinton has been a long time advocate for the death penalty but has worked to make sure that the people on death row were the ones who really should be there for the crimes they have been found guilty of. America’s legal system has not always been a fair one and very often justice is never really served. In the United States African Americans account for 12% of the total population but 40% of the people on death row are African American. Many African American men in the past have been falsely accused and charged with crimes that they did not commit and coerced into making confessions to crimes just to stop the police brutality that they undergo while detained for questioning. Until recently with the advancements in technology and DNA testing have the innocent people on death row been able to clear their names.
Even though Clinton supports capital punishment she is different from those running against her because in 2003 she cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act which became a law as part of the Justice for all Act. This bill mandates that funding for post-conviction DNA testing be provided and establishes that a DNA testing process be provided for any person sentenced to death row. She is serious about crime in America and she even lobbied for her husband’s crime bill which expanded the list of crimes that could be prosecuted by the death penalty.
On the issue of abortion presidential candidate Clinton supports it and her opponent Obama does as well. Clinton being a women like many others feels that the decision of abortion is a decision that should be left up to made by the woman and her family. It is a very difficult decision that requires much thought. But abortion should never be used as a form of contraceptive and Clinton feels this way and needs to provide more educating services about preventing unplanned pregnancies. Clinton is quoted that “This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services”.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Indecisive Bitch or Military Genius
In the article http://www.reason.com/news/show/119946.html
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a very unclear and indecisive opinion on the foreign policy issue of the war in Iraq. This does not bode well for Hillary because today’s world is even more dangerous than ever before or at least the average citizen is more aware of the threats that exist. Thus leading me to believe that the American people are looking for a strong face, well informed, and smart decision maker in the White House for the 2008 term. Hillary originally voted to support the war in October 2002 but feels as though the current president Bush has not managed the situation overseas as best as possible. The New York senator is very critical of our current actions in the Middle East. The author of this online article does an excellent job of exposing senator Clinton for being a critic with no real solutions to the current civil war in Baghdad. The only thing she has managed to do is provide a slow exit strategy, which would of course increase the opportunity that the democratic government system we have established would collapse. This would obliviously prove to be a great waste of our time and dishonor to those who have already lost their lives to this bloody campaign. The last thing I believe the American people would want is for those brave soldiers to have died in vain. Hillary does not seem to possess the kind of qualities that I would consider necessary in the most powerful military officer, our commander in chief.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Hillary Clinton on Gun Politics
In her article, journalist Sasha Issenberg of “The Boston Globe” reports on Hillary Clinton’s recently announced goal of cutting the homicide rate of Philadelphia in half. A major city unfortunately plagued with high levels of crime and murder, both Democratic Presidential contenders realize the complicated politics of gun control in Pennsylvania and close-by Appalachian states (Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia) voting shortly. Though Issenberg thoroughly discusses the aspiring politician’s mission of decreasing murder in Philadelphia if elected, the author quickly notes how Clinton fails to address the one thing that local officials see as a consensus solution: new gun restrictions. Evident through the title of the piece – “Clinton circumvents gun issue in plan to cut city homicide rates” – the writer effectively demonstrates how Hillary indeed “skirts” the fact that the city may rightfully authorize new gun laws. Without favor to any of the Presidential candidates, Issenberg presents the veritable details of Clinton’s ideas to solving the problem. Furthermore, the journalist also renders the reader with background information concerning the former First Lady’s involvement with the legal issue. Although no information concerning McCain or Obama’s stances is revealed, the article is nevertheless informative and insightful.
Philadelphia’s rising homicide rate (292 killings last year, the highest in a decade) should most definitely concern political figures and legislators in the area and elsewhere across the country. If Hillary Clinton is to in fact fulfill her stated mission if elected President – to cut the United State’s big-city homicide rate in half – she must provide the population with a concrete, viable plan. Defining the problem with regards to “meth in rural communities, online crimes in the suburbs, and white-collar crimes on Wall Street,” she expresses a cautious and circumventing attitude towards the subject. Clinton does not seem to acknowledge the direct correlation between the proposed gun restrictions and the foreseen consequences of that enactment – decreased crime and homicides. Hence, it’s no wonder why a Pennsylvania Democratic consultant commented, “I don’t know how you talk about homicide in Philadelphia without talking about guns.” Even if Clinton maintains a strong alliance with rural white voters – in a state where hunting plays a significant part of its culture – the Presidential candidate must be upfront and honest with the American people when dealing with gun politics.
Philadelphia’s rising homicide rate (292 killings last year, the highest in a decade) should most definitely concern political figures and legislators in the area and elsewhere across the country. If Hillary Clinton is to in fact fulfill her stated mission if elected President – to cut the United State’s big-city homicide rate in half – she must provide the population with a concrete, viable plan. Defining the problem with regards to “meth in rural communities, online crimes in the suburbs, and white-collar crimes on Wall Street,” she expresses a cautious and circumventing attitude towards the subject. Clinton does not seem to acknowledge the direct correlation between the proposed gun restrictions and the foreseen consequences of that enactment – decreased crime and homicides. Hence, it’s no wonder why a Pennsylvania Democratic consultant commented, “I don’t know how you talk about homicide in Philadelphia without talking about guns.” Even if Clinton maintains a strong alliance with rural white voters – in a state where hunting plays a significant part of its culture – the Presidential candidate must be upfront and honest with the American people when dealing with gun politics.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html
Hilary Clinton first voted for the Iraq war and now as she is running for president she regrets that decision. She now says that vote was a mistake. To me this is kind of a contradiction and is part of the reason why Hilary Clinton in my mind is not very trustworthy. Hilary Clinton insists that she was misled by faulty intelligence from the Bush administration. She insists that the current Bush administration bypassed our last line of defense to show that our intelligence was false. This last line of defense was the United Nations weapons inspectors. In this situation I disagree with Hilary Clinton. I think at the time of the invasion based our intelligence it was a necessary move to prevent a possible nuclear war in the Middle East.
The second article discusses Hilary Clinton’s position on Iran. She voted in favor of a measure by the Bush administration to declare that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization. What this bill will do is to intensify diplomatic pressure on Iran. Hilary Clinton has received a lot of criti. cism from the democrats for her vote. Many Democrats see this bill as a means by the bush administration to build a case for war with Iran. I disagree with that above statement because we currently do not have the resources for a war with Iran because we are currently tied down in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html
Hilary Clinton first voted for the Iraq war and now as she is running for president she regrets that decision. She now says that vote was a mistake. To me this is kind of a contradiction and is part of the reason why Hilary Clinton in my mind is not very trustworthy. Hilary Clinton insists that she was misled by faulty intelligence from the Bush administration. She insists that the current Bush administration bypassed our last line of defense to show that our intelligence was false. This last line of defense was the United Nations weapons inspectors. In this situation I disagree with Hilary Clinton. I think at the time of the invasion based our intelligence it was a necessary move to prevent a possible nuclear war in the Middle East.
The second article discusses Hilary Clinton’s position on Iran. She voted in favor of a measure by the Bush administration to declare that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization. What this bill will do is to intensify diplomatic pressure on Iran. Hilary Clinton has received a lot of criti. cism from the democrats for her vote. Many Democrats see this bill as a means by the bush administration to build a case for war with Iran. I disagree with that above statement because we currently do not have the resources for a war with Iran because we are currently tied down in Iraq
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Stability in Iraq
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
Stability in Iraq
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has plans to finally put an end to the war in Iraq. She has developed a three step plan that will surely end the bloodshed of the innocent. Serving as president she will start phased redeployment of American soldiers to end U.S.’s military involvement in Iraq’s civil war. She will make the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council devise a clear concise plan to start bringing troops home within her first 60 days as president. This is a big change from being involved in war under the two terms of the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton really plans on making a change and her direct goals include ending and stabilizing the violence in Iraq.
She plans to offer American aid and support to the Iraqi government and she also supports the idea of appointing a high level representative from the United Nations council. This representative will help to bring about much needed peace and work to bridge the gap between the Iraq and American government. She also has the idea of creating group to help in the stabilization of Iraq. This group will consist of America’s allies, other global powers around the world, and neighboring countries of Iraq. These nations will not get involved in the civil war of Iraq but will attempt to meditation and compromising to settle disputes between the feuding parties. Hillary Clinton will also make it so that these group members are held accountable for past pledges and promises to provide funding to Iraq and try to continue contributions to help meet Iraq needs.
Hillary Clinton has plans to organize a multibillion dollar effort funded by donating states, under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to help meet the needs of Iraqi refugees. Presidential candidate has a clear plan, one that will work, and one that will save lives and money. She has the goal and responsibility of replacing military force with global leadership and diplomacy as she tries to end the war in Iraq and bring home American troops while stabilizing Iraq. Hillary Clinton will continue the fight against terrorism and will establish special units with the objective of targeting terrorist groups like al Qaeda and others around the world.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a candidate with clear concise plans to end America’s involvement in the war in Iraq. She has set goals and wishes to take this responsibility head on. Clinton will turn things around in Iraq and the future for America and Iraq has never looked brighter.
Stability in Iraq
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has plans to finally put an end to the war in Iraq. She has developed a three step plan that will surely end the bloodshed of the innocent. Serving as president she will start phased redeployment of American soldiers to end U.S.’s military involvement in Iraq’s civil war. She will make the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council devise a clear concise plan to start bringing troops home within her first 60 days as president. This is a big change from being involved in war under the two terms of the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton really plans on making a change and her direct goals include ending and stabilizing the violence in Iraq.
She plans to offer American aid and support to the Iraqi government and she also supports the idea of appointing a high level representative from the United Nations council. This representative will help to bring about much needed peace and work to bridge the gap between the Iraq and American government. She also has the idea of creating group to help in the stabilization of Iraq. This group will consist of America’s allies, other global powers around the world, and neighboring countries of Iraq. These nations will not get involved in the civil war of Iraq but will attempt to meditation and compromising to settle disputes between the feuding parties. Hillary Clinton will also make it so that these group members are held accountable for past pledges and promises to provide funding to Iraq and try to continue contributions to help meet Iraq needs.
Hillary Clinton has plans to organize a multibillion dollar effort funded by donating states, under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to help meet the needs of Iraqi refugees. Presidential candidate has a clear plan, one that will work, and one that will save lives and money. She has the goal and responsibility of replacing military force with global leadership and diplomacy as she tries to end the war in Iraq and bring home American troops while stabilizing Iraq. Hillary Clinton will continue the fight against terrorism and will establish special units with the objective of targeting terrorist groups like al Qaeda and others around the world.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a candidate with clear concise plans to end America’s involvement in the war in Iraq. She has set goals and wishes to take this responsibility head on. Clinton will turn things around in Iraq and the future for America and Iraq has never looked brighter.
Make Up Your Mind
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/01immig.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=immigration+AND+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin
In a debate Hillary Clinton had some contradicting views on illegal immigrants having the ability to get a license. She feels that they should not, but she does not want to say that because then she will lose all the Hispanic voters. The Hispanic voters are popular in the swing states and could decide if she is the first female president. She wants to tell people the best news. She wants to tell the people who live in America that no illegal immigrants will get a license to work and stay in America. However, Clinton wants to tell the Hispanic voters that they are welcome and can stay no matter what.
Clinton needs to make up her decision and stick with that decision. With her changing her opinion does not help her argument and that her view is not as strong as other candidates views. She needs to pick a side and stick with that view even if it hurts the number of votes that she gets. If she lies now by pleasing all sides, when she is president some will not be as happy. When the group finds out that she has lied to them, they will have a problem with her in office and will want to get her out. The same thing happened when Bush was in office and started the war with Iraq. People were complaining about how many people have been killed, but it was our own decision and we have to live with it. Once Clinton makes a decision she needs to follow that after the election. Although she wants to win, it is impossible to please all and needs to face the truth.
In a debate Hillary Clinton had some contradicting views on illegal immigrants having the ability to get a license. She feels that they should not, but she does not want to say that because then she will lose all the Hispanic voters. The Hispanic voters are popular in the swing states and could decide if she is the first female president. She wants to tell people the best news. She wants to tell the people who live in America that no illegal immigrants will get a license to work and stay in America. However, Clinton wants to tell the Hispanic voters that they are welcome and can stay no matter what.
Clinton needs to make up her decision and stick with that decision. With her changing her opinion does not help her argument and that her view is not as strong as other candidates views. She needs to pick a side and stick with that view even if it hurts the number of votes that she gets. If she lies now by pleasing all sides, when she is president some will not be as happy. When the group finds out that she has lied to them, they will have a problem with her in office and will want to get her out. The same thing happened when Bush was in office and started the war with Iraq. People were complaining about how many people have been killed, but it was our own decision and we have to live with it. Once Clinton makes a decision she needs to follow that after the election. Although she wants to win, it is impossible to please all and needs to face the truth.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm
My article discusses Hilary Clintons view on education. It starts out by saying she is for teacher testing even for those teachers who have been in the system for a long time. Basically Hilary Clinton wants periodic examinations to be given to teachers to make sure that they are not failing their students.
Hilary Clinton supports increasing academic standards as well as increasing the resources available to meet those standards. But unfortunately increasing resources available to teachers involves the need of more funds which in turn involves increasing property taxes.
Another interesting thing about Hilary and education is that she promotes more after school activities to prevent kids from getting involved with gangs. I generally think this is a good idea to keep kids out of gangs but the means Hillary is using I don’t think are enough. I think the solution to keeping kids out of gangs involves educating children on the dangers associated with gangs.
Another interesting thing about Hilary’s stance on education is she supports smaller class sizes. I generally think this is a good idea because if a student needs assistance beyond what is provided in class then they can get that one on one attention they need from the teacher.
My article discusses Hilary Clintons view on education. It starts out by saying she is for teacher testing even for those teachers who have been in the system for a long time. Basically Hilary Clinton wants periodic examinations to be given to teachers to make sure that they are not failing their students.
Hilary Clinton supports increasing academic standards as well as increasing the resources available to meet those standards. But unfortunately increasing resources available to teachers involves the need of more funds which in turn involves increasing property taxes.
Another interesting thing about Hilary and education is that she promotes more after school activities to prevent kids from getting involved with gangs. I generally think this is a good idea to keep kids out of gangs but the means Hillary is using I don’t think are enough. I think the solution to keeping kids out of gangs involves educating children on the dangers associated with gangs.
Another interesting thing about Hilary’s stance on education is she supports smaller class sizes. I generally think this is a good idea because if a student needs assistance beyond what is provided in class then they can get that one on one attention they need from the teacher.
Clinton "Ripped" by Illegal Alien Protesters
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is continually attacked over, and over, and over again in this YouTube video. The video itself was filmed by a group of people who call themselves the “Minuteman Project”, they are constantly patrolling the US border to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border. In this video it is extremely evident that this radical group uses ad hominem every step of the way in their efforts to protest against Clinton. “We don’t need illegal aliens in our country, the're not good for me, their not good for you, their not good for your grandkids, nobody!” That was a quote from one of the angry protesters who decided to verbally attack people from a different country who try to come to our country and make a living. She was verbally attacking Clinton because Clinton is “soft” on this issue right now as the protesters put it. By “soft” they mean that she allows illegal aliens in our country because they don’t think she see’s this as a problem… they think differently.
The group decided that it would be worth while to hold this protest outside a Hillary Clinton victory party in Nevada. They feel that it is very unjust of Hillary to allow foreign immigrants to step foot on US soil. As one lady put it, “all illegal immigrants are bad!” That is a horrendous hasty generalization if I’ve ever heard of one. To speak out about people you have never even met before is wrong, but especially to speak such slander against a person is terrible on their part! Isn’t this the country who believes that every person is innocent until proven guilty? Apparently this woman has forgotten about this. Every single immigrant that comes into this country is not bad or guilty of anything, except trying to make their life better for them and possibly their families. This is the land of the free, not the land of the persecuted!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Clinton on Iraq War - Hasty?
In their article, Washington Post staff writers Anne Kornblut and Shailagh Murray report on Hillary Clinton’s stand on the war in Iraq. Clinton contends that she is the only presidential candidate who will end the Iraq war; however, the authors candidly cover the positions held by the former First Lady’s rivals: Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. Strictly fair about presenting all sides, the included quotations of Clinton’s contenders lend credibility to the piece. Indeed, Obama and McCain’s defense offered a pleasing change after lines of Hillary Clinton’s criticism and attacks against her respective opponents. Seeing that economics and foreign policy go hand-in-hand, Kornblut and Murray also comment on how taxes and defense spending promote discord among the political figures. All in all, the article provides a clear and cogent examination into perhaps the most hotly debated issue in the 2008 Presidential election.
Although the philosophical reasons for launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq remain contested, the fact of the matter is this: the United States has been involved in a war with Iraq for over five years now. The decision to invade the foreign country entailed a firmness of purpose – to deliver peace and security to the Iraqi people. Clinton affirms that our country needs to begin bringing military troops back to the States – “I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president,” she in fact declares. Yes, the United States must enact a systematic process of troop withdrawal; yet, any sort of “get the hell out of there” scheme will surely doom the Iraqis to civil war and absolute anarchy. Clinton must reveal the implications of her plan to draw down troops in reference to the repercussions such a choice would create.
A ceaseless U.S. presence in Iraq will never foster self-governance. McCain’s hard-headed approach and “100 year” commitment to the war is both unreasonable and downright absurd: video. At the same time, Clinton and Obama’s desire to abandon the war – thus leading to even more bloodshed and lawlessness – completely undermines the original mission of U.S. involvement. Hence, the contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans in regards to the subject is sharp and intense. While Hillary Clinton may be “ready, willing, and able to end the war” if elected President, the consequences of such an action certainly underscores the need for stability in Iraq at the present time.
Although the philosophical reasons for launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq remain contested, the fact of the matter is this: the United States has been involved in a war with Iraq for over five years now. The decision to invade the foreign country entailed a firmness of purpose – to deliver peace and security to the Iraqi people. Clinton affirms that our country needs to begin bringing military troops back to the States – “I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president,” she in fact declares. Yes, the United States must enact a systematic process of troop withdrawal; yet, any sort of “get the hell out of there” scheme will surely doom the Iraqis to civil war and absolute anarchy. Clinton must reveal the implications of her plan to draw down troops in reference to the repercussions such a choice would create.
A ceaseless U.S. presence in Iraq will never foster self-governance. McCain’s hard-headed approach and “100 year” commitment to the war is both unreasonable and downright absurd: video. At the same time, Clinton and Obama’s desire to abandon the war – thus leading to even more bloodshed and lawlessness – completely undermines the original mission of U.S. involvement. Hence, the contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans in regards to the subject is sharp and intense. While Hillary Clinton may be “ready, willing, and able to end the war” if elected President, the consequences of such an action certainly underscores the need for stability in Iraq at the present time.
Good Intentions Bad Idea Hillary's Health Plan
In his article-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120647936859463451.html?mod=home_health_right
Dr. Benjamin Brewer, M.D. discusses one of the most divisive and more recent issues in the United States today, universal health care. If readers were to go to The Wall Street Journal’swebsite and look under his column, The Doctor’s Office and find this years March 26tharticle they would discover a very informative and accurate criticism of universal health care. Dr. Brewer not only provides several supporting reasons against the newly purposed altercation of our country’s current health care system but also takes a stab at one of its greatest supporters, Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has made this issue a cornerstone for her campaign in this years election as an effort to win the hearts of Americans across the country as well as their votes. The U.S. senator claims to believe that this is not only an achievable task but also a necessary one for the bright future of our countries people. This couldn’t be farther from the truth; other countries such as England, France, Canada, and Switzerland currently utilize this system and are encountering a plethora of problems. Universal health care has lead to the reduced quality of service, wasteful depletion of federal dollars, and a complete lack of consideration for the personal needs of the patients. As a member of this system you are a number not a person. You have no options and are told where to go, whom to see, at what time to see them, and what treatment you will receive. In his article Dr. Brewer sheds light on another problem with this menacing change that may have slipped under Clinton’s radar. Currently in the United States there is a lack of primary care doctors. This is due to an extremely low reimbursement well below the cost of doing business for primary care docs by the government. The federal government is unable to appropriately fund their sponsored Medicare and Medicaid patients to get them the treatment they promise. He also believes that this is the culprit for doctors who are currently in practice to leave and discouraging others from entering the field. Thus in turn creating a situation in which the unlikely event a universal system were established, it wouldn’t even have the proper support to carryout its main function, provide the most basic care for the country’s population. The doctor also mentions that upon the early and inevitable disaster that would follow, the blame would land on the primary care docs instead of the sleazy politicians who promised more than they could deliver. Hillary is not a complete idiot to have gotten as far as she has but using this issue as a means to garner voters is despicable, and it is most certainly not the kind of mentality I want in my next president. Universal health care universally fails.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Clinton goes for the “Heart-Touching” appeal...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040203030.html
Anne E. Kornblut, a columnist for the Washington Post evaluates Hillary Clinton and her usage of heart touching stories as she pushes her way through the Presidential Primaries. Kornblut starts off her article with one of Clinton’s major homerun threats in the Medicare aspect of her campaign. While the author uses the first quarter of the article in referring back to the heart touching story (which is a good thing), she then put a very un-needed paragraph in the middle of the story about how past presidents have had many personal stories and they have used at least one of the stories to be a catalyst for the rest of that topic in their campaign, if not for the entire campaign. It seemed very unnecessary to have this paragraph inserted where it was, especially because right after that paragraph she starts in on another story that Clinton is also using, and using it often.
While for the most part, the article was portraying Candidate Clinton in a positive light, there were other parts of the article that just left you scratching your head as to why this author really thought it was necessary for them to try and put Clinton on such a high pedestal. It seemed like she was just trying to look past some of the real stories that Clinton talks about in her speeches, and add in other non-impact stories. It sort of seemed like Red Herring to me, but that’s just my opinion. She makes comment about how a police officer died while he was leading a motorcade that was protecting Hillary Clinton. Granted it is a heart touching story, it was unnecessary for this article and she is just trying to do whatever she can to portray Candidate Clinton in the best light she possibly can.
The last thing that I saw wrong with this article was towards the end of it when she recounted the story of the woman who died from complications with her baby, AKA, the “homerun” that was mentioned earlier on in this blog. The thing I have wrong with it is when she called the woman a “pregnant pizza worker”, now I know that maybe that was her actual job, but was it really necessary for Kornblut to mention this statement? If she is going to mention it, at least do it in the middle of a paragraph that might be describing the woman and her past life. But Kornblut thinks that it is a great time to make this statement in the beginning of one of the paragraphs that does not even have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph, or even the rest of the paper for that matter. Again, she presents Red Herring to her audience.
I ask you now, why do people feel Red Herring is ok to do? It obviously doesn’t get their point across better. So why do people do it?
Anne E. Kornblut, a columnist for the Washington Post evaluates Hillary Clinton and her usage of heart touching stories as she pushes her way through the Presidential Primaries. Kornblut starts off her article with one of Clinton’s major homerun threats in the Medicare aspect of her campaign. While the author uses the first quarter of the article in referring back to the heart touching story (which is a good thing), she then put a very un-needed paragraph in the middle of the story about how past presidents have had many personal stories and they have used at least one of the stories to be a catalyst for the rest of that topic in their campaign, if not for the entire campaign. It seemed very unnecessary to have this paragraph inserted where it was, especially because right after that paragraph she starts in on another story that Clinton is also using, and using it often.
While for the most part, the article was portraying Candidate Clinton in a positive light, there were other parts of the article that just left you scratching your head as to why this author really thought it was necessary for them to try and put Clinton on such a high pedestal. It seemed like she was just trying to look past some of the real stories that Clinton talks about in her speeches, and add in other non-impact stories. It sort of seemed like Red Herring to me, but that’s just my opinion. She makes comment about how a police officer died while he was leading a motorcade that was protecting Hillary Clinton. Granted it is a heart touching story, it was unnecessary for this article and she is just trying to do whatever she can to portray Candidate Clinton in the best light she possibly can.
The last thing that I saw wrong with this article was towards the end of it when she recounted the story of the woman who died from complications with her baby, AKA, the “homerun” that was mentioned earlier on in this blog. The thing I have wrong with it is when she called the woman a “pregnant pizza worker”, now I know that maybe that was her actual job, but was it really necessary for Kornblut to mention this statement? If she is going to mention it, at least do it in the middle of a paragraph that might be describing the woman and her past life. But Kornblut thinks that it is a great time to make this statement in the beginning of one of the paragraphs that does not even have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph, or even the rest of the paper for that matter. Again, she presents Red Herring to her audience.
I ask you now, why do people feel Red Herring is ok to do? It obviously doesn’t get their point across better. So why do people do it?
Hillary Clinton on Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12dems.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=clinton+and+education&st=nyt&oref=slogin
I am a freshman in college and I am starting to see how expensive college can be. Hillary Clinton believes that college has become too expensive for students to attend and to be able to pay the cost after four years. Students today are in debit for many years after they graduate from college. Clinton wants to make college happen for the lower class and not have it be a dream for them. Clinton believes that students should get a tax credit for tuition and will get more grants. I agree with what she is saying, but Clinton should approach the problem differently. There should be a small tuition for every college, but the standards for getting in should be the same.
I am from a town that has middle class families and, from my high school graduating class, not many went on to a four year college. The main reason most of them went to the community college down the road is because it is much cheaper. Why should students be forced to stay in their home state just because of the price? The expense of college is greater when a student goes to a four year college that is out of state. Students should be able to attend a school and pay the same as every other student, even if they live hundreds of miles away. Students should be able to explore new parts of the world and not have to pay more just because they do not live in that state. People can pay taxes that will go toward their state colleges’ even if the family has no one in college. The tax could be paid by people who have been out of college for a few years and have money they can actually spend.
If the standards of colleges stay the same, then the schools will still be demanding in finding the best students. The students would be able to get into the same schools, but money will not be a deciding factor in their decision. The students will be able to pick the school that fits them the best. College has become an expensive experience, but to get a well paying job it is necessary to attend.
I am a freshman in college and I am starting to see how expensive college can be. Hillary Clinton believes that college has become too expensive for students to attend and to be able to pay the cost after four years. Students today are in debit for many years after they graduate from college. Clinton wants to make college happen for the lower class and not have it be a dream for them. Clinton believes that students should get a tax credit for tuition and will get more grants. I agree with what she is saying, but Clinton should approach the problem differently. There should be a small tuition for every college, but the standards for getting in should be the same.
I am from a town that has middle class families and, from my high school graduating class, not many went on to a four year college. The main reason most of them went to the community college down the road is because it is much cheaper. Why should students be forced to stay in their home state just because of the price? The expense of college is greater when a student goes to a four year college that is out of state. Students should be able to attend a school and pay the same as every other student, even if they live hundreds of miles away. Students should be able to explore new parts of the world and not have to pay more just because they do not live in that state. People can pay taxes that will go toward their state colleges’ even if the family has no one in college. The tax could be paid by people who have been out of college for a few years and have money they can actually spend.
If the standards of colleges stay the same, then the schools will still be demanding in finding the best students. The students would be able to get into the same schools, but money will not be a deciding factor in their decision. The students will be able to pick the school that fits them the best. College has become an expensive experience, but to get a well paying job it is necessary to attend.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Universal Education, Plans for a Better American Education
This speech sturs some mind and words to thought.
She says that America is responsible for finding a more adequate system of teaching our children. It is interesting to me that so many people, frequently members of the democratic party are against no child left behind. I will admit that I feel that it is flawed, but we should instead look at the benefits that it has provided some states. It is interesting that the Liberals of America are so opposed to the act,as the concept itself is very liberal indeed. The entire process of creating an new program of government, expanding the role that government has in our political world and social polices is what the democratic party, at least fundamentally claims to support. So why is it that we are so against this movement.
I will admit that the education system in our country is flawed, in so many ways. We have children who can't read, kids who can't do math and parents who can't even graduate with a secondary degree outside of high school. Shouldn't we be facing what is more important in our country Hillary?
My mother teaches for Alexandria Public Schools in Alexandria Virginia, as part of the area known as Northern Virgina it is well known for having some of the best public schools in the nation, so the pressure to succeed is very harsh even at the elementary level. Kids there are enrolled in an IB program, one designed to get them ready for a college experience. In 2nd grade! Lets be realistic here, how much does a second grader really care about college, not a lot. I think that if we spent more money on teaching kids to read at the appropriate level, which is what no child left behind aims to do, rather then getting kids ready for college at age 6. Why spend millions of tax payers money on programs that are not likely to succeed, instead, concentrate on getting kids all over our nation the ability to read, the ability to have materials in science class, and the ability to pass tests that are currently in existence.
Do I agree with no child left behind, absolutely not, but it is in place, and we should concentrate n the morals that it is trying to do, get kids ready for testing, which has so much emphasis in our world.
We should fix the system that we currently have, rather then spending money trying to make a new one.
Hillary Underfire
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/032608Lindorff2.shtml
As viewed in this clip.
Clinton, in an Iraq policy speech she gave last week aimed at trying to burnish her claim of 35 years of Washington experience, recalled a 1996 trip to the war-torn former province of Yugoslavia, where Serbs and Croats had been butchering each other and especially Muslims. As she told the tale last week: that she landed under fire.
The Clinton Campaign as the weeks progress closer and closer to the situation of who will win the democratic nomination. I would like to point out that this post is not , a pro-Obama or Clinton. I instead aim to point out some of the errors that Clinton has made in her efforts to secure the presidential nomination.
It really seems as if the mistakes that are being made can be comparable to other politicians. No one really expects them to be perfect, politicians are well known for exaggerating their policy as well as the accounts that they have told. What we must look at is this the women that we want really running our country. It seems as if this situation of Clinton "misspeaking" isn't it wonderful how todays representatives of our nation use that as a more polite way of saying " I lied", is turning in to just more cannon fodder for the GOP as they aim to once again maintain the presidency. It also gives fuel to the Obama campaign in PA as they simply need to state, what foreign policy does Clinton have, is she not lying?
Although many say that the race for the nomination is one sided, Clinton can still pull herself out of the gudder but she really needs to stop relying on the presidency of her husband, and start telling the truth. America obviously believes in her, as she has won some key races in the primaries but if she wants to win, she needs to change the way she is running her campaign. At the very least find a staff that is capable of not making racist comments as well as stop the lying, misquoting, and stretching of the truth that her campaign has been building on for the past few weeks.
As viewed in this clip.
Clinton, in an Iraq policy speech she gave last week aimed at trying to burnish her claim of 35 years of Washington experience, recalled a 1996 trip to the war-torn former province of Yugoslavia, where Serbs and Croats had been butchering each other and especially Muslims. As she told the tale last week: that she landed under fire.
The Clinton Campaign as the weeks progress closer and closer to the situation of who will win the democratic nomination. I would like to point out that this post is not , a pro-Obama or Clinton. I instead aim to point out some of the errors that Clinton has made in her efforts to secure the presidential nomination.
It really seems as if the mistakes that are being made can be comparable to other politicians. No one really expects them to be perfect, politicians are well known for exaggerating their policy as well as the accounts that they have told. What we must look at is this the women that we want really running our country. It seems as if this situation of Clinton "misspeaking" isn't it wonderful how todays representatives of our nation use that as a more polite way of saying " I lied", is turning in to just more cannon fodder for the GOP as they aim to once again maintain the presidency. It also gives fuel to the Obama campaign in PA as they simply need to state, what foreign policy does Clinton have, is she not lying?
Although many say that the race for the nomination is one sided, Clinton can still pull herself out of the gudder but she really needs to stop relying on the presidency of her husband, and start telling the truth. America obviously believes in her, as she has won some key races in the primaries but if she wants to win, she needs to change the way she is running her campaign. At the very least find a staff that is capable of not making racist comments as well as stop the lying, misquoting, and stretching of the truth that her campaign has been building on for the past few weeks.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Social Policy - Clinton's Stand on Health Care
In his article – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28clinton.html – journalist Kevin Sack of the New York Times explores the controversial issue of health care in the United States, exposing Hillary Rhodam Clinton’s views toward the issue. An objective author, he presented the perspectives of the Presidential contender thoroughly and without bias, formulating the basis of his piece on an extensive interview with the former First Lady regarding health policy. Yet, Sack effectively weaves meaningful, relevant facts and figures thus providing concrete information so that citizens may form opinions of their own concerning the subject. In addition, critical readers will appreciate how the journalist includes the stances of Clinton’s rivals – Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama – therefore lending credibility to the piece. Offering a comprehensive, thought-provoking examination of Hillary Clinton’s outlook on health care, individuals benefit from Sack’s straight-forward, candid voice.
The fact that the United States is the only prosperous, developed nation that does not provide universal health care indicates a serious defect in its prevention, treatment, and management of illnesses. In juxtaposition with wealthy, industrialized countries such as England, France, and Switzerland, health care in the United States entails a complicated and inefficient structure. As with all modern day issues in the United States, economics prompt heated debate in regards to the matter. Hillary Clinton contends that the enormous sums of money appropriated to our health care system does not justify the results, stating how “It’s heartbreaking how much we spend on things that don’t produce a doctor at a bedside or a nurse taking care of a patient.” Further appealing to the emotions of citizens, the aspiring Presidential candidate believes universal health care coverage demonstrates a “moral imperative” as well.
Clearly, health care is an essential element for maintaining physical well-being in today’s society; in fact, the University of Dayton now expects every student to possess health insurance starting Fall 2008. However, despite the beliefs of any political figure, the uncertainties that now lessen knowledge of the health care system in the United States must be reduced if worthwhile conclusions relating to policy decisions are to be constructed. First and foremost, officials on both sides of the rift must be willing to work together, despite the fact that intense polarization weakens their hope for real progress. Unfortunately, the middle ground in the argument over universal health care has become so narrow as to be nearly invisible.
Through an informative, unbiased article, Sacks opened my eyes and ears to Hillary Clinton’s ideas pertaining to universal health care. My conclusion: both sides must strive towards negotiation and compromise in order to solve the issue.
The fact that the United States is the only prosperous, developed nation that does not provide universal health care indicates a serious defect in its prevention, treatment, and management of illnesses. In juxtaposition with wealthy, industrialized countries such as England, France, and Switzerland, health care in the United States entails a complicated and inefficient structure. As with all modern day issues in the United States, economics prompt heated debate in regards to the matter. Hillary Clinton contends that the enormous sums of money appropriated to our health care system does not justify the results, stating how “It’s heartbreaking how much we spend on things that don’t produce a doctor at a bedside or a nurse taking care of a patient.” Further appealing to the emotions of citizens, the aspiring Presidential candidate believes universal health care coverage demonstrates a “moral imperative” as well.
Clearly, health care is an essential element for maintaining physical well-being in today’s society; in fact, the University of Dayton now expects every student to possess health insurance starting Fall 2008. However, despite the beliefs of any political figure, the uncertainties that now lessen knowledge of the health care system in the United States must be reduced if worthwhile conclusions relating to policy decisions are to be constructed. First and foremost, officials on both sides of the rift must be willing to work together, despite the fact that intense polarization weakens their hope for real progress. Unfortunately, the middle ground in the argument over universal health care has become so narrow as to be nearly invisible.
Through an informative, unbiased article, Sacks opened my eyes and ears to Hillary Clinton’s ideas pertaining to universal health care. My conclusion: both sides must strive towards negotiation and compromise in order to solve the issue.
America's New Health Care System
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
The current health insurance plans and health care policies in America are ones that seriously need to be evaluated. In 1948 the Declaration of Human Rights was established to ensure that the basic, fundamental, and God given rights of all human beings would be recognized. America is a nation that has chosen not to uphold the vision and goals of those who established the Declaration of Human Rights so long ago. The nation of America and its economy was built on the backs slaves. Slavery in America had long been abolished when the Declaration of Human Rights was established but there still has always been a struggle for these God given rights for some people. Article 25 in this very document states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” America chooses to profit from a God given right while those uninsured by health care plans die or are forced to go bankrupt to cover medical bills.
Hillary Clinton Stands in favor of a universal health care that will make the God given right to health care more affordable to people. This new type of health care system will not discriminate nor deny people their God given right to receive health care. This is how the world should work but many people would not like to see things work this way. Clinton plans to limit the amount that Americans will pay for health care premiums to 5% - 10% of their annual income. Health care should be free but how would doctors earn their livings. Millions of Americans have problems trying to afford health care and last year the average cost of a family policy purchased by a person was almost $6,000 or $10 percent of the income earned. Some health care policies were even as high as %16 of the income earned.
Placing limitations on the premiums that health care providers set will be a costly plan to place into action but is greatly needed to ensure that everyone is able to receive their God given rights. According to candidate Hillary Clinton this plan will cost about $110 billion. She plans to make the clean up the current health care systems making things more efficient and less costly. Clinton also has a proposal to cover all 47million uninsured people in the country. The private insurance system control and cover all legal citizens of the U.S. and requires issuers of health care to cover all applicants no matter age or current health status. She will raise taxes on tobacco and give tax breaks to small business owners and take away tax cuts of people earning over $250, 000 a year set by the bush administration.
It is about time that America started giving back to those who are the backbone of this nation. It is about time that America upholds the Declaration of Human Rights and does away with greed and the ideology that profits should be made from seeing to it that people receive a basic human right such as health care. But the fact still remains that only American citizens will receive these health care benefits and not illegal immigrants. Clinton’s new plan is a greatly needed one but it must be stated that this new system should be called Americas New Health Care System, not a Universal Health Care system. It’s only right that it be called what it really is or provide health care for all the illegal residents in our nation as well. But that’s an entirely different issue that Clinton must tackle as well.
The current health insurance plans and health care policies in America are ones that seriously need to be evaluated. In 1948 the Declaration of Human Rights was established to ensure that the basic, fundamental, and God given rights of all human beings would be recognized. America is a nation that has chosen not to uphold the vision and goals of those who established the Declaration of Human Rights so long ago. The nation of America and its economy was built on the backs slaves. Slavery in America had long been abolished when the Declaration of Human Rights was established but there still has always been a struggle for these God given rights for some people. Article 25 in this very document states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” America chooses to profit from a God given right while those uninsured by health care plans die or are forced to go bankrupt to cover medical bills.
Hillary Clinton Stands in favor of a universal health care that will make the God given right to health care more affordable to people. This new type of health care system will not discriminate nor deny people their God given right to receive health care. This is how the world should work but many people would not like to see things work this way. Clinton plans to limit the amount that Americans will pay for health care premiums to 5% - 10% of their annual income. Health care should be free but how would doctors earn their livings. Millions of Americans have problems trying to afford health care and last year the average cost of a family policy purchased by a person was almost $6,000 or $10 percent of the income earned. Some health care policies were even as high as %16 of the income earned.
Placing limitations on the premiums that health care providers set will be a costly plan to place into action but is greatly needed to ensure that everyone is able to receive their God given rights. According to candidate Hillary Clinton this plan will cost about $110 billion. She plans to make the clean up the current health care systems making things more efficient and less costly. Clinton also has a proposal to cover all 47million uninsured people in the country. The private insurance system control and cover all legal citizens of the U.S. and requires issuers of health care to cover all applicants no matter age or current health status. She will raise taxes on tobacco and give tax breaks to small business owners and take away tax cuts of people earning over $250, 000 a year set by the bush administration.
It is about time that America started giving back to those who are the backbone of this nation. It is about time that America upholds the Declaration of Human Rights and does away with greed and the ideology that profits should be made from seeing to it that people receive a basic human right such as health care. But the fact still remains that only American citizens will receive these health care benefits and not illegal immigrants. Clinton’s new plan is a greatly needed one but it must be stated that this new system should be called Americas New Health Care System, not a Universal Health Care system. It’s only right that it be called what it really is or provide health care for all the illegal residents in our nation as well. But that’s an entirely different issue that Clinton must tackle as well.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sample Entry
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26tue4.html?ex=1361768400&en=2c9530939976660f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Regarding Randolph's essay, I think she is missing the point. In elections, stuff happens. Sure, Nader may be a spoiler, and, yes, his message is tired and rather one note, but he is an inevitable part of the political process, just as much as the albatross of Rev. Wright around Obama's neck; Hillary, the ghost of Monica Lewinsky, and cigars of terms past; or John McCain's "I hate you . . . no wait, come back, I really do love you" relationship with the Christian conservatives.
Regarding Randolph's essay, I think she is missing the point. In elections, stuff happens. Sure, Nader may be a spoiler, and, yes, his message is tired and rather one note, but he is an inevitable part of the political process, just as much as the albatross of Rev. Wright around Obama's neck; Hillary, the ghost of Monica Lewinsky, and cigars of terms past; or John McCain's "I hate you . . . no wait, come back, I really do love you" relationship with the Christian conservatives.
If you dig enough dirt and hire enough "consultants" to trump up scandals against your opponent, you can change an election. Maybe a candidate will do themselves in by sleeping with prostitutes, or calling someone a "macaca," or playing footsy underneath a bathroom stall in a Minneapolis airport. Maybe a man who was once an admirable advocate for the average American consumer, but has since become an irritation on par with a mosquito bite, will run again and again and again. In politics, there are no givens. Why else have the pundits been scratching their heads since the primaries began?
In this election, there will be bumps and bruised egos along the way. Illegitimate love children, backroom alpaca purchases, and secret trades of Immodium stock may surface before it's all said and done. Paris Hilton may decide to run. The Christian conservatives may decide they really don't like McCain after all and secede from the Union. It's America. A nation that used to be run by native peoples, and the English, and the French, and the Spanish. A nation that moved westward and stopped a winter to eat other other along the way. A nation that was almost rended in two by slavery. A nation that survived the Cold War and the Aniston-Pitt divorce. We can deal with a third-party candidate shaking things up . . . again. We can deal with change. We thrive on it.
Bring it on, Ralph Nader!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
