Risky battle for Democrat

http://ournationgovernment.blogspot.com/2008/04/risk-they-are-taking.html

This is a good editorial, Andriana. I have the same thoughts with you at some points. I definitely agree with you that the reaction of Obama for Clinton is “inappropriate”. Although he has more delegates, he knows Hilary will not let him win easily. Of course, Hilary could make this thing happen. With every losing, even at the small town, the distance between Hilary and him is shorter. It means his chance of win is slimmer. Once he could not get enough votes, the battle between Hilary and he is harder than ever. With two times she spent the presidential race of her husband Bill Clinton, and she lived in White House eight years, she has full of experience and ability to face hard situations, but Obama does not. This is obviously shown by his critical comment about Clinton for “having a shot of whiskey in front of a camera crew,” and “mocking her sudden vocal support for gun rights.” Obama goes the same path as Clinton did when she had a series of losing. However, Obama criticizes Clinton for silly thing. That does not relate to political problems. He expresses his too personal feeling that should not be seen in public. He should have kept that comments for himself or in safe place.
While Democratic Party is still in the battle of presidential nominee, Republican Party is preparing for the final and watching that battle like a fun game.

MAKE IT EXCITING!

Voting seems to be boring for United States citizens, especially young people. If we add all the voting together, we may vote as much as other countries. This does not sound interested at all, and voting is like second job.
There are many reasons that make voters not keen on voting. They are disconnected or uninformed about the campaign or presidential candidates; They do not have sense of efficacy; Or voting method does not change. On the contrary, they can spend hours on shopping. You can see that they lines up waiting to buy iPhone or Starbuck coffee; Or they can wait for celebrities for hours to getting their signatures or taking pictures with them even though it’s is sunny or rainy; but we are sure that lining up voting is not the fun activity for them. Do you think our government should change voting to attract voters?
We can make voting exciting to attract voters. For example, we can make Obama’s slogan “Tell your mama. Vote for Obama!” cellphone’s ringtone; Or we can make voting cool like American Idol show. So we can vote online or text for our favorite one. They can raised money by selling their CD about successful speeches like “Speech On Race” of Obama. At that time, I think voting is not only the political issue, but also economic issue and I think voters can line up hours waiting for voting.

Obama's Speech on Race- a wonderful speech but not in the right time

http://accgovernment.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-speech-on-race.html
I agree with you, Katie. Barrack Obama has very an excellent performance on his speech day. He impresses everybody by his literal words and the way he expresses his feeling. He makes old topic new. He attracts everyone because he speaks things many Americans want to talk and many Americans want to hear. When they listen to him, they seem to hear what they want to talk or hear. Only a person who is a victim of racism understands and sympathizes with them. And that is Barrack Obama. “He is explaining how he has been through the worst and the best of things.” And “when he talked about his family and their of races, it really allowed him to speak comfortably about white and black people.” I will also agree with you that “today is history and tomorrow will be too,” and “history repeats itself over and over.” And racism is a proof of history.
There is no doubt that he delivers a successful speech. But I do not think he gives speech at a right time. Racism is an issue that always exists in different ways. Not until Martin L. King or Obama’s speech we know about racism, we know it when there are white and colored people living in the same country. What do Americans care about now? I think Americans care more about their lives than anything else because they never know whether they will be laid off tomorrow. Once they lost their job, racism is nothing to them. Will Americans care about that if tomorrow they wake up and hear that gas price goes up to 6 dollars per gallon and food price double? I do not think so.

When will our troops come home?

Since President Bush brings our troops to Iraq, anything related to Iraq always become hot topics. One of the hot topics that I am sure everyone longs to hear the answer is when our troops will come home? Our troops have been in Iraq from March 2003 to now, 5 years already, but what have we got from there? Yes, we got something. For countable things, we have death toll is about 4000 but this number will not stop there. For uncountable things, we do not know exactly how many billions of dollars the government has poured into it so far. And there is more important thing that we cannot count is the grief of dead soldiers' family.
Let return to our history in the early days. In that days, Americans had to fight France, English, and Spain because of freedom; they had to learn to farm to survive; they had to do anything they couldd in order not to depend on supply of foreign countries; thus, America have become an independent and rich country. But now, we do inverse ways. We fight Iraq for unclear reasons. We waste billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives there for nothing. If we assume that we got some benefit from Iraq, so what they are? We have not seen them yet. When will we really get them? However, everybody can see the consequence from the war. Mean time, there are many problems in our country that they have not been solved yet. The economics is sliding down. The value of US dollar is decreasing. People have lost their jobs because most of big companies have moved oversea. We depend on foreign countries for almost everything such as clothing, electronic products, and even some kinds of food. While the income is decreasing, the living cost is increasing. Food and gas price also go up day by day. Healthcare system is bad unless you got money. For all these reasons, for the benefit of the country and all the United States' citizens, I think President Bush should let our troops home.

Who will be the losers?

Hillary Clinton has two new advertisements named “True” and “Partner” that are started on Monday. In the first one, “True,” she criticizes Obama that he had oversights about information in Afghanistan after he became the chairman of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee; He did not care anything else but running for president. And she praises herself that she is good at this field. She “will never be too busy to defend our national security”. In the second one, she emphasizes the state’s economic that is sliding down; and she will stand by middle class people. She is their “partner.”
If the President is an elected like-minded candidate, Clinton will lose because her image is not good. She chooses the way of criticizing her rival instead of shows up her talent. That affects her image to voters. Voters will assume that she just a woman who likes to find mistakes of others. And she’d better be critic than the president. In the fact, she is very talent. She proves voters that she is also a good candidate like others. She said, “It's time the middle class had a president who will stand up for you," and she will stand up by their side, not the rich. Clinton has weak sides; Obama does, too. After Clinton attacks him, he retorts that “he became chairman of that committee in January 2007, just as his presidential campaign was launching.”
Who will be the losers in this running? Obama or Clinton or McCain? No, those are voter, Americans. . Americans spend time listening presidential candidate’s speeches. Americans donate money and everything they can do to help these candidates. No one can guarantee who will be the good president but that what they do will help them to find the best one and they hope this will come true.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/clinton-goes-after-obamas-chairmanship-in-new-ad/

political sophistication

On Monday, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized Senator Barack Obama for plagiarism in speech last weekend. She told that Barack had used his friend’s, Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, ideas without crediting him. Her adviser, Howard Wolfson, opened a conference to let the public know Barack’s dishonesty. Barack responded to Clinton that she also used his words as well. He said that he and his friend “trade ideas all the time” and his friend supported him to defend himself.
After series of losing, Clinton has to find any ways to defeat Mr. Obama. She wanted to show the voters that Obama was their wrong choice and words his victory was made by his rhetoric words. She said that Mr. Obama plagiarizes his friend’s ideas but she did the same way as him. She used Obama words “It’s time to turn the page” and “Fired up and ready to go” without thinking that she was also plagiarist. As Mr. Obama said, “I noticed Senator Clinton, on occasion, has used words of mine as well.” She pointed out Obama’s little mistake to criticize Obama but it also hurts herself.
This argument is not successful because it shows Clinton’s weakness. This is not the best way for her to get support from voters. All the voters want is sophisticated politics. They want information that helps them choose a good candidate to be the president. They do not want to see a “dust-up.” I think all the candidates should do is to show up their talent, experience, best field, so the voter can choose the good president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Good news for economic and taxpayers

US economy plan does not have enough support in the Senate.
Although the US House of Representatives has approved the White House-backed $146 billion economic stimulus plan, the Senate Republicans did not support it. While the Democrat-backed plan, which would have provided extra money to retired people and veterans, the Senate’s version reduced the tax rebates on offer in the original package but extended the group to benefit from these like unemployment benefits, offered heating aid for the poor and gave tax breaks for renewable energy firms and coal companies. Henry Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, had urged the Senators to keep focusing on simple tax breaks. Under the president's proposed package, households and businesses will have great benefit. Some 117 million US homes would receive a rebate of up to $600 for individuals and up to $1,200 for married couples. Couples with children will also get an extra $300 per child. The bill will be sent to the White House by 15 February.
By television, internet, and our real lives, we can see the US economic has been decreasing lately. A lot of companies, factories moved to developing countries; people get lost their jobs but the living cost is increasing day by day. So I think everybody should read this article to gain some information about US economic as well as what government does for us to help the economic and our lives better. We will receive our great tax rebate this year. This is really good news for us.
Here is the link to the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7231918.stm