Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Republican Party Proposes a national energy strategy that will rely on the technological prowess of American industry and science. Would not support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the competition that stimulates innovation and lower cost. Believes barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits. Proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits.
The Democratic Party Proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. Supports next generation biofuels. Proposes increasing fuel economy standards and would require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources by 2025. Would create a Global Energy Forum and re-engage with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Which Party really has the upper hand in this issue? Which one is going to work better?Is this a very important topic for the American Public?
Yet despite Hilary trying to attack Mr. Obama all debate long the super delegates and party leaders showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.
In fact, the Obama campaign announced endorsements from two more super delegates on Thursday, after rolling out three on Wednesday and two others since late last week in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated show of strength before Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary. Obama advisers said that one of the pickups on Thursday, Councilman Harry Thomas Jr. of the District of Columbia, had initially favored Mrs. Clinton, but Clinton advisers denied that, and a Thomas aide said he had been neutral before Thursday. Is the race for the democratic tilting quite aways from Hilary? Are her chances diminishing as of late? Should the super delegates be the deciding factor for the Democratic nominee?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The NY Times has an article with Obama explaining that he "didn’t say it as well as [he] should have.” I think that he truly did simply choose the wrong words, but still believes in what he was originally saying. He is afraid that people are voting out of emotion because of their economic problems rather than what they actually felt.
It is not yet clear what effect his remarks will have on voters, but with the primary in Pennsylvania is approaching on the 22nd the candidates need to be aware of their choice of words. Obama hopefuls need to prey that his explanation will please those who were offended by his comments. It, however, should be noted that he has not yet apologized for what he said. He simply has stated that he could have said it more eloquently. I think that he might need to make a formal apology if he hopes to not be labeled as an elitist.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton seized the chance to criticize him for patronizing the rural areas of America, focusing especially on the word "bitter". Now people think it's going to cost Obama working class voters just because he had a poor choice of words.
Do you think it's a good strategy for Clinton to attack Obama for making some offhand comments? After all, everyone makes mistakes, but as we've seen, people in the political world don't seem to care. And ultimately, will Obama's comment really make him lose voters?