Now visit a reliable site that has information about the same issues you wrote about in your first blog entry. Read this sources position, and then write a blog entry that tells how this “neutral” site explains the issue. Does their explanation change your opinion? Why or why not?
Candidate Websites Part II
October 14th, 2008 · 19 Comments
Opening discussion
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
19 responses so far ↓
1 Emy // Oct 14, 2008 at 10:31 am
For my website that I visited for the neutral articles on the presidential elections I chose. I found that overall, the neutral websites included more information and facts than the candidates’ websites. For
2 Emy // Oct 14, 2008 at 10:35 am
For my website that I looked at that was neutral I chose the New York Times site. Overall, I found that the neutral site had more facts than the candidates’ websites. For example I looked at what plans he two candidates had for their economic plans. Ulike the candidates’ websites, The New York Times showed all the percentages of what would happen under each person’s plan. I thought that I learned a lot more looking at the neutral website and I found it easier to understand.
3 bela // Oct 16, 2008 at 10:33 am
John McCain and Barack Obama have very different opinions about Iraq. McCain believes that we should not withdraw for Iraq before we have succeeded. Obama on the other hand thinks we should withdraw as soon as Iraq is stable which he hopes (with American help) will be very soon. I completely support Obama. McCain is just following in George Bush’s footsteps. And Bush was on the wrong page. McCain and Bush are bad politicians who only care about what happens to themselves. Bush shouldn’t have even started the war. I agree with Obama because I think he knows what he’s doing and will withdraw troops at a wise time.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!!
4 Naomi // Oct 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm
After reading both what Barack Obama and John McCain’s website said about Iraq, I agreed with Obama’s opinion. He believed that he should take troops out very carefully, while McCain said he wanted to walk out of Iraq with pride. Though, I agreed more with Obama, I didn’t think that McCain’s approach was that bad.
However, when I read the neutreral source from boston.com, I realized McCain’s approach really is bad. I still agree with Obama’s opinion, even more now. What boston.com said that McCain’s website didn’t say, is that McCain is willing to spend 100 years in Iraq, and says it will probably take until 2013 to leave Iraq. Now his opinion just sounds like five more years of both Iraqi’s and Americans dying. And Obama’s ideas of getting out of iraq ASAP, but still carfully , seem extremely good and reasonable.
5 Tan // Oct 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm
John McCain and Barack Obama have different thoughts on Iraq as I know before. However, stay in Iraq is not really a bad thing after I had read my neutral site article. The article talks about that if the security of Iraq improves because the troops stay there, that would a nice thing. If Iraq can’t fight against al-Qaeda, stay to help Iraq also can be a good thing and if Iraq is safe then they can produce more oil which helps the economy. I agree more with McCain this time because we can’t just leave the Iraq there.
6 Aidan // Oct 20, 2008 at 5:36 pm
John Mcain and Barack Obama have different thoughts on Iraq according to there websites. I visited a neutral website to find out if the answers were the same. According to boston.com, the candidates websites were pretty accurate. The thing that I found interesting on boston.com was that Mcain said that he would win the war and get most of the troops out by 2013. I the past, he has said that troops may need to remain in Iraq for 100 years. I think that is crazy that he can’t tell us how long the war is. Barack Obama wants to end this mindless war. I still strongly agree with him because if we don’t know how long this war is going to last, (which it already has lasted longer than the Civil war. World war I and World war II) then we should end it right now. According to boston.com, Barack Obama will get the troops out in 16 months.
7 Aidan // Oct 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Reply to TAN:
Why can’t we just leave Iraq there? This war has been going on for FIVE YEARS!!!! That is WAY TOO LONG!!! That is longer than the Civil War, World war I, AND World war II. Why can’t we just leave Iraq there? I think that getting our troops home after this horrible mess would be our biggest goal right now.
8 ben // Oct 21, 2008 at 7:23 pm
After reading what the neutral site had to say about the Iraq war, I found that the neutral site had pretty much the same things to say as the canditate websites. McCain says we need to stay in Iraq for a little longer, and that by 2013, we can hopefuly take out all the troops in Iraq. Obama wants to do it in the first 16 months he will hold office for. I am still with Obama on this issue, because I believe it is very important to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
9 Lilly // Oct 22, 2008 at 4:22 pm
When reading the nuetral cnn site, I noticed the fact that there was a lot of information that was not included on the candidates’ sites, whether or not that information supported them. But most of the information given actually was supportive of the cadidates it was written about, and so my point of view on who would do better in energy conservation just got better for each. But then, the facts McCain didn’t mention on his website appeared; Sarah Palin, his vice president if he is elected (which I personally hope will not happen), is for off-shore drilling, a big enviromentally friendly no-no. My opinion on who is right remains the same, even though neither plan is the most superlative; Barack Obama has it right.
10 Lilly // Oct 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Responce to Tan:
That’s what they thought for the length of time the wars been going on: leave the American troops there to secure Iraq. Now what are the results? Has it gotton any better? NO! It’s just gotten worse and worse. Get the troops out Obama’s way, and the problem will be at least partially solved: you don’t add more wood to the fire to put it out – get the water, for heaven’s sake!
11 sarah // Oct 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Cnn doesn’t favor any party over another. All it does on the web site is list the facts. It doesn’t give an explaination of the facts. There is no room for biases anywhere in the article. It literally just list the facts. For example it says “Obama aposes the war in Iraq.” It doesn’t say “Obama says he hates the war and he is wrong.” This article didn’t change my mind at all It just made the facts clearer to me.
12 sarah // Oct 22, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Response to lilly and tan:
I like what you guys said and Ireally like your metaphor about the fire, lilly, but here is a different metaphor you can think about. The War in Iraq is like a big giant splinter in the middle of your foot! Our troops are the splinter, your foot is iraq and the hand trying to get the spinter out is America. Some part of the hand wants to yank the whole splinter out at once. The problem with that is that parts of the splinter may be left behind and they will be harder to get out. Some of the hand thinks it’s a good idea to take the splinter out little by little, but then parts of the splinter might be left behind like the last solution. Some of the hand (george bush) thinks it would be a good idea to stick another piece of wood into your foot to try to pry out the last piece! you can see how we can’t “just come out of Iraq”!It’s just not as simple as adding wood to a fire.
13 alex // Oct 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm
The two candidates disagree on what should happen in Iraq. Barack Obama believes in a responsible, phased withdrawal. John McCain believes that it would be irresponsible to do that. He thinks that we need to fully defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq before we can pull out the troops. A responsible, phased withdrawal would mean pulling out our troops over time. I think that Barack Obama’s plan makes more sense because our troops are dying for seemingly no reason.
14 Kendra // Nov 4, 2008 at 11:13 am
the website i chose was CNN.com because it showed neutral sides of both candidates instead of some that sided with one or the other. The site’s info was reliable and very efficient, but didn’t try to convince you to vote for either candidate. On the candidates’ websites, they tried to get you to agree with their side of the story. They gave various reasons to try to get you to read more and become more interested in them as a whole. The explanation of the candidates on the CNN site did not change my opinion about wanting Obama as the leader of my country. I support mcCain, and don’t wish him to be crushed, but i still lean toward Obama and Biden a little more that McCain and Palin. This did not change my opinion because i think that McCain is too much like George W. Bush, the current leader of our great nation. I see that McCain has admitted to siding with Bush a lot along the way.
15 Kendra // Nov 4, 2008 at 11:14 am
i agree alex i think that McCains is irresponsible and will not work in the end.
16 mds // Nov 4, 2008 at 11:16 am
my website was cnn.com. I thought cnn was much more reliable and understandeble . It made it much more easier to compare the two candidates and , you could really see the candidates points. Also it was clearer and you could really understand what they were saying, because there was way more information. Lastly i thought that you could really see the candidates point of veiw, and it wasn’t a little paragraph.
17 Sappho // Nov 6, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I read the New York Times and I saw there issues on global warming, and health care. What I read there was very similar to what I read on the candidates websites. They said the same thing just in a little less detail they talked about for John McCain cap and trade system. They also mentioned Barack Obama replacing ten percent of our electricity recyclable. Health care they didn’t have very much about they actually had barely any.The part they had seemed right,but it was hard to tell. The New York Times was a very neutral site they didn’t really take side. I definately still agree with Barack Obama
18 Nicholas // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I chose to use the New York Times as my nuetral website. Here I found out the ups and downs of both Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s energy plans. When I was comparing the nuetral website to the candidates websites I discovered that Obama does not support nuclear power becuase of saftey and cost, and McCain does support it as an good alternative source of energy. When going on The New York Times I found out that if McCain beomes president we will mke a Gas tax holliday were deisel will cost 22.4 cents a gallon and gasoline will cost 18.4 cents a gallon. I thought that the netral website uncovered some hidden information.
19 M. K. // Nov 9, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The nutral website that I chose to vist was cnn.com. I found that it was easier to understand and had more interactive features. It was helpful because it showed the positives and the negitives of both candidites economic plans. Unlike the candidites web site that just showed the ups of their own and the downs of their opponents. this website did not change my view on which candidite I like more, it actually renforced my aprovel of Barack Obama’s economic plan. It did this because it showed how simaler mcCain’s plan was to George Bush’s which oobviously hasn’t worked out too well.
Leave a Comment