Comments on: Candidate Websites Part II

By: M. K.

M. K. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:52:54 +0000

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.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:25:19 +0000

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.

By: Sappho

Sappho — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:39:54 +0000

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

By: mds

mds — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:16:24 +0000

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.

By: Kendra

Kendra — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:14:33 +0000

i agree alex i think that McCains is irresponsible and will not work in the end.

By: Kendra

Kendra — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:13:20 +0000

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.

By: alex

alex — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:01:24 +0000

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.

By: sarah

sarah — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:58:12 +0000

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.

By: sarah

sarah — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:42:20 +0000

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.

By: Lilly

Lilly — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:29:01 +0000

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!