Recently, former president Bill Clinton and current president Barrack Obama teamed up to raise money and votes, as reported by Peter Barker in the April 29, 2012 edition of the New York Times.
The author writes about: the former rivalry between the two, and the chance that they might not be close once President Obama’s term runs out; Mr. Clinton joining Mr. Obama for a fundraising; the chances of Hilary Clinton running for president in 2016; how Mr. Clinton is becoming more and more influential in the Obama camp, especially as a large portion of Mr. Obama’s staff used to work for Clinton; and the pair taking on Mitt Romney—with Clinton referring to him as wanting to do what the Republicans did before, but this time on steroids.
From customer #3909 to Writer Thank you very much for the paper, it totally points out the ideas I meant...Read more...
The writer is trying to emphasize more on the past rivalry between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama than anything else. It’s very clear that this is the focus of the article. The author didn’t support his claims very well, as he only got evidence from one side of the issue. For instance, he failed to mention that every time Mr. Obama has called on Mr. Clinton to help, Clinton has rallied to his side. He also ignores that Hilary Clinton needs Obama to stay in power so that she can have a shot at the presidency in 2016, not to mention the fact that most Democrat supporters view the alliance in a positive light—the fundraising wouldn’t have been a success otherwise.
In summary, Peter Barker’s article should be renamed “The Uneasily Alliance Between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama,” because that is the clear intention of his article.
|Afghanistan War: Should We Stay or Go?|