No hope for Hillarycare
Hillary's been touting her health care plan as superior to Sen. Barack Obama's, and even went so far as to call Obama's plan a "betrayal" of Democratic values. So let's get real - Hillarycare won't cover any American if it doesn't pass Congress. When universal health care is signed into law, it will be the largest expansion of government power since social security passed in 1935. If Democrats in Iowa don't trust her, how is she going to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to pass her plan?
As a Democrat, I firmly believe Clinton can't pass universal health care. She is arguing the only way to get every American covered is by forcing every American to buy health care. Unfortunately, she hasn't told anybody how she'd enforce that. Until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do, her attacks on Obama are more about scoring points than making a point.
Obama's universal health care plan makes coverage affordable for all, he just doesn't agree with forcing everyone to buy insurance.
Who can stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and actually make their plan a reality? Obama is in the best position to do that because, unlike Senator Clinton, he's been standing up to the special interests and bringing people together throughout his career.
Nick Hudson Philosophy and government junior
What's Balfour for?
The intentions of the Annapolis Conference were the same as any other attempted reconciliation among the Palestinian and Israeli people: to mend relations and create a land solution that satisfies both sides. Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 in hopes of furthering non-aggressive communication with a party that has historically shown to be one with destructive intentions. Only a short time after Israel left Gaza completely did Hamas fire Qassam rockets into southern Israel and oust the most moderate and willing representative the Palestinian people have ever had. The attempted agreement for Gaza between the two groups seemed to become a farce.
Supporting Abbas at the Annapolis Conference would be a step against the extremist terrorist regime of Hamas and toward the more moderate Palestinian community. Historically, Israel's "territorial expansion" has been at the cost of war spurred by its anti-Israel neighbors. Land-for-peace settlements halted with the end of the Six Day War, and only recently did another Arab country consider those negotiations with Israel. A recent Reuters article talked about how Hamas lawmakers signed a document stating their refusal to give up claims to land Palestinians were on in 1948 - yet another way of saying they refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist.
This faction was not invited to the conference because it would be clear to all that negotiations couldn't take place under Hamas' beliefs and violent tendencies. Support by neighboring Arab countries, along with the compliance of both moderate Israeli and Palestinian leaders, should be seen as a potential stabilizer in the Middle East. Considering the long history of negotiation failures due to non-cooperation by the Palestinian Authority, the question Ze'ev Jabotinsky proposed in 1923 can still be asked: What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us?
Jamie Brod Government and history junior
Be the first to comment on this article!