There is no denying the fact just before the emergence of Bangladesh in the middle of 1970; the intact Western globe materialize to have moved into the essence of managerial as well as Financial reforms. Moreover, these restructuring policies actually demonstrate to show up certain general features. They all tend to be more or less managerial reforms. The trend in the track of public management reform is perceptible in the United States, Great Britain, and other Western European management, but on the other side of the globe as well, in Australia, New Zealand and other ‘Western’ countries. The style of reports on developments of administrative reforms of the OECD authenticate that most developments point in the same direction, which is the introduction of ideas, models and techniques of public management, that is the adoption of business management techniques, a greater service and client orientation, the preamble of market process and competition in public administrations.

The adoption of the Public Management Reform is linked with the rise of neo-liberalism and its political variants such as ‘Reaganism’ and ‘Thatcherism’. Hood sees its origin as a marriage of two different streams of ideas: the new-fangled institutional finances and business type ‘managerialism’. According to Linda Kaboolian, the preamble of new public management imparts two extra-ordinary chances to the scholars. She promulgates, ‘The Public Management Reform strategy provides scholars of public administration and public management two extra-ordinary opportunities. The first is to see the unfolding of an international reform movement defined by clearly articulated principles. A phenomenon of this magnitude is a natural object of empirical inquiry to scholars. The second opportunity is to engage in theoretically grounded empirical work and theory building that crosses the boundaries of the disciplines that have studied the public sector’.

In developed states, the orthodox welfarist model of improvement has largely been displaced by the new public management revolution, which involves a major rethinking of the state of its relations with the market. The radical critique of the centralized, inefficient, unaccountable, over-extended state has produced a transformative conception, and intensive efforts to run this conception into practice. Later the new public management has been focussed as an ideological system, featured by the introduction of ideas generated in private sector settings within public sector organisations.

In a recent analysis of public management reforms, it is over and done with that despite differences in nature, size and approach to reforms, a common agenda has developed, ‘a new paradigm for public management has emerged, aiming at fostering a performance-oriented culture in a less centralised public sector’. According to the OECD, this new public management paradigm is characterised by the following eight main trends:

1. developing authority, providing flexibility
2. improving the management of human resources
3. ensuring performance, control, accountability
4. optimising information technology
5. developing composition and choice
6. improving the quality of regulation
7. providing responsive service
8. strengthening steering functions at the centre

Hood presented his widely known definition of ‘new public management’ in his inaugural address in London School of Economics, based on the OECD review.

1. Hands on professional management
2. Competition
3. Standards and performance measures
4. Private sector style management
5. Output controls
6. Discipline and parsimony
7. Disaggregating of units

The components of new public management were both structural (disaggregated organisations and greater competition) and managerial (more visible hands-on management, private sector management practices, tighter cost control, explicit measurement and greater emphasis on out put controls). While the justification for the reforms was founded on the need to make the delivery of public services manageable and accountable, to avoid waste and reduce costs, to encourage competition and customer responsiveness, to apply proven private sector practices and to focus on results, it lead to changes away from a uniform and inclusive public sector and from ‘qualitative and implicit standards and norms’ towards an environment of fewer procedural constraints, more discretionary powers, and to performance-related pay and less secure conditions of employment.

After F.W.Taylor’s ‘The principles of scientific Management’, the various management theories and schools have been developed. There is one theory, model and technique of business management. The trend to introduce business like management in government therefore seems not so much inspired by scientific reason as it is by the ideological Zeitgeist. Several authors have examined the phenomenon of managerial reforms in western administrations, and various more or less different typologies have been published. What they all have in common is at least the following three characteristics:

1. business management techniques,

2. service and client orientation,

3. Market-type mechanisms such as competition.

-

‘In Britain, PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM has two divergent strands: managerial and the new institutional economics. Managerial refers to introducing private sector management in the public sector. It stresses: hands-on, professional management, explicit standards and measures of performance, managing by results, and value for money and more recently closeness to the customer. It is often synonym for the ‘3Es’. The new institutional economics refers to introducing incentive structures (such as market competition) in to public service provision. It stresses desegregating bureaucracies, greater competition through contracting-out and quasi-markets and consumer choice’

The introduction of businesslike management began in the British civil service when Margaret Thatcher created the Rayner scrutinies. Mr. Rayner came from a private office and presided in the cabinet office over a project group, which had to support the many scrutinies in the various departments. The terms of reference for the scrutiny team which produced the report ‘Improving Management in Government: ‘The Next Steps’ “to identify the progress achieved in improving management in the civil service” and “to identify the institutional, administrative, political and attitudinal obstacles to better management and efficiency that still remain”. This report recommended reducing the civil service to a small “core” of policy makers and “transferring” other officials to work under free standing agency boards. The ‘agencies’ should be established to carry out the executive functions of government within a policy and resources framework set by a department. Next step report was published in 1987 with view to ensure higher efficiency, better quality, and more value for money-by granting more autonomy to the executive service delivery agencies. Germany, the concept of PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM adopted in different name, which is called New Steering Model. It is evident that France does not particularly have an Anglo-Saxon tradition in respect to state, government and civil service.

New public management in Belgium is associated with a more business-oriented style of management, cutting back on public spending and privatisation. The tradition of neo- corporatism, however, is still firmly in place. In the new structures of the Autonomous Public Enterprises, conventional political and interest groups are settling down in the executive boards with a view to controlling the policy of the public organisations. In these circumstances the freedom of action of the PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORMs is likely to continue to be limited.

The advent of new public management to Ireland seems to be already changing the climate and culture of public sector organisations, at the same time as there has been no fundamental structural change in the machinery of government; a more results oriented approach is developing. Relations between the new public manager and politics remain unchanged, both sides seeming to be happy with the present situation: the new public manager has continued to be adverse to politics, seeing that area as best left to political adverse, program managers and the private offices of politicians.

The Nordic countries have also tagged along the concept of PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM but they adopt it on the basis of their own administrative requirement. Markku Temmes believed, “The PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM doctrine seems to have become a water shade in the recent administrative policy of the Nordic countries. Denmark has been a pioneer in applying Public Management Reform, and Danish solutions have been quite typical Public Management Reform- type solutions, although the administrative policy followed has been more carefully pursued than in the Anglo- Saxon countries”.

In Finland, the reform of public sector management, which started in the late 1980s, has spread rapidly throughout all levels of government. Public Management Reform was identified within 134 organisations. Most public managers are located in three types of organisations: result-budgeted and net-budgeted agencies; institutions and business action plans; and public enterprises and state owned companies. These are concentrated in industry and trade, communications and training, and public utilities. Finland has been the most coherent and determined applier of Public Management Reform among the Nordic countries. This impression may have been partly created by the fact that Finland’s radical reforms have come within a fairly short period of time, the year’s 1987-95.

After careful pore over the practice of public management system in the western democracies, it obviously focuses that a major transformation has been made in the public sector management through this new concept. It is true that the main thrust for Public Management Reform began when the western democracies felt that existing government machineries are not functioning well with traditional concept of management. The success of Public Management Reform influenced the donors to introduce this concept in developing countries as condition of their loan. Developing countries are heavily suffered with the huge manpower in the public sector though these peoples are not giving proper service because of their inefficiency and traditional system of management. ‘Developing countries seem intent on following new public management as an organising principle for their societies. This is occurring with encouragement from the World Bank and other international agencies as an effort to overcome their endemic problems of development and the failure of earlier model of development economics and development administration’.

About Author

Kh. Atiar Rahman is a prominent author as well as a poet. he has many publications in national and International media. He was born in the district of Kushtia.

The soft version was on display Monday night in Denver and the lady does have a soft side and I’m not talking about her soft flowing hair. As she said, she’s a daughter, a mother, a wife, and a proud American. I mean that totally covers the bases doesn’t it? It was not only the content, but the constant smile and humble spirit that was on display.  

Michelle Obama, whose husband calls her “the star” of their family, introduced herself Monday to the Democratic convention in a heartfelt speech invoking the dreams of her father and the hopes of her husband for the nation. “Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do,” Obama said. “You treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

The self-described daughter, wife and mother also gave a nod to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination. She hailed the New York senator as someone who put “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” by winning nearly that many votes in state nominating contests.

She told those watching on television that, like them, she and the candidate value strong family ties, a belief in hard work and upward mobility, and a determination to create “the world as it should be.”

And then there was Teddy!

Sen. Edward Kennedy declared there was “new hope” for the nation in his surprise appearance at the Democratic National Convention, while Michelle Obama addressed critics of her patriotism and stressed her love for the country. “Nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight,” Kennedy told an arena of teary-eyed delegates as he pledged to see Barack Obama to the White House and his own return to the Senate floor.

So, the Democratic Convention is off and rolling: with Hillary and Bubba to follow.  

About Author

As a spiritual-futurist my commentaries and articles deal primarily with an interpretation of current events in light of macro-universal forces at play.

A few years ago, I took a class at ETSU: Biology and Beyond which was a course that dealt with education on HIV and the history of AIDS. I wanted to learn more about the disease so I signed up for the class. It was one that would forever change my life. While taking the class, I was not only able to hear the stories of extraordinary people but I also learned of their horrific, yet heroic lives after discovering they were living with HIV. Today, our global community ignores the fact that HIV and AIDS is on the rise again and as the memory of those lost to AIDS seemingly fades in the eyes of our leaders; their voices should forever be heard throughout the world.

HIV and AIDS are as different as Night and Day, HIV is Life and AIDS is (still) a death sentence.

You can live with HIV but you will die of AIDS. You can fight the battle as hard as your body will allow but AIDS will win the war. While our leaders refuse to spend more money and time on prevention, people continue to die and AIDS is gaining ground on us as a global community.

We haven’t found AIDS to be contained at any point since its first appearance in 1981, when the CDC learned of the epidemic that would later be referred to as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). By the year 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and an estimated 800,000-900,000 people were living with the virus in the United States. According to statistics posted at http://www.one.org , 38 million people are now infected by HIV/AIDS. While some say there is progression toward finding a cure, many are blinded by facts that simply don’t exist. While some will convince themselves it will not affect them or their lives, an estimated 2.8 million people died in 2005 and in that same year, an estimated 4.1 million people were infected with the virus (2006 Report on the Global AIDS epidemic, UNAIDS, May 2006). With rising numbers once again, eventually this disease will affect you or someone you know.

The timeline of the disease is staggering and those lives that have been affected by HIV and AIDS include far more than the names we will all remember. I have the permanent stories of Kimberly Bergalis, Elizabeth Glaser, Debbie Runions, and a precious little boy named Ryan White forever in my mind. All of these individuals seemed to live with great bravery yet they have died in vain if this country doesn’t begin to take a stand now.

I really believe that tomorrow will come with a hellish vengeance if today we ignore what we should’ve done yesterday about this disease.

There’s no question about it. When I first signed up for the Biology and Beyond Class, I thought there would eventually be a cure for AIDS. However, by the end of the semester, after I spent time working at a local hospital where there were patients diagnosed with the disease, I saw their vision. There wasn’t one. It’s ironic really, many of those people living with HIV, and later even in the face of death, felt as if they were just the early victims. They knew others would follow and those who died, knew the tomorrow they wouldn’t see held the same for many more victims as they started to battle for their own last days. The reason is apparent now but back then, it wasn’t that clear to me. HIV and AIDS patients knew there was too much of a stigma attached for full awareness to ever be successful. This is thanks to misdirected political agendas and it still exists today.

In 1992, Elizabeth Glaser addressed the Democratic National Convention and stated, “Exactly 4 years ago, my daughter died of AIDS. She did not survive the Reagan administration. I am here because my son and I may not survive 4 more years of leaders who say they care but do nothing.” She later went on to say, “America Wake up. We are all in a struggle between life and death.”

Elizabeth Glaser pleaded with our leaders in 1992 and all who were in attendance heard her but chose to do nothing. Today, we sit at a standstill as our elected and appointed officials decide how to spend more money and more time just to avoid accepting responsibility. I absolutely believe that tomorrow will come with a hellish vengeance if today we ignore what we should’ve done yesterday about this disease. There is no doubt in my mind.

While state and federal leaders spent hours opposing online wagering, ironically, they were gambling with the lives of those who could’ve used their support and would have appreciated the appropriated funds to work toward the fight against AIDS. Instead, our government chose to play craps with human lives and people continued to die.

The fact is, Americans have been led to believe through silence that the AIDS epidemic was on a road that would soon end when in actuality; the spread of HIV has apparently taken a U-Turn when you look at the shocking numbers above.

Let Us Stop This Disease Before It Stops All of Us Who Are Left

While I was a student at ETSU, I had the opportunity to meet Debbie Runions who became an advocate for the education and prevention of AIDS. Debbie, after just one sexual encounter became very ill three weeks later and three months later tested positive for HIV. That was in 1992. She too, addressed the Democratic National Convention in 1996 and she too was heard. Our politicians then simply pushed forward in another direction. Debbie died in October of 2005.

When I heard her speak at ETSU and later had the opportunity to sit down and talk with her, I discovered what her life had been like after she was diagnosed with HIV. She talked openly and honestly about her disease. She surprised me when she talked about the fact that she was thankful she had been given the opportunity to have the disease because of what it had allowed her to do. I learned later that was Debbie. She radiated optimism. Debbie knew her fate was sealed yet she chose to make the most of the life she had to live while she could live it even if it would be within the parameters and limitations of living with the virus.

Debbie’s story will always be imbedded in my mind. I can honestly say after hearing her speak, I was deeply humbled and truly feel she made a profound difference in so many lives. She had a gift to give through her message and her spirit will live on forever but her hope for political intervention may not.

While our politicians have been slinging mud at one another, their efforts could’ve been redirected in a more positive light. Instead of ministers on television running around with an entourage of followers running up astronomical bills on lavish lifestyles, they too could help. Instead of picking up prostitutes on their congregation’s dollars, they could make a choice to spend their money to save a family ridden by poverty and AIDS.

Our country and the entire global community must understand, this disease doesn’t just pick out favorites. It attacks people of all races, young and old, straight and gay. The disease is not interested in what you look like, who you’ve slept with, or what drug you’ve put in a needle. This disease takes hostages and then slowly but surely, begins terrorizing them with the stigma of the disease itself and the fear of dying.

We do have an epidemic on our hands. While our leaders have gone from one issue to another, people have gotten sick. While meetings were conducted to decide something as frivolous as whether or not Americans could have the freedom to gamble online, more people died. While a television evangelist took his body guards out for another four thousand dollar outing, countless people clung to their one dollar a week and still others were left in the epitome of poverty because of the high cost of health care and medications for a person living with HIV.

What have we decided holds value in this country? Does a human life no longer hold any substantial meaning to those in political office with the means to do something to help mankind? Apparently not, but as Americans, we have an obligation to do something to help. This is our world and our problem.

We no longer have the Debbie Runions and Elizabeth Glasers to speak out at the Democratic Conventions. Now it is up to everyone else to lead by their example. Visit ONE and start doing your best to make a difference. Global AIDS and extreme poverty is more important than who’s sleeping with whom. It’s far more detrimental to our society than any online gambling campaign just to prove a political point and it is certainly more important than listening to the ramblings of a television evangelist asking for your money so he can go buy his methamphetamines.

Isn’t it time after all the pleading from those who had their lives cut short that we finally take a stand? Isn’t it time we demand for our government to take the initiative to fight extreme poverty and Global AIDS? Isn’t it time for a day of reckoning? The debt we’ve paid to this global crisis has already been way too high. It’s time this country took a stand on the important issues at hand. It is time for retribution.

About Author

You can visit Susan Smith Alvis at her website at http://www.susanalvis.com

As some of you may know…I am a big fan of board games.

I am happy to devote an entire weekend to the likes of Pictionary, Scrabble, and of course my personal favourite: Operation (You know there is something delightfully obscene about a game that revolves around trying to replace a little plastic spleen with a pair of tweezers into a bizarro man with a large red blinking nose. After a few wines you can take that barrel of fun to the bank…..in spades!)

However, there is one board game that, even with three bottles of my favourite plonk under the belt, you could not get me to play.

That game is Monopoly.

My aversion to this snotty and greedy little game probably dates back to my childhood, when my disdain for the millionaire in the top hat spawned, along with a morbid fear of clowns and raisin sandwiches.

When I was eight, our neighbor’s children would come around on a Saturday afternoon with said game in hand and an evil Gordon-Geckoesque glint in their eyes wanting to know if we would like to play. My parents, eager to offload their offspring for a few hours of peace and a few glasses of Chateau-De -Headache, would promptly agree on behalf of my sister and myself that “there would be nothing we would love to particpate in more”.

Begrudgingly, we would sit on the floor, have our multi-coloured bills doled out to us, set up a little Scottish Terrier or a Vroom-Vroom car and wait for the inevitable.

The game would always start out in a reasonable fashion. You would roll the dice, land on a coloured square and then buy it, hoping to collect a set of properties and start reaping the rewards from your fellow players’ misfortune when they would make pit or toilet stops on one of them.

My sister and I are not stupid, and quite often we would kick start a match with very promising results…a Trafalgar Square here… a Park Lane there … all very much in the spirit of good, juvenile fun.

However, about twenty minutes into the venture we would notice that our neighbors suddenly had at least DOUBLE the cash and more lego-like houses than even Coomera Realty could develop in such a short time.

When accused of dodgy dealings, our neighbors would suddenly claim “Off-shore Swiss bank accounts” and “Legitimate Tax refunds” to explain their rapid accumulation of wealth;  and, when we argued that landing on “Free Parking” did NOT entitle the player to all of OUR money, the reponse would be “Don’t you KNOW what the rules of the Parker Brothers 1979 edition are?”

Even when either my sister or myself overcame such questionable regulations and still looked very favourable to cross the finish line, we would always be hit with the “She Who Smelt It Dealt It” Tax when landing on “GO”.

The end result was usually ugly, with little, green plastic houses being shoved into various orifices and an almighty indignant holler to “MUMMMMMMM!!!!!!!”

So, you could say that I get very angry and resentlful when I think about those games of Monopoly, or any other competition, where one party, upon realising that he or she is losing, decides to change the rules to serve his or her position.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that I was more than a little peeved when, this morning, I watched a re-run on the news showing  the Democratic National Committee hand down its decision on the unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan as part of the US Electoral Primary process.

For those of you who follow American politics, you would know that, at the end of last year,  both Florida and Michigan were banned from having their Democratic Party delegates seated at the convention coming up in August. This was due to each of those states’ decisions to go against the Democratic Party’s rules by moving their states’ primaries to earlier dates than when they had been directed to conduct them.

As a result, the powers that be at the highest echelon of the Democratic Party punished both states by declaring that their delegates would not be counted in the process of electing a nominee for the general election in November.

At the time of this decision, Hillary Clinton remained silent. Tacit then, in her agreement with these findings. In fact, in the latter part of 2007, she was quoted as saying that the findings were “fair”.

When the numbers and polls started to look decidely shifty for the Senator from New York, a murmur from the Clinton camp began to circulate about how potentially unreasonable this decision was.

This murmur grew to a grumble, which grew to a whinge, which now has blown out to an almighty “MUUMMMMMMMY” howl of indignation from Clinton and her supporters, now that the nominee for the Democratic party, if the numbers are correct, can only be Barack Obama, given any current scenario.

 After much deliberation, the committee ended up awarding the majority of Florida delegates to Clinton and divided up half of Michigan between the two remaining candidates (again, favouring Clinton by 10 delegates I might add) even though Obama went along with the original party decision to not campaign or put his name on the ballot in this state.

And yet……

….the screams, foot-stamping and hissy-fits from Clinton supporters that followed the decision, could probably have been heard from Washington all the way down to those who reside on their porches in the Appalachians (whom apparently have heard the call and are on their way down to protest  as well…those nice, fair-minded, white working folk from West Virginia)

There was strong talk from Clinton’s camp about appealing this decision and taking this argument/all the way to the Democratic convention.

Does this not remind anyone of a certain horrific incident…umm…let’s say 8 years ago?????

In short, it is a divisive and desperate call from a wing of the party that is critically wounded, and will take “whatever means necessary” to try and shift the goal posts in order to favour their candidate.

The USA has had eight years of disasterous governing with the Bush Administration. The election in 2008 is there for the Democrats to “lose” at this point.  If this issue with Florida and Michigan is taken beyond today, it can only weaken the result for the party in November.

And for what?

An overwhelming, bitter sense of “entitlement” is my guess.

Those of you who know me, know that I have been a Barack Obama fan since….well, since first saw him speak in Chicago back in 2003.

However, this is not a Pro-Obama/Anti-Clinton rant. It is an observation that what seems to transparantly obvious to me, is not shared by others.

This is a blog about playing fair.

You play the game, according to the rules.

If you are losing the game, it is not then reasonable to change those rules because you are pissed off that someone landed on Mayfair before you did, or that you just don’t like the look of the little silver dog.

At any rate, the way things are going, the only board game that Hillary and Obama might be playing over the next seven days will be “Battleship”.

About Author

Kylie is a well travelled free-lance writer who has been published in several magazines in Australia and the United States including “Honestly Woman” and “Third Coast Marketing”.

Come on in..sit down and enjoy…bring your prescription drugs if necessary.

This 2008 democratic presidential nominee race is turning out to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primaries were decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in large states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead in delegates over Barack Obama with each hovering around 1100 each. The democrats award delegates on a proportional basis to the percentage of votes they get in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to the delegates awarded by the states, there also exists superdelegates or around 796 important figures in the democratic party. These superdelegates are free to endorse any candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to pledge their support and can change their mind and vote at any time. As it stands now, I believe Barack Obama will secure the nomination and would ultimately be a better choice for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton is a junior senator from New York and former First Lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has an extensive background in law. Before the 2008 primaries started, she was thought to be the frontrunner for the democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become president at this time. During her time as first lady because of her political prowess and involvement, she was often likened to Eleanor Roosevelt. Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois and also worked in law before deciding to run for public office. He first made an impression at the 2004 keynote address at the democratic convention where his bold, and inspirational speech received nationwide recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the Presidency and has surprised many by winning numerous states by a large margin and hanging tough in those he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I believe he will follow through with his dream for America. While both candidates are democrats, and agree on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first and foremost is the issue of the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton initially voted for the Iraq War but has since opposed the decision made by the Bush Administration. She has been heavily criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its very inception. I think that this shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, he stands strong in his beliefs even when they are unpopular. He does not seem to rush into anything without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “Im not opposed to wars, Im opposed to dumb wars.” The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for health care reform. While both understand the need for a change in the current system to help the many uninsured Americans, there is an important difference in their plans. While Hillary wishes for every American to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it makes sense that children should always be entitled to the medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think that Obama’s plan is much more efficient and also will meet much less resistance. One issue that I do not completely support Obama on but more so than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be a part of civil unions which grant them the same rights as a marriage. While Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be allowed. I personally think that if two people, regardless of their gender, wish to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to be married. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They are entitled to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, no one should be able to stop that. While I wish Barack Obama fully supported same-sex marriages, he would take the first steps to correct finally realizing same-sex marriages. Both of these candidates are strong choices for the Democratic party. Each has their own different strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems more suited for rallying large crowds of people, while Hillary sometimes falters under the pressure of so many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message of change will inspire Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next President of The United States.
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate race turns to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primary have been decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in major states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama delegates with each hover around 1100 each. The Democrats prices delegates on a proportional basis the percentage of votes they receive in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to delegates, issued by the States, there are also superdelegates or around 796 people in the Democratic Party. These superdelegates are free to endorse a candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to announce their support and may change their minds and vote at any time. As it is now, I think Barack Obama will get the nomination and, ultimately, be a better choice for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a young New York Senator and former first lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has extensive experience in law. Before the 2008 primary began, it was thought to be headed for the Democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become chairman at that time. During his time as the first woman because of her prowess and political participation, it is often equated with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Barack Obama is a young senator from Illinois and has also worked in law before deciding to run for public service. He first made an impression in 2004, will deliver a speech at the Democratic Convention where his bold, inspirational speech and the country has received recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the presidency and surprised many by winning many states by a wide margin of the hanging and difficult to those whom he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I think he will follow his dream for America.

Although both candidates are Democrats, and agreement on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first is the question of war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton originally voted for the war in Iraq but has since opposed the decision by the Bush administration. It has been strongly criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its inception. I think it shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, it is strong in his convictions even if they are unpopular. It does not seem to launch into something without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “I am not opposed to war, I am opposed to the war stupid. ”

The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for reform of health care. Although both understand the need for a change in the current system to help many non-Americans, there is a significant difference in their plans. If Hillary wishes of all Americans to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it is logical that children should always be entitled to medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think the plan Obama is much more efficient and will also meet much less resistance.

A question that I am not completely support Obama, but more than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be part of civil unions that grant them the same rights as marriage. If Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be permitted. Personally, I think that if two persons, regardless of their sex, desire to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to marry. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nobody should be able to end this situation. Although I would like Barack Obama has fully supported same-sex marriages should correct the first steps to finally achieve the same-sex marriages.

Both candidates are strong choices for the Democratic Party. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems best suited rallying for large crowds of people, while Hillary falters sometimes under pressure from many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message change will encourage Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next Prsidenet of the USA.

About Author

23 Old ,Webmaster , Welcome to Your Online Library And Mr OBAMA