This is an interesting opinion piece. It brings up an important discussion topic about he inequalities in political voice and participation.

This article discusses a different type of undecided voter, the undecided donor. This portion of swing voters cannot decide who to donate their money to. These people connect to different aspects of each candidate and often end up donating to both. Do you think donating money makes a difference at this point in the election? At the end of the day, what determines an undecided person's vote? 

This article talks about Obama's calm and collected response to the upcoming storm hitting back east. Obama has expressed concern about the storm to America but not in a panicked manner. I think made the right move by not focusing on the election here but rather everyone's safety. Having a president who makes Americans feel safe is important.

One question that I have is will the weather affect the polls next week? 

This article highlights the role of women in the election. It discusses the necessity for each candidate to receive the votes of women. Obama criticizes Romney for his changing views on abortion but women have also felt the tough economy under Obama's administration. Do you think there are other issues besides the issue of contraceptive health care that would persuade women to vote for Romney or Obama?

This article talks about Thursday's debate and whether Biden or Ryan won. This article says this past debate falls into this awkward middle ground. According to undecided voters, about 50% thought Biden won, 31% thought Ryan did, and 19% thought it was a tie. After the presidential debate I thought it was clear that the Republicans seemed more enthused, do you think that happened after this one?

This article begins by acknowledging the softer side that Romney showed during the debate and then tailors off into a discussion about what he has been up to recently that makes him seem so compassionate. I know that during the RNC Mrs. Romney put an emphasis on his fatherly side. Do you think Romney is going over the top selling himself as this compassionate man? Or do you find it endearing? I think I find it somewhat of both.

This video and short article is about the upcoming presidential debate and the possible "zingers". It discussing how Obama is going to speak to the "American people" while Romney has been working on "zingers and special lines for months". I'm going to be very disappointed if this debate turns into a bashing session so I'm hoping to be surprised. But if anyone (in general) were to make use of digs, I think the candidate running against the incumbent has more of a so-called reason to. 

This article is able about how Obama recently went on the The View while Mrs. Clinton met with presidents from the Middle East. This article got me thinking about media and how presidents seem more relatable by going on talk shows than talking to political leaders. 

This article discusses Obama's and Romney's different approaches to the recent situation in Libya. Obama is criticized for not speaking forcefully enough to foreigners and being too apologetic. The article ends with a comment that regardless of this tragic incident in Libya, the election's main focus is still about the economy. However, for me foreign affairs are important and will be a deciding factor as how I vote. 

          I wanted to share this article as sort of a follow up to my previous one which discussed Obama before his DNC speech. This article discusses Obama played his DNC speech safe. His speech did not have many new ideas and proposals. Instead he tried to appeal to an audience beyond the Democratic one by stressing that he is willing to work across party lines.
         One thing that particularly drew my attention to this article was that is recognized Obama's lack of discussion on health care. For a president that spent much of his first term on a new health-care refe, he barely discussed it. 

This article is highlights the need for this coming week's Democratic Convention to mimic the optimism that Obama's previous convention in 2008 had. Being that Obama's speech is after that of Romney's, it will be interesting to see if he subtly responds to anything that Romney said. Regardless, it is clear that Obama must recapture America.

This article discusses the differences in opinion the US and Israel has over the Iran nuclear situation. Netanyahu has said that Israel needs to be prepared to take action before Iran has the capability to create the nuclear weapons in a secure location (at the bottom of a mountain) that bunker-busting bombs could not reach. Israel has stressed the importance of knowledge rather than time. For Israel, once the Iranians have the information/capability to make these weapons the amount of time is irrelevant. Obama however, is in favor of stricter sanctions on Iran in order to slow Iran's desire to create a nuclear weapon.

I think the difference in opinion between the US and Israel is interesting and reflects the urgency Israel feels to end Iran's nuclear plants. This difference in opinion is also interesting as presidential elections come up. Obama's hesitant support over Israel's potential action plan will definitely be something we will hear more of in the upcoming months. He also may be criticized for his devotion to Israel in the elections (perhaps used by republican candidates). 
 

This article is a nice follow up to the conversation we had about the Strait of Hormuz. However, this article made it seem like the US holds more of the cards in this tense situation. The article explained that the US and Europe want to deprive Iran of the immense oil income it needs to run its government and fund what the West thinks is an attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Apparently, the ban of the import of Iranian oil will start this July which is interesting because both the US and Iran will suffer from this. Iran will have to find other countries to export oil to and the US will have to find other countries to export oil to Europe. But, I am not sure if this ban is completely finalized or not.

This article talks about Iran's banning of Barbies because of their immodest clothing. They were officially banned in the 90s and were thought of as "un-Islamic characteristics" but in 2002, Iran introduced its own dolls but they were not as popular as Barbies.

This article made me think of what the shah would say/think about this. I'm not sure because we know he wanted to westernize Iran yet from reading the interview with him, he sees women as ornamental and not having a say or a real importance. 

I read a similar article (to Marco's) from the NYT about the nuclear scientist killed (website is below) but the NYT added that part of the reason that these attacks are so concerning is because they have occurred in daylight yet no one has found the perpetrators.

I think this video is a good visual for the bombing. Bombings, at least to me, seem so foreign so I think looking at footage is valuable as it allows us to see just how disruptive and tragic these bombings are. 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-adversaries-said-to-step-up-covert-actions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss.

This article is about a peace talk in Joran sometime this week. The Palestinians want Israel to stop settlement building in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem before the negotiations start again but the Israelis do not think that is necessary. The King of Egypt, King Abdullah, is making an effort to get the peace talks going and support the Palestinian Authority over Hamas. 

This article explains how on the 24th anniversary of Hamas they have reasserted their belief that they will never recognize Israel or stop their violence. This article also discussed that the second prisoner exchange (when Gilad Shalit was released earlier this year in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinians) is coming up next week.

This article confuses me because after reading The Lemon Tree I have been trying to understand that while Israel has an army, Palestinians have a resistance which is their form of an army. However, I can't not think that Hamas is a terrorist group. Also, from following the Gilad Shalit story earlier this year, it still confuses me how Israel could exchange 1 tortured soldier (although he deserved to go home) for 1,000 harmful Palestinian criminals. BUT after saying this I also know there is Israeli radicalism (this recent article): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/world/middleeast/settlers-attack-after-demolitions-at-outpost.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

This is a really visual way to see how the Palestinian Territories have changed from 1947 to 2011. 

I wonder if the Palestinians receive recognition at the UN if the Israeli settlements will stay in the West Bank. 

This article (from last May) discusses how important it is for Israeli Jews to mark their Independence Day with Nakba Day. If the government were to be more open then there could be lessons in citizenship made. The history should include the story of the other side and not simply the part of the story that is easy to tell. This hopeful articles explains that history should not be hidden. 

This article sheds light to the importance of both histories. Often times, I think there is unclear information about the "other side" of the conflict that a person is on. This lack of information/knowledge is tolerated and considered to be okay but I think it makes the everyday population less able to make progress towards understanding--not necessarily agreeing. The lack of the full story being told adds to the hatred being passed down with every generation.

The article explains that women are adjusting to the new freedom and are experiencing some discrimination regarding clothing. It was also said that women should be optimistic because they now have a chance to fight for their rights, like other women. Women will be granted equal rights in divorce proceedings and polygamy will be banned. But there are fears that these new rights will be only help the more wealthy women and not the poorer women in religious regions.

This article was really interesting as it relates to the Arab Spring and how it will affect women-which was similar to our discussion on Monday. It confuses me how the Arab Spring is supposed to bring about positive change yet it could still be detrimental towards women. 

Obama defends his policy toward Israel at a political fundraiser. Obama has been criticized by US supporters of Israel that say he has been too tough and has strained ties with Netanyahu. Eight out of ten Jewish people voted for Obama in 2008 and it would jeopardize him if this were to change in 2012. Obama suggested, earlier this year, to go back to the negotiations on the border that existed in the 1967 war yet he also won praise for his opposition to a Palestinian push to win UN recognition.
Having the US as an ally is obviously crucial for Israel and there would be huge consequences if this partnership became broken. Obama's actions towards Israel has been discussed in my family and my Grandma, an Israeli, thinks that his actions/statements (some good and some not so good for Israel) will definitely impact the Jewish voters in the next election. I just wonder how the pro-Israel people about Obama's term in being a strong ally for Israel. Also, what will happen to Jerusalem if Israel goes back to the 1967 boarders?

Israel was withholding $100 million in tax and other payments to protest over the Palestinians' membership efforts at the United Nations. The Palestinians depend on this money from Israel for a majority of their operating budget. America was urging the Israeli government to give the money. Israel has wanted the Palestinians to develop stable institutions to enable stable relations with Israel but Israel wanted the Palestinians to hold off their membership in the UN. Israel claims that because the Palestinians are joining forces with Hamas they would be going against the Oslo accords. 

I think Israel has a valid point to be concerned with Hamas entering the UN because of the violence they have caused, although I am not sure of Hamas' recent acts. It is also important to recognize how much the Palestinians rely on the funds from Israel and that it is important to stick to the Oslo accords to create stability for both Israel and Palestine.