WEEK 5

2/1/2016

Watch ALL of the clips below. Each short video gives a real life example of various forms of Presidential leadership. You will see how each President dealt with a situation of conflict and tension regarding domestic and international affairs.

Compare and contrast what you learned from the course manual about Presidential power and what you learned from the clips below. Use the questions above as your guide.

What are the major differences you see in how each president chose to address the political and social problems during their terms? How were these issues defined? Who was impacted by the issues being dealt with and what were the consequences of Presidential decisions on those communities? What should the President have done is the situations that they each faced?

The videos below highlight President Clinton, President Bush (senior), President Bush (junior), and President Obama.

Requirements for BLOG POSTS

You must write 250 words each post (due Thursday @ Midnight), Responses to two other students 50 words each (due Sunday @ midnight)
Students must post during the week the blog is assigned or it will not be graded.

89 Comments

Elena Saldivar

2/3/2016 01:14:11 pm

One of the major differences I saw from the videos was how each president wrote their speeches and how they delivered each of their speeches. President Clintons, and bush speeches I would say were similar in that they were more sympathetic to the event in Rwanda, and 9/11, they wanted to keep the faith of the not only the American people but to help the victims as well. As for president Obama’s speech he got down to the issues and was giving us solutions to these problems in our government. The way that they defined them was the feeling of assurance and knowing that they will be able to fix the problem. From there proposed solutions to help fix the issue actually affected a lot of people as a result of these solutions. I am not sure about Clintons solution but I know for a fact the because of bush solution to help fight terrorism, there were some violations that were made that contradict the constitution and the bill of rights, as for Obama’s plan for free health care to Americans actually is affecting a lot of people because there are certain health needs that people need but the plan dose not cover it. Well I don’t think I could think of anything that the presidents should have done differently in each situation. They did have solutions to face each problem as best as they could but maybe little more though out, but who had never know until they tried.

Kevin Manago

2/7/2016 08:43:11 pm

I do agree with what you said! I believe that all of their choices were "right" for lack of a better word. Each president has their own stylistic approach to problems, and they all did it in a way they thought was right. I believe that the sympathetic speeches are absolutely correct, which shows why there was so much applause for Clinton and Bush. I wholly agree with what you said about Bush violating some rights by his solution to terrorism.

Morgan Brum

2/7/2016 10:42:17 pm

Although there were different reactions we also have to take into consideration that there were different events that had different impact on the US. I personally think that the time when our country was in the worst fear would be from 9/11. We were more heavily affected on the outcomes of that day than the Genocides in Rwanda. Not diminishing the Rwanda’s case in any way, i just believe that the situations should be handled differently

Melissa Nevarez

2/4/2016 11:46:15 am

Each of the presidents had wrote their own speeches. Each also had addresed what they thought was going on in the United States. President Clinton explained about the victims and survivors of the Genocide in Rwanda. It happened on April 6, 1994 and was known as the most intensive slaughter. Families were murdered in their own homes and others were hunted down by soldiers through the farmlands and woods as if they were animals. Women and children were found wherever they were hiding and were killed because they were "tootsie" or even if they looked like they were. He difined the issue by stating he was going to help Rwanda to rebel their lives. President Bush explained the terrorists that destroyed the twin towers and killed thousands of people. The terrorists goals weren't to make money, but to remake the world. They hated our freedoms. Our freedoms of speech, to vote, and religion. He defined the issue and stated he wants freedom and stronger security. Now for president Obama, he spoke about the important issues that have gone horribly wrong in the United States. He defined it as coming up with ideas and solutions to try and fix all these issues, so that the United States can be a better country. Especially, they each had a solution to face. They honestly did try their best to make them happen and to fix everything. I believe what the presidents should have done were to try to protect all the people so that no one gets hurt. Try to stop the terrorists and save lives. If they tried, things could have changed.

Justine Calso

2/7/2016 06:59:01 pm

It's scary how some terrorists groups hate our country because we came up with our own government systems and laws. Some groups think that people should be ruled by divine right when our country wanted separation between church and state.

Melissa Nevarez

2/7/2016 08:44:44 pm

The most popular terrorist attack was obviously 9/11 so I agree that terrorists groups hate our country because we have everything. But for sure they don't do it for money, they do it because we have more power than them and they want to overpower us. They want to take our freedom away.

Van Truong

2/8/2016 12:02:37 am

I agree with you that the presidents should do more to protect the country and the citizens from terrorism because it is one of the priorities that the United States can focus on more but it needs to be done properly

Eskarletl Ruiz

2/4/2016 01:12:31 pm

From what I noticed about the video is President Clinton and President Bush both were more opinionated than anything. With the events that happened in Rwanda and 9/11 their solution was to fight against the "enemy" and anyone who wasn't with them was automatically against them. President Obamas speech was more serious in a way because it wasn't about fighting, it was about getting everyone free health care, which sounds good at the time, but the free plan only covers the basics, not what others who desperately need health care are in need of. What they need is usually not covered because it's so expensive. I'm sure that every decision the current president makes affects every resident as a whole. If they decide to fight or go into war with another nation it will affect residents normal lives because they could be drafted or invaded at any time. I don't know what they should have done, I would be a horrible president because I never know what to do in these situations. I normally don't get involved, but I do know that when I see a good idea I take it, not as my own of course, but I'd try to adapt it. Like Canada for example, they have higher taxes, but no one there pays for health care, ever. The taxes there are used to pay for the hospitals. Canada also never gets into much trouble. They tend to stay out of it. People there seem happy (this I strictly from an outsiders point of view), so my advice I guess to the presidents, past and present, is to be more like Canada.

Adriana Serna

2/4/2016 11:43:45 pm

I feel the same when I try to place myself in the Presidents shoes I think that any decision I make will have a great impact on someone and it might not be for the better so I would never know what to do. I see your point about Canada because from where we stand Canada's people are able to receive the care they need unlike America where hundreds of people die every year because they can not afford the health care they need. I watched the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore and it explained the difference between healthcare in Canada and all over the world compared to the United States and everyone in these countries are doing well but the U.S. refuses to go along and always seems to try and make other healthcare systems in other countries look bad yet we are one of the worst countries to receive proper healthcare since many of us cannot afford it. The situations terrible but the United States has to realize soon that we are so far behind the rest of the world and we better get with the program or we will just keep going down a dark path.

Jesmane Sanches

2/4/2016 11:56:06 pm

I completely agree. It seems like through out Clinton and Bush’s it was just heavy pathos and words. They were just saying words that didn’t lead to any real directions. Just promises of what could happen or that they’d like to happen. Whereas Obama had concrete plans. It’s even creepier that most of the things Bush was saying were either actual lies or misinformation, as seen in The End of America.

Kevin Manago

2/7/2016 08:44:47 pm

Your response makes me think about something that I'm talking about in my English class. Fallacies that politicians use. The fallacies that Clinton and Bush used are appeal to passion or emotions. They use the passion of the American Dream and the citizens' want for peace as a tool to further strengthen the embodiment of their speeches. To further support themselves, they used the appeal of the citizens.

Ha Mac

2/7/2016 09:53:56 pm

I was so amazed when you think that president Obama’s speech is more serious. Before reading your comment, I thought that Obama’s speech is not as important as two other president’s because they talk about external political issues which seemed more critical. Now that I see your point, I also learned that getting people better health care is also important. People need to care for themselves first if they want to contribute to fix other political issues.

Morgan Brum

2/7/2016 11:00:30 pm

I agree however there is a lot of differences between us and canada. We are sometimes looked at as the policemen of the world (which i don't think we should be). so with this mentality that some politicians have had in the past, we would react very differently to foreign problems. However at the same time we don't know how canada would react if they were in our shoes because it hasn't happened yet.

Kevin Manago

2/4/2016 06:55:08 pm

One major thing I realized in these three videos is that Clinton and Bush were dealing with an external issue (Rwandan Genocide and 9/11), while Obama was dealing with more of an internal issue (Government issues). Clinton's solutions took more of a passive approach. A fund for the genocide victims and the refugee camps. Bush on the other hand, took a more aggressive approach. One example of his solutions was to be able to invade on terrorist training camps without negotiation. For Clinton this issue was defined with the Rwandan President/Vice President's presence and also his speech of what was happening. For Bush, the issue was already at hand, it was the 9/11 incident that had just happened, and many people were affected emotionally. Everyone was affected by these issues and decisions. Rwandans were helped immensely with the involvement of the U.S., and everyone was impacted by 9/11.
For Obama, he resolved the issue with the government shutdown. He mentioned the fact that some people had the mentality of if we don't get what we want we're gonna cause economic chaos. His solution was to stop making excuses and to vote. To put people back to work. With that one solution, theoretically the shutdown would be over.
One thing I noticed with these three videos, is there were so many claps in the first two videos. In Obama's video, there was barely any clapping.

Charbel Mawad

2/4/2016 11:04:07 pm

I didn't even watch George Bush's address to the United States concerning the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. I have studied this topic in much depth prior to this course. Bush and his administration painted a false picture of the events pre and post 9/11 and deceived the American people masterfully. I believe it was the worst handled situation of the examples above.

Jesmane Sanches

2/5/2016 12:00:28 am

Yes! You watch the gradual decline of Congressional and I guess journalist support through the clips. Everyone was giving rallying cries of support for Clinton and Bush but Obama has been hit with adversary since he first got into office. The shade was real in the lack thereof of clapping.

Andrew Luft

2/5/2016 10:08:02 pm

Perhaps the reason there was such a difference in clapping has to do with the nature of issues being addressed. All conspiracy theories aside, Clinton and Bush were addressing issues that people can jump on board with enthusiasm, hope for rebuilding and patriotic revenge; whereas Obama, though addressing a certainly serious matter, is attacking members of the American Congress. By doing so he is consequently alienating himself from all the supporters of the people is attacking, effectively dividing the country, where in the prior speeches the presidents are attempting to unite it.

Chrissy Bishop

2/7/2016 12:03:18 pm

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice the claps. For both Bush and Clinton it was a huge flood of claps and introductions. Where as for Obama he just was like lets get this shit done with don't clap. Just camra clicks eveywhere while being blinded by the flashes of a sea of camras. Kinda disappointed me really .

Caitlin Hoover

2/7/2016 05:06:15 pm

My only revision to what you said is that 9/11 was an external issue. It was such a strong issue, and people let President Bush get away with so much, because it happened here. It was no longer just an issue happening on the other side of the world. They had attacked here, attacked us, and made absolutely sure we would be watching when it happened.
You also spoke of clapping in the videos. Probably the reason for the different levels of clapping was how emotional people were for the different situations; Clinton and Bush spoke of tragedies with a great deal of death, while Obama spoke of legislators throwing a tantrum.

Kays Nassman

2/7/2016 07:53:20 pm

I agree when you when you say that two of the presidents were dealing with external issues. Clintons approach was definitely passive, while on the other hand Bush's approach was SUPER aggressive. Not to mention in the heat of 9-11, and while people emotions were hot, his aggressive speech definitely did not help the situation at all. He made sure that out of an emotional time that Americans would form this hate towards all people that looked even close to terrorists.

blows my mind

Mosima Sona

2/7/2016 10:36:12 pm

Yeah it was good to notice the clapping during all three because it seemed to me like Obama could have wanted to get past everything in order to get down to business. What Bush puts forth, isn't likely to work and Clinton's may be a bit more possible.

George Boxberger

2/7/2016 11:25:17 pm

Clinton definitely showed more restraint during his speech than Bush did. These two speeches were reflective of the overall foreign policies of both presidents, as Clinton showed restraint when it came to foreign policy, whereas Bush took on a more aggressive posture. Obama's speech contrasted from the two in that his was of less significance in terms of representing America in the international community. Obama was merely addressing domestic issues.

Chrissy Bishop

2/4/2016 08:45:25 pm

Some of the major diffrences I see are only really wth Obamas speech compared to Bushes and. To me it seems as of both Bushes and Clintons speech are very similar. They both speak about issues affecting both the Unitied State's and other countries. They also speak a lot about attacks and focus most their time on these attacks and victims more then the problem at hand. Obama on the other hand seemed less stressed when speaking and also very strict on the issue and how not only he will change it but we all will. Also the way that both Bush and Clinton were introduced compared to Obama. Bush and Clinton were properly introduced by a speaker followed by a flood of applause. Where as there was no introduction for Obama or perhaps it wasn't shown in the video. All you hear during his speech are camra shutters clicking wildly. The ones impacted by the issues are both the United State's and Rwanda. Clinton speaks about the Rwanda Genocide in 1994, it was a mass killing of the people's. Bush spoke about 9/11 and how the attacks broke us down as Americans but can't shatter our hopes. Obama's issue was a huge deal at the time and the issue was sort of resolved. I can't tell you what the presidents should have done or said or even what I think they should of done because I don't think I can even. I believe they did what they could or what they thought was the right thing to do.

Eskarletl Ruiz

2/6/2016 03:20:00 pm

I noticed that too! It felt like the claps were endless, they kept happening. It almost sounded like a concert. I feel like President Clinton and Bush speeches were more emotional i guess, like they were just trying to invoke emotion without any solid plans, whereas President Obama did have plans and made them a reality. We've come a long way with our presidents. Hopefully it keeps improving.

Melissa Nevarez

2/7/2016 09:07:50 pm

I believe Obama's speeches topped both president Bush's and president Clinton's speeches. He really did make his speeches reality and made the United States a more positive country. Obama had a way with his words to the point where everyone was mesmerized by his plans for the common wealth for everyone.

Ha Mac

2/7/2016 10:01:04 pm

I see the same as you. It seems like Bush’s and Clinton’s speech gave more impressions because they have people to introduce their speech and they also get applause. The claps were big and long to make people think that what the president said were strongly support by people. However I like Obama’s speech the most. I think what we want is a quiet environment to focus on the speech, not the claps that cause so much distraction.

Noel Alejandre

2/7/2016 07:31:32 pm

I agree with you that president Obama gave a totally different speech comparing to Clinton and Bush. He was more focus on solving the issues we have in America instead of solving issues in other countries. Clinton wanted to lend a hand, Bush wanted to terminate the terrorist and Obama wanted to fix the government shut down.

Lawrence Erispe

2/7/2016 08:57:22 pm

I agree, Obama has actual solutions to the problems he was faced with versus Clinton and Bush's speech where they had solutions that were vague. Their solutions could have applied to anyone and can be said by anyone. They were not solutions that could be applied to those problems. I feel that it was just meant to bring people together and give hope to the victims.

George Boxberger

2/4/2016 09:15:08 pm

I noticed that President Clinton chose to adopt a more apologetic tone than Obama or Bush did, partially due to the grave nature of what he was discussing and the fact that he took accountability. In contrast, Bush’s address to Congress was anything but apologetic, rather, he chose to rally nationalism and patriotism, in a sharp rebuke of the terrorists. He refused to give the perpetrators of 9/11 any legitimacy, and promised a strong and sharp response to the attacks. Clinton’s speech differed from Bush’s and Obama’s in that his speech largely had to do with international affairs and the role of American leadership throughout the world. He addressed the victims of the Rwandan Genocide, and admitted that America could have acted more aggressively in order to prevent it. This demonstrates the far-reaching effects that the actions of the United States have upon all the people of the world.

Obama’s address entirely had to do with domestic affairs, as it was regarding the government shutdown that Congress and him failed to agree upon. Bush’s address, while pertaining to international affairs following the 9/11 attacks, had more to do with reassuring Congress and the American people that the nation would press forward in a time of grave crisis. His speech was intended to calm down anxious feelings at home and reassure Americans, as was Obama’s address. Personally, I felt Bush should have focused less on appealing to emotions and using politics of fear, and should have instead been more rational, and discussed that we must remain rational in the face of terrorism, and not be swayed by fear, which is what the terrorists want. Furthermore, I disagreed with his black-and-white message of saying, “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Bush should have been clear about the threat facing America and shown a strong response. However, he should have exercised more caution in sending troops to Afghanistan, and allowing the president to have more powers on how to respond to a terrorist attack. He practically gave the president a blank check to declare war to prevent terrorism, which was a knee-jerk response in my opinion. Terrorists seek to influence public policy and inspire fear and overreactions in the general populace, which Bush was complicit with.

Obama was about as optimistic as he could be following a sharply partisan government shutdown. Furthermore, Obama’s speech had larger, more partisan political implications attached to it. Obama, a Democrat, obviously sought to portray his own party in a positive light, and highlight the Republicans as causing the shutdown, while simultaneously promising to work with Republicans to the extent that he could. I felt that he was correct in implying that Republicans were mostly responsible for the shutdown, but he should have highlighted more similarities between both parties, and provided more optimism and future plans for both parties to work together in order to avoid a future shutdown.

Adriana Serna

2/5/2016 12:23:28 am

Terrorism is a hard thing to destroy because people are so easily frightened and as soon as a few terrible people strike fear in the heart of a country then that nation assumes that everyone of that race, religion, and culture thinks in the same way as those terrorist. But that is exactly what the terrorist want. They want people to turn against others so then they have proven that what they did is for the good of their people and god when it really isn't. As Malala Yousafzai stated, "With guns you can kill terrorist, with education you can kill terrorism." Educating people about terrorism and how fear fuels the fire of terrorism and the terrorist will we be able to stop creating hatred in our hearts because of a few terrible people. Let's not given in to the terrorist or to terrorism.

Yunlin Xie

2/6/2016 02:24:06 pm

I agree that Bush should have focused less on appealing to emotions and using politics of fear, and it is just what the terrorists want. He should make people calm down and lead people to face this issue rationally. However, I can understand. Because it is much more difficult to give the public a certain answer or solution than inspire their common anger.

Caitlin Hoover

2/7/2016 05:22:25 pm

Very good analysis; I found myself agreeing with everything you said. My only complaint was how your subject seemed to jump around a bit in the middle. Your second paragraph seems to set up to talk about Obama, and then suddenly switches to talking about Bush. Then you go back to Obama at the end. It left me a bit confused.

Justine Calso

2/4/2016 09:33:50 pm

Clinton used a sympathetic approach to discuss the genocide in Rwanda. He commented on how America didn’t act quickly enough to intervene and how refugee camps shouldn’t have been safe havens for killers. He seemed to take it personally and came up with solutions and steps to work hand in hand with Rwanda to end violence. Those impacted by the issues were the peoples of Rwanda, but it could also include countries who have, or are experiencing, genocide. Bush on the other hand, had a more direct and powerful tone in his speech. He mentioned how America stayed strong after 9/11 and thanked other countries for their support. His demands for the Taliban were to deliver all leaders of Al Qaeda, release foreign nationals, close every terrorist training camp to the US to ensure they weren’t in use anymore and to give the US access to all terrorist camps as well. His thought process for these demands seemed hopeful, but I’m not sure if he really thought the Taliban would follow all of his wishes. He shouldn’t have made the country paranoid by passing excessive laws. Finally, Obama spoke about how the senate and house should work together to propose a bill to fix the government. He also came up with solutions to get our government going again. His speech seemed more factual, with direct quotes from various sources. The people impacted by his speech were Americans.

Brandon L

2/4/2016 10:23:52 pm

One interesting thing saying Obama's speech was seeming more factual, that would be quite interesting if those direct quotes from various sources were more directly implied to the speech at hand. But I do agree it did seem factual.

Antonio Villa

2/10/2016 09:11:30 pm

It definitely did help President Clinton's appeal as a sympathetic leader with great influence in the efforts to prevent such tragedies, but the solutions did not seem helpful. The European colonization and motives have always been evident, and during the genocide and other events Nazi Germany or the Armenian genocide and the genocide in Darfur. The politicians have always acted shy to the face of the evidence, including Clinton. Being shy is political nature. Each action carries such heavy repercussions, no one moves. It is a lie that human rights is a sincere interest if your political image weighs more than the lives of others, on foreign or domestic soil.

Caitlin Hoover

2/4/2016 09:49:16 pm

The main difference I noticed was how the presidents addressed the people they were speaking to. Clinton was a sympathetic supporter, asking the world to come together to become better and ensure the tragedy didn’t occur again; he was firm, but not overly harsh. Bush’s speech was sharp and accusatory, making demands left and right; he meant business, and his demands would be met, no “if”s “and”s or “but”s. Finally, Obama was challenging, calling people out and trying to gain sympathizers and drag the republicans’ supporters over to his side of the argument. Of course, you have to take into account what each was speaking on, and the lengths of their speeches. Clinton was talking about a tragedy that happened far away, Bush was speaking on a horror close to home, and Obama was calling out some legislators that were threatening a government shutdown because they weren’t getting their way. Clinton made you feel like you were supposed to be sympathetic and heartbroken and guilty for causing the strife that led up to the genocide, even though the genocide happened before I was even born; Bush made you feel like you were supposed to be grapping you pitchforks and torches and storming the enemy’s castle with righteous fury; Obama made you feel like you’re dealing with a bunch of rebellious teenagers who are all “me me me!” and “my way or the highway”, and who don’t care if the highway meant they eff everything and everyone up in order to get what they want. How should they have handled the situations? I can’t think of anything Clinton or Obama could have done better at this moment, but Bush definitely crossed several lines with several laws that were passed. Finding terrorist is good; claiming everyone is a terrorist just because they don’t like you is not.

Brandon L

2/4/2016 10:24:10 pm

At the end of your reply about Bush crossing lines and laws i'm not specifically sure that he did within his speech maybe later he crossed lines but based off his speech I don't think he did but I could be wrong i am not sure.

Elena Saldivar

2/5/2016 11:43:48 am

I found that same thing when I was watching the videos my. I could see the differences how each president address their specific topics and how they went about speaking the issue. It is true from what bush had done in the fight against terrorism crossed bounders of the constitution.

Yunlin XIe

2/6/2016 02:52:30 pm

I like your analysis about this three videos. It is interesting to observe their ways of presenting their own speeches. They have different topics and use different ways, which they think is the best way, to appeal to the public’s consensus and sympathy. No matter what topics and ways of presenting they use, they want to leave a good impression on the public and want to get the support from the public. Everything is for stabilizing the president’s position and building up a good image.

Mosima Sona

2/7/2016 10:49:26 pm

The way you speak to your audience is pretty important and it definitely effects how it'll influence them. I saw a bit of it too when watching the videos and the way they all go into their speeches I think shows parts of them that they want to primarily focus on.

George Boxberger

2/7/2016 11:30:48 pm

I thought it was interesting the point you made about how all three presidents identified a clear enemy or obstacle that got in the way of their goals, and seek to make themselves look strong. This is a typical tactic that politicians use: they demonize their opponents in order to portray themselves as superior. It is all part of a process of political posturing by politicians. In some cases, like Bush's, politicians capitalize from voter fear (fear mongering) in order to gain popular support, such as what Trump is doing in this campaign.

Ha Mac

2/4/2016 10:16:53 pm

All three presidents did a good job. Their speeches are persuasive. In my opinion, president Clinton and President Bush are similar in that their words are strong; they give evidences and example to make the audiences be proud of the America and give them the motivation to follow the presidents’ points of views. Both of the two presidents are talking about external issues that are the same matters of many countries, while president Obama talks about issues within America. Clinton and Bush’s tone of voice are strong, solid and enthusiastic, when president Obama’s voice is slower and calmer. Clinton mainly talks about the Rwanda genocide. People had to suffered a lot; even women and children could not avoid being tortured and killed. Therefore, president Clinton gave his speech to raise people’s awareness of this issues and call for action to help Rwanda overcome this critical situation. President Bush mentions the terrorists who did harm to a lot of innocent people and he gave his speech to prevent the issues from getting more serious. As for president Obama, he mentioned the internal problems in America and encouraged people to vote. All thee presidents have different ways of presenting their speeches. President had another African American to say some words and then introduce him to the audience. President Bush’s speech was filled with continuous applause. Obama’s speech is more quiet. In my opinion, Obama’s speech is my favorite because it is plain, quiet and easy to understand. To sum up, I think all the president made good speeches and were able to persuade people.

Keyan mehrabi link

2/4/2016 10:44:07 pm

I agree that they were all persuasive, but only to the people that want something to believe in. I believe that people become so vulnerable and when someone gives them a motivational speech, they immediately believe it and agree with it. Also, I can't say much because at first I personally loved Obama's speeches. He really knew how to get our attention and motivate us that change was coming. When i look at the stats, with him in office a lot of things changed, but im not sure if it was because of him. Since he was in office, ill say yes.

Brandon L

2/4/2016 10:24:27 pm

Some major differences in each president’s speech were some of the build up and key points of each speech. It could’ve been the type of audience each president was presented with but you can easily see how Bush’s audience was nearly clapping every bullet point on his mind when it came to him talking. As well he could’ve been a good memorizer or was prepared a lot more in advance than the other president’s speeches since it did seem like he didn’t even have a piece of paper to reflect back on, while the others obviously you could tell did. But at hand it could as well be the issues presented, obviously when it comes to Americans and an issue such as terrorism within our own country compared to other nations, or our own economic issues it can be a bit easier to be I guess patriotic in one issue than of another. The most prominent issue being terrorism, the people impacted of course were Americans. As well in Obama’s speech Americans are the main factor but as well as the economy as a whole and the debt wall America is currently in. But in Clinton’s speech it is one where the mostly impacted were non-americans but citizens of Rwanda. The consequences were hard to identify but obviously within Obama’s and Bush’s speech the consequences besides what has already happened aren’t directed straightforwardly at American’s but possibly other people especially in Bush’s speech. While Obama’s speech it could have been more pushed toward the Republicans voting issues. Which I suppose you could infer a consequence but not specifically.

Noel Alejandre

2/7/2016 07:46:43 pm

Bush and Clinton had the same kind of energy in their speech but Obama and Bush were trying to do something for the American people. Obama's speech was more calm and intellectual while Clinton's and Bush's was a bit more passive aggressive. Some times they have to do things like that to get the peoples attention. That is how the presidents portrayed their speeches

Lawrence Erispe

2/7/2016 09:01:11 pm

I noticed that as well that during Bush's speech there were a was a lot of clapping maybe because the audience was an avid supporter of him or really agreed with his solutions to the problem. I also feel like the reason why they were clapping so much because they were in shock from the recent attacks, that anyone who has any type of solutions they were happy to hear it.

Keyan Mehrabi link

2/4/2016 10:32:02 pm

If you think about it, the president's job is to make us feel like they are always doing the right thing. So one president will tell us war is the right thing because we have to destroy the enemy, and another president will tell us that democracy is the right way to go. It all lies within us to truly understand whether what each president does is the right thing.President Clinton talks in a very theatrical way. I'm not sure if it is to show he cares, to gain the people's trust, or if that's really how he is but nonetheless he talks about helping those affected. He discusses how he wanted to help earlier but why didn't he? it doesnt make much sense. Then you have president bush, who believes that war is the answers to defending our soil. By having Obama as our president, we have learned that war isn't the answer, but striking deals with different countries is far more effective. Losing money, losing people, and having no outcome is not a good strategy. We are not living in hundreds of years ago where wars were a thing. Right now, it shouldn't even be discussed. I heard some of these presidential candidates mention that war is always a last option, but it should't be an option. I guarantee that all countries would never pass up an agreement to make a deal that will benefit them and America. But, i have never really been a fan of presidents because they come and go and you never know whats next. I have enjoyed what Obama has done recently because he seems to me as a very peaceful person, but it doesnt matter because someone can come into office this year and destroy everything. They will take the stand and give a speech and everyone will believe every word they say. Then in a couple years everyone will start complaining all over again.

Charbel Mawad

2/4/2016 10:53:26 pm

These were all very delicate subjects to be handled and it was interesting to see how differently each handled their issue. Though I am no fan of either Bush, listening to Bush Jr. speak about the 9/11 attacks was just as emotional for me this time around as when it was when I listened to it in my history class when he originally made the speech. I have to disagree about American's not being effected by the Rwanda genocide. Perhaps we were never physically effected by it but watching Hotel Rwanda still upsets to this day, so many years after it happened. I believe tragedies such as these effect everyone, everywhere, no matter the distance.

Landon Tang

2/7/2016 10:09:59 pm

Each President has varying degrees of charm and charisma and these videos illustrated as such. In my opinion Obama was the most charismatic, Clinton the most easy to understand and comprehend, and Bush the most effective in terms of the purpose of the speech. I don't believe all Presidents are equal in terms of speaking ability and I'm sure each has a different staff with varying abilities; I would like to see a scenario in which each President was given speeches on the same topic written by the same pool of authors.

Andrew Luft

2/4/2016 10:39:04 pm

In each of the speeches given by presidents of the United States a different type of issue is being addressed. President Clinton is speaking on the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, President Bush is focusing on terrorism and 9/11, and President Obama is addressing the government shutdown. The ways in which these differ is that each one of them applies to a different type of fundamental response people might have. What I mean by this is that the issue of genocide in Rwanda is something that people cannot really do anything about directly so the tone is sad, sympathetic, and grieving. The way President Clinton addresses this to enact this type of response is through not only his rhetoric in order to appeal to our pathos, but also his facial expressions and body language. President Bush on the other hand took a more inspiring approach in how he tried to rally the American people in the name of freedom against those who would try to destroy everything we’ve built; he made it personal and seemingly challenged the American people to be just that, the patriots of old who made this nation strong. President Obama on the other hand almost seems like an adult trying to get children to behave. During the lockout members of the Republican Party basically refused to do their job because they weren’t getting what they wanted so President Obama came at them with more of an Ethos appealing approach in order to get them to hypothetically pull their heads out of their asses and get back to work. The people affected were for the most part Americans, but in regards to the speeches of President Clinton and Bush and the actions directly following others were affected too. President Clinton’s speech impacted the way America is viewed by other countries around the world and also had an effect on the citizens of Rwanda. President Bush’s speech ended up leading the U.S.A into a war and impacted countless families of American, Afghani, Iranian, Iraqi, and various other Middle Eastern countries. President Bush’s speech also led to the Patriot Act, which we have discussed in class. President Obama saw us out of the government shutdown, but really impacted the way people view our government. I’m not sure one can really say what should have been done because things happened the way that they did and each of them have external pressures being applied to them, but overall honesty is the best policy.

Arienna Jones

2/6/2016 11:22:40 pm

I really like the point you make about how the topic of each presidents' speech influences the way the speech is presented. I also agree with you point that honesty is the best policy and that it is difficult for us to understand, as non-government workers, the kinds of pressures that are on those people.

Charbel Mawad

2/4/2016 10:44:18 pm

In regards to all the clips above, each United States President chose different ways to address the nation on its social issues. President George H.W. Bush discussed the Iraqi invasion in Kuwait. During his address, he demanded that all Iraqi troops leave Kuwait. He gives examples of why Iraq should not be involved with issues involving Kuwait, such as its wealth and high oil supply. He gives a pledge and gives sanctions that would force Iraq out of Kuwait. He provides information telling Americans that Iraq has a history or aggression, but the United States government will work with other nations to stop Iraqi aggression. President Bill Clinton chose to build awareness in different countries that act against genocide. He made remarks to those families who lost love ones in the Rwanda genocide. President George W. Bush spoke with the nation following September 11, 2001. He proposes to congress that America go after the Taliban and hold them accountable for the thousands killed on September 11th. He chose to build a sense of hope for Americans after nine days of sadness and grief. He hints at the start of the War on Terror. He speaks to the Nation with a sense of making them feel protected after the terrorist attacks. President Barack Obama speaks in an aggressive tone during his address to the nation. He is known for this trait. I believe that many Presidents should speak this way because it engages US citizens and helps them understand the issues at hand. He talks about the 2013 government shutdown and how Republicans should not hold the US citizens accountable for their mistakes in Congress. The American citizens were impacted by each of these issues except the Rwanda genocide. America was there to help and give strength to their people. The other three issues hurt American citizens emotionally, physically and financially. Unfortunately, presidential decisions did not help or give benefit to the nation.

Arienna Jones

2/4/2016 10:46:36 pm

I think the biggest differences I noticed between these presidential speeches was how President Clinton and President Bush were very gentle, sympathetic, and spoke more towards the healing process of people as opposed to President Obama’s very direct, confrontational speech working more towards fixing the situation. All three were very good speeches, and addressed the situation as was appropriate for the time. I think that the genocide in Rwanda and even the attack on the World Trade centers at 9/11 demand a more sensitive, emotional response than the political tug-of-war that President Obama addresses, which in turn demands a more practical, problem solving response.
As in every political decision, eventually, the people of the nation are the ones being affected. Whether that nation is America, Rwanda, or somewhere else, it is the people that will either benefit from or suffer the consequences of these decisions. We hope that of course the people would benefit, but we know that that is not always possible, which is why these choices are so difficult to make, and why they are so debated. Its hard to know what the best course of action would be, I can’t imagine what it would have been like to make these decisions as the leader of our nation. I think that there is a balance that needs to be found – perhaps President Clinton could have offered stronger action steps to help heal Rwanda after this terrible event, perhaps President Bush could have taken a more balanced view point on the terrorist situation, and perhaps President Obama could have addressed the issues of America’s debt in a gentler way.

Keyan Mehrabi link

2/4/2016 11:02:12 pm

I honestly believe that their sympathy was just a way to show America that their plans/solutions were the correct ones. Without being sympathetic, America would not want to listen to them right? They show that they care and try to gain America's trust. Without the trust of the people, it won't work out great for anybody.

Arienna Jones

2/6/2016 11:19:24 pm

Wow, I didn't even think of that! Thats such an interesting insight. That makes me wonder just how much of any presidential speech is sincere, and how much is just a publicity stunt! I would hope that there is some genuine sympathy, or a genuine desire to solve some issues <3

Landon Tang

2/7/2016 10:04:00 pm

Clinton was in my opinion the best prepared speaker. He acknowledged the events in Rwanda and had thoughtful statements on the White House's stance on the issues in the country at the time. Bush catered to fear mongering and raising panic in the US at the time of the terrorist attack by focusing on revenge and other negative statements to accomplish his agenda. I believe Obama was the most charismatic speaker, although not as prepared as Clinton he is a naturally gifted orator in which is able to influence many.

Antonio Villa

2/10/2016 08:51:33 pm

I do agree that the Presidents' responses to the issues regarding Rwanda and the September 11th may seem more sensitive on the surface because it involves an immediate connection to lost lives and violent situations, but a government shutdown, especially the United States, would have lead to very similar outcomes on domestic soil if it was not properly addressed or resolved. President Obama was trying to prevent a larger issue that luckily did not unfold. Many people depend on government programs to live day by day, the economic structure is not a thing you can disregard as a less sensitive issue, because as he addressed, it could lead to chaos; and that is an understatement.

Kaysie Nassman

2/4/2016 11:00:50 pm

While I watched each video, I jotted down notes about what I saw, heard, and experienced while listening to each president. I couldn't help but gain a little emotion when moving from video to video.

With Clintons speech, he was sympathetic, and understanding of the huge genocide that Rwanda experienced. Clinton had a way to make the people of Rwanda feel secure in the idea that the US was coming in to help while making sure the American people were also believers in this movement. There was a subtly feel about Clintons approach. On the other hand, when it came to Bush's speech in regards to 9-11, I couldn't help, but think to myself "Is this guy for real?" — Honestly speaking, IF i were older at the time and had been able to understand the extent of the issue, I probably would have agreed out of fear, and because of how tragic and scary the event was so watch, but at the same time had a feeling of "I don't completely agree with everything coming out of his mouth.”
Bush made many comments and examples out of terrorists. Claiming to not end what we started until EVERY terrorist is caught and "defeated" ... its like... He was deliberately trying to make sure that 1) we would always remember the tragic event when we saw someone who looked like a terrorist, through that 2) Hope that every american would get angry, and turn to every person who "looked" like a terrorist with a watchful/ and questionable eye. (which is what happened ) AND THEN CAME THE PATRIOT ACT. Hello!!! This is similar to the video was watched in class, “The End Of America.” The Ten Tactics = Bush’s Speech. When It comes to Obamas speech, he makes the Republicans look childish (lol) and repeatedly gives examples or that, and stating how “ they should just work together to make things better.” He brings up a bunch of different hot topics, and invites anyone to come to him and talk about how to follow up with these issues. Obviously in Clintons speech, Rwanda was affected by the issue, but I think us in a way were affected by it as well, in efforts to send help out to Rwanda (I am not exactly sure how though). With Bush, I believe us as American citz, were impacted by this speech. In a more negative way than in a positive way. With the Patriot Act, living in fear, watching over our shoulders for “all these terrorists everywhere”. (stupid, lol) I also think that the people that looked like the stereotypical examples that Bush gave about terrorists, that were harmless here IN the states already, were hugely impacted as well. As for Obamas speech, I had a hard time here, but I think the people that owned homes, and business were impacted by the gov shut down the most. In all of these issues, the consequences always landed back on the amercian people, we suffer in every event and every “fix it”.

Chelsea Payaqui

2/7/2016 09:27:16 pm

I agree with you that Clinton's speech was sympatheti, and Obama's having a democratic speech. It also bothered me that Bush's speech was very forward and it seemed like all he wanted to do was place the blame on someone to distract from our own issues. Rather than comforting us and trying to move forward on a brighter note, it seemed like he was just looking for a fight

Chelsea Payaqui

2/4/2016 11:18:40 pm

One of the major differences between each president’s speeches is how it is delivered. Clinton and Bush take a more pathos approach while Obama takes an ethos approach. Clinton takes responsibility for not reacting soon enough to the genocide occurring in Rwanda. He only touches on how he is going to support Rwanda through this tragedy and mainly focuses on how it was not taken seriously enough in the beginning. He talks of America being the number one supporter of rebuilding the nation and the hope he have to creating a stronger defense. Bush’s address on 9/11 is very forward. Unlike Clinton who talks about the aftermath of the people, the hope and support we’re giving and building a stronger foundation, Bush focuses on the punishment and the demands he has for the enemy. He makes it clear who it is that we are targeting and doesn’t hold back with how willing he is to go to war to protect the physical safety of our citizens. Obama is very factual in the way he speaks. He goes thoroughly into each step that will be taken towards his goals clear and in this way his promises to the nation feel more legitimate. Both Clinton and Bush talk of the tragedies as external issues while Obama figures out ways to strengthen the government from within. All three president’s make it clear in reminding us that we are still a strong nation making choices that will benefit everyone. I think they all handled each issue very well in that they catered to our immediate needs, mainly comfort in the issue and telling us what we want to hear.

Nimsy V

2/5/2016 12:23:06 am

Chelsea, you did a great job summarizing what was said and done in the Presidents speeches. It is interesting that you mentioned the different modes of persuasion each president used. It didn't cross my mind while watching the videos but it makes sense. Its a great strategy to use when you are talking in front of a lot of people who had gone through traumatic situations.

Andrew Luft

2/5/2016 09:54:02 pm

I also like how you brought up the modes of rhetoric used by each President. I too noticed this and it helped to deliver a clearer insight as to what each one was driving at. As for how they all handed the issues I agree that they said what we wanted and were conditioned to hear. In so doing they were able to get across the manipulative point they were each driving at. As we look back it is very clear what each was trying to accomplish, the most obvious being George W. Bush.

Rohit Mathew

2/4/2016 11:19:04 pm

President Clinton utilized a thoughtful way to deal with talk about the genocide in Rwanda. He remarked on how America could have acted upon the situation in order to make it better, by being more prompt. Clinton showed that he wasn't a man of excuses, but yet, neither were his actions sufficient. President Bush on the other hand reacted extremely to an extreme situation, not justifying his reaction... in fact,emphasizing on the rash decisions made during such crucial periods. His response signifies paranoia, and crude enforcement of power. By laying down numerous laws, he expected too much, too soon. His hope was to re-instate stability and security to the nation, but his method of captioning random citizens/immigrants as terrorists and enforcing laws over the Taliban, was wrong. President Obama talked about how the senate and house ought to cooperate to propose a bill to settle the Government. He Highlighted how the republicans were responsible were the shutdown, and to a certain extent, he was able to patch this internal issue that he rallied to fix.This makes President Obama more of a realist in terms of achieving goals in contrast to the other two presidents. Each President had their own reasons to act out in the way that they did, whilst one's actions may have been more extreme than the others, we need to contemplate the situation each president was put under and asses the severity of each. It's something we cant contemplate, which is exactly why we need our leaders to make the right decisions for us.

Chrissy Bishop

2/7/2016 12:08:12 pm

The way you explain Bush's speech it almost as if he wasn't being honest. Is that true? Or that he was being way to sympathetic for the victims of these attacks? Almost a staged kinda of a speech. Seems as if he was just telling us things to make Americans feel better or it's what we all want to hear.

Justine Calso

2/7/2016 07:16:00 pm

I agree with you. President Obama was the most realistic in terms of his solutions. President Bush expected all terrorists to surrender themselves and their training camps. If Bush's wishes came true, the war would have ended a long time ago!

Adriana Serna

2/4/2016 11:26:16 pm

Some of the major differences that I noticed in how each president chose to address their specific political and social problems during their terms were how they spoke to the people that they were addressing. In Clintons speech about the genocide in Rwanda he is very sympathetic to the nation and its people, to the families of Tutsi and moderate Hutu that had lost family members or were displaced from their homes, and he states that his and Rwanda’s nation are going to be working together to implement judicial systems to help stop genocide and to rebuild the lives and community of Rwanda. This means the involvement of the United States in Rwanda’s government but with the help of other international communities. Bush was also sympathetic to the people of the United States who were affected by the tragedy of 9/11. He wants to make sure that this tragedy does not repeat itself and he and others will do anything in their power to provide safety to the citizens of America. So Clinton and Bush are the same in that they address their issue with sympathy and the notion to stop the tragedies that have unfolded in each country. Obama was different in the sense that he was not talking to a crowd with sympathy over a tragedy but rather he was being stern and straight forward on the political issue of how the government of the United States, specifically the republican senate and house, was acting unreasonably and childish because they did not get the budget they wanted so they threatened to cause a recession in the nation, in other words cause a “government shutdown” which would put us, the citizens in danger of losing money on 401k’s, home values fall, increased loans and a very deep recession. I do not know of the consequences of president Clintons decision on the communities in Rwanda but I find it a little alarming that the United States was intervening in the political system of Rwanda. I know that Clinton means well so that the U.S. would help develop a strong judicial system in Rwanda to stop another genocide from happening but I find that whenever the United States enters into the political affairs of other nations they tend to want to put forth their beliefs and ideals so that other nations will think and do like they do. In other words the U.S. wants done what is in their best interest not the other nations so I hope whatever the U.S. helped Rwanda with was in Rwanda’s best interest and benefited them not the United States personal interests. President Obama’s decision that addresses the issue of budget and the threat by republicans to cause a government shutdown is to stop the “game” and this threat of a shutdown and to actually sit down and really talk about a budget so the people of the U.S. would not lose their jobs or anything else. He also talks about raising the debt ceiling which allows the treasury department to pay for what congress has already spent. Let’s hope we do not go into another recession because certain people are not getting what they want which would not be helping the people. Bush signed the Patriot act to help keep the citizens of America safe but it allows for all our rights to be violated, putting disregard for almost, if not all, of the Bill of Rights. So far the consequences of this has caused many hardships on innocent American citizens which was even stated in “The End of America” so I think he could have handled the issues at hand better. How? I’m not quite sure but something that does not violate all our Amendments would be great!

Nimsy V

2/8/2016 12:03:15 am

Adriana, you elaborated very well on all the main point that were presented in all three videos. You gave a well explained response to all the questions and you made a good deep connection to what your knowledge is on the topics. Very well constructed post.

Yunlin Xie

2/4/2016 11:34:07 pm

1,President Clinton explained about the victims and survivors of the Genocide in Rwanda.He try to use this issue to appeal to people’s sympathy, and he said he would help Rwanda to rebel their lives. Clinton’s speech differed from Bush’s and Obama’s in that his speech is more related with international affairs, which I think has not too much to do with us. For a lot of people who cannot even enjoy basic living needs, I do not think they would be interested in the role of American leadership throughout the world. His tone is gentle and sounds apologetically.

2,President Bush explained the terrorists that destroyed the twin towers and killed thousands of people. What he said makes me feel he just want to persuade us that “you can be heroes, believe in yourselves”. And what he was doing is create a “common enemy”, so that the audience would be agitated as he expected.

3,president Obama, he spoke about the important issues that have gone horribly wrong in the United States. His speech is my favorite. The tone sounds comfortable. He talked something related closely to us and he came up ideas and solutions to try and fix all these issues, so that the United States can be a better country. Although the result and what he did was not that perfect. Getting everyone free health care, which sounds good at the time, but the most expensive expense on medical issue cannot be covered (taxes increase).

Matthew Mullen

2/7/2016 11:06:52 pm

I agree with you about Bush. He is using fear and anger to his advantage to manipulate the emotions of American citizens. It seems that his speech was a look much closer into what Naomi Wolf was talking about in "End of America". It seems that he was more focused on revenge more than mourning for the victims of 911.

Nadia Villanueva

2/7/2016 11:23:23 pm

I agree about Obama’s speech, it was my favorite too and exactly for the same reason, I like that he gave solutions in a peaceful way and not trying to scary people and without filling their heads with thoughts of fear. And I didn't thought about the idea of "common enemy" regarding the intentions of Bush, it is a good way of analyzing.

josue monroy

2/4/2016 11:40:22 pm

One of the differences I noticed in those 3 videos was the fact that president Clinton and president bush addressed external issues. The genocide in Rwanda and the terrorist attacks of 911, those were the two topics addressed by those two presidents, and president Obama addressed more of a domestic issue.
President Clinton had a more sympathetic approach on his speech due to high sensitivity of the issue he was addressing. Thousands of people including children and women were brutally massacred during the genocide in Rwanda. It was most definitely a very sensitive matter. The president’s goal was to bring hope to all the victims and all citizens of Rwanda, and set up a plan of action to help them rebuilt there country, and to help prevent such events from occurring again.
President bush’s speech was about the war against terrorist and to let the people know what needed to be done to bring justice for those responsible for the 911 attacks. All Americans were impacted by those actions taken by the government against terrorism. Unconstitutional Acts and propositions were passed and for the most part affected a vast majority of us.
President Obama was pretty straightforward with his speech. He made republicans seem selfish and carless for taking such actions not considering the negative impact that such decisions will affect the American people. He wanted both parties to come to an agreement to end the government shutdown to prevent greater consequences from occurring, consequences that will have a negative impact in which the American people will be affected by.

Trevor Davies

2/4/2016 11:50:23 pm

Over time each president had to react to a new and up and coming threat to interests of the United States. With each president comes a new and dangerous external threat so each of them are handled in their own unique way. Other time we have learned how to comfort the American people, or disguising the true that is being said, as to secure our trust that the presidents decisions are in fact moral and in the interest of the people. When the curtain is finally opened and we see the transplant true to what happened, the people that are effect by the issues can vary. If this is war, then people internationally can be effect because the president could be hiding what really happened like Guantánamo Bay where prisoners were tortured to get information from them.

Jesmane Sanches

2/4/2016 11:51:08 pm

Clinton seems to rely heavily on pathos, which is understandable because his audience consisted of genocide survivors. He came off as very neighborly. He stated the goals of humanitarian relief or aid in helping Rwanda, He was especially eager with creating a democracy on their soil. He distanced the U.S. from the concept of genocide as if the action was foreign to his heritage. I think it’s so ironic that the U.S. has always been the first to condemn genocide and violence when this country was built on it and makes profit off it all the time. I suppose it’s a matter of time and place or something.
Bush focused a lot on finding a mysterious enemy who wishes to attack the ideas and theoretical ethics of U.S. society. There were a lot of promises of fixing problems with no real solutions or explanations as to what has lead up to the problem. He relied heavily on pathos in speech with lots of loaded words.
Both administrations carried out inhuman attacks on people of color countries to further the goals of the U.S. With Bush attacking domestic and foreign citizens zealously. It’s really creepy listening to the 9-11 address, knowing that most of it is misinformation or outright lies. However I did notice that Bush repeatedly referred to Islam as a peaceful religion and that Muslim leaders and scholars were condemning Al Qaida and the attack. Yet here we are where Islamophobia is just as rampant as it was then, especially with growing terrorist attacks and ISIS supporters. Both Clinton and Bush also seemed to have a lot more support from Congress which is staunchly different from Obama. Obama’s clip focused entirely on how he wished Republicans would cooperate and cease the government shutdown. It’s as if, as time went on from Clinton, Congress no longer has the ability to help the people they represent. Republicans are set if not in maintaining the status quo then to regress the political atmosphere in favor of the 1%. Obama also shared his ideas on how he would go about change if the Republicans would stop with their temper tantrum. All Obama is asking for is for health care reform that can be readily available to citizens.
In the Bush administration everyone and their dog was affected, because everyone was a suspect due to the Patriot Act. Even today we are being treated as potential terrorists by the NSA’s spying. I’m not very familiar with the Clinton administration, but I know that he basically sold out the U.S. Citizens to corporations. All sorts of things were privatized and the concept of corporations having personhood was rampant. I’m not sure what Clinton should have done because I’m unfamiliar with his administration. Bush was just a mess. I understand that everyone was confused and afraid, but they really jumped the gun on responding to the situation. Also to have lied to the public when really they wanted an excuse to invade for resources is overall gross. It’s just bizarre and creepy, but it’s not like the public would condone something like that--hopefully. Asking for government transparency is like pulling teeth for these people. I’m really unsure of what Obama could do because he’s had the same problems all through his term. Which is no cooperation from Republican leaders. I’m seeing a recurring theme of social sickness in the Republican party.

Van Truong

2/4/2016 11:51:27 pm

Each president has his way of dealing with certain situations, some deal with the situations better than others but they still all have a common practice that they try to promote to the American public. Each other these three presidents in their speeches give the public reassurance, make the public feel like they are safe and are being helped and provided by he government. Although some of the solutions give in each speech were put more effectively to use by certain individuals they all reassured us that the government is doing its best to provide security for America. President bush and president Clinton have a very similar tone of speaking, they are very shallow speakers and are aggressive but when they speak in an aggressive tone it's more of a passive aggressive than they are intending to be. As for president Obama the way he delivers speeches is very passionate he uses hand gestures and speaks very directly to the issue itself giving solutions and examples of how the problem could be fix. President Clinton mentioned Rwanda and president brush mentioned 9/11, both terrible events that happened to our society and when they were dealt with it affected the American republic more than they know. Rwanda was a massive extinction of a human population in a couple of months and since it wasn't on our home soil it was not really brought up to the public until later on. For 9/11 that was one of the most devastating events in American history, but the way president bush played it out was not the right move. He decided to take a nation into war without knowing who the real threat was, he believe that sadam hussan was harboring terrorists in Iraq and deciding to lead the United States into war without real hard evidence. This cost the American public greatly because as we went into the war president bush also did not raise taxes in order to fund the war and that's one of the reasons why we are in so much debt today. President Obama provided the nation with a free health care plan, that really helped millions of Americans who could not buy affordable health care. Obamacare is a great idea and incentive, but of course with great idea there are always oppositions which were the maybe republicans who said the budget could not afford anymore spending yet, the military spends more than double what obamacare was asking for from congress. When a president takes term alot of what happens during his term is based on the people who are in congress and if he has many opposers almost nothing gets done, I'm very surprised Obama has done that many significant things while being in office with all the opposition he's faced.

Elena Saldivar

2/5/2016 11:57:06 am

I half to agree each president has there own way of dealing with situations, but I think that is based on the personality of each president, some are more go getters than other’s, but in the end we have good plans and bad, but it all depends on the president.

Josue monroy

2/6/2016 11:30:19 pm

Yes I agree with you. President Clinton and president bush did share a very simiular tone of speaking during their speeches than president Obama. The subject in each topic was very different. President Clinton and president bush were dealing with more serious issues where a lot of lives were lost while president Obama was only dealing with a disagreement between two political parties.

Noel Alejandre

2/4/2016 11:54:58 pm

The major differences between all three presidents is the approach they had towards the situation. President Bill Clinton seem more understanding comparing to Bush and Obama and wanted to help prevent genocide from happening again in Rwanda or any other country in the world. He asked other countries for help to prevent it from happening again. President George W. Bush was a little more aggressive by wanting to eliminate all terrorist activities. He feels since the problem occur to civilians from all over the world here in the US, that it is a world problem and we need to get rid of all the terrorist that live in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama seem like he had more knowledge about the issue and wanted to fix the problem right away by having everyone pay their bills and pass a budget. He asked people in the government that they all needed to do their job and help to put more work out there to have people pay their bills. The issues that Clinton dealt with were defined as a senseless loss of life. He said that kids should be able to live and have kids on their own and be able to experience life the right way and not worry about running away for their lives. The issues of George W. Bush were defined as terrorist that hated America for having freedom and having different religious views. People that are not happy for the way we live. Barack Obama issues were making the country and economy better than what it is and giving everyone a fair share of what they contribute to the economy. The people impacted by the issues of Clinton were the people from Rwanda and thanks to the actions of the president, they are going to help out to prevent genocide happening there and in other countries as well. The people being affected by the actions of George bush are the US military personnel and their families and the civilian people from Afghanistan. The consequences to those communities is that many families were broken apart as well as the country. With Barack Obama the people being affected is the American people. The consequences of the president Obama help make the economy get better and opened up more jobs. I think president Clinton did a good job by giving the other country a hand when they needed it and asking near by countries to participate preventing genocide. I think President Bush could of handle the situation in a way where lives were not going to be lost. president Obama did good by trying to fix the problem right away. The goal was to make the economy better and he did.

Lawrence Erispe

2/4/2016 11:55:56 pm

The major differences I saw in how each president chose to address the political and social problems were the different styles and the solutions. I noticed that Clinton and Bush had a similar style in their speeches. They were sympathetic for the people affected by genocide and terrorism. I also noticed that they both were reassuring and preached hope for the people. In Clinton’s speech, he was reassuring in which he mentions that the U.S should have gotten involved in the beginning and classified it as genocide. He was giving humanity a sense of hope when he mentioned that as humans we saw the capacity of evil in Rwanda and it is our job to prevent that from happening again. In Bush’s speech I saw a theme of nationalism. He was able to articulate his words in a way to bring a sense of nationalism and hope for an end to terrorism. In Obama’s speech he was joking to get his point across, and I felt that his tone had a little bit of anger. He was giving analogies of how the government shutdown was similar to hostage situations stating that these tactics have no place in business and in politics. The difference I saw between Obama and Clinton’s speech was that Obama had actual solutions that could be tried whereas Clinton’s solutions were somewhat vague and not directed toward a certain group of people. The people that were being impacted by the issues being dealt with were the people of Rwanda, Americans post 9/11, politicians, and people in need of health care. Obama’s decision to have Affordable health care act passed was so that could be implemented in all 50 states for those in need of health care who cannot simply afford it.

Eskarletl Ruiz

2/6/2016 04:47:34 pm

Yes, I completely agree. Obama seemed really down to the point and had the perfect solution, but the other presidents were mainly all talk and no action. They said things that sound nice, but never really did anything about it. Obama got things done and delivered his promises to the people, although it does have some flaws. I hope the next president will be just as good or better.

K. Nassman

2/7/2016 08:17:28 pm

I do believe that in Bush's speech that he was trying to bring forth nationalism. I thought that although he was able to articulate his words in a way to bring a sense of nationalism and hope to end terrorism, he also kind of did it in a over the top way! I felt like it was super aggressive. Not to say at the time that it wasn't right , because there were MANY families affected by this, but also, I felt like he was attempting to gain, more than just the "agreement" of the people.

Maria Garcia

2/4/2016 11:56:29 pm

noticed that all three of the Presidents decided to approach the way they delivered their speech in different ways. Clinton talked about the tragedy in Rwanda in a way where he let everyone know that he felt for the people that were affected. He felt as though something should have been done sooner to stop the violence and the genocide that had happened. He used his speech to convince the audience that we all need to come together to help with the aftermath of the tragedy and not let it repeat. The people that were impacted by the genocide were the people that lived in Rwanda. As for Bush, he talked about the events that took place on 911. Unlike Clinton, he decided to approach his speech with aggression. He made demands and expected each of them to be met. He let the world and the terrorists know that he was being absolutely serious about everything thing that was being said. The one thing that I did like about what he was saying was that he let all Muslims know that they are not the enemy and that their religion is respected. The people that were impacted by the events that he talked about were Muslims and people of the US. Because of 911, Muslims were sadly all categorized as terrorist which is why I'm glad Bush addressed it by saying that they are not the enemy. Obama's chose to approach his speech by getting to the point and addressing the issues that needed to be talked about. He took on a more serious tone. I'm not really sure what more the president's should have done about the issues that they were all speaking about.

Chelsea Payaqui

2/7/2016 09:33:41 pm

I like that you mentioned how in Bush's speech he talks about who the enemy really is. I, too appreciated that he cleared up the idea that Muslims are not who we should see as the enemy and how they are also apart of our nation. Although he had a very aggressive approach, I think it helped him on making his point.

Nadia Villanueva

2/7/2016 11:35:34 pm

Definitely Bush approached his speech with more aggression but I also think that all he wanted was to instill fear rather than respect. As you said, he let Muslims know that they are not the enemy but isn't it contradictory that he also said if someone is not with this country is a terrorist?

Matthew Mullen

2/4/2016 11:57:42 pm

Clinton’s issue was defined by him and the President of Rwanda as being a genocide that lost at least one million lives. What triggered the genocide was a policy against Tutsi Rwandans. They prompted to have the government organize unity of Rwandan survivors and promote international strategy to prevent genocides from occurring again. They also pushed for acquiring skills through education. The people of Tutsi dissent were affected by the consequences of the presidential decisions for a push for peace. Clinton addressed the issues in a kind hearted manner over all, prompting that everyone needs to help and that it is not just on his shoulders or someone else’s, collaborative as an international community. I think that Clinton should have been a bit sterner about the threat of genocide. With that being said, I agree with him not using fear as a part of his speech. Bush’s issue was defined by there being a terrorists attack in New York by a radical group of Muslims. He says war must be declared and that there will be tighter security on Americans. The American people, Muslims, citizens of Iran and Afghanistan, and family members of 911 victims were affected by his decisions. Bush is trying to put fear in the hearts and minds of the congress and Americans watching. He is more focused on war than peace. I think Bush should have been far more focused on rebuilding hopes of Americans rather that put fear into their hearts. He should have been more focused on healing after 911. Obama’s issue was defined as Republican congress threating with shut down if Obama didn’t give in to the policies they wanted to have passed and that Republicans refusing to compromise budget with house democrats. The American people were affected positively by his decisions. Obama addresses the issue with anger and sarcasm, seeming fed up with Republicans. He should have been a bit more objective.

Nadia Villanueva

2/5/2016 12:00:03 am

One major difference I realized from the three different speeches of presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama is the speech and tone used to give their proposals to the different topics. As many comments that I’ve read, the majority agree that the speeches of Clinton and Bush are very similar. Both talk about external issues; however, Clinton is concerned about the Rwandan Genocide, and as a result, U.S. proposes a new partnership with Africa. He takes an apologetic tone admitting the errors that the government made ignoring the external issue. In the other hand, Bush’s speech is more accusatory and strong toward the results of 9/11. Even though he knows who to talk and get the attention and appreciation of the people, I felt like he was threatening listeners. Also both of them proposes to “ have total control for safety”. Clinton said, “We will improve systems of identifying and spotlighting other nations in danger”, also Bush said, “We will use use very resources, diplomacy power, economic influence, etc. to the discussion of the global terror” “Either you are with us or either with the terrorists”. Well, both were concerned about terrorism and external nations; They talk about a global control don't they?. Their speeches seemed to take it personally which is good because that is what catches audience’s attention. Obama also gave his personal opinions, but what I liked from his speech was the fact that he doesn't want to use the power as a weapon against others, (although the theme was totally different) He is more concerned on the needs of the nation and the people. He wants to help middle class, child education, improve medical health care, and improve research development. Im not saying that he is better or worst, but I felt his speech was more important because he wasn't trying to scare others, he was talking with the purpose of giving hope. He proposed to work together instead against others, in a more rational, serious, and mature way, not based on the force and fear.

Nimsy V

2/5/2016 12:09:54 am

One of the major differences that I saw in the presidents, was the way the presented their speeches. Clinton and Bush seemed to sympathized withe the people and reassured them that they were going to find ways to prevent genocides and terrorists attacks from happening. President Obama on the other hand went straight to the point and giving solutions to the government shutdown. In all three scenarios they were dealing with thousands of people that were dealing with those problems which they addressed. Clinton seemed to emphasis that America was the first country to contribute in helping Rwanda and helping them get through that mass murder. Bush was what seemed more aggressive in saying what he wanted to eliminate terrorism and giving other countries two sides to join, the U.S. or the terrorist. Obama,unlike the other situations was trying to help Americans to have jobs, it was different in the way that it didn't involve murders.

Kerem Celik

2/6/2016 02:18:17 pm

One thing I did notice from the videos was the different style of each president in presenting their speeches. President Bush, in calling out the Iraqi troops in Kuwait, shows that he is more anti-terrorism. He uses facts to try to get the audience to rally against Iraq. Also, following the attacks of September 11, he announces that he will go after the Taliban. In these actions, he offers hope to those listening. However, President Clinton is more focused on acts of genocide by other countries. He brings up the Rwandan genocide, which although was a foreign attack on foreign soil, and says that it is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. President Obama, unlike the previous two, points out issues internally in the United States, and Congress, specifically. He says that Republicans cannot blame citizens for their mistakes in Congress. He also talks about the government shutting down and announces how childish he thinks the whole situation is. He speaks to Republicans and Democrats alike and says that if we want to see positive change, we need to work together and cooperate. Personally, I believe that although the Rwandan genocide was a horrific incident, the United States should assist, but should not go to the civilians and announce our efforts. Bush's attempts at providing hope and a chance at justice was well thought-out, but the following attacks in Iraq that were blamed on the "War on Terror" was an unforeseen abomination. Obama succeeds in getting his point across exactly the way he means to, and it is for this reason he is known to aggressively speak his mind.

Matthew Mullen

2/7/2016 10:54:45 pm

I think it is note-worthy that you point out Obama addressing internal government issues rather than foreign threats. I think Obama is just naturally more aggressive and outspoken than Clinton and Bush, but I feel that he was especially outspoken because there was no real threat internally if he spoke his mind.

Antonio Villa

2/10/2016 08:42:12 pm

The situations each President has faced did require action, but not every issue was addressed with a decision. When President Clinton went to address the genocide in Rwanda, it was beyond too late. The apology does and promises did reflect well, but the false interest in human rights is a sham. The government only jumps to protect those when they have something to gain or maintain. When President Bush made his response to the attack on foreign soil, an opportunity presented itself to have the willing support of fearful citizens to abide by all immoral policies to be put in place to establish control. The concept of fear and freedom being at odds, was made to make it feel like it is our freedom that is in jeopardy. The health and lives of many were at risk at these attacks, but the illusion of freedom being under attack shook up the country and allowed for the homeland security to shake us up further and for the Patriot Act to enter our lives and restrict our communication. A new fear was born, if you do not support the President, the embodiment of his efforts and the United States, then you are with the "terrorists!" It is easy to demonize and devalue others both on domestic and foreign soil if you label them as terrorists when a tragic event occurs. Once the fears and threats became a clear and transparent, damage was already done. President Obama must have had the sweetest approach to communicating with Congress. C'mon guys! Let's talk! He did a great job in making the republican representatives seem like a group of children with his comparisons to the idea of ransom. Constructive criticism followed by serious consequences and an actual solution. It requires conversation, but too many representatives fear to lose their positions just by choosing to talk. All these Presidents had heavy influence in their addresses. Not all were meaningful or truthful, but it did impact foreign and domestic affairs to a large extent. Patriotism is felt, but darn it, I really wish there was less religion in politics. God is not a factor, so keep him out!

WEEK 5

Leave a Reply.

Poli 1-DeAnza

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

WEEK 5

Leave a Reply.

Poli 1-DeAnza

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS