“A Letter to the Editor”

Dear Mr. Davidson and Mrs. Hagenbaugh,
I have enjoyed yall’s article “To win t he presidential race, it takes energy”. I think that yall did a great job presenting both sides of the energy crisis by switching the arguments for McCain and Obama around throughout the article. That’s something hard to do.
The juxtaposition of some of the lines was very well done I thought. For example: “Obama says he is open to a bipartisan proposal in the Senate that would lift the moratorium on drilling in a small portion of the 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf, the sloping undersea region between the continent and the deep ocean around the USA, if the move came in conjunction with aggressive commitments to new clean energy technologies and efficiency. Obama argues that drilling in the area is not the answer to reduce prices in the short-term or to promote long-term energy independence.” followed directly by: “McCain advocates a complete lifting of the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.” This argues how drastically different their views on oil drilling really are. Of course McCain wants to go out there with a “Big Stick” approach and find the oil and gas that’s not being utilized while Obama sticks with staying where the U.S. already has permits.
The issue of subsidies for innovations is a little bit different though. I think that it’s arguing more for Obama- “Everyone loves renewable energy, and Obama and McCain are no exceptions. Obama, though, has a more aggressive plan for expanding the role of renewable, while McCain espouses a more market-based approach.” Subconsciously, just seeing Obama’s name first makes me think the sentence will be pulling more for him, especially with the words “more aggressive”. This also supports my point of presenting Obama in a better light for this subject- “Obama proposes spending $150 billion over 10 years for development of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy, including fuels like cellulosic ethanol, make from grasses and plant waste. That, he says, would create 5 million jobs.” Followed by- “McCain is less precise, proposing a tax credit for companies doing research on renewable equal to 10% of their employees’ wages.” That makes someone with no prior knowledge of the situation or bias smile right at Obama I think.
Here is an argument more in favor of McCain though. “McCain is far more bullish than Obama on conventional electricity generation, especially nuclear power…McCain wants to build 45 nuclear plants witch emit none of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming by 2030. That’s ambitious.” The words “bullish” and “ambitious” strike me as much more confident and unabashed then how Obama is addressed here- “Some say he’s (Obama) paying lip service.”
I just really like the way there’s no true siding in the article. If you bash them both and praise them both, then it seems like a win-win situation to me. Yall did a great job on the positioning of your sentences to make points clear. You don’t really see this kind of writing style very much. I’m looking forward to following some more of yall’s articles.

Sincerely,
Alle Osborne