This opinion article has some pretty strong claims regarding the youth vote and Obama's reelect campaign. However, I feel that in terms of making an argument, it doesn't do a proper job of really analyzing the Obama administration in terms of what students should be looking for in this next election.
The author makes claims to state that the media has focused too much on what the Romney's have done with their private money, and not enough focus on what the Obama's have been doing with their public money.
Well, for one, Romney and President Obama are not the same, nor can they be judged currently on the same scale. Romney is a former governor and businessman, Obama is the current President, former lawyer and community organizer. To criticize the media for not treating them the same is preposterous, they are not the same.
The author also claims that when Obama garnered 68% of the youth vote in 2008, the youth has high hopes that Obama would help them, and according to the author, he has failed.
However, the author only pointed out controversial policies, such as Obamacare, and not actual student change that the Obama administration has actually achieved. Such as keeping Stafford interest rates at 3.4%, as well as cutting out the middle man in federal financial aid, which allows students more money directly from the government for their education, rather than a large corporate bank taking a share of the profits.
The author also claims that Obama is coming from an "anti-war party that is conjuring up fake wars, such as the war on women." However, he uses nothing to support this claim, and merely states that it's a fake war- but doesn't show how or why that is the truth. Maybe because it isn't actually a fake war, and maybe because the defunding of Planned Parenthood across the nation, most specifically in Texas and Wisconsin, isn't imaginary.
At any rate, the reader should be skeptical when reading this, as it does not delve properly into the achievements and missteps of the Obama administration, and it does nothing to scrutinize the other side. If a reader were to read this without critically thinking about the sources and the bias of the authors, they may be left with a wealth of misinformation.