Campaign '08

Obama wants to make NASA spending “a little more coherent”

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was interviewed Thursday by report Tom Beres of Cleveland’s WKYC-TV on a number of topics, including NASA—of topic of some interest there given the presence of the Glenn Research Center. In the interview, Obama says the space program has been “stuck” for a number of years with the shuttle. He called for “broadening our horizons”, including a mix of both unmanned missions (the reference to the “Jupiter launch” is unclear, but appears to be the candidate stumbling to come up with an example of a robotic mission extemporaneously) and “planning for potential manned flights”. Asked if he would continue the current national space exploration policy, he said he would, as president, do a “thorough review” of NASA programs so that the agency’s spending “is a little more coherent than it has been”, although he didn’t go into any greater specifics.

A rough transcript of the NASA portion of the Obama interview is below:

Beres: Another subject. Here in northeast Ohio the role of NASA space program [is] very important. We have a NASA Glenn Research Center here that was on the ropes for a while and has now been given an awful lot of work to take part in the lets’ go back into space, let’s go back to the Moon, let’s go back to Mars projects outlined by President Bush. What is your view towards the space program? Would you have the same priorities?

Obama: Well, I’ve got a strong belief in NASA and the process of space exploration. I do think that our program has been stuck for a while, that the space shuttle mission did not inspire the imaginations of the public, that much of the experimentation that was done could have been conducted not necessarily with manned flights. I think that broadening our horizons and looking at a combination of both unmanned satellites of the sort that we saw with the Jupiter launch, but also looking at where we can start planning for potential manned flights. I think that is all something that I’m excited about and could be part of a broader strategy for science and technology investment–

Beres: So you would continue–

Obama: The only thing I want to say is that I want to do a thorough review because some of these programs may not be moving in the right direction and I want to make sure that NASA spending is a little more coherent than it has been over the last several years.

37 comments to Obama wants to make NASA spending “a little more coherent”

  • In other words, this says to this Democrat, Mr. Obama knows essentially nothing about the subject at hand and is extemporizing the entire statement. It’s an unfortunate contract to Ms. Clinton. I hope this is not representative about Mr. Obama’s knowledge of other “fringe” but important technical issues like, say, deep sea mining. This did nothing to make me more comfortable with his potential Presidency.

    — Donald

  • I suspect that it’s representative of his knowledge about many issues, including non-technical ones. Fortunately, it’s very unlikely that he will be the next president.

    I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for the Democrats, but these are their candidates. The Republicans managed to avoided their Elmer Gantry this year, but it looks like the Dems weren’t so lucky.

  • The People

    Rand: Fortunately, it’s very unlikely that he will be the next president.

    Rand…not sure what news sources you’ve been taking in. This opinion is surely not consistent with recent polls and assessments. Granted, the election is still nine months away, but if anything, Mr. O is gaining momentum. In addition, the skeletons in McCain’s closet are starting to rattle again.

  • Andy Motherway

    There is little I find more frustrating than being the only democrat/space enthusiast in the room. But on Super Tuesday, that was exactly the case. I waited in line with hundreds inside a nearby high school of suburban Minnesota to cast a reluctant vote for Mr. Obama. Dynastic fatigue and McCain’s blood lusting foreign policy was my motivation to participate that night. The organizers split us off into classrooms where we were encouraged to discuss democratic issues. I polled the participants on their knowledge/interest in contemporary space issues (COTS, EELV, the “vision”, XPRIZE).

    Needless to say I left with a bad taste in my mouth.

    If this article is indicative of Mr. Obama’s space policy knowledge, then these “blitzes” on Capitol Hill need to be refined and refocused on the candidates themselves.

    If he is going to make cuts or huge changes, I might feel more comfortable knowing that he has been briefed on the consequences of such actions.

  • The People

    Mr. O’s view of reassessing NASA’s current direction is entirely reasonable. Many of the most ardent VSE supporters on this blog have no love for ESAS and the present implementation of that initiative. Perhaps Mr. O’s approach will yield a more logical and sustainable space program.

    Just remember, pegging NASA back a few notches may be what exactly is needed to open up new commercial opportunities.

    Climb on board the Obama Express!

  • MarkWhittington

    “This opinion is surely not consistent with recent polls and assessments.”

    Actually McCain is slightly ahead of Obama in current polling. In Florida, he is way ahead. Mind, it’s not necessarily because Obama is an ignoramous on space policy, but I’m sure it doesn’t help.

  • The People

    Actually McCain is slightly ahead of Obama in current polling.

    It depends on the poll. It is certainly very tight between Clinton and McCain, but the Democratic lead is more solid between McCain and Obama. Here are some recent numbers that I’ve found:

    Poll Date of Sample Spread
    RCP Average 02/18 to 02/25 Obama +4.1%
    LA Times/Bloomberg 02/21 – 02/25 McCain +2%
    AP-Ipsos 02/22 – 02/24 Obama +10%
    USA Today/Gallup 02/21 – 02/24 McCain +1%
    CBS News/NY Times 02/20 – 02/24 Obama +12%
    Pew Research 02/20 – 02/24 Obama +7%
    Research 2000 02/18 – 02/21 Obama +6%
    FOX News 02/19 – 02/20 Obama +4%
    Rasmussen (Thu) 4 Day Tracking McCain +3%

  • ISS vet

    It’s unrealistic at this stage of the campaign to expect any of these Presidential candidates to know very much about space. It’s especially unrealistic to expect any of them to have an expert opinion about such things as the space exploration architecture. What, then, should we look for in a candidate – a firm opinion based on limited knowledge and a desire to get votes or a willingness to ask questions, listen to the answers, and rethink the program?

    I, for one, am ready to roll the dice by supporting a “thorough review.” Only then do we have even a chance of a better answer. Has anyone yet found out who is advising Obama on technology and space?

  • Brad

    Wow, I saw it hear first — Obama proposing a manned mission to Jupiter!

    heh

  • Rand…not sure what news sources you’ve been taking in

    I take in lots of “news sources,” but my opinion is based on my own analysis, not that of others.

  • Mike Puckett

    You can pay attention to Rasmussen and ingore the rest. It far and away has the largest sample size and far and away has the best predictive track record. Don’t forget to factor in 2-4 points for the Bradley effect too.

    Obama is the unnamed generic candidate who does so well. When his extreme leftist positions become known, the luster will start to fade. It won’t get any better for him than it is right now. He has nowhere to go but down.

  • Andy, All,

    Things are much better here in Maryland vis-a-vis Democrats. Mikulski is a strong supporter — and she apparently works with Republicans on these issues. I do know some disagree with some of her stands, but she is certainly a friend. Majority leader Hoyer also seems to be a solid friend. During the SEA blitz this month two of us met with Chris Van Hollen and staffer Ken Cummings. Van Hollen also is a solid supporter. During the meeting I found out he started in college as a physics major. He also seems like a nice guy. The fact that he took some time to spend with a couple of space supporters says volumes.

    I do a few things that might help us make our case. First, lots of people tell me I’m a really nice guy. I try to listen to everyone. Second, while I don’t ram my overall intelligence down people’s throats, I don’t cover it up either. Both these things help. When I do bring up ideas that contradict the generally held views of the group, I phrase them in ways that lead to greater acceptance. When I mention a libertarian position, I don’t get into Ron Paul style rants, but put it in terms of combating abusive bullies in positions of power, whether in the private sector or the public. YMMV, of course.

    I should mention that Maryland’s political sphere is thoroughly dominated by the Democratic Party. If you are a liberal, you are a Democrat. If you are a moderate, you are a Democrat. Unless you are very right wing (at least at the present time) you are a Democrat. How did we get a Republican governor for four years? The Democratic Party really screwed up — and they learned from that.

  • Al Fansome

    Rand,

    You are a generally very smart & thoughtful guy, but you do have a glaring weakness. You let your political bias filter what you think about Democratic candidates, and you often jump to conclusions (that you would not jump to on a Republican) without all the data.

    Imagine if you will, that Fred Thompson had said the following:

    FRED THOMPSON: The only thing I want to say is that I want to do a thorough review because some of these programs may not be moving in the right direction and I want to make sure that NASA spending is a little more coherent than it has been over the last several years.

    I am betting that you would be saying much different things about Fred Thompson.

    The truth is that it is possible that Barrack Obama could move NASA in a direction that is much more amenable to you. I agree that he has not said what he is going to do, but 95% of politicians have given almost no thought to how they would change national space policy.

    I suggest before you take a “wait & see” attitude, instead of jumping to conclusions and shooting him between the eyes.

    I also suggest you spend time promoting/proposing a space policy change that you think might appeal to Senator Obama. Your strategy at this time appears to be to “hope” that Obama does not become President. But hope is not a strategy.

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • You let your political bias filter what you think about Democratic candidates, and you often jump to conclusions (that you would not jump to on a Republican) without all the data.

    I think that you’re misreading what I wrote, or mistaking me for Mark Whittington.

    I am betting that you would be saying much different things about Fred Thompson.

    You’d lose the bet.

    I actually have no problem with what Obama has said about space,as far and as vague as it goes. I was simply responding to Donald’s complaint. I wouldn’t expect, in fact, anything different from Fred Thompson. And, for the record, I’m not now, and have never been, a Republican.

    I also suggest you spend time promoting/proposing a space policy change that you think might appeal to Senator Obama.

    If and when I think that there’s a serious danger of him becoming president, I may do that. There’s really no point to it now, it’s such an inconsequential issue in the campaign. Anyway, you’ve obviously mistaken me for someone who thinks our future in space is dependent in any significant way on who is in the White House. That might be true, in some theoretical world (e.g., if Newt Gingrich was a possibility), but I don’t see much difference between any of the candidates as far as what I want to see happen in space. It won’t be a major issue for any of them, and they’ll all be captured by the space-industrial complex and committee structure on the Hill.

    Your strategy at this time appears to be to “hope” that Obama does not become President. But hope is not a strategy.

    There are many reasons for me to hope (and expect) that Obama will not become president, space being least among them.

  • I believe that the worst case scenario for the US space program under a new Administration is the status quo…. We’re quite unlikely– even under an Obama administration– to experience major cutbacks in public space spending, due to the political capital in key large States.

    Thus, I believe the real issue of concern here is how much improvement there can be on current space policy, and I believe that an Administration less beholden to the status quo– an Obama Administration– is more likely to conduct a more thorough more objective analysis of opportunities for improvement.

    Thus I believe that, while paying less lip service to the space program at this juncture of the campaign, Obama is more likely than any other candidate to institute the sorts of reforms that many of us progressives who work in the space community wish to see:

    -Appoint dynamic, charismatic and technically competent leaders to the top posts at NASA who can reform the culture of the Agency and turn it into the vibrant “startup” organization as it was decades ago as NACA, enabling it to:

    -Pursue an aggressive human exploration program beyond LEO that pushes the envelope of technological innovation and presents inspiring opportunities for multi-national collaboration in the peaceful uses of outer space, and

    -Accelerate of the handover of LEO activities to ‘NewSpace’ private commercial enterprises, with government as a customer and with an emphasis on competition, entrepreneurship and innovation rather than large guaranteed “cost plus” contracts, and

    -Fully leverage NASA’s potential as an ‘Earth Systems Engineering’ Agency as a key component of a comprehensive Federal climate change mitigation program.

    I believe that an Obama Administration is far more likely to call for and to have the courage to see through these sorts of policy reforms than that of any other candidate that is today more overtly laudatory of the status quo of the US space program. Does anyone really want the status quo to endure?

  • realist

    Andrew, get a grip. Nobody, least of all NASA, will be “engineering” Earth systems anytime soon. And Obama and his team won’t magically reform all of NASA in some sort of top down overhaul. Your flowery prose aside, NASA IS changing and it’s happening at all levels simultaneously, as the old codgers like me move on to retirement, and the more enthusiastic and committed of the Gen-Y consituency steps up to the plate. Check out http://www.opennasa.com for some thought-provoking viewpoints. But in reality, NASA is a lumbering behemouth that will never be seen to turn on a dime.

    However, THE big change at NASA, and the issues it will cause, that the incoming administration will have to address, is how to smoothly manage the shuttle retirement and the impacts of that on NASA employees across the agency, particularly in Florida. NASA’s approach is to “offset the impending loss of launch operations jobs” by “diversifying a work force historically susceptible to boom-and-bust” with Orion work and by “research and development work on moon base components.” Time will tell if this plan will survive the new administration that will take over a year from now in DC.

  • spector

    Oh, so the rocket nerds are angry ’cause he doesn’t know all the details about their toys…..really!

    I was a little cold on the guy, but his call far a ‘thorough review’ certainly seems in perfect order. His view that LEO activities are a dead end for manned flight is spot on too. But I don’t think he’ll endorse Mars, it’s too Kennedy wannabee.

  • My 2 bit take is that there are two Obamas when it comes to civil space policy.

    The first demonstrates naivete (Obama is the only candidate to commit to Ares I/Orion by name despite those projects’ crippling problems) and worrying misinformation (I’m still scratching my head on the Jupiter launch reference).

    The second demonstrates sophistication (questioning the value of the past few decades of NASA human space flight and differentiating it from sizable robotic achievements) and deeper thinking (calling for a reexamination and better articulation of the rationale and goals for NASA’s human space flight activities) on civil space policy issues than demonstrated by other candidates.

    If elected, I hope it’s the second Obama that shows up in the White House.

    FWIW…

  • Anonymous: questioning the value of the past few decades of NASA human space flight and differentiating it from sizable robotic achievements

    I in no way mean to be insulting, only realistic, when I say that this is likely to be “following the herd” of public and astronomer opinion, rather than any meaningful, let alone original, thought on the issue, or listening to the opinions of other types of scientists. Likewise, calling for a reexamination is easy; suggesting what you might actually do is harder. I’d be a lot more impressed by the latter, a la Ms. Clinton.

    — Donald

  • Keith Cowing

    Dear “Realist”:

    With regard to your note to Andrew Hoppin about http://www.opennasa.com …. Did you ever stop to consider who the developer of that website is?

    Its Andrew Hoppin.

  • realist

    Now that is just too ironic, Keith. I am so humbled.

  • Keith Cowing

    Dear Mr/Ms Realist:

    You seem to not understand the very change agents that you so aptly cite – and the effect that it could have on NASA in the years to come as your (my) generation gets out of the way and makes NASA their own.

  • Ray

    anonymous.space: “I’m still scratching my head on the Jupiter launch reference.”

    The closest thing I can come up with to match that is the New Horizons mission to Pluto, which had a Jupiter flyby.

    Unfortunately, the Obama that anonymous.space doesn’t like is very specific, and the one he/she likes is non-specific in a way where you can’t be sure what policy and actions will result. Obama might want to do a thorough review, but he should be able to give at least some general ideas on what kinds of things he’d want to get out of NASA. What surprises me is that he has a lot of opportunities to suggest, at a high level, changes in NASA’s direction that could appeal to a lot of space interests, while at the same time also appealing to larger interests. In other words, “use NASA to help solve national problems”. Yet, he misses the chance and just suggests a generic review. Calling for “change” without saying roughly what the change is going to be doesn’t impress me.

    ISS Vet: “It’s unrealistic at this stage of the campaign to expect any of these Presidential candidates to know very much about space.”

    I do realize that space isn’t ones of the major campaign issues. McCain includes space as one (the last) of 15 issues on his “Issues” page, but that’s by far the highest I’ve ever seen it ranked that way. However, all 3 of the major candidates is a U.S. Senator that’s had to vote on space-related issues, so they should have already learned a lot about it – considerably more than most citizens, anyway. If you’re talking about space policy in the sense of NASA’s human spaceflight program, yes, it’s a small issue. However, space policy in the combined sense of NASA human spaceflight, NASA Earth science, other NASA science, military space, traditional commercial space, NewSpace, space intelligence, and NOAA space … all with their layers of domestic and international policy considerations, from ITAR to GPS policy to economic policy and on and on … in that sense I expect each candidate (and some people on their staff) to have a broad, if not deep, familiarity with space policy.

    Andrew Hoppin: “Obama is more likely than any other candidate to institute the sorts of reforms that many of us progressives who work in the space community wish to see.”

    I like the vision of NASA that Andrew lays out, but I’m not convinced that Obama is likely at all to go that direction. If he is, why doesn’t he say so? I’d listen, and I’ll bet a lot of other folks would, too. The Obama plan at Spaceref does cover the space/environment connection, which I think is good (if not unexpected) but it doesn’t mention NASA and entrepreneurial space at all. Some statements he’s made also seem to counter the “humans beyond LEO” goal (although personally I don’t care as much about destinations as what is done there and how it’s done, so that doesn’t bother me). The detailed Obama education section at Spaceref also misses an opportunity to use space to help education, and vice versa, through prize competitions, space-related scholarships, increasing university space work, Teachers in space, giving students and teachers access to suborbital space, and so on.

    Let’s see if Obama takes the opportunity, which is still out there.

  • Anon4

    There is only one Obama

    You could still be naive about space while saying we need to rexamine our goals and making an opened ended statement on the value of robots.

    Where the expertise comes in is why you want the revaluation. Is it to developed a better strategy, as many here are assuming? Or are just using it to provide the cover needed to shut it down? The latter doesn;t require any knowlege, merely a belief that space is a waste.

    Unforunately by the time space advocate have proof that is the case with Obama it will be late to do anything about it.

  • Bill White

    Where the expertise comes in is why you want the revaluation. Is it to developed a better strategy, as many here are assuming? Or are just using it to provide the cover needed to shut it down? The latter doesn;t require any knowlege, merely a belief that space is a waste.

    The answer to this is to rally a core base of support in Congress. Particularly Democratic Congressional leaders, if we are to have a Democratic President.

    The Aldridge Commission foresaw these possibilities and advised creating a consensus for space exploration that did not depend upon the political parties. The 2005 NASA Authorization was a HUGE step in this direction which is why is has been so disappointing that the Bush budgets were never sufficient to fulfill those mandates.

    As was argued in Spring 2006, Spring 2007 and now in Spring 2008.

    None of McCain, Clinton or Obama can be relied upon to lead. Therefore a core base of Congressional support needs to be built and maintained, a base of support capable of standing up to a President when he or she disagrees with the Vision.

  • realist

    Actually, I agree with the gist of Andrew Hoppin’s piece, that an Obama administration offers the most hope for re-invigorating NASA and bringing it’s missions more in line with the needs of the 21st century, as well as for making it the type of NASA that Andrew and his generation want it to be.

    Obama ’08!

  • Anon4

    But ask yourself. Who would Congress be more likely to hold the line on manned spaceflight against? A Clinton or McCain? Or someone like Obama that could frame the debate as Congress being more interested in funding rich aerospace firms then feeding and educating straving kids?

    As his follower would argue as they made the same rounds in Congress – “Do you know how many straving kids the $100 bilion being spent to return to the moon could feed? Do you think we should go forward with President Bush’s vision to spend a $100 billion for more rocks? DO you even think its worth a billion when there are rocks from the moon that have never been studied, Mr. Senator?”

    Obama isn’t hope, he’s a classic con man that states things in a vague langauge full of buzz terms where you fill in what you want to believe, then does what he wants. Watch the old movie Music Man, then listen to Obama’s pitch.

    The best time to prevent that prospect for space is now, before he is elected. Now hop[e to stop him afterward.

  • realist

    Anon4, I think you mistook me for a person who wants to put Americans back on the Moon a la VSE. I’d rather see it happen in an international, cooperative effort, like what’s happened in the Antarctic, on the ISS, etc. All the same things you say about Obama are just as likely to be true about McCain. I respect him, but he’ll be beholden to the same interests to whom the Bush administration sold their souls.

  • To go back to an earlier comment:

    I believe Andrew was right about the strategic re-direction of NASA towards systemic climate change, for a large share of the civil space portfolio, as the next, new opportunity for the agency to revitalize itself, and rise to the decadal challenge of global warming. NASA is well positioned to undertake a mission to both observe and mitigate climate change. First, it has as an anchor an enormous piece of the earth observation tool kit. Secondly, pursuing lunar habitation will require new sustainable energy technologies-NASA can help develop new concepts, or spin-in the new stuff that is rolling out at a rapid rate from the private sector and university labs and take them into applications, and spin out again as intentional commercial innovation from that process. Thirdly, NASA has the ISSNL, and a possible lunar platform from which assist with.

    Meanwhile, maybe we should all rethink our hopes for a top-down POTUS savior in the White House for NASA’s strategic direction. I think we need to pursue the creation of a broad based, grassroots-up national dialog about what NASA can and should do.

    Putting this question forward with the new web 2.0 capabilities that Andrew Hoppin and other innovators of every age demographic are creating and/or supporting, and then maintaining that adhocracy in some kind of organizational structure is the inclusive, politically sustainable way to chart and maintain a path forward- not for just for space objectives, but for space/earth systems connections in an era of ecological peril.

    Thus, whomever wins-and I really have no idea who that will be at this particular moment- the strategy and course for NASA will be impacted by the voice from the participatory commons. In fact, it already is.

  • Anon4

    Anon4, I think you mistook me for a person who wants to put Americans back on the Moon a la VSE. I’d rather see it happen in an international, cooperative effort, like what’s happened in the Antarctic, on the ISS, etc.

    Ugh… That is all we need, another ISS with the U.S. paying the bill and the rest of the world freeloading on it. No wonder you support Obama.

  • Anon4 – your assuming that Obama is intent upon ending manned flight – I don’t read his statements, especially the most recent one, necassarily in that way – I do think that Obama does want to transform our relation to space. Nw, one way of transforming our relation would be to move towards ending manned flight.

    On the other hand, if we can show that space can be relevent and important to the average person, and can help us deal with our problems, then I suspect the transformation that we would see would be on par with that of computers and the Internet during the Clinton Presidency.

  • Anon4

    Al,

    Dream on. There is nothing in Obama’s background to show he would see space as anything but a waste, money that should go to welfare. The fact that money will be tight is all the more reason to go with someone has supported NASA in the past.

  • Anon4,

    Has Al even talked to you in this thread? Im not certain whether you were trying to respond to me, or something I missed. Regardless, if your going to argue a point, then give us some evidence, other than vague statements.

  • Anon4

    Ferris,

    Good you are reading my posts :-)

    The evidence is there, you are just closing your eyes to it.

  • Al Fansome

    ANON4: Dream on. There is nothing in Obama’s background to show he would see space as anything but a waste, money that should go to welfare. The fact that money will be tight is all the more reason to go with someone has supported NASA in the past.

    Anon4,

    You are either missing or ignoring the point. It does not matter though.

    This kind of thinking is going to run into a real brick wall in the form of the retirement of the baby boomers and an explosion in non-discretionary spending in the form of Medicare and Social Security. When this happens, anything that does not clearly contribute to the “welfare” of the American people is going to be in big trouble.

    The entire reason that “space” is susceptible to attack is because advocates for the current approach, including Griffin, have not made a coherent and persuasive argument on why investing $100B+ in ESAS is good for the national WELFARE.

    The White House specifically stated three types of “national WELFARE” benefits that a national space strategy should be judged by:

    1) National Security benefits

    2) Science benefits, and

    3) Economic benefits

    For the last 3 years Mike Griffin has totally ignored this policy statement by the White House.

    QUESTION 1: Did Mike Griffin evaluate and compare the “NATIONAL SECURITY” benefits of the Ares 1/Ares V approach against the other alternatives, when making his ESAS decision?

    ANSWER: No, he did not.

    QUESTION 2: Did Mike Griffin evaluate and compare the “SCIENCE” benefits of the Ares 1/Ares V approach against the other alternatives, when making his ESAS decision?

    ANSWER: No, he did not.

    QUESTION 3: Did Mike Griffin evaluate and compare the “ECONOMIC” benefits of the Ares 1/Ares V approach against the other alternatives, when making his ESAS decision?

    ANSWER: No, he did not.

    These are facts.

    Griffin was explicitly warned on this issue. The Aldridge Commission was quite clear on the criticality of taking an economically affordable & politically sustainable approach.

    CONCLUSION: If anybody is responsible for the coming train wreck, it is Mike Griffin.

    Griffin adopted an engineer’s mind set to what is clearly a strategic POLITICAL problem. The engineer’s solution (ESAS) will be decimated because Griffin ignored a clear mandate that NASA’s approach needed to deliver specific benefits to the national WELFARE.

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • […] if elected “until the mission is clearer”. It’s language similar to what he said in a Cleveland TV interview last week, but a little more […]

  • Jon

    Well, he’s going to be president. I think that the objective of NASA is good, but as of now the wellfare of the people in america is morwe important than realizing the origins of the big bang, maybe after these four years, may we resume this exploration in greater detail.

Leave a Reply to Space Politics » Obama: NASA “no longer associated with inspiration” Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>