NoEinstein I see no help on the way. I might get 600 bucks back in
May,and I can thank the republican Mafia for that. Just using money to
buy the white house Bert

Over Easter, Barack Obama and his family took a short vacation.

The long delay before the PA primary should allow careful thinking to
be done. That's a good thing. But if you haven't realized by now,
the primary/convention system is hugely undemocratic. FL and MI
realized that fact long ago, and tried to get their 'fair' say by
moving their primaries ahead of Iowa.

In FL, the move-up of the primary was a Republican, not a Democratic
decision. The controversy over that change was a known issue--so,
neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there, though both were on the FL
ballot. Yes, Clinton was the better known candidate. But Obama was
well known, too. After all, hadn't he made some rousing speeches
during the campaigns of 2000 and 2004, and didn't he speak at the 2004
Democratic Convention? It was easy to realize that Barack Obama, with
his fine oratory, was an up-and-comer in politics.

I've been observing politics since before Obama was born. I too was
curious if he would become the next Jesse Jackson. Both Jesse and I
were born in Greenville, SC. I had sided with "states rights" during
the segregation era, but this was largely because I felt that "the
right not to..." should be equal to "the right to...". The strong
arguments in support of my philosophy, work only if there is no
discrimination against blacks. But since such wasn't the case,
integration was the way to go.

Other than the fact that Obama was born poor, much of what he knows
about "black issues" he learned from others. The man was motivated
to... pull-himself-up-by-his-bootstraps. And he did that exceedingly
well. So, like his outspoken 'preacher' proclaims, there are huge
gaps between blacks and whites. But were is Obama in the socio-
economic mix?

If blacks, or those struggling to make ends meet, had to choose a
sympathetic candidate to, hopefully, improve their lot during the next
four years, would they select someone who is successful? Probably.
Through the ages leaders have been those who have risen above, or who
are the most motivated to do such. The disadvantaged are in a
quandary to select someone who is sympathetic on the one hand, and who
knows "the ways" to success on the other.

Clinton doesn't rush to reveal her tax records. She knows that her
assets will be used as a wedge to distance her from those to whom she
must appeal. Though Obama doesn't have Clinton's accumulated wealth,
he is "on the wealth track". Both his education and his social status
as a senator make him much less... "black" than his light skin hints.
But by speaking with his trademark 'anger' at the status quo, those
who are disadvantaged, and thus angry, have rallied behind that man.

So, should Obama be the Democrats' next nominee for president? No!
If you asked most of his supporters why they like him better than
Clinton, they would say: They like his excellent speeches; they like
that he is for change; they like that others are rallying behind him;
and they want to give their support to someone who can win. That last
'motivator' is hugely tied up in trying to resolve who is the best
candidate in these final months.

Somehow, 'Screaming Howard Dean' became Chairman of the Democratic
National Committee. When that "god" says that Iowa gets to continue
to have the first say-so in selecting the candidate of the party,
"his" rules hold sway. But what about the unwritten rules of
democracy? Isn't democracy important any more? And isn't democracy
more over-riding than the rules of the Democratic Party?

The primary results of the State of Florida should stand as is. Yes,
Obama didn't campaign there. But the "for change" issues probably
gave him his due--even if he was less well known than Clinton. Redoing
that election is not only wasting money, it is putting Florida--the
goof-up state as far as elections go--back in the spotlight. But the
margin of Clinton's victory, there, exceeds the "hanging chad" margin
of error. Obviously, Michigan must redo its primary, because Obama
wasn't on the ballot.

Both FL and MI wanted more influence. Obama's camp hopes they won't
get it. Such attitude is anti-democracy, isn't it? It's as anti-
democracy as our having allowed the poll takers and the biased news
commentators to stampede people to Obama--just because he is 'trending'
as the 'likely' front-runner. But what about the recent 'trending'
away from Obama in Ohio and Texas? Isn't that worthy of a stampede
away from the man? And aren't the voters in the latter primaries MORE
knowledgeable of the candidates than those in the earlier ones? Yes
they are!

Getting elected to public office is a 'science'. My qualification to
comment is due to my being a lifelong keen observer of human nature,
and one of, if not the best, graphologists in the world. My 'call' on
Obama is: He's under qualified; overly motivated; and overly hyped.
The man doesn't have a pleasant disposition. He's a detail-oriented
individualist, NOT a group player, nor a person easily agreeable to
compromises. Though he can talk like: Men in the barber shops of
America, about how things should be, he has next to zero idea about
the president's role in improving the world. Sadly, it is Congress,
NOT the President that makes the laws. If we just wanted a "sensible"
ticket for good "dictators" to be our leaders, it would be: Ron Paul
and Dennis Kosinich, not Barack Obama and whomever... If Obama is
nominated, I will write in Paul and Kosinich!

BE IT KNOWN: Hillary Rodham Clinton is a here and now candidate! Her
simple mantra should be: She's the best qualified person, alive, to be
president! If anyone can work well within 'the system', Hillary can--
and from day one! She doesn't need to get advisers to tell her how to
organize the Executive Branch; she already knows! And she doesn't
need to weed out all of the false promises like Obama keeps making
daily, because she has made none!

With every ounce of my being, I urge all of you, of whatever race,
sex, color or creed, to support Hillary Rodham Clinton for President
of the United States of America! Respectfully submitted by --
NoEinstein -- that independent thinker who has disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity!

Handwriting Analysis of Clinton, Obama, McCain and Einstein (is
Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/eed2b...
__________

The US Constitution allows the States to decide many issues. The

On Mar 17, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Over Easter, Barack Obama and his family took a short vacation.
During that period polls were taken which show that Hillary Clinton
would defeat McCain by a larger margin than Obama would. And just
this week, for the first time, Obama's... "personality" is being
mentioned as an issue. But his camp has chosen to lump all of Obama's
personality issues under this one heading: the "Damn the USA..." sermon
of Obama's preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since Obama has
already replied to the latter, those in his camp are hoping those
"personality" issues will stay behind him. But Obama's news spinners
are sitting much more tensely in their seats as they try to deflect
the questions about his lack of qualifications--personality or
otherwise. And their 'smiles' in such regard seem much less genuine.

These days, when Obama speaks, those supporters of his with a
propensity to nod their heads in agreement to everything he says, are
planted in the audience in the view of the TV cameras. From the tone
of his recent speeches, one would never realize that he is being
assailed. "Bullets are flying..." over his head. That's figurative
speech, of course. Obviously, there's a battle going on. But is it a
flag-waving "sports event"? Or is it a political race that would ever
find Barack Obama qualified to lead the declining... "greatest nation of
all time"?

CNN has labeled their 24/7 coverage of the race for President, the all
too apt name: "Ballot Bowl". For them, having someone be elected
President is 'sport'. And they are the high paid play-by-play sports
announcers. There isn't a sporting event in this country in which the
announcers don't telescope their personal loyalties by their
excitement over a... "GOAL!"; or a home run; or a touchdown. Many teams
have their own announcers, and their own radio and TV networks.
Choose the 'wrong' one of those, and the announcer won't be showing
the emotion you desire.

Anderson Cooper--or as he chooses to pronounce it: "Coo-per"--has had
what looks like... excellent surgery under his left eye. Anderson could
have told everyone--figuratively, of course--that he got "grazed by a
bullet" when he got off of his plane in Iraq. If he had said 'that'
with a smile, he would have been showing good humor. But he showed no
good humor when he derided Hillary Clinton for saying that she had to
"duck down" getting off of her plane in Bosnia.

Soldiers getting out of still-running helicopters duck down,
reflexively, as the "chopper" blades keep whizzing above. So, when
Clinton repeated that story--too tired to smile, or to wink--should
anyone use that to accuse her of lying? Only someone like Anderson
Cooper, who more and more is showing himself to be pro Obama, would
attack FIGURATIVE speech. To his credit CNN's Wolf Blitzer seems to
be showing a level of professional detachment as he covers the news.

Obama is an expert at rattling off desirable political goals in his
speeches. Yet, other than by addressing Congress, the President gets
few chances to call for legislation. Most of Obama's campaign
speeches would be more apt if this country was a dictatorship, and he
was the dictator. But from the point of view of his 'supporters', he
could be reading numbers from the phone book; they will say "Amen!" to
anything.

A good President has more need of good executive abilities, than good
ideas. The latter are a dime a dozen. Has anyone shown that Barack
Obama has any executive experience? Obama likes to challenge
Clinton's "experience on foreign policy". Rightly, she doesn't jump
up and claim that she has made any foreign policy decisions, herself.
Yet, she is hugely qualified in those areas. How can that be?
Because she was "in the kitchen", so to speak, for the two terms of
her husband's successful years as President of the United States; she
was there! And that makes Hillary Clinton, ipso facto, THE most
qualified person in this country to lead America!

Obama wishes to become President. But he has no qualification other
than being a stony-faced speaker--who happens to be a black Democrat.
I wish that Rev. Al Sharpton had Obama's votes, now. Sharpton has
executive, take-charge, qualities. And he is very knowledgeable of
anything to do with government. I liked the way he silenced hecklers
during a 2004 presidential debate. He said: "'My people' will handle
this, if you people (running the debate) can't."

Because Obama shows just his same, emotionless, stony face while "the
bullets are flying over..." his head, some are now claiming that he's...
the TEFLON candidate. Ronald Reagan had a similar nickname. But
because Reagan was a generalist, he didn't take issue with
disagreements on details. He just stuck to the larger goals, and let
the talk on details fade into the background.

Because Obama is a detail oriented specialist, if he becomes
President, he will insist on involving himself with details way over
his head, and in far too many areas. Obama has neither the
"personality" nor the expertise to know how to delegate authority--the
PRIMARY executive ability! His only "claim" to executive ability is
his running... a "better campaign" than Clinton. But every contribution
Obama gets boosts his ego that he is... 'mandated'. Those contributors
to his campaign are, effectively, special interest group lobbyists who
will paralyze his office, if he is elected.

Pres. Jimmy Carter liked to brag that he was an expert on nuclear
power. Like Obama, the man was smart. But when there was a crisis,
Carter addressed the people. He didn't know the ways of getting
things done by working with Congress, first. He could make heart-felt
speeches. But the American people wouldn't demand that Congress do
what Carter wanted. Barack Obama won't be good at swaying Congress,
either. "The bigger they are the harder they fall." is the
expression. Obama's ego will go head-to-head with the egos of those
in Congress--that Obama will surely pique. His prospect of a failed
presidency... is very high.

But Obama shouldn't even be considered as a candidate for president,
EVER. Why? Because he doesn't support DEMOCRACY! I know such,
because his campaigner and endorser, Senator Tom Daschel, "smiles"
when roadblocks are thrown up to having the votes in FL and MI
counted, or their new primaries scheduled. And Obama himself didn't
tell those legislators in Michigan he wants another primary... to be
fair. Obviously, Obama is against democracy, because that's the ONLY
way he can get the nomination! And Howard Dean favors... 'the rules of
the DNC' over democracy, because that is the ONLY way, he might get a
position in the Executive Branch. In a similar way, George Bush, and
the 2000 US Supreme Court, betrayed democracy just to continue the
lame political party system--that's largely controlled by selfish
business interests.

Corruption, and having any person or group obtain an unfair selfish
advantage, will bring down America. But only if the American people
let it! Till now, it has been far too convenient for them to just let
their 'groups' "represent" their interests. When 90 plus percent of
blacks continue to support Obama--even after Obama has disavowed
DEMOCRACY--then, blacks are disavowing democracy, too. Those "smiling
faces" in the audiences behind Obama, as he speaks, should just be
empty seats. Now, anyone smiling at Obama is giving their assent to
the downfall America. Have any of you blacks who continue to support
him considered that?

Obama has a rude penchant for staring into the eyes of those who are
talking. He's like a raptor waiting to pounce. When Hillary has
replied to questions during debates, imagine how hard it would be to
concentrate on her answers with Obama staring so ungentlemanly. But
'that way', he avoids facing the audience. And he hides his inability
to exhibit a normal range of facial expressions and body language to
the audiences. He just concentrates. And he's in his own, strange,
private world.

Blacks are loyal people. And they are great verbal communicators.
Now isn't the time for them to be... unified behind Obama. It's a time
for them to become color blind, and to vote for the person who is BEST
for America. Deep down, everyone--including Barack Obama--knows that
such person is Hillary Rodham Clinton! Clinton will be a great
President for everyone in the USA!

Respectfully submitted,

-- NoEinstein --





The long delay before the PA primary should allow careful thinking to
be done. That's a good thing. But if you haven't realized by now,
the primary/convention system is hugely undemocratic. FL and MI
realized that fact long ago, and tried to get their 'fair' say by
moving their primaries ahead of Iowa.

In FL, the move-up of the primary was a Republican, not a Democratic
decision. The controversy over that change was a known issue--so,
neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there, though both were on the FL
ballot. Yes, Clinton was the better known candidate. But Obama was
well known, too. After all, hadn't he made some rousing speeches
during the campaigns of 2000 and 2004, and didn't he speak at the 2004
Democratic Convention? It was easy to realize that Barack Obama, with
his fine oratory, was an up-and-comer in politics.

I've been observing politics since before Obama was born. I too was
curious if he would become the next Jesse Jackson. Both Jesse and I
were born in Greenville, SC. I had sided with "states rights" during
the segregation era, but this was largely because I felt that "the
right not to..." should be equal to "the right to...". The strong
arguments in support of my philosophy, work only if there is no
discrimination against blacks. But since such wasn't the case,
integration was the way to go.

Other than the fact that Obama was born poor, much of what he knows
about "black issues" he

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 28, 12:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Very few emerging truths are ever allowed to be covered "as news" in

The US Constitution allows the States to decide many issues. The
resulting cross jurisdictions guarantee the right to vote, on the one
hand, while allowing each state to determine the boundaries of its own
districts. Problems arise when any district's boundary decisions have
been based on the resulting demographic makeup of districts--
especially, when the latter starts distorting the macro will of the
people, counter to democratic principles.

Conveniently, the political parties in many states use their already
drawn up district boundaries to allocate delegates to the national
party conventions. That's the reason it is possible for a candidate
to... "win" the delegate count, but loose the total popular vote across
the USA. Those times when the latter happens, democracy gets raped.

In the pioneer days when the Constitution was being written, it was
necessary that we be "a representative republic". That's because
democracy--though it is the shinning ideal--would have been impossible
to administer and to guarantee, if the votes of the people had had to
be collected via horse and buggy. And the distribution of the
information necessary for voters to be adequately informed on the
issues made "pure" democracy unpractical.

The US Constitution addressed the vote collection problem in national
elections by having what is known as... the Electoral College.
Originally, such was comprised of trusted citizens from the various
states who actually traveled to Washington (These days, travel to
Washington is no longer required.), and those citizens were on their
honor to vote the way the majority of those in their apt geographic
areas had voted.

A recognized problem was: During the TIME between a presidential
election, and when the votes of the total Electoral College could be
compiled, the dynamics of the contest could have changed. Suppose it
gets revealed that one of the candidates for President has committed a
felony, or other slipup, which surely disqualifies such person to be
president. Are the members of the Electoral College still bound by
the, then, naïve votes of the people in the far away states?

Electors are given some leeway to vote "what is right" for the people
whom they represent. By their having that leeway, it is being
acknowledged: Information which is available at the latest moment,
that was unavailable when the people voted, is MORE important to the
final decision than the votes of the people who didn't have such
information.

The above is most apt to the continuing democratic race between
Clinton and Obama. He is clinging to hopes of victory, because he
built up an early lead in the delegate count. But the stampede of the
voters to Obama STOPPED in Texas and Ohio! With the new revelations
about Obama's "personality" and "qualification" shortcomings, more and
more it seems that the Special Delegates--who will be privy to ALL of
the most up-to-date information--will get to make the final decision.
And the correct final decision is: They should vote to nominate
Hillary Rodham Clinton!

Barack Obama shouldn't even be running to become President at all.
Why? Because he has disavowed democracy... as is evinced by his
"attitude" regarding democracy in FL and MI. Obama--with his corrupt
news spinners with their sick smiles--are placing more importance on...
"the rules" of the DNC than on democracy itself. Folks, if getting
Obama elected is more important than democracy, then the USA is going
down-the-tubes. Not only is Obama unqualified to be President, his
election will lock in the corruption of the Howard Deans, the Bill
Richardsons and the Tom Daschels. NOTE: Corruption isn't a party
issue, it is THE issue!

The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties. Subsequent
laws were passed which gave political parties leeway to decide how
they will select their nominees. But no party, nor officials of any
government, nor any court has the right to negate DEMOCRACY in the
USA!

Quite literally, the HORRIBLE primary system that this country is
saddled with started out with a simple objective: Because people in
'small' states need to meet the candidates; and because it takes a lot
of time for candidates to visit all of the states, it was decided to
allow small states, like Iowa, to hold their primaries on separate
dates. That may be... the tradition... but it violates democracy at every
turn!

Obama will claim that his early stampede of delegates should carry the
same 'weight' as Clinton's later stampede. As with the Electoral
College, later information should carry more weight that earlier,
outmoded information. I wonder how many of Obama's "supporters" would
vote for him now that they know: He clings to the likes of Rev.
Jeremiah Wright who hates America; that his wife "loves America for
the first time" AFTER her husband won a primary; that he has positions
on NAFTA that are different in private than in public; that his
schedule for getting our troops out of Iraq is more open-ended than he
says; that his only 'executive experience' is running a campaign, and
his only standard is the dollars raised; that his "personality" is too
self-centered to be the Chief Executive; that he is attracting the
endorsements of persons and groups with selfish motives; that he has
little in common with anybody; and that he is so selfish that he
thinks his being elected President is more important than DEMOCRACY
itself!

Recent polls show that about 16% of the supporters of both Clinton and
Obama say that they will vote for McCain, unless their own choice gets
the nomination. I say, if Obama gets the nomination, write in: Ron
Paul. Both McCain and Obama would be the puppets of their party.

McCain lucked his way through, because he is intransigent. His
positions on anything never change. He's that way to protect his
likely 90 IQ. Start changing things, and he would reveal his slow
mind. Try to get him to change, and he looses his temper. That
latent temper is his protective mechanism, and it could well kill-him-
off with a heart attack. Every time McCain opens his mouth, his blood
pressure seems to go so high, that he looks like he will explode!

Unfortunately, Obama never changes, either... He becomes so personally
involved with the details, that he takes changes to his proposals as
an affront to his ego. Obama would never be able to compromise; never
be able to get his subordinates to like him; never be able to convince
the American people that he feels their pain (because Obama is devoid
of emotions, himself); and he would never be able to carry through on
most of those "good ideas" he keeps reeling off. Obama uses the
latter as "dangles" for the naïve souls in his audiences, so that he
can to get himself nominated.

If an unbiased observer had to assess the validity of the health care
plans of Clinton vs. Obama, Clinton would win, hands down--if for no
other reason than she has been thinking on that subject for close to
two decades. Obviously, Obama's health care plan is the one he has
most thought about. In the earlier debates, the most "presidential"
reply that Obama, or anyone else, could have made in such regard would
have been:

"I'm committed to a workable and practical health care plan. If
Americans will honor me, by electing me your President, I give you my
word that I will consider the best aspects of the plans of Clinton, or
any of you out there. Admittedly, I'm no expert on health issues, but
I can assure you that I will enlist whatever expert advice may be
needed to best serve you, and as soon as possible, after I take
office."

If Obama becomes President... we will have this angry-toned, manikin-
like figure looking left and right into his teleprompters, as he
explains to us the details of his personally contrived plans... and the
daily build-up to his failed presidency. But such a presidency
needn't become his, nor our, embarrassment! Obama should do himself,
and all of us a favor: He should immediately WITHDRAW as a candidate
for President. And he should expeditiously RESIGN as senator, and get
out of the political arena, forever. But if he doesn't do those
things, Obama should call a press conference; look directly into the
cameras, without teleprompters; and explain to the American people WHY
his getting nominated by the Democrats, is more important than
DEMOCRACY itself!

Respectfully submitted,

-- NoEinstein --





On Mar 17, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Over Easter, Barack Obama and his family took a short vacation.
During that period polls were taken which show that Hillary Clinton
would defeat McCain by a larger margin than Obama would. And just
this week, for the first time, Obama's... "personality" is being
mentioned as an issue. But his camp has chosen to lump all of Obama's
personality issues under this one heading: the "Damn the USA..." sermon
of Obama's preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since Obama has
already replied to the latter, those in his camp are hoping those
"personality" issues will stay behind him. But Obama's news spinners
are sitting much more tensely in their seats as they try to deflect
the questions about his lack of qualifications--personality or
otherwise. And their 'smiles' in such regard seem much less genuine.

These days, when Obama speaks, those supporters of his with a
propensity to nod their heads in agreement to everything he says, are
planted in the audience in the view of the TV cameras. From the tone
of his recent speeches, one would never realize that he is being
assailed. "Bullets are flying..." over his head. That's figurative
speech, of course. Obviously, there's a battle going on. But is it a
flag-waving "sports event"? Or is it a political race that would ever
find Barack Obama qualified to lead the declining... "greatest nation of
all time"?

CNN has labeled

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When our country was founded, America was a place of hope for those

On Mar 29, 2:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 28, 12:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Very few emerging truths are ever allowed to be covered "as news" in
the media. That's because truths tend to hurt those who are doing the
wrong things, more than the converse. The failed media in this
country is at the very core of America's problems. To correct those
problems will necessitate placing major constraints on allowing ANY
biases in the media to influence ANY decisions of the citizens in how
they will vote in elections or in referenda. So, we in America should
prepare ourselves for living in a world in which "news commentators",
ALL of them, will be an extinct breed.

Recently, I have said that CNN's Wolf Blitzer seems to be showing a
professional detachment in how he administers news stories. This past
Sunday he had James Carville as his guest. As most of you know,
Carville had called Gov. Bill Richardson a... "Judas" for endorsing
Barack Obama. That's because Richardson had served as a cabinet
member during Bill Clinton's administration.

In all fairness, Richardson has every right to switch his loyalty.
But he does NOT have a right to use his own endorsement for anyone
running for office, to persuade others to vote for such person!
Endorsements, more often than not, run counter to democratic
principles. The "buddy-buddy" endorsements by seated officials,
creates these "you owe me one" relationships. Those who manage to get
elected should owe no one anything, other than to do the best job for
all Americans!

James Carville, personality wise, is an ideal person for contrasting
with Barack Obama. Carville shows all of his emotions on his face, or
in his (at times) stammering voice. Those qualities are like windows
to his soul; and he comes across as sincere because of it. Obama, on
the other hand shows NO emotions on his face, nor in his voice. So,
he comes across as someone who can't be analyzed; could be hiding
things; and thus could be untrustworthy.

After Obama made his robot-like address about his relationship with
his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he was interviewed about how his
speech may have allayed the Wright issues. I was taken--not by what
Obama said during the interview--but that he said it without a hint of...
quaver in his voice. There was this hugely emotional issue in which
teary eyes, a nervous hand, or Carville-like stammering voice would
have shown Obama to be... human, and perhaps sincere. But Obama has
never shown, to my satisfaction, that he is sincere about anything.

I've seen recent campaign ads of Obama's that are being run in NC. In
those he talks, assertively, about what he will do for the people if
he is elected President. Obama is wearing a white dress shirt with
his sleeves rolled up--the way Screaming Howard Dean had worn his
sleeves.

Obama's speech would have been great for one running to be a US
Senator, but it wasn't appropriate for a person running for
President. Why? Because the issues facing a president are waytoo
broad to be embodied in one person. Though Obama is a smart man, he
'might be' a smart man worthy of being President ONLY if he is wise
enough to delegate the working out of the details to his
subordinates. Because Obama is a detail-oriented specialist, he is
incapable--by his personality-- of delegating authority; he is difficult
to approach and befriend; and his ego is so huge that everyone in
Congress will have their guards up so high, that all of those
"promising" political ads of his will have been just so much hot air.

Sadly, many people will think that because Obama is so strong willed,
that he'll accomplish things "for them" that have never been
accomplished before. But nothing could be further from the truth!
Because Obama has ZERO executive, and ZERO foreign policy experience,
he will be... at the mercy of the Democratic Party to tell him how to
"run" things. 'That' is the reason people like Richardson, Daschel,
and Dean are so "supportive"--they want jobs in the Executive Branch
that will look good in their 'biographies'. And when they betray
democratic ideals for selfish ends, they themselves are being un
American.

With the Pennsylvania primary looming large on the horizon, PA Senator
Bob Casey has endorsed Obama. Those two recently held a pseudo press
conference. In it Obama took just two or three questions, then tried
to SNOW everyone with... how much he knows. He talking waytoolong,
and went into waytoomany boring details. Those same tendencies will
surely doom an Obama presidency.

Sen. Casey was standing beside Obama with this very nervous, almost
stunned look, over how Obama's "press conference" had turned into
monologues. If JFK had held that same press conference, he would have
fielded fifteen our twenty questions, and used no more than three or
four sentences to reply to each. And everyone would have been highly
entertained in the process!

A likely reason that Obama chose to have a pseudo, monologue press
conference is because he didn't wish to 'risk' having a maverick
reporter ask: "Senator Obama, recently, blogs on the Internet are
suggesting that your tacit resistance to having the Fl and MI primary
votes counted, or having those primaries be re held, is tantamount to
your placing more importance on your getting nominated, than you place
on democracy itself. Would you please comment?"

If and when Obama has to answer such a question, his candidacy for
President is over. You voters "still up for grabs" in PA or in NC
should know that Obama can't get to the Democratic National Convention
in August, without answering that very same question. So, to vote for
a real winner (!) Hillary Rodham Clinton is the wisest choice!

Most tellingly, "the question about Obama's favoring getting nominated
over his favoring democracy itself" was never discussed by Wolf
Blitzer. Was he showing bias toward Obama by not discussing that
question? Or was he just following the failed rule-of-thumb in the
media that "news" comes only from A-list politicians or celebrities,
never from any of the John Q. Public out there. I am proud to be John
Q. Public personified!

Immediately, after I began posting regarding Obama's personality being
unsuited for a President of the USA, the readership of my posts shot
way up. Obama knows that I have accused him of having little in
common with anybody. Now, I see him trying to look... American by
bowling gutter balls, or by eating pizza. Yes, he can smile and even
laugh in crowds. But he still can't show any emotion whatsoever while
being interviewed or while making prepared speeches. I could never
trust such a man as my President.

It has been over a week since I accused Obama of "betraying democracy"
for his own selfish ends. Such time period is long enough for him to
have responded this way, if he was so minded: "My fellow Americans: I
have learned--through the recent Internet blogs of a man with the
curious computer name, NoEinstein--that I have slipped up in how I'm
running my campaign for President. The Democratic primaries that were
held in Florida and Michigan... thoughtooearly to comply with the
rules of the DNC, were still democratic processes. I agree with
NoEinstein that the rules of a democracy--like I hope that America
still is--will always trump the rules of any political party. In
short, the 'date restriction' set by the DNC for 'which' primaries can
be held 'when', is probably unconstitutional.

"Therefore, I am recommending to the DNC that the vote in Florida be
taken, as is, with no revote. And I am recommending that the votes in
Michigan be apportioned the same as demographically similar
Pennsylvania, in its upcoming primary. If it should turn out that "as
goes Pennsylvania, so goes the Nation" I will live with such results.
My intent is to abide by sound principles of democracy. Any
candidate, so nominated, will best serve the interests of all
Americans. In that light, I remain a candidate to be your President.
Thank you all."

But the above heart felt speech was never forthcoming from Barack
Obama. His motives are to "serve" the throngs that he imagines still
want him to be President. But the momentum in the "Ballet Bowl" has
shifted. And the desperate calls that Clinton... "give up" are rightly
going unheeded. No speeches given in front of rows of American flags
will legitimize the candidacy of onetooselfish, andtoodetached to
serve anyone but those string-alongs who might get asked to do Obama's
bidding.

It is time that Obama withdraw as a candidate, and time that he
apologize to the American people for not honoring the high ideals of
democracy. America can survive without him.

Respectfully submitted,

-- NoEinstein --





The US Constitution allows the States to decide many issues. The
resulting cross jurisdictions guarantee the right to vote, on the one
hand, while allowing each state to determine the boundaries of its own
districts. Problems arise when any district's boundary decisions have
been based on the resulting demographic makeup of districts--
especially, when the latter starts distorting the macro will of the
people, counter to democratic principles.

Conveniently, the political parties in many states use their already
drawn up district boundaries to allocate delegates to the national
party conventions. That's the reason it is possible for a candidate
to... "win" the delegate count, but loose the total popular vote across
the USA. Those times when the latter happens, democracy gets raped.

In the pioneer days when the Constitution was being written, it was
necessary that we be "a representative republic". That's because
democracy--though it is the shinning ideal--would have been impossible
to administer and to guarantee, if the votes of the people had had to
be collected via horse and buggy. And the distribution of the
information

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination is rolling right

On Mar 17, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Over Easter, Barack Obama and his family took a short vacation.
During that period polls were taken which show that Hillary Clinton
would defeat McCain by a larger margin than Obama would. And just
this week, for the first time, Obama's... "personality" is being
mentioned as an issue. But his camp has chosen to lump all of Obama's
personality issues under this one heading: the "Damn the USA..." sermon
of Obama's preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since Obama has
already replied to the latter, those in his camp are hoping those
"personality" issues will stay behind him. But Obama's news spinners
are sitting much more tensely in their seats as they try to deflect
the questions about his lack of qualifications--personality or
otherwise. And their 'smiles' in such regard seem much less genuine.

These days, when Obama speaks, those supporters of his with a
propensity to nod their heads in agreement to everything he says, are
planted in the audience in the view of the TV cameras. From the tone
of his recent speeches, one would never realize that he is being
assailed. "Bullets are flying..." over his head. That's figurative
speech, of course. Obviously, there's a battle going on. But is it a
flag-waving "sports event"? Or is it a political race that would ever
find Barack Obama qualified to lead the declining... "greatest nation of
all time"?

CNN has labeled their 24/7 coverage of the race for President, the alltooapt name: "Ballot Bowl". For them, having someone be elected
President is 'sport'. And they are the high paid play-by-play sports
announcers. There isn't a sporting event in this country in which the
announcers don't telescope their personal loyalties by their
excitement over a... "GOAL!"; or a home run; or a touchdown. Many teams
have their own announcers, and their own radio and TV networks.
Choose the 'wrong' one of those, and the announcer won't be showing
the emotion you desire.

Anderson Cooper--or as he chooses to pronounce it: "Coo-per"--has had
what looks like... excellent surgery under his left eye. Anderson could
have told everyone--figuratively, of course--that he got "grazed by a
bullet" when he got off of his plane in Iraq. If he had said 'that'
with a smile, he would have been showing good humor. But he showed no
good humor when he derided Hillary Clinton for saying that she had to
"duck down" getting off of her plane in Bosnia.

Soldiers getting out of still-running helicopters duck down,
reflexively, as the "chopper" blades keep whizzing above. So, when
Clinton repeated that story--tootired to smile, or to wink--should
anyone use that to accuse her of lying? Only someone like Anderson
Cooper, who more and more is showing himself to be pro Obama, would
attack FIGURATIVE speech. To his credit CNN's Wolf Blitzer seems to
be showing a level of professional detachment as he covers the news.

Obama is an expert at rattling off desirable political goals in his
speeches. Yet, other than by addressing Congress, the President gets
few chances to call for legislation. Most of Obama's campaign
speeches would be more apt if this country was a dictatorship, and he
was the dictator. But from the point of view of his 'supporters', he
could be reading numbers from the phone book; they will say "Amen!" to
anything.

A good President has more need of good executive abilities, than good
ideas. The latter are a dime a dozen. Has anyone shown that Barack
Obama has any executive experience? Obama likes to challenge
Clinton's "experience on foreign policy". Rightly, she doesn't jump
up and claim that she has made any foreign policy decisions, herself.
Yet, she is hugely qualified in those areas. How can that be?
Because she was "in the kitchen", so to speak, for the two terms of
her husband's successful years as President of the United States; she
was there! And that makes Hillary Clinton, ipso facto, THE most
qualified person in this country to lead America!

Obama wishes to become President. But he has no qualification other
than being a stony-faced speaker--who happens to be a black Democrat.
I wish that Rev. Al Sharpton had Obama's votes, now. Sharpton has
executive, take-charge, qualities. And he is very knowledgeable of
anything to do with government. I liked the way he silenced hecklers
during a 2004 presidential debate. He said: "'My people' will handle
this, if you people (running the debate) can't."

Because Obama shows just his same, emotionless, stony face while "the
bullets are flying over..." his head, some are now claiming that he's...
the TEFLON candidate. Ronald Reagan had a similar nickname. But
because Reagan was a generalist, he didn't take issue with
disagreements on details. He just stuck to the larger goals, and let
the talk on details fade into the background.

Because Obama is a detail oriented specialist, if he becomes
President, he will insist on involving himself with details way over
his head, and in fartoomany areas. Obama has neither the
"personality" nor the expertise to know how to delegate authority--the
PRIMARY executive ability! His only "claim" to executive ability is
his running... a "better campaign" than Clinton. But every contribution
Obama gets boosts his ego that he is... 'mandated'. Those contributors
to his campaign are, effectively, special interest group lobbyists who
will paralyze hisoffice, if he is elected.

Pres. Jimmy Carter liked to brag that he was an expert on nuclear
power. Like Obama, the man was smart. But when there was a crisis,
Carter addressed the people. He didn't know the ways of getting
things done by working with Congress, first. He could make heart-felt
speeches. But the American people wouldn't demand that Congress do
what Carter wanted. Barack Obama won't be good at swaying Congress,
either. "The bigger they are the harder they fall." is the
expression. Obama's ego will go head-to-head with the egos of those
in Congress--that Obama will surely pique. His prospect of a failed
presidency... is very high.

But Obama shouldn't even be considered as a candidate for president,
EVER. Why? Because he doesn't support DEMOCRACY! I know such,
because his campaigner and endorser, Senator Tom Daschel, "smiles"
when roadblocks are thrown up to having the votes in FL and MI
counted, or their new primaries scheduled. And Obama himself didn't
tell those legislators in Michigan he wants another primary... to be
fair. Obviously, Obama is against democracy, because that's the ONLY
way he can get the nomination! And Howard Dean favors... 'the rules of
the DNC' over democracy, because that is the ONLY way, he might get a
position in the Executive Branch. In a similar way, George Bush, and
the 2000 US Supreme Court, betrayed democracy just to continue the
lame political party system--that's largely controlled by selfish
business interests.

Corruption, and having any person or group obtain an unfair selfish
advantage, will bring down America. But only if the American people
let it! Till now, it has been fartooconvenient for them to just let
their 'groups' "represent" their interests. When 90 plus percent of
blacks continue to support Obama--even after Obama has disavowed
DEMOCRACY--then, blacks are disavowing democracy,too. Those "smiling
faces" in the audiences behind Obama, as he speaks, should just be
empty seats. Now, anyone smiling at Obama is giving their assent to
the downfall America. Have any of you blacks who continue to support
him considered that?

Obama has a rude penchant for staring into the eyes of those who are
talking. He's like a raptor waiting to pounce. When Hillary has
replied to questions during debates, imagine how hard it would be to
concentrate on her answers with Obama staring so ungentlemanly. But
'that way', he avoids facing the audience. And he hides his inability
to exhibit a normal range of facial expressions and body language to
the audiences. He just concentrates. And he's in his own, strange,
private world.

Blacks are loyal people. And they are great verbal communicators.
Now isn't the time for them to be... unified behind Obama. It's a time
for them to become color blind, and to vote for the person who is BEST
for America. Deep down, everyone--including Barack Obama--knows that
such person is Hillary Rodham Clinton! Clinton will be a great
President for everyone in the USA!

Respectfully submitted,

-- NoEinstein --





The long delay before the PA primary should allow careful thinking to
be done. That's a good thing. But if you haven't realized by now,
the primary/convention system is hugely undemocratic. FL and MI
realized that fact long ago, and tried to get their 'fair' say by
moving their primaries ahead of Iowa.

In FL, the move-up of the primary was a Republican, not a Democratic
decision. The controversy over that change was a known issue--so,
neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there, though both were on the FL
ballot. Yes, Clinton was the better known candidate. But Obama was
well known,too. After all, hadn't he made some rousing speeches
during the campaigns of 2000 and 2004, and didn't he speak at the 2004
Democratic Convention? It was easy to realize that Barack Obama, with
his fine oratory, was an up-and-comer in politics.

I've been observing politics since before Obama was born. Itoowas
curious if he would become the next Jesse Jackson. Both Jesse and I
were born in Greenville, SC. I had sided with "states rights" during
the segregation era, but this was largely because I felt that "the
right not to..." should be equal to "the right to...". The strong
arguments in support of my philosophy, work only if there is no
discrimination against blacks. But since such wasn't the case,
integration was the way to go.

Other than the fact that Obama was born poor, much of what he knows
about "black issues" he

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is that 'bad day' every year when Americans are reminded how