Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein <noeinstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 22, 7:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
3/25/08
These days, people concerned with the Democratic race for President
are having to decide whether to stick-to-their-guns, or to switch
sides.
I remember a 'most telling' cartoon that I saw decades ago. It was
drawn in PLAYBOY magazine. The pen and ink drawing had two side-by-
side pictures. The left one depicted the outside of a football
stadium. Parts of the throng entering the stadium were waving an
about equal number of yellow or purple triangular flags--like those
traditionally waved at the football games of old. The second picture
depicted the outside of that same stadium as the crowd was leaving
after the game. About an equal quantity of flags were being waved,
but all of them are purple. Obviously, the "yellow" team had
performed so poorly that their fans switched loyalty and purchased
purple flags while inside.
Too often our political races are decided by which candidate seems
most likely to win. Until Clinton won Texas and Ohio, the stampede
was to Obama. In the USA the vast majority are hungry to win! At a
most fundamental level, people assume that if they can just side with...
the winner, they will be better off.
Part of that attitude comes from the joy they feel after the election,
and the voting "scores" are placed on the board. Another part of it
comes from... "bragging rights" at work or in social situations. But
how much of the 'joy' results from being assured that the USA, as a
whole, will be better off? Usually, about 50% will vote for the
loser... Can the USA ever be "better off" if 50% of its population
isn't going to be better off, too? And are the decisions that our
elected representatives will make only going to benefit those who
voted for them? If the answer to that question is... yes, then this
country's future looks dim, indeed.
There are those who complain about 'the problems', and those who do
something about them. I have always been the latter type! Run for
office? Hell no! A person would have to be a near fool to subject
themselves to even a tiny fraction of what Clinton and Obama are going
through. To wit: Appealing to people who see themselves as either a
"yellow" or a "purple" means having to 'promise' different things to
different groups. But don't the laws that get made apply to all
groups, equally? Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment give ALL of us the
equal protection of the law?
After viewing and hearing the full context of that "Damn the USA..."
sermon by Obama's pastor, I am even more appalled. It seems such type
highly politicized sermons aren't that unusual in black churches. In
a nutshell, those types of addresses: accentuate the negative; create
hate and dissention; and divide the nation along group lines. Try to
imagine Barack Obama willingly listening to sermons that have a
similar tone. When he decided to enter public office, did he do so
because of his love for his fellow man, or because of his hatred for
some?
A good while before the 2004 Democratic Convention, I had heard family
members and friends commenting that a man named "Obama" was making
great speeches, and might be the heir apparent to Jesse Jackson. So,
I listened and watched with great interest when he spoke at that
convention. Though his speech was expertly delivered, I couldn't feel
an affinity for the man. I wasn't moved.
As I've often explained, I don't... 'hate' blacks. I've agreed with the
majority of the things that Jesse Jackson has done and said. I even
considered he would make a fine President. I admire that Jesse is
someone who is both emotional and articulate. Though Obama is
definitely articulate, he is nearly totally lacking in emotion. When
he speaks, his face is a long... dead pan. Call me funny, but I can't
like anyone with a dead pan face, or one who doesn't gesture freely.
Last Spring when TIME ran their amateurish handwriting analysis of
the, then, six leading candidates for President, I emailed TIME my
professional level analyses. Obama's signature shows flare,
individuality, and exactness in the letter formations. When he "takes
notes" during his debates with Hillary, his left hand moves with the
slow precision of a machine. Most people taking notes under those
circumstances would scribble so quickly, that what they write would
look like "shorthand" to anyone but them. Clearly, Obama's mind
doesn't work like most people's--and that concerns me greatly. More
and more I realize that my expertise with graphology stems from my
expertise in observing people. I know that if a person shows 'such
and such' traits, they likely will have other associated traits as
well.
One thing that will turn me against someone very fast, is seeing them
smile at the injustices being done to others. Recently, Senator James
Carville and Senator Tom Daschel were interviewed on CNN about how to
resolve the FL and MI primary issues. Carville, a most sincere man,
made reasonable suggestions for giving democracy its due. But Daschel
just smiled... that it doesn't seem to be happening. Daschel has
endorsed, and is campaigning on behalf of, Barack Obama. But when I
saw him smile, with apparent delight that barriers are being placed to
DEMOCRACY in America, I realized that Tom Daschel is unworthy to be a
United States senator! And he unworthy to call himself an American!
I had seen smiles like Daschel's after George Bush--with his...
connections--'bought' the US Supreme Court in the 2000 election. The
majority of that court apparently valued "event schedules" and "time
constraints" above democracy. And those who so voted should be CURSED
for all of history!
Why are there so many things wrong with America? Mainly, it's because
we have let individual choice be replaced by... group will. We divide
ourselves into political parties, and into so many other groups,
hoping to gain advantages. But are we getting better under that
system or worse?
BE IT KNOWN: "Every time 'group will' charades for individual choice,
America looses!" When 90 plus percent of blacks are backing Barack
Obama--whom I know to be unqualified, because of his personality, to be
President--group divisiveness is raising its ugly head in America.
Group interests nearly always run counter to democracy. The latter
is: One person, one vote. But group interests are... arm-twisting and
lobbying to try to get an undemocratic advantage. It is time that we
reinstate DEMOCRACY as a foundation in this country!
Those like Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, and Tom Daschel favor "the
rules" of the DNC over the larger RULE of democracy. And they do so
because they know that Obama will need... their help if he is elected.
Those men are selfishly motivated--as is every single person or group
which has... endorsed Obama!
Though few are yet aware, the solutions to America's problems are in
the offing. And such will bypass most of the failed processes in
Washington. But those solutions won't come to light unless the
supporters of Barack Obama... wise up and change their choice for
President! The discrimination in this country can be abated, and
without the group divisiveness sure to come in the event that Obama is
elected President.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton reads this, she will wonder if 'she' is... the
solution. No. At least not directly. She is just has the right
PERSONALITY to allow those solutions to be heard. Without Clinton as
President, America will likely fail. Not during the next term, but
sooner than anyone who loves America--as I do--would like. And a mighty
empire will be gone... due to its growing inner flaws.
If Barack Obama reads this, he should ponder how his unique
background, and his unique personality, are dividing America and
destroying democracy. Then, he should make the biggest and most heart-
felt speech of his life: He should withdraw as a candidate for
President of the United States of America.
America, America, long may she live!
Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
On Mar 17, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Apparently, the race for the White House isn't about selecting the
best person for the job. Long ago, it became a choose-sides, sporting
event, with the sole objective of winning. And that's "winning"--as in
jumping-up-and-down and feeling superior to the losers. Broad cross
sections of America love having "their team or teams" win. That's
because the latter are our surrogates in the primal fights for
survival that modern day life has denied most of us the need for
fighting. Having someone who wins 'represent' us, gives us
confidence. That's why we will defend... "our team" against all reason.
Barack Obama represents a team that has two main things "going for
it": (1.) He's a Democrat, and therefore is different from the failed
Republican president who has occupied the White House for seven plus
years. (2.) And he is black. If Obama gets elected, people 'know'
things will be different...
But is "different" what is best for America? America flourished under
President Ronald Reagan. Though he was a "technical" Republican, the
largest majority of voters in quite a while chose him. With his
trademark: "Well...", coupled with the relaxed tilt of his head and his
sincere smile, people felt GOOD about America--even though "trickle
down" didn't always get where it was needed most.
Reagan had a 'conventional' personality with much in common with many
people. His handwriting shows those things to me, because I've been a
lifelong graphologist--or rather, I've been one since my early teens.
Reagan was an emotional person. And he had a nervous temperament. He
responded to things at an emotional and heart-felt level. Because he
was a generalist, Reagan left most of the details to his trusted
subordinates.
Of the three remaining candidates for President, Hillary Rodham
Clinton's handwriting is most similar to Ronald Reagan's. Like
Reagan, Clinton is a conventional thinker. She does things in
predictable, reasonable ways. She's also a generalist. Those tend to
get "the big picture". And most generalists realize that one person
can't do, or be, all things. So, they become group players; they
delegate authority; and they lead efforts for constructive
compromises. The latter is an ability that women have more than men.
My objective assessment of Barack Obama's handwriting shows him to be:
A modern, detail-oriented, specialist, with little in common with most
people. "Modern" people don't tend to be influenced greatly by the
attitudes of others. They tend to do their own thing, and they can be
cold in social situations. Until the last few days, I've observed
that Obama doesn't smile very often. He isn't a happy person...
Some of you may have noticed that Obama is a "lefty". Those, quite
simply, don't think like the majority of people think. They are the
artists and the dreamers who tend to be isolated individuals with
little in common with others. Is 'that' a type person who could
represent our best interests as President? No way!
Recently, I've commented regarding the hugely negative indicator that
90 plus percent of blacks are for Obama--no matter what he does, nor
how unqualified for President he is. Barack Obama is a team symbol,
NOT a paragon of virtue, nor one with the personality to accomplish
what his supports so trust will transpire if the man gets elected.
Where are the critical thinkers in America?
The revelations that Obama is a willing member of a radical, USA
hating church is damaging his persona. The man read his recent
prepared speech with the coolness of a penguin. In interviews, his
emotions are nowhere to be seen. The man is so cool (or should that
be 'cold') that he could pass any polygraph test. Should the
president of the United States be someone without a normal emotional
range?
As more negatives surface about Obama's qualifications, and about his
character, his supporters mimic his coolness. Jack Cafferty of CNN,
talks about "the certainty" of Obama's nomination, while he belittles
Clinton at every turn for demanding that her supporters in FL and MI
be seated at the Democratic Convention. Tell me, if Cafferty is so
certain that Obama will 'get' the nomination, why does Cafferty become
all hot-and-bothered because she's more than holding up 'her end' of
the horse race?
Jack Cafferty is a microcosm of what is WRONG about the media. In
that man's shallow way of thinking, if he can just "cover" the news in
an arrogant enough manner in support of his biases, the candidate of
HIS choice will be nominated. But is democracy about having people be
influenced by ANY wish of ANY commentator in ANY medium--Jack Cafferty
included? HELL NO, IT ISN"T!
In the last two days, smiles have come to Obama's face realizing that
the state legislators in MI place more emphasis on taking their
recesses, than they do on seeing to it that democracy is served. That
man is clearly 'amused and comforted' that his supporters are so
unprincipled. After all, don't the unprincipled ones usually win over
the... good guys? Bush did that--in his first term--because the US
Supreme Court had been BOUGHT. I recall there were sick smiles and
'laughter' over that injustice, too.
When Bill Clinton made a sincere wish for having a 'clean and fair'
campaign, Obama's supporters--like that retired general did in
Charlotte, NC 3/21/08--interpret Bill's remarks as excluding Obama from
the ranks of the virtuous. Yet no names were even mentioned. So, how
can a statement that mentions no names be considered offensive to
anyone? It seems that the small consciences of Obama and his
supporters are starting to pang them. But all the while, they smile
and laugh to themselves knowing that Obama has so many supporters who
are... unprincipled. Surely, everyone knows: The ones who fight without
principle have an advantage. Isn't that part of the reason Obama is
already claiming victory?
New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Obama, yesterday. But
he did so almost surreptitiously. He had a hastily grown, Chinese
looking, black beard. When Richardson looked himself in the mirror,
afterward, the person he saw was... 'someone else'. If "the voters"
can't elect Obama by themselves, maybe Bill Richardson can 'tilt' a
few opinions and influence the outcome. Is "democracy" apparent
anywhere in that process? No way!
More and more, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is sitting in the
moral jury chairs. They've got a scheduled primary that passes the
sanction of the DNC. If a large enough majority of the voters in
Pennsylvania believe as I do, that Hillary Clinton has been, and is
being, treated unfairly in the media, then Pennsylvania can take a
stand--not only for sensible business decisions relative to Saving
American Jobs, but a stand for protecting democratic principles and
possibly SAVING the entire USA!
I urge the voters in PA, NC and all the rest of the states still in
play to show their support for democracy by REJECTING the bid of
Barack Obama to occupy the White House--now and forever! Let reason
rule; let fairness prevail; and let the USA rise above the pettiness
of any mere 'sporting event'. In the end, the victors should be every
one of us!
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 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
...
read more >>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein
- Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Prev by Date: Re: How much can you say with a single photon?
- Next by Date: Re: Caffeinated sugar-water.
- Previous by thread: I get 99 percent of my news from UseNet and the Web.
- Next by thread: Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
