Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Apr 24, 12:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

“Having an informed electorate is crucial to having the most effective
government.” As I try to absorb more and more of… “what is going on”
in the Clinton - Obama race, I’m realizing that the majority of
voters, and a large number of those “commentators”, haven’t been
getting the “big picture”. I don’t think such manifest, narrowed
viewpoints are the result of apathy. More likely they are the result
of bias toward either Clinton or Obama. In short: People will hear
what they want to hear, and close their minds to anything counter to
their personal biases…

Obama supporters, in particular, like to brag about how energized the
Democratic organizations are throughout this country; and about how
many new voter registrations have been added. To me, adding first
time younger registrants isn’t automatically a great thing… Yes, I
believe in democracy! I am the quintessential proponent of
democracy! But voters need to be well informed in order to vote
wisely. And younger voters, as a group, aren’t as well informed as
older voters.

The ready forums for appealing to younger voters are the college
campuses of America. That’s why Chelsea Clinton has been making the
rounds in those places. An indicator of the workings of the minds of
Bill and Hillary is how clearly Chelsea can express herself, and how
calmly. That family GETS the big picture! And such a resource will
certainly make Hillary a more effective President.

As a group, younger voters tend to be more trendy and more mass
minded. They are drawn as much to the ‘atmosphere’ of a gathering of
people, as they are to the stated purpose of the gathering itself.
Some of the debates have been held on college campuses. At those,
Obama seems to get more applause. Some of you who are reading this
may be too young to remember when “applause meters” were used to
decide who wins things like talent contests. Clearly, Obama
supporters seem to believe that ‘strength’ wins. But is physical
strength a standard suited to a democracy? Is the USA a place where
the strong dominate the weak, and the winners revel in beating-up-on
their opponent? Hillary has played the “Rocky” theme song of a
determined underdog. But should the Clinton - Obama race ever be
considered… a sport or game?

Young people love their basketball. They love that the rules of the
game favor having most games go-down-to-the-wire. The excitement of
that type game ending, keeps the crowds large. I’m afraid that a high
percentage of the younger registrants who support Obama are doing so
as much for their anticipation of… the ‘atmosphere’ of being on the
winning side, as they are for calmly supporting the candidate who is
best suited to be President. There may be a rebelliousness in younger
voters to assert themselves by voting counter to their elders. If
they do win, they can say: “See, we did it!”

Apart from the excitement… of the ‘Ballot Bowl’, each American—rich or
poor; Democrat or Republican—has needs for fair treatment and
stability in their lives. Maintaining the latter motivates older
voters not to “bet the farm” on an untested Barack Obama. Younger
voters, who probably have an innate sense that this country isn’t
doing too well, favor the candidate who seems to be the ‘maddest’
about things. If our salvation lies in winning a medieval type battle
fought with swords and shields, Obama has the testosterone level of a
fighter. But again, too many people are using “fight” standards to
make decisions. Having DIPLOMACY and the ability to handle peaceful
negotiations would be characteristics of the person having the best
chance to get this county out of the could-be-fatal mess that it is
in! Because Hillary Clinton has the non-combative nature of a great
diplomat; the wisdom to negotiate in peace; and the predictable
stability to convince the most people that their futures will be
secure, she would be the best choice for President.

Obama continues to brag that he hasn’t, and won’t, take money from
special interests. But every political ad that he runs is financed by
just such special interests! He touts “improving education” as
something he will promote. But the Federal Government shouldn’t even
be involved in education at all. The STATES are the proper overseers
of education in this country. Though Obama “looks good” in that
elementary classroom in front of a brand new, stanchioned American
flag, Obama devalues the flag by trying to use it to legitimize, and
“make Presidential”, his candidacy—after he has shown himself to be
against democracy. If he had been otherwise, the apt delegates in FL
and MI would already have been allocated to Hillary Clinton, and
Obama’s campaign would be in a tail-spin that any thinking voter
should recognize as such.

Realistic commentators are asking: “Why can’t Obama win blue collar
voters?” And his spinners counter that Clinton isn’t winning in the
big cites where high numbers of Blacks live. Those of you who have
read my earlier comments know that I agree with Bill Clinton that
Obama has played… the race card. Clearly, Blacks are giving him their
unwavering support, even after it is pointed out—by me and many others—
that Obama has personality and character flaws. Such “blind” loyalty
must not be allowed to lock this country into any more group against
group fights. Already, 365,000 Americans have died to give Blacks
their freedom. We don’t need any more polarization.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright defended his “Damn the USA…” remarks by
saying that he was only filling in the history lesson, that too
conveniently has left out some of bad things that the USA has done.
As the pastor of Obama’s church, Wright has bastardized religion away
from the principles taught by Jesus Christ. Christ never said…
“Accentuate the negative; foment hatred; never forgive those who ever
did bad things; and etc.” I believe most Blacks, in their hearts, are
good people! In fact, I believe most people are good people! But it
is inappropriate for any pastor of any church in the world to “preach”
hatred! Most know that Obama’s guilt by association will make him
vulnerable. I say, it should make him a NON candidate!

George Will pointed out today that more time has elapsed since Obama
won his last major primary, than he took winning those he has won to
start with. Folks, ‘that’ is what amounts to a change in momentum for
Hillary Clinton! Younger voters out there wishing to be on… “the
winning team” should realize that Clinton’s team is looking more and
more like a winner! As Obama keeps side-stepping having another
debate with Clinton, please know that he is doing such because he
consistently LOOSES debates to Clinton. Do we want a President of the
USA who is a consistent looser to anyone?

My “Save democracy, to save America message” seems to have riled
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He wants people to “Get over…”
what happened in Florida in the 2000 Presidential race. CNN’s Wolf
Blitzer wrongly sees the Supreme Court’s dishonoring of the democratic
process in FL as an issue Floridians are concerned with. Actually, it
is an issue so huge, that ALL patriotic Americans, of whatever party
should be concerned with it! If Obama manages to get the nomination
after he didn’t insist that the foundation of this country, democracy,
be honored, then corruption will have controlled this country for so
long that the people may never again have the opportunity to cleanse
it. Is having Obama be President, just to prove his “team” is
stronger than Hillary’s, worth destroying the USA?

Reinstating democracy should be the primary “concern” of the voters
this year. 81% of American adults don’t like the direction this
country is headed. Instead of rushing every four years to side with…
the perennially failed Democratic or Republican parties, consider how
much better government will work if there are NO biased group
influences between the voters and their government! And suppose that
NO influences outside of the desires of a representative’s
constituents are ever again allowed to influence his or her
decisions! News media headquartered in Washington just to be close
to… “where the action” is, could just as well move to Arizona—because
the media, by its presence, will never again be allowed to influence
governmental processes. The media can still observe, but never again
“analyze” and “predict” to the detriment of democracy!

Scalia shouldn’t be calling too much attention to his part in the rape
of democracy in 2000. Provisions will be in place so that the
American people, if they are dissatisfied with the performance of any
Judge or Justice, can easily unseat and/or sentence them as they see
apt. Never again will the Supreme Court be at the top of the-pecking-
order in this country! Folks, trust me, “these developments” will be
far more important, and “interesting”, than an Obama presidency! And
your children, and theirs, will thank you for electing Hillary Rodham
Clinton President of the United States of America!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


On Apr 23, 10:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yesterday, for the first time, I heard “democracy” mentioned as an
issue in the democratic party’s rules.  This was on CNN and concerned
whether or not super delegates should be allowed to have more votes
than delegates.  There are precedents, like in the US Senate, for
breaking ties.  By most accounts, the race between Clinton and Obama
is a dead heat.  If a decision is to be made, someone must break… the
tie.  But why is that necessary?

The above comment about super delegates was brought up by a likely
Obama supporter.  As the present primary mess plays out—and the August
convention looms—those super delegates are in the position to make the
correct decision: Nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Understandably,
Obama supporters don’t want that to happen.  Oh, it’s OK with them
that “democracy” has been raped by not counting the FL and MI votes
(yet?).  But it isn’t OK with them to allow super delegates to break
the effective tie.  In both cases the anti-democracy DNC rules apply.
Because Obama will likely loose after the super delegates have their
say, his supporters don’t like “that” rule…  But the former rule is
quite OK, to “punish” the innocent voters in FL and MI.  Is anyone
besides me offended by such “Obama must win at all costs” hypocrisy?

The principle of democracy is simple: One person has one vote—and
regardless of their status or importance to any group.  So, super
delegates, indeed, violate democracy.  But their votes would not even
be needed, if democracy had not already been RAPED by the DNC’s entire
primary system!  I’ll explain:

The simple principle of democracy, above, requires that all votes that
are cast have the same importance!  Obama clings to that tainted and
bastardized principle, in the apt case, when he claims to have more
delegates than Clinton.  Of course, numerically, he is correct…  But
from the moment the Iowa votes were counted AND made public, democracy
was ground up, burned, and the ashes cast into the sea…

Democracy DEMANDS that votes be taken and counted on the same day!
Proxy votes that either are not counted, or are not revealed until
election day probably pass the standard of democracy,too.  I’ll make
an analogy for how the present anti-democracy primary system works:

An election is scheduled.  Voters line up at the polls and begin going
into the closed voting booths.  But as soon as a voter is about to
push the ‘cast vote’ button, the curtain opens and a persuasive
supporter for the unselected candidate comes into your private booth
and argues that you should change your vote.  Some of the more weak
minded voters in the lines yield to that intrusion and switch their
votes.  Now, the voters go outside and the media descends to poll them
regarding how they voted.  Almost immediately, the TVs across America
are telling the later voters how the race is going.  And issues that
might sway the outcome are quickly aired in commercials—side against
side.  Finally, at the end of the day, the voters watch their TVs to
find out if they… won or lost.  Under such a system, anywhere from 50%
to 100% of the voters are losers, and the smug, overly-paid
commentators rejoice that there is so much “news” to be covered…  Of
course, the above events are truncated into a single day.  But to
allow the media into the voting process at ANY point is a supreme
violation of sound principles of democracy!  I repeat: To allow the
media into the voting process at ANY point is a supreme violation of
sound principles of democracy!

If the votes in Iowa had not been counted until after all of the
primary results are in, such a “rule” would… approximate… a
democracy.  But it wouldn’t BE a democracy!  Why?  Because those who
voted for Obama BEFORE his personality and character flaws were
revealed, will have had their votes “locked in”…  Surely, many of
those would not now desire to vote for Obama.  That’s the sole reason
why Obama remains a “viable candidate”.  The earlier voters, simply,
had not yet learned how undesirable a candidate Barack Obama truly is…

Some states have held “caucuses” rather than conventional voting-booth
type primaries.  However, ALL caucuses are anti-democracy, and are
thus unconstitutional!  It goes without saying that Obama loves
caucuses, because those allow his highly verbal supporters to
“persuade” more of those attending to vote for him…  But a true
democracy does not allow the PERSUASIVENESS of any supporter of a
candidate to influence any other voters!  Each voter must have 100%
free will—without any last minute counter arguments being allowed—in
the voting booths or otherwise.  Democracy shall never allow the
strength, persuasiveness, “power” or “status” of others to change the
private voting decision of any other voter!

The candidates and the media are well aware of the democracy issues
that I am waving.  Clinton is correct to now report that more
Americans have voted for her, than for Obama.  Apparently, she is
sticking to her game plan that has turned-the-tide for her.
Certainly, her becoming President will be more beneficial for America
than Obama would even have had a chance to be!  But if she is “happy”
with the present broken system of government in Washington, and
defends it… by tradition, America will be just as doomed under her
presidency as under an Obama presidency.

My support for Clinton is due to her greater executive self-
sufficiency compared to Obama.  Clinton is a “Gets the Big Picture”
person, who won’t over-defend or over-attack petty details in proposed
solutions.  Such a generalist will be more open to changes in, say,scienceand technology.  If the latter is so mired as to continue to
uphold Einstein’s theories of relativity—after I have summarily
disproved them—then there isn’t much hope forscienceand technology…
And unless Clinton is “open” to consider that America deserves a
government that works—as CNN’s Lou Dobbs often suggests—then, the
unity of our present “81% discontent” won’t have much chance to affect
the necessary changes in our systems of government.

I‘ve talked very little about John McCain.  As I’ve said: His IQ is
only 90 or so; he istooold and frail; and he will be, like Bush, a
puppet of the (also) corrupt Republican Party.  McCain should be very
easy to defeat in the race!  He would do the whole country a great
favor if he would just drop out, now, and let Clinton run unopposed!
Then, there would be a unity of purpose which this country needs as it
adapts a new and improved form of government.  If the latter is going
to happen, it will occur under Clinton’s watch.  And it will become
part of her proud legacy!

So, as the campaigns and media coverage continue—business as usual—
consider how much better off each of you would be if DEMOCRACY was the
main issue of importance for Americans!  With democracy reinstated as
a foundation for this great nation, the economy, jobs, international
relations, and a new national pride for a united USA will be assured—
far better than any political party in power could ever assure!

May the ‘shared discontent’ that we now feel, unite us!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —





On Apr 21, 9:37 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For those Americans still deciding which Democratic candidate to
support, last night’s beyond-the-prediction win by Hillary Clinton in
Pennsylvania provides important insights for making up your minds.
CNN filled their studios with commentators and spinners alike.
Campbell Brown moderated those well.  And John King’s analyses of the
demographics of the counties won by the candidate seems most telling
of “the trend”—both in the continuing Democratic race, and in the
likely presidential election in November.

Clinton has had to fight like ‘Rocky’ to win, and in doing so she
shows herself to be an amazingly resilient person and a “formidable
candidate”—as Barack Obama said in his concession speech last night
from Indiana.  Obama spoke before a crowd showing almost as many
smiling faces as if he had won each of the last three big states:
Texas, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania.  Though his speech highlights his
resolve, it also reveals, more and more, that Obama has delusions of
invincibility.

If being the President actually entailed fighting, Obama might be an
acceptable choice.  He speaks with the strong voice and level-toned
inflection of a man with a high testosterone level.  But selecting our
President shouldn’t be about who has the most testosterone.  Those
goals that Obama keeps promising to “fight for” are largely outside of
the range of authority of the Executive Branch.

Suppose that the Democratic Party’s nominee were to be selected by
having a huge tug-of-war.  If one wishes to be on the… “winning team”,
it would make sense to rush to the side having the strongest looking
tuggers.  But a true democracy isn’t about favoring the strong over
the weak.  It isn’t about who has the most stamina.  It isn’t about
“winning” just for the pride of being on the winning team.  What it
should be about is having clear thinking Americans vote for the
candidates who will do the optimum things for ALL Americans, not just
things for “the half” that happens to be on the winning side in a tug-
of-war.

North Carolina and Indiana are now in the spotlight.  NC—where I lived
for years—has been polled to be “leaning” toward Obama.  Such seems to
be the case because of the large Black population, there, and because
of the affluent people living in the Research Triangle area.

It seems that Blacks are supporting Obama primarily because he is
Black.  The unwavering voting percentages

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast