Critics believe that coalition governments can be unstable but they can work very well, especially when the smaller parties act as watchdogs on the more arrogant and poweful. Two of the leaders of the main political party have had to resign here in the last ten years or so. The first hit the dust when it was eventually revealed (mainly by the press) that he'd approved the phone-tapping of some journalists who'd been very critical of his self-aggrandisement. The second, from that selfsame party, had to go about two months ago when a public tribunal exposed the most unbelievable lies about his personal finances and his connections with land developers around Dublin. Both of these men had mistresses but we've become almost Continental in our refusal to allow personal desire to impinge on the political unless these liaisons involve bribery and corruption. Furthermore, wire-tapping is illegal;

"Anne of Green Gables" is one of the first books I ever read and that is set on Prince Edward Island. Life seemed so simple then. I've a few words in my head which I feel relate to Barack: "Oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor". I can't remember the source but it could be Gilbert and Sullivan whose frothiness often concealed a wicked wit - for instance "She could very well pass for 45 in the dusk with the light behind her". Hillary Clinton suffered a brutal onslaught on every aspect of her being and it's only fair that Barack Obama should be sternly asked to account for himself along the lines "Are you a man or a mouse?!

I'm logging off now for the rest of the day. Unlike Barack who, I believe, is "above the fray", I throw myself into the fray but I must concentrate on other matters just now.

Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I remember this Blind Faith in 2000 and 2004 in some dude by the name of Bush. I did not like it then and I don't like it now. I don't care that it's *our* guy doing it now.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

He is starting to cave in under pressure and his idealistic notions are starting fade away. Unles of course he is a great actor and had us all fooled. In which case he is a ....

I was so pleased to see your response to my note. More than pleased actually....felt rather special. Although I must confess something to you I am not an American. I am Canadian! And yes, Stephen Harper is our Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative government. He has been in office for a little more than two years. Currently we have a minority government. Most of us like minority government as it keeps the politicans in line. Some of our more successful government initiatives e.g., universal health care, pension plans, unemployment insurance etc. all were passed when we had minority governments.

I have been interested in American politics since John Kennedy ran for President in 1960. I was a very young girl at the time. In the years since 1960 some elections interest me more than others. But this election just captivated me. I was out to dinner with my husband tonight and I said to him 'I know I have told you this before and you think I talk about this too much,but I am deeply disappointed'. He thought I was referring to Hillary, but I wasn't. But I did take the opportunity to express yet again my disappointment in the primary results. I just finished reading Rebecca Traister's article 'The Attack of the Puma's'...I can definitely relate to the anger and disappointment.

I wrote in a much earlier thread that the older I get I have come to realize that civil servants should really run the country. I don't know the situation in Ireland, but in Canada we have had a very well respected and professional civil service. I know it is not terribly democratic. However, politicans even those I support usually end up disappointing you once they achieve elected office. I picture these grey men in homburg hats being all knowing and they will make the right decisions.

Anyway, it was wonderful to hear from you. Take care.

P.S. Glad you 'made up' with NYShooter...I like his posts too.

The founders saw that a situation like this could arise and so they provided for a right for the states to call a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to protect themselves from the oppression of unscrupulous liars, murderers and thieves who have hijacked the federal govt.

Numerous states have called for a Convention and the Congress has said the states can only call a Convention for one issue which the states must specify.

The Constitution says no such thing.

Both parties are afraid of this option as it will bring the power hungry demigogues and their corporate masters under the control of the citizens of this country.

The American people will have to take to the streets to demand that a Constitutional Convention be convened.

Will they commit to what is their last recourse for self-determination or will they continue to simply baa (bitch) like the spineless sheep they have been?

Will they attempt to save their future or will they further plunge themselves into drugs, television, ipods, video games and any other trance producing things they can find?

They don't need a "leader". Leaders cannot be trusted. All world events are due to individuals moving collectively. The people must have the will to awaken and become their own leaders.

This is their last chance.

I cannot yet put my finger on it. I am not yet ready to call him a con man, distinct from the ways that most politicians are con men. However, he just plain makes me uneasy. The phrase that kept coming to my mind back in January and February was "too good to be true." To me, he was trying to project an image of perfect goodness. Not perfection exactly, for Michelle has reminded us repeatedly that he is "just a man." But why did we need reminding? Shouldn't we assume that?

I have become aware of the magic show aspects of his campaign and the pickup artist manipulations -- his deliberately negging Hillary to boost his own value -- but that is too simple somehow. I cannot get over the sense that, unlike Bill Clinton, his charisma is not a natural thing but a very practiced acquisition. (Hillary I almost trusted because she has no charisma whatsoever. She apparently couldn't even be bothered to work on her voice and her lies are rather transparent.)

Obama is Mr. Too Smooth. One of the Dallas magazines has his photo on the cover and his face is completely affectless and almost perfectly symmetrical. The symmetry gives him an appearance of handsomeness that he would not otherwise have.

Who the hell is this guy? I want to know who he is before I cast my vote for him. Right now, even after all this time, the only thing that I feel that I know about him is that he is an expert and casual liar. Falsehoods roll easily off of his tongue.