Friday, February 01, 2008

Clinton v. Obama - Horses for Courses.

One of my forlorn hopes finally sank this week. John Edwards withdrew as a candidate in the presidential election. From an article in the New York Times

“Having the first serious African-American running against the first serious female — it’s a hard story to get into,” Mr. Moylan (campaign advisor) said. “There was an alignment of the stars this year, and it wasn’t for us.”

The "alignment of the stars", if not for John Edwards must be in favour of one of the remaining candidates. Many professional astrologers have made predictions on this score, so I'm not about to add my astrological two pennyworth on the basis of transits, progressions or whatever. After the USA has had 8 years of Republican presidency, I'd say that natural balance dictates a Democrat should be the next president. Any kind of catastrophe occurring before November could possibly set natural balance awry, but in the absence of such, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama should be moving into the White House in January 2009 - just before a solar eclipse in Aquarius. A nice herald for changes of more humanitarian flavour!

After writing this post, I watched last night's TV debate between the two Democratic candidates, came away impressed, and with the same opinion as stated below.

Comparing the tropical and sidereal versions of their natal charts, a thumbnail astro-sketch of these two candidates reflects a slight shift of emphasis, according to zodiac used.

Ms Clinton : Sun&Mercury= Scorpio/Libra, Moon = Pisces/ Aquarius. (More detail in yesterday's blog post).

Mr Obama : Sun&Mercury = Leo/Cancer, Moon probably in Taurus either way.
Mr Obama's chart is funnel shaped with Jupiter and Saturn forming the funnel opposing Mercury - whichever zodiac is used this remains the same, with emphasis on either Cancer/Capricorn axis or Leo/Aquarius. Because Mercury is involved I think this may relate to his obvious talent for oratory. Expansive Jupiter and restrictive Saturn hold equal weight as "funnel", and could connect symbolically to his stated objective of bringing the two Americas, the wealthy and the poverty-stricken, closer together.

If I had to choose between these two, who should be be next president of the USA, purely on the basis of natal charts, I'd choose Hillary Clinton, in spite of all the ra-ra-ra currently in the air about Obama, and in spite of the fact that she has not been a favourite of mine so far. I seem fated to support underdogs. At the moment all roads seem to lead to Obama.

Whether tropical or sidereal zodiac is used, Hillary Clinton has the strength, passion and doggedness of Scorpio, talent for diplomacy and mental skills of Libra, with underneath it all still, a compassionate side. Strength, diplomacy, doggedness, and political clout will be sorely needed to confont the really serious difficulties which await the new president of the USA.

Mr. Obama is obvious presidential material, he has charisma and star quality, but in my opinion he's not exactly right for the job at this point in history. Perhaps next time around will be a better time for him, after the worst of the mess, left by the current administration, has been cleared away by those who understand how to deal with it, how to play hardball to get the right results. This may not always be noble and squeaky clean, but in difficult circumstances it's the only way to get things done.

Horses for courses! - An old horse racing expression meaning that some horses race better on certain tracks than on others. Applied to people, it means choosing the person ideally suited for the particular job in question.

Sticking with a horsey metaphor, I think the USA now needs a workhorse, strong, trained, resilient, thick skinned and familiar with the territory:

Perhaps, at some point in the future, a person more akin to this talented beauty will prove to be more appropriate as president:

After last night's debate I decided that if either of these two candidates is president by the time I get to be a citizen of the USA, I shall be able to swear an oath of allegiance with confidence and pride.


R J Adams said...

I, too, was sad to see the inevitable demise of John Edwards, though I doubt his two competitors had much to do with it. He was the only one of the three not to sell themselves to corporate America. He stood for the little guy, the poor and oppressed. Sadly, that section of society seems equally beguiled by the hypnotic doctrines of mass media, who shouldered Edwards out into the cold. As you know I don't share your enthusiasm for Clinton. In fact, I'm not enthralled with Obama either. You are probably right that either is a better alternative to their GOP counterparts, though I have a suspicion McCain may pull a surprise next November - if he doesn't drop dead of old age in the meanwhile. I suppose there's no chance your stars and planets may predict that?

Twilight said...


I suppose I'm trying to "make the best of a bad job" here! I've not been a fan of Hillary Clinton from the start. In my mind I compared her to Maggie Thatcher who I detested. I feel I've been a little unfair though. They are, after all, from different sides of the aisle, and there's no douibt at all that HC is very capable, clever and tough.

H.Clinton's financial support from the corporations is still a worry - but hey, if that's the way the game has to be played here in the USA, well, let the best player win, and if he/she is (more than less) on our side - all power to their elbow!!

Regarding McCain - I'm trying not to think about that old warrior.
I haven't looked at his chart at all so far, I'll take a peek later. I don't think he'd win the general election unless, as I said, there were to be some unexpected event (terrorist-related) before November. I wish Romney would overtake him, but I doubt it now.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.