Thanks, PD. Actually, I knew where you were coming from.

I hit reply when I got to your message, which was the last in the thread, but actually it's Dani and I who have extremely different "come froms" where politics are concerned. I no more believe that Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton -- or Hillary -- was or is a choice of the rich and powerful than I believe the earth is flat.

The rich and powerful did nothing but stymie and try to crush all of them.

Dani, they did give Paul's response, and if he were really taking moral responsibility, he would apologize instead of trying to pass it off as old news. That's my view.

I myself just wrote an article on national politics that I could have written way longer, but paper and ink are precious commodities, and I had to condense a lot of quotes, summarize ideas to the five words that best conveyed them, etc.

It takes a lot of time to write short. I don't think people are sheep. I think they're pressed for time like crazy, and they want you to give them as much direct info as you can in as short a time and small a space as you can. And that's what people in the word business try to do.

Maria

Oh Maria, I don't think we are on such different sides at all.

I have never supported a republican in my life......this is all new ground to me and I pray Obama wins, so please don't think that of me, because you would be wrong.

But why should Ron apologize for words he never wrote or said?

And it was not too long ago that I would have agreed with you about 'the rich and powerful' choosing our presidents, but a lot of the time that I have not been here, I have been researching other things....and The Bilderbergs are part of that research.

And they horrify me.....we all need to understand exactly who they are and where they are. Along with the CFR and the TC.

David Rockefeller is the worst.......

I have always adored Jimmy Carter and it has been hard to smack my face on the brick wall over it....these have not been easy realizations.

The attempt to 'crush' them was all part of the game.....just as playing the shrub as stupid is....

It might take me a couple of paydays to pull it together, but there is a book I really want you to read and I am going to have it sent to you.

One thing that I find extremely comforting about Obama is that he is not mentioned anywhere by The Bilderbergs....so they certainly do not own him on any level.

And I very definitely agree with you that people are too busy to really research the candidates as we should......I see that in my own business all the time....that is why sound bytes are so effective.

But it does also leave room for dishonesty....and I DO think that people act like sheep when they do not take responsibility for educating themselves.

Everyone has time for American Idol and Lost....but no one looks deeply into not only national politics, but local as well.

I think the most tragic thing that could happen to this country is if Hillary gets in....so I am very glad that Obama is kicking her butt right now....ok?

I still am very worried for Barack's safety....I have been having flashes of something....and it feels like the Midwest....it really troubles me.

All it is going to take is one 'incident' and the shrub can insitute the presidential directive that he signed into law in May of '07......he gave himself the power to cancel elections and stay in power in the event of a 'national emergency'....and the wording of the law is very vague....he can choose what a national emergency is......

I don't think most people realize what he did back then....

This gives him the power to take control of the banks....of all media and the internet and satellites, of all businesses and air control...to become a complete dictator.

You can google the new law and read it for yourself.

I know I will feel better when we get past election day and we can get rid of him once and for all, even tho' we will have a terrible mess to clean up.

We definitely agree there, my friend. We also agree that the rich and powerful help each other. But if they weren't rich and powerful, we would say that it was morally a good thing for them to be helpful to those in their circle of friends, neighbors and families. You do that. I do that. We help whenever we can. We try to be, if not our brother's keeper, his lifeline and sustainer. And we find our brothers and sisters in the people around us.

But government is supposed to be for the common good of everyone in the country. When the rich and powerful use it in the interests of themselves and their friends, the common people rally to take it back, over and over throughout history. Inch by inch, stride by stride. And yes, frequently the common people's leaders are assassinated. I certainly can't argue with you there. I have lived through the same chunk of history you have. Even my 9-year-old daughter brought it up early in the discussion, early in the primary season when Obama first started coming on strong.

In a sense, though, I think Hillary's the one they've assassinated. There was a long, slow assassination of both Clintons during Bill Clinton's presidency. Hillary has extremely detailed and thought-through policy plans with which people can agree or disagree. But instead, people have bought whole hog into the character assassination of her, and even I'm guilty of buying into it a bit from time to time. I doubt that she can be an effective leader who can reunite the country, because of the whole hatred-for-Hillary phenomenon. I'm not crazy about her, but I admire her for some things, and I don't think she deserves the intensity of the vitriol that exists for her.

Do you remember the gunman who showed up at a Hillary HQ, holding hostages and demanding to see her, to get her to resolve his issue of access to mental health care? The explicit threat of physical violence in the campaign so far has been against her people.

I certainly hope to God they both have the very best security arrangements.

As for Ron Paul's letters, my take is this. They went out under his name, meaning his name was a banner across the top. They showed them. He didn't dispute that they were his political newsletters, as I said before.

So these were the Ron Paul political newsletters specifically written for his political supporters and to drum up more supporters. They were his newsletters. So he's trying to tell us he hired some guy to write them, called that guy his editor, and then didn't pay attention to what went out in his newsletters as his statement to his supporters.

Kill the messenger, right?

Any person he would have put in that position, as editor of his personal newsletter to political supporters, would have been someone that enthusiastically tried to pass along what Paul had to say. Now, if this unknown editor, whose side is never given a chance to be heard, put something in those newsletters that was not what Paul meant, then as soon as it was brought to Paul's attention, he should have taken moral responsibility and said, "Oh my God. I am so sorry. That is not what I meant at all." Or, more likely, if the guy put in something that accurately conveyed the essence of what Paul said and meant, but Paul didn't realize people would take it the way they did, Paul should have said, "I was wrong to stereotype people, and I'm sorry I did."

Just blaming it on his editor and trying to pass it off, that doesn't do it for me. But that's just my opinion.

I'll be happy to look at the book you want to send, but my guess is it's likely to strike me differently than it strikes you.

Granted, the rich and powerful have a lot of resources with which to pursue their agendas. And there is collusion among them on various issues, for sure. But we disagree on the extent of the centralized control and the issue of inevitability and degree of guilt by association.

Anyway ... exciting and scary is the world ahead. But maybe there's something to that idea that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. They get you in a state of fear and you make mistakes and missteps, or you don't take action, you fail to see opportunities and grab them and make them your own. They only have the power of human beings (yes, with considerably more material resources individually), but we have the power of human beings too. We have material resources we can pool and we have other intangible resources -- inventiveness, sense of fairness, ability to communicate.

And if we're descended from God, which is perhaps an egoism of humanity, but one I choose to believe based on observation of the world, then material resources aren't the only things that matter in outcomes.

Anyway, sweetie, I've got to get some other stuff done now. You know I'm not trying to put you down. Just finding common ground and pointing out differences of opinion, as well ... which are not necessarily carved in stone, just things that occur to me.



Maria

Hi Folks,

We should try to resist cynicism and fear about what people might do...

If average citizens were mobilized and energized and focused, there would be nothing to worry about.

If Obama is a person who can inspire people to become interested in politics and realize again their power, and energize people to set new national goals, then we can vote for that.

We can't expect leaders to do anything for us unless they have our backing.

Hi PD.

We crossed posts. Me with the ram-bull and you with a short and to the point post, with a lot of good points in it.

Catch you later. I've gotta run.
Maria

A quick note - Friday when I read the paper, there was a story that New Mexico finally got their ballots counted and Hillary got one more delegate... I wonder why...!

I don't think she'll get the nomination ... and I think I'm saying that out of pure observation and not from any bias. It's not happening for her this time.

In a way, this is like watching Olympic figure skating before they changed the judging system. The rankings didn't always match up with the number and difficulty of elements performed in the competition, but you could feel the winning aura when someone who had it was out there skating, lol.

If one candidate wins both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, I think the majority of superdelegates will go the same way and that person will be the nominee. It is weird that the Democrats even have these superdelegates, but I surely don't think they're dumb enough to vote against the will of the majority of people who vote in the party primaries and caucuses. They want to win the general election.

They have two good candidates, in terms of people enthusiastically supporting them. I think the superdelegates will want to throw in with whichever one the majority of people supported with their votes. It may be my Aries naivete, and my Capricorn moon will be really ticked off if they do something different, but that's what I think will happen.

Anyway ... it's got to be time now to actually do Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's charts, isn't it? I'm going to go look for DOBs.

Maria

Here's what I've got for birth data for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. (Huckabee might be interesting too, but mathematically, he's not going to win the top spot of the Republican ticket.)

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
October 26, 1947
8:02 a.m. (6 hrs west, standard time) (Somewhat Iffy Birth Time)
Chicago, Illinois
41 N 52 / 87 W 39

There's a long discussion at this link about the uncertainty of her birth time, but I'm going to go with the 8:02 a.m. based on statements from her and her mother and the staff member mentioned in that discussion:
http://www.astrodatabank.com/NM/ClintonHillary.htm

Barack Hussein Obama
August 4, 1961
1:06 p.m. (10 hrs west, standard time) (Very Iffy Birth Time)
Honolulu, HI
21 N 18 / 157 W 52

Astro Data Bank says this: Many people have written to ask about Barack Obama’s birth time. We assure you that if we find a birth time that is from a reliable source, we will feature his chart as a newsmaker. Please note that we have not been able to verify any of the various times that have been circling the Internet, including the 1:06 PM time attributed to Frances McEvoy from an anonymous unknown source.

One astrologer who used the 1:06 p.m. birth time says this:
The time of birth is taken from a speculative chart for the senator, but his whole manner does suggest a Gemini Moon as opposed to a Taurus moon, which would have been the case with a before noon birth time.
http://www.kozmikhoroscopes.com/obama.htm

John Sidney McCain III
Aug. 29, 1936
9 a.m. (5 hrs west, standard time) (Somewhat Iffy Birth Time)
Coco Solo Air Base,
Panama Canal Zone, Panama
9 N 20 / 79 W 53

Astro Data Bank says this: Shelley Ackerman quotes the Internet for 9:00 AM, from Rowena Wall who wrote that she obtained the data from two different staffers at McCain's campaign HQ. Mark McDonough called both the election office and Senator McCain's political office and was told that they had no copy of the medical records on hand to provide written documentation of his birth time. McCain's deputy press secretary said she had many people call for his birth time and she had called his mother. Mom said "about 9 AM."

(Also, in their chart, Astro Data Bank uses a slightly different northern latitude for the Panama Canal Zone than what I got when I looked it up at astro.com.)

I can't look at charts tonight. Too much pending to be done! Maybe in a couple of days.

Maria

Maria.

I had the same thought = that it actually is time to look at the charts, particularly those of Barack and Hillary. Thanks for saving me the time of having to look them up. The other real clue is when the Democratic convention starts which I will look up.

A few things to add.

One is the start of the Democratic Convention is August 25th in Denver - no time given but I assumed 8 AM for the chart I cast - I will look into it later.

Both of the Democratic candidates have with the birth times given their risings in Scorpio (Barack 17 and Hillary 22), so the transits of the houses are not going to vary much...

I will look at them later.

Hopefully if I do things right in the next two sections will appear the charts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I got the files uploaded, but am not sure how to make them visible - so if you could do that Maria, it would be appreciated!

I included the progression and transit points as of today.

Barack Obama

I am "editing" this to put in some material - and I will emphasize that I am only dealing with up to the convention and after that should he become the candidate I will deal with the presidential election after the convention is over.

I will mskr note though of some of his planets - he has Mercury at 1 Leo, Venus at 0 Cancer, the Moon at 0 Gemini and Jupiter at 0 Aquarius - what a charasmatic relationship those planets, and should he become the nominee, Saturn will be interacting among all of them.

Basically he has two major transits going on - Saturn is in his 10th house of career, and is conjuncting his natal Pluto for the second of three passes. The other major thing is that Jupiter will be for the next week or two in his second house, which deals with his ability to attact $$$ with great ease - and that has helped him, but I would not be surprised if that slows down after Jupiter goes into his third - which will help him with his oratory (and Jupiter is really home in the third) for the time up to the convention.

The Mars retro is still in his8th house, and will continue to be there until the end of April, and along the way will reconjunct his Venus (I can imagine some things (nice!) coming out about his relationship with Michelle at that time). Mars goes into Leo on May 10 in his 9th house and will start there until late June when it moves into his 10th house and the drive for the nomination will begin in earnst if not already decided.

Hillary Clinton

Jupiter is also in her 2nd house and will remain there throughout the entire primary (and if need be the presidential race) so that she if nothing else should be able to attract $$$ fairly easily. It also will sextile her Venus and also Uranus will be trining her Venus as well soon, so again, expect some nice "unexpected" feelings of love - most likely from Bill! Neptune is trining Uranus which also adds to this feeling and possibly some maya.

Uranus is though as it moves forward through the primary season is going to trine her Mercury, so we can expect some unexpected thoughts from her, and because it will be inconjunct Saturn at the same time, there will be freedom/limitation issues and I am sure that there will be some moments that she will be wondering if it is worth it.

Saturn is still in the 10th house, and will very shortly be retrograding back into her 9th house, which could make a very big difference as the focus may be more on issues and philosphy rather than on getting the job as a career move. This will last until July by which time it will be too late. Saturn will be trining her Sun shortly, but that may not be of much help.

One last thought - her progressed Mercury is conjunct Pluto - which can lead to some intersting thoughts...

Upon further reflection, I'd like to say that what I shared was not cynicism, but realisim.

There have already been problems with votes and voting machines, and we still have machines that don't keep records to recount votes. Also what about Ron Paul and what happened in NY? He's not getting a fair shake or much TV media coverage for that matter. From what I understand there are many who would want him as President (especially those in the military). He would be my 1st choice, and I can invision him winning and vote for him to be a presidential candidate, but if the system is corrupt and the votes can be manipulated via the machines how are my positive thoughts and actions going to change that?

Kelly,

I agree with you about the problems with the voting machines and that things can be "rigged" - but hopefully things will work out - unlike 2000 while there is a Mercury Rx before the election in Sept-Oct - but it will be direct by the time the election is to happen, and it will be still in Libra, which gives us some hope - in 2000, the station point on Election Day was in Scorpio.

I forgot to add the chart of the start of the Democratic Convention and so it is here - it would be nice to find out the agenda and when things like the roll call votes and the acceptance speech are to be scheduled, but that can wait.

With this post, I am going to first give some general astrological thoughts about the movements of the planets.

Saturn is still retrograde until May 9, and at that point will start to review the ground that it covered while retrograde. Now, Saturn will go beyond the point of the reviewed ground on August 18 just in time for the convention, so whomever is chosen there will be no question about it and no "what ifs" later on. Saturn does start the ground that will be reviewed on September 28th and goes retro on Dec. 31st.

Mars by the time the convention happens will start to move, as it will enter Cancer in early March, Leo on May 10, and Virgo on July 2nd, and will be in the 10th house of both candidates by the time of the convention.

There will be one Mercury Rx (naturally!) which will happen on May 25 at 21 Gemini and end of June 19th at 12 Gemini, in the 8th house of both the candidates.

Rememeber that Pluto slips back into Sag for most of the campaign season.

OK - now I go out on a "limb". Based on what I see, Barack Obama is the "better" candidate astrologically - he does not have any real negatives which could affect him whereas Hillary Clinto does as I have outlined in the columns on their charts. And it seems to be true - Obama seems to be "on a roll", and I am sure that Hillary is trying to figure out why. Just look at the charts! Again, the times are critical in both cases, and in particular the house placement will be greatly affected by different times.

Please feel free to add your comments and astrological advice!

In Light and Love

Dave

I still need to catch up with your astrological writings here, Dave. I'm making a note to myself to do that!

Relative to the discussion Dani and PiscesDreamer and I touched on ...

Here's a New York Times story --

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

And a paragraph from it --

“Barack scares those of us who think of the possibility of an assassination in a different way,” Mr. Posner said. “He represents so much hope and change. That is exactly what was taken away from us in the 1960s.”

Maria

Obama represents more than just hope and change - for the Democratic party itself is being "threatened" by him - one has to remember that the Clintons have in essence controlled it for the past 16 years, and should Obama get the nomination, there is much more at stake than just that - control of the party will change, and I am sure that neither Clinton nor the officials who have been in charge and will most likely be replaced like that...

Oh, I disagree! There may be a few toes stepped on, but I've been talking to some Democrats in the upper echelons who appear tickled pink to have a candidate who is such a draw and is firing up young voters.

Maria,

I understand what you are saying and have absolutely no problem with it - but that has nothinh to do with the "power" issue!

I thought that I would add some commentary about what is going on.

One has to remember that after the 200 election defeat that Bill and Hillary had decided that she would run for President either in 2004 or 2008 (although she denied it!) and in particular after the 2004 debacle that she had a very clear field this year and that it would be a "snap" for her to get the nomination - or so she thought.

Well, that hasn;t happened and what she has been trying to do is one resolve the nomination in her favor by offering Obama the VP position. Not only is her ego saved, but also the expense and effort to be put in for the rest of the primary season..

So... we'll see what happens!

On 2-18-08 Searching said:



Yup, `tis happening. Good call searching !!!

juni

I couldn`t figure out how to edit the above post and add a current update link on Mi delegate redo. Here it is

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080319/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

juni

Hello Political Junkies and everyone else

Would any of you esteemed astrologers consider doing an "event" chart of when Obama gave that speech on race yesterday?

I thought he was graceful!

Could it be a major turning point? I see his candidacy, especially after his speech yesterday, as a potential catalyst for healing of old racial divides. Wouldn't that be a beautiful thing!

So juniperb, you too live in that big mitten up by the Great Lakes?

PD,

I would be happy to do so, but I will need the time the speech started!

Hi PD, yep, about 75 SW of the Mackinaw Bridge... or about the tip of the ring finger LOL.

I thought it an eloquent speech by Obama too . Scuttlebutt is it will either make or break him. So, I would love to hear the event chart of the speech .

How do we figure what time it was when he delivered it?

juni