Okay, now for the intellecutally disallowed insider information... I usually avoid this sort of thing where it can later be used against me, but when I was growing up my mother was really into astrology. I tried (very hard) to ignore it, but eventually had to admit that I could see the connections and correspondences.

What does that have to do with this election? Just that I think we've had a bit too much "Leo" energy for some time. Clinton was a Leo, and a good one, with a strong birth date, too, and he was a natural leader (except for the GOP who hated his ability to mediate and see other points of view), as well as his origins. Bush, who is actually a Cancer, thinks that he's a Leo, just because it's on his ascendant and rules his first house. Sometimes that placement makes a sign appear to run amok, because it is not mitigated by other placements the way the other heavenly bodies are. It just is. Think about the stereotypes of Leo, and they fit him: It's always about him. He's the leader, the decider. He loves to play dress up. He's the athlete, the warrior, the cheerleader... the Hero. He's the optimist, spreading his love throughout the world. In its positive expression, Leo actually is about real love and the creativity that goes with it, but it expresses itself negatively as self-centeredness. And that's what we've seen from Bush.

Clinton shared some of those qualities (it would have been impossible for him not to), but they were very much mitigated by his ability to share other people's perspectives, and his willingness to work with others and compromise on occasion. None of that for Bush.

Obama? He's another Leo. I don't know what his chart looks like, though, so I can't say as much about it.. However, I, personally, am ready for some change. And that means after 16 years of an overload of Leo energy, I'm really, really, really ready for something different. Like some Gemini energy. My favorite keyword for Gemini is: problem solver. Think Dodd or Edwards; both are Geminis. (JFK was, too, btw.)

Hillary? Scorpio, and that really is the sign of a change agent, of someone who can transform their environments and the people around them.

* * *

Okay, let the insults begin...

Matthews is somewhat of an enigma to me. I don't think he's a 1-dimensional right wing hack, as some (not you) might suggest. He was very pro-Obama, very pro-Democratic last night.

He's awkward. And he wouldn't lay-off the "big defeat" story regarding Clinton, even when corrected. (2/3 of Democratic voters rejected Obama, too.) I thought his doting on Obama's Americana/Melting Pot appeal was, albeit a little embarrassing, genuine.

I think Matthews likes to think of himself as non-partisan, and in a way he is, but I don't mean it as a compliment. He used to be considered a Democrat, and I guess to the insiders he's still something of a "liberal," but he's really just concerned about being one of the cool kids that gets to hang around with the even cooler kids (HS for jocks). What else could explain all of his so very public man-crushes? They really are pretty disgusting when you think about it.

Occasionally, what's left of his liberal dna will kick in and he'll make a valid complaint about, say, the treatment of Katrina victims, but I really hate the way he covers the candidates. It really is just like high school, or worse, maybe even middle school. He wields his power so cavalierly. And giggles. [shudders...]

In fact, didn't we already have this conversation? Maybe it was with someone else, but in my archives are several comments wondering whether we'd be better off with sportswriters covering the election.

I even took the topic to Joan Walsh's blog (for the Barry Bonds post ?) and brought it up there. She responded, but I don't think she thought we'd be much better off.

Btw, Joan has done some sports writing herself.

But I completely agree with you about the irony of the sports casters discussing important issues while the political writers cover only the horse race. And they don't even do that very well, judging by most of today's coverage.

An aside: I finally saw Chinatown tonight. (We don't get out much.) I think it is a metaphor for the world being all upside down.

Note: a favorite quote (in astrology circles) is one by John Kenneth Galbraith:

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.

Of course, just like in economics, it's all in whom you ask. Some are better than others. And some are just charlatans.

I missed your comment earlier, but have since read Olmsted's last post... and found it heartbreaking. Thank you for drawing our attention to it. We need every reminder possible about the cost of war.

I've always loved the look of Salon, especially the wonderful caricatures of everyone. And every time Salon would update its look, it was always an improvement, not something you could say about every other journal, online or not.

I wondered who was responsible for such great work, and only wish I had found out some other way.

A wish for the Watts family... that good and happy memories will sustain them.

"The food was so bad! And the portions were so small!"

It is so true!

...that you're a Gemini.

In fact, I thought there might be a few more Geminis who would raise their hands. ;~)

These threads probably contain a lot of commenters with that kind of energy.

[I'm not a Gemini myself, but I do have 3 "planets" there. And so...]

And just for the record, I would never want to crush any heads with my telekinetic powers. Not even Karl Rove's. Frankly, I'm just too squeamish.