What if Obama loses unfairly?
By John Nyaosi TEL. nairobi, +254 734 603 184

Barring a last minute jolt or an unforeseen sudden vicissitude , come November 4, Illinois senator Barrack Obama,47, is poised to amass enough votes to enable him step into the Oval office, after triumphing in a political duel fraught with all sorts of impediments and logistical nightmares.
In any contest whether small or big there must be a winner and a loser. As it often happens the winner may be boastful or magnanimous in victory even as the loser cries foul. Often you will hear claims and counter claims of an uneven playing field and advance rigging et cetera et cetera. Right now world attention is glued to the titanic tussle pitting John McCain,72, against Barrack Obama for the US presidential elections slated for November 4.2008. Much as he has been derided a “terrorist”, the US press, the Clintons and no lesser a person than former Secretary of State have endorsed his candidature. And now he can be said to be a heart beat away from presidency of a leading superpower.

The fact that his paternal roots are Kenyan and by dint of the blood flowing in his veins, Democractic candidate Barrack Obama is regarded a son of Kenya. The air in the country of his dad is right now pregnant with expectation on how this son whose father hailed from down at Kogelo Villabe in Siaya will fare on in the final polls on November 4. Will he triumph or will he flop? That is the question on many Kenyan fans’ lips about this denizen to of the world who after beating all odds is poised to embody in a special way not only the American dream but our own Kenyan dream too. He is as much a US citizen as a Kenyan one. Even the bird down at a thicket in Kogelo village can probably be heard chirping about this special son of Kenya who is suddenly poised for greater things. For us if there is anything in our potential to give for him to win the race we will spare no effort in doing so to ensure Obama finally triumphs. If it is money
, the contribution of a shilling from every Kenya would in no time net a whopping Shs 36 million from the 36 million Kenyans! But Obama is not desperate for campaign funds , having in the month of September alone amassed a cool $150 million dollars that has seen him enjoy a wide berth in expenditure.
What Obama needs is our moral support and goodwill and nothing more.

However, there is this thing called the Bradley’s Effect which threatens to deny our son the victory he has so relentlessly and courageously fought for and that which he so much deserves. For although in successive opinion polls by reputable and not so reputable pollsters Obama is widening the gap with a recent one putting him in the lead by 50 per cent to John McCain’s 44 per cent only a few days to D-Day in November, due to what in election parlance is known as Bradley’s Effect he could well lose. The Bradley Effect got its name from what befell one, Bradley ,who lost a poll despite pollsters having pointed to a sure win. All those polled who favour Obama could change on polling day, God forbid , by behaving in their true colours and of course goaded by racism reject him on basis of the colour his skin and not ability. If this happens , it means they may have been paying lip service about their support for Obama to please him
or so as not to be labelled racist while deep down in their heart of hearts they and never were for him as they are racist to the core. This is the main reason we can’t even start celebrating even as all opinon polls point clearly to an Obama victory.
Should Obama lose fairly we his fans are prepared to accept the results but should be lose through rigging of any sort, we will not resort to catching the next plane to Washington to uproot the railway. Having learnt the bitter way , and particularly with hind sight and both the Kriegler report and Waki’s recommendations on the perpetrators of post-election violence, we of course accept defeat with cool heads. Nobody is prepared to be hauled to the International Court of Justice at the Hague to answer charges of alleged crimes against humanity and genocide. So Michael Ranneburger the US ambassador to Kenya should rest assured that his citizens will be safe even when racists like writer Jerome Corse who sought to discredit Obama in the book titled: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality are hell bent to discredit our son.
For Obama fans his triumph is an embodiment of the American dream of , as it were, whereby an immigrant arriving at a city empty –handed and walks off after hard work as a success story. Obama’s success will have vindicated the believers of the American dream .Nontheless, his detractors claims are as confounding and as they are despicable.
In the event of an Obama defeat (which is highly unlikely), what should we do? We should lobby the American envoy in Nairobi to a repeat of the poll on a level playing field. Of course we are alive to the fact that the financial turmoil caused by credit crunch on Wall Street in spite of what Alan Greenspan describes as “ irrational exuberance”, the post 9/11 repercussions , the unfinished war on the so called Axis of Evil grouping Iran and North Korea as sponsors of terrorism and all the other problems that emerged as consequences of a unipolar world that led to the Iraq war , the Middle East ,that cauldron of endless conflict will have a bearing on the outcome of the polls. These are the challenges which any winner in the November poll will have to face a new.
But in the event that we end up getting a raw deal through a rigged poll we want to , of course with tongue firmly in cheek , to propose the following measures as a fitting remedy to the problem.
Through Michael Ranneburger we will propose that the setting up a coalition government modeled on the Kenyan one immediately to share power between the two principals John McCain and our brother Barrck Obama. All political appointment must be vetted with both prior to postings. A Committee of Eminent Persons of the World must also expeditiously broker an amicable deal to share power and the over 200-year old American Constitution must be overhauled with input from Wanjiku or preferably a representative in this case the interested parties like Kenyans with a view to coming up with a document that will always ensure fair play in future US polls On top of this denizens of this part of the world will demand reparations for Slave trade and the loss of Black kinsmen who perished in the cotton plantations as they build America.

And you thought it was expanseive to run for political office? Was! It’s now outrageous. The US presidential candidates are heading towards the $1,000,000,000.00 mark in campaign fundraising, shattering records as Wall Street and corporate America pump cash into the race for president. And if Michael Bloomberg has yet to enter the fray. If he decides to make a thrid-party race, the one billion will be the entry level!.

There’s a lot at stake in this years election cycle!

Corporations and wealthy individuals know it. And there’s a lot more money to throw around these days, or at least there was as of last year. A deep recession might put some hurt on the big givers but I doubt it will give them too much pause. The Barack Obama landslide in South Carolina proves that new people are coming out- getting involved.

And, the highly competitive field has forced corporate interests to generously spread their contributions to ensure continued good standing with potential future presidents. You need to have made a contribution to a winner and sicne who that was to be isn’t now who it looks might win. Hillary is on the run and Rudy has dropped out.

“This election can’t be compared to any other because it started so early with so much money right out of the box,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyses campaign finance data. “This was fuelled by the fact that this is the first open seat in 80 years and you had no single candidate who had the obvious advantage from day one.”

After months of campaigning, the field has now been narrowed to four serious candidates and new money now will come in for these four, well maybe three, and definitely two (both Democrats). Then we can move on to the general election and maybe a third-party bid or two.

Barack Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois, said he raised $32,000,000.00 in January alone. Hillary Clinton, the New York senator and Mr Obama’s chief rival, said she raised $27m in the last three months of the year. And she will pick up the pace now for sure. Candidates had to file their full-year fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission by Thursday.

Campaign finance groups will spend the weekend compiling industry-by-industry contribution totals. The figures are likely to show that the candidates raised well in excess of $500,000,000 for the year after netting a combined $420,000,000 through September. Soon we’ll know for sure.

In contrast to previous years, Democrats are solidly outraising Republicans, reflecting stronger enthusiasm for their candidates and some fatigue on the GOP side following eight years in control of the White House. John McCain, the Arizona senator and Republican frontrunner, raised $32m in the first nine months of last year, compared with $91m for Mrs Clinton and $80m for Mr Obama. Guess which party is in trouble!

Hang on to your wallets!

8.28.08

HUFFPOST HILL – JUNE 29TH, 2010
What’s Your Reaction? On Elena Kagan’s first day of direct questioning, the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed her on everything from national security and gun control to Bush v. Gore and what Jews eat on Christmas (the answer hasn’t changed: Chinese food).

Read more on The Huffington Post

It is little over a year since Obama won the 2008 Presidential Elections; in truth this was when his presidency began. The day after his victory he called his transition team together for a morning of brainstorming and planning. From November 4th to his inauguration on January 20th he played an unprecedented role in the affairs of the nation and carefully laid the groundwork for his presidential term. Yet how are we to assess this first year and the movement that brought him to power? An exhaustive answer to that question is not possible but here a few observations, on four key issues, made during my time here which may be of interest to some.

Health Care

Obama’s first major domestic move has been health care. Sadly, the bill that passed in the House of Representatives 10 days ago is a pale reflection of what Obama promised (or appeared to promise), a long way short of other first world countries (and even some third world countries) and significantly less than the American public needs. It looks to be more like a reform of the insurance industry than a real viable opportunity to offer universal and/or affordable health care to all. The health care industry accounts for 16% of total GDP, the highest in the first world and yet there are currently 50million uninsured Americans, and many whose benefits do not allow for adequate treatment. As the recession deepens this number grows.

At its core the bill creates a federally regulated marketplace where consumers would be able to shop around for the best insurance plan. This includes state subsidies to some private plans for certain consumers and, most controversially, a state run insurance plan.

The good news: The bill extends coverage to an estimated 34million people, requires more employers to offer decent health care benefits, reduces the cost of health insurance in general, expands Medicaid coverage, offers subsidies to small business and individuals, increases taxes of high income earners (over $1million) and prevents insurance companies from denying coverage and/or charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions.

The not-so-good news: In a “compromise” move any state subsidized or run plan excludes abortion coverage except in the case of incest, rape or where the mother’s life is in danger. Undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for any plan involving state subsidy, tax credits or for Medicaid or Medicare (state insurance programs for the poor, elderly and disabled). They are, however, able to purchase private insurance through the market place at the full price that few can afford and access emergency care at unnecessarily high cost to the state. There will be no “public” health care in the sense that Canada, most of Europe and even South Africa offers, i.e. free public health care services. Rather state subsidized or run insurance programs would pay private doctors medical-aid rates as private insurances companies do (and not significantly reduced rates as some hoped). The privatization of health care continues. Most damming, however, is that most of the funding may only come into affect in 2013 despite the growing number of uninsured. And even this modest reform bill will most probably not make it through the more conservative Senate in its current form. Most telling is the extremely muted resistance (and even silent acceptance?) by the health care industry to this plan.

The Long War

Obama seems to be making positive moves on a gradual withdrawal from Iraq despite none of the objectives (securing foreign oil, stabilizing a client-regime and “countering terrorism”) having been achieved. Some enthusiasm can be taken by the progressive (albeit agonizingly slow) attempts to close Guantanamo Bay (which Obama admitted will not meet the promised deadline) and the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-accused (allegedly implicated in the September 11 attacks) in a civil court in New York. Likewise Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world and his diplomacy with Iran is a sharp departure from previous policy and sorely needed.

However, Afghanistan remains a weight around Obama’s neck and a quagmire he appears to be sinking deeper into. At the heart of the problem is long-term American military strategy. Official policy follows the idea of “The Long War”; a 50 or 100 year counter insurgency cold-war against Al Queda and Co. along the “arc of crisis” mainly oil rich, Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and beyond, with various “hot-wars”, as we have seen, along the way.

The term “Long War” was coined by Gen. John Abizaid in the 1990s and is promulgated by counterinsurgency experts around the Pentagon and think tanks led by the Center for New American Security. Its most ardent advocate, who popularized the idea in 2005, has been Dr. David Kilcullen, a top military advisor and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and the case is made for it in his recent book The Accidental Guerrilla. Despite the failure of global counterinsurgency tactics the strategy has gained dominance in military circles.

This is the quagmire that Obama faces; Afghanistan (and its surrounding conflicts, in Pakistan for example) is not an isolated fight that can simply be “won”. Rather it is a single battle in a larger plan, one with dubious military and political gains, clear moral inconsistencies and enormous financial implications that will undermine all domestic policy.

The Environment

Positive talk abounds. Obama’s address to the United Nations on September 22nd was the first progressive thing to come from an American President on the environment in a long time. He acknowledged past American failure and the gravity of the threat and said he was determined to act for the sake of future generations. A host of public meetings of high level officials and other important role players have taken place. Despite being watered down the stimulus plan offers: “$24.4 billon in real money for energy efficiency, $25.3 billion for renewables, and $23 billon for transit improvements… According to Clinton and Obama adviser John Podesta, the package means $150 billion in clean energy investments yearly for 10 years, creating 1.7 million net new jobs”6. Obama’s meetings with foreign leaders have also managed to produce positive statements on the need to tackle green house gas emissions.

However, very little of the American plan has been implemented to date, although in fairness these programs take some time. More importantly though is that eloquent speeches have not included concrete targets, this is true for Obama’s UN address and (as an example) his statement after meeting China’s President Hu Jintao. Even more disappointing to climate change activists is that the upcoming Copenhagen Conference appears to be dead in the water with a non-binding political agreement the likely outcome which, optimistically, is a stepping stone to a binding agreement with real targets and, realistically, a face saving move.

Why lay this at Obama’s feet? It would not be fair to do so entirely, but we must acknowledge that progress on this front is not possible without American leadership and at times arm twisting of other countries, clear commitments to specific targets and actual restrictions of its own domestic economy.

Economics

Those who expected a radical change in economic policy with the assent of Obama to the White House have been sorely disappointed. The expectation was, of course, completely unrealistic. Obama’s economic policies do not vary greatly from those who came before him, whether Democrat or Republican. To choose but three examples…

Bailouts: The astronomical chunks of money given to banks and other financial institutions and the terms (or lack thereof) on which this money was given in both the Bush administration bailout (of which the Obama team tacitly approved) and Obama’s stimulus package do not indicate any shift from the prevailing neoliberal economic policies. Despite strong talk very little has been done to regulate the financial sector in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Obama’s enthusiasm for the “jobless recovery” of the stock market (i.e. investors are making profit whilst workers continue to lose jobs) is another indication of his mainstream market-economy approach (the system is fine, it just needs to fixing, intervention and control). To his credit we must acknowledge the expanded public sector spending in important areas in attempts to create jobs. Again, on the flipside, this is tied up in boosting consumer spending (as the banks are encouraged to start lending) which was part of the problem in the first place.

Foreign Trade: Obama’s speeches on trade are perhaps most telling. Whether it be his speech in Ghana, his discussions at the APEC summit or his press conference with the Chinese President, the message is clear: free trade, market competition and transnational business are the key to international prosperity. Contentious issues such as American farming subsidies are not even close to the table. Of course there are nuances, talk of regulation and some positive reformist policies, but the core policy remains.

Advisors and Appointees: Perhaps most telling is with whom Obama surrounds himself. Economic advisors and appointees pre and post election are a mix of Clinton era economists (the era of greatest international market deregulation) Bush era functionaries, academic economists, big businessmen and a few reformists. Members of the Transition Economic Advisory Board include: Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, TIAA-CREF and Xerox (Warren Buffett, Roger Ferguson and Anne Mulcahy respectively); Chairman of the Board of Time Warner (Richard Parsons); and Chairman and Director of the Executive Committee of Citigroup (Robert Rubin) – Citigroup received approximately $45billion in bailout money 8.

Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary did a stint at the IMF and Lawrence Summers, the head of the Economic Council (NEC), a former top World Bank official, was forced to resign from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he suggested that women lack men’s innate ability to excel at math and science9. He is on record saying that nothing can be done about both huge AIG executive bonuses (post bailout) and rising unemployment10.

What is to be learnt?

Readers of this post may be surprised to know that I’m an Obama fan. He’s charismatic, fresh, eloquent, intelligent, progressive, has good values, an awareness of dynamics of discrimination (class, race, gender and sexual orientation), is supportive of union activity, offers an inclusive international policy approach and has prioritized the right issues of health care, employment, education and the environment. And he’s African American. He is pretty much the best you are going to get within the American political system. But that’s the crux isn’t it: “within the American system”, and it’s not just the American system but the global neoliberal capitalist economic order. Obama’s hands (and mind?) are tied in so many ways.

It all comes down to economics, money, power and profit in the end. It is no secret that various lobbies and big business exercise extra-ordinary influence over members of Congress and the Executive. Campaign financing by lobby groups totaled $3.3billion in 2008 with the US Chamber of Commerce (representing big business) coming in first place with approximately $527million and different health insurers and pharmaceutical groups coming in at 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th place with a combined whopping $712million. Not surprisingly the military-industrial complex is represented by Northrop Grumman, Lockhead Martin and Boeing Co in the top 20 spenders. Also making the top 20 are energy giants General Electric (3rd), Exxon Mobil and Edison Electric Institution. Mass telecommunication companies (AT&T Inc and Verizon Communication) Financial Giants (Freddie Mac and the Securities Industry & Financial Market Association) and General Motors round off the top 20 list11.

We must remember the fundamental driving force of the market economy: profit; and anything goes – exploitation, environmental degradation, war etc – in pursuit of this. Not only does this shape our economic relations but also our social relations and the very fabric of our society.

Members of Congress also have their own agendas. A recent report by the Centre for Responsive Politics tallies a total of 237 millionaires in Congress. And not all are Republicans with Democrats making up 4 of the top 5, and the top 2 are from the liberal state of California. To make matters worse the top 10 industries invested in by Congress men and women include: real estate; entertainment (read media); securities, investments and banks; oil and gas; manufacturing; and pharmaceuticals/health products12.

Playing a secondary, but significant role, are the ideological groups, such as the conservative Christian right and libertarian anti “big-government”  who manage to shape the debate in distorting and damaging ways. The distortion of the health care reform program with downright lies such as “death panels” being vigorously advanced and the subsequent mobilization against health care, by ordinary people who stand to benefit the most, was scary to behold. Additionally there is a dangerous racist not-so-subtle subtext to all such anti-Obama-policy initiatives; the state has fallen into the hands of the enemy. Anyone willing to acknowledge structural racism or the social significance of race, as former president Carter did recently, in policy or politics is immediately labelled a racist in America’s great “colourblind” nation.

This is the ballpark within which the President must play.

What is to be done?

Firstly, we should not blame the President. It’s pointless. For now we have someone to work with, at least for some change. More than that I actually (some would say naively) believe that the speech making eloquent Obama, the Obama we saw before the election, is the “real” Obama. That Obama is interested in real change. In his recent book on the Obama campaign (The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama’s Historic Victory) David Plouffe says that every aspect of the unorthodox campaign was rooted in the idea that “the country needed deep, fundamental change; Washington wasn’t thinking long-term… the special interests and lobbyists had too much power, and the American people needed to once again trust and engage in their democracy.” 14 As he notes the very decision to make the campaign headquarters in Chicago not Washington was an aversion to the rot and corruption of current American politics. The grassroots movement was not a ploy by a self-serving politician seeking power but an organic emergence in response to the expression of his natural voice. It is this voice that has been drowned in Washington’s putrefied swamp. And it is now the job of those 300 000 odd volunteers and millions of supporters and voters to speak with that voice.

When you meet these (predominately young) people on the street, or in the universities today, and you ask them: do you support the war in Afghanistan? Many, most, will answer no. And yet the man they brought to power sends more troops. When you ask them whether they want free or affordable public health care many answer yes. And yet this is not what their government will deliver to them.

There is a growing sense of disillusionment amongst this generation – the Obama Generation. But the success of the Obama Generation – and indeed of Obama himself – will not be measured in bringing Obama to power (and hopefully for two terms); it will be measured in the success of transforming that cohort of grassroots campaigners into the next wave of political activists. Part of the magic was that, for the first time, these unseasoned ordinary people felt powerful; they believed they could make a change, and they did. Obama as an African American (and supported by African Americans) is of extra importance here; it underscored that even the most dispossessed can be powerful, that yes, some glass ceilings can be broken and some conservative thresholds crossed. It is that spirit which must be captured and harnessed in the coming years if we are to see social change of any sort. Most likely it will come in a splintered form. Different groups will emerge on particular issues: health, the war, education etc. We have seen this power expressed already in the protests in California around the cost and scope of university education. It is difficult (albeit possible) to imagine this scope of collective action two years ago. More than likely it will take a few years to emerge en masse as disillusioned individuals band together once again. Naturally it will be less people, but a critical mass is possible.

Critically a movement must emerge that places the economy at its core. Despite all the talk of Wall Street excess there has not been a single demonstration on Wall Street, no viable strong social movement tackling the economic system. Partly this emerges from the absence of a coherent theoretical perspective. This is needed in two parts. The one is direct: a direct understanding of the economic system in which we live and experimentation and thinking around viable alternatives. The other is integrative: we must learn to see the problems as connected, as part of a coherent whole, that economic exploitation, environmental degradation and war do not come from the existence of “bad people” but are cancers endemic to the capitalist system with its drive for profit at all cost.

We saw this integration begin to emerge in the late 1990s and early 2000s epitomized by what took place in Seattle, but the September 11th attacks and subsequent war, fear and restrictions of civil liberties fragmented and undermined this movement. Of equal importance is the insight that the system is not only creating “external” economic problems but has created a set of social relations that displaces human solidarity from its core in favour of competition and greed. It is only once social movements can attack their various causes, within a larger economic paradigm, that we can progress towards the real change that so many, around the world, passionately called for in the year 2008.

 

A recent article in the St. Petersburg Times by Robert Trigaux reminded me of this grand old saying: “Commitment Vs. Involvement: In An Egg and Ham Sandwich, The Chicken Is Involved But The Pig Is Committed.” The article was published on Sunday, April 11, 2010 and it went through the cast of characters that were somehow involved with the market crash and recession starting in late 2007. The majority of the article was based on the testimony a lot of these people recently gave in front of the Congressional committee that was investigating the causes of the economic crash.

A few things struck me as I read the article and looked at the pictures of those listed as involved in the crash. The first thing I noticed, and the most obvious, was that all of these people mentioned in the article were involved in the crisis but none of them want to stand up and commit that their actions or inactions were contributing factors to the disaster:

1) Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve Board, did not take responsibility for the crash even though many people think that under his leadership, the Fed kept interest rates way too low for way too long. During the hearings, Greenspan stated that he was right 70% of the time in his Fed decisions. While 70% might be good for an NFL quarterback for a pass completion record, 70% is not good enough when the economic well being of the nation’s citizens are on the line.

2) George W. Bush has not taken responsibility for the crash even the seeds of destruction were sowed and allowed to grow during his administration.

3) Barney Frank has not taken responsibility for the crash even though he was the House committee chairman that oversaw the housing market, he did not see the biggest economic crash coming since the Great Depression until it hit him in the face.

4) Chris Dodd has not taken responsibility for the crash even though he was the Senate committee chairman that oversaw the housing market, he did not see the biggest economic crash coming since the Great Depression until it hit him in the face.

5) Henry Paulson has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as Treasury secretary he also did not see the biggest economic crash coming since the Great Depression and when it did hit, he reacted slowly with no apparent strategy for determining which Wall Street firms were to live and which were to die.

6) Bill Clinton has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as President he signed laws that separated commercial banking from investment banking, creating the behavior that led to the crash along with legislation that exempted the dangerous derivative financial products from regulation.

7) Christopher Cox has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission his organization watched on the sidelines as the banking system almost collapsed completely due to shady and risky financial dealings.

Richard Fuld has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as CEO of defunct Lehman Brothers Fuld allowed his company get so deeply into risky subprime instruments that its demise was the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

9) Raymond McDaniel has not taken responsibility for the crash even though his company, Moody’s, incorrectly or falsely rated the subprime financial instruments as financially sound.

10) Angelo Mozilo has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as CEO of Countrywide Mortgage his company apparently never met a mortgage customer, no matter how uncreditworthy, that his company would not accept.

11) Franklin Raines has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as head of Fannie Mae his big investments in subprime mortgage securities led to a massive taxpayer bailout.

12) David Lereah has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as a former economist of the National Association of Realtors, he never saw the housing collapse coming and his book, “Why The Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust” was published just as the real estate boom went bust.

13) Robert Rubin has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as Citigroup Chairman he claimed he was ignorant of the risks that nearly destroyed one of the biggest banks in the world, indicating he was either a very lousy executive by not knowing how much at risk his company was at or a very lazy executive who never took the time to understand how much at risk his company was at.

14) Charles Prince has not taken responsibility for the crash even though as Citigroup CEO he was just as lousy or lazy as Rubin.

15) The Democrats in Congress have not taken responsibility for the crash even though they ran all of the Congressional committees responsible for the overseeing the housing and banking sectors of the economy and consistently rejected dozens of calls by the Bush administration to put stronger oversight onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also rejected a request from John McCain in 2005 to rein in the dangerous lending and security practices of Fannie and Freddie. One reason for this resistance was that these two quasi-government organizations were large campaign contributors to Democratic Senators Dodd, Obama, and Kerry.

So all of these important people were involved (the chickens) in the financial disaster but none of them have committed (the pig) to taking responsibility for the results, it wasn’t their fault. If it was not their fault, then whose fault was it? This was obviously a big deal since the stock markets suffered extensive setbacks, unemployment is nowhere close to recovering, the Federal deficit has skyrocketed in part due to the large bank bailouts, and the housing market is still in the dump. But no one is responsible. In the above list, no one went to jail, no one paid a large fine, no one went bankrupt, many did not lose their jobs, and no one has an answer of why it went so wrong and why no one in a position to acted to avert or at least mitigate the outcome.

Thus, the first conclusion I draw is that this is just another instance of where the government and the people that are currently running it are not effective and the programs they are responsible for do not work. We need to do a ground up housecleaning of the people/politicians and the processes that are no longer effective in running this country.

The second conclusion I draw from he article is a little more subtle. As I look at the politicians running the hearings looking into the the causes for the economic crisis and include the list of people from above, I see that almost all of them are older white males. There are no females involved, very few younger people involved, and Franklin Raines is the only African-American who is prominent in the discussion of fault.

Could it be that this group of politicians and business leaders are not diverse enough to see a crisis developing or are too cozy with each other to want to do anything to avert these kinds of disasters? This brings us to Step 45 in “Love My Country, Loathe My Government,” a step we have not talked about often in this blog. This step would require the political class to obey and heed all laws in effect that work to guarantee equal opportunity relative to race and sex. Maybe if we had a little more diversity, fresh blood, and fresh ideas involved in the process of running the country we might get some better results. Heaven knows that the current club of people running the country, both in and out of government, may be stuck in a group think mode, making them incapable of foreseeing the future disasters. Said another way, we need more committed pigs and less involved chickens running the country.

Stepping into the world of political prediction is a murky arena for an astrologer. My personal position is that I am for the good of all humanity. I want whoever wins to have a pure heart and intelligent mind, I want the candidate who will uplift and do what is right for the country, for all of humanity, and the planet. I am not a politician, I am simply offering what I see astrologically for the presidential race. Astrology offers insight into the nature of individuals and the planetary energy around us.

When an astrologer is looking to make a prediction he or she looks at the symbols and from there makes a judgment based upon the symbolic language of the planets.

This election is very difficult as there are many mixed messages as to who will win. The greatest symbol for the election is that everyone appears to be surprised in some way. One thing is certain the astrology is saying that election day will be anything but normal and that the results can surprise many people. That in itself would imply that McCain could win as Obama is expected to win. However I do not think that will happen.

            When we look at the day of the election we are looking at the emotional symbols around the candidates for the symbols that would represent victory, achievement, accomplishment and being happy. When a person wins a hard fought fight one would expect a feeling of elation that will accompany that victory, when someone loses we would expect a feeling of being deflated. In very simplistic terms we want to see who looks the happiest.  McCain has a Venus aspect, although minor, getting something he wants, the larger influence points back to the date that he was taken prisoner of war and is indicating he is coming into a time of his life that the decisions he made then come to fruition and completion. McCain’s chart also show that he will have a “date with destiny” by the beginning of December, meaning that he will be taking on something new in his life that will fulfill what he feels he needs to do in this life. This does not mean that he will be president, and it doesn’t mean he won’t:  it is indicating he is about to make major changes in what he has been doing to fulfill a mission he feels is important.

Obama’s chart also shows he will lose something that is precious to him, yet in light of the health of his grandmother, (she is still alive at the time of this article)  it may not be that he loses the presidential race he has been fighting for but his grandmother.

I think the most telling chart is not in the charts of the presidential candidates, but in the chart of Sarah Palin.

There are two reasons why I think that Senator Obama will win the presidential race. 1.) The day of the inauguration he has several indications of being in the public eye. 2.)  In Michelle’s chart it indicates she will be concerned around her children for the next couple of years and their school will be changing, and that they will be moving. 3.) The evening of and following day of the election Sarah Palin chart is indicating that she will be very angry.

All of these influences could be manifested in other occasions, such as Palin being angry does not mean that McCain loses, it could mean her kids do or say something that embarrass her and she is mad at them. When you look at an astrological influence you must make a conclusion about where and how you think the influence will manifest. The simplest and most straight forward way to predict the astrological influence which is present on November 4th 2008 is to say the candidate that is not expected to win will win, however my conclusion is that Obama wins after a day of chaos at the polls.

Whoever wins we know has a very tough job ahead of them, the chart of the USA is in very bad shape, indicating bankruptcy, continued disruption, and economic problems. However the nation seems to come together in June of 2009, that whoever wins can pull together the divisiveness and unite the country in hope and expectation. As difficult as the upcoming charts indicate there is the protection and gift from Jupiter; optimism, hope, and with it the opportunity to learn that will take us to a better future.

Older Posts »