February 04, 2004
Level of Discourse
At least the New York Times is keeping the level high. I just don't know what the hell they are thinking:
If seeking the presidency is like reaching for the stars, then why not look to the stars....
Click through to see what astrology says about the candidates. Clearly, the position of the stars gave Wes Clark "a warrior signature" rather than his military career. And John Edwards' looks have nothing to do with him being "the puer aeternus, the eternal boy" — no it's the Moon in Gemini. And of course, the Scorpio Sun and Gemini Moon is all you need to know to tell you that Dean has "erratic energy and emotional volitility".
I'm impressed, they seem pretty spot-on to me. I guess that's the difference between accurate, individual readings by a professional and the stuff you usually see in the papers. (Link via OxBlog)
Posted by richard at February 4, 2004 12:06 AMBut what about the kids?!? Peter Levine has this funny way thinking about candidates:
"explaining politics to the very young
We've got kids (one 4 and one 14), and sometimes it's hard to explain the primary campaign to them. I've come up with the following key, which may come in handy for others who face the same predicament:
John Kerry = Pooh
Dick Gephardt = Rabbit
Al Sharpton = Gopher
Howard Dean = Tigger
Wesley Clark = Owl
John Edwards = Piglet
Joe Lieberman = Eeyore
Carol Mosely Braun = Kanga
Dennis Kucinich = Little Roo
George W. Bush = A Heffalump
Dick Cheney = A Woozle
Christopher Robin = The American People"
