As the "Super Tuesday" primary approaches,I wondered what the YJ would indicate about the candidates. For Obama, I drew hexagram 50, line 1 and 6, changing to hexagram 34. The first line, getting rid of the old stew, and the top line, jade handles. I will ask about Clinton soon.

I talked to some Clinton supporters (cleared my mind from the Obama drawing) and drew hexagram 6 , changing at the 1st and second line, to hexagram 25.

Seems this Super Tuesday bodes well for Obama.

hollis said:

I think this Super Tuesday bodes well for Obama.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I find it difficult to interpret these two readings any other way. I personally have concerns about both of the political parties here in the States, but I'm somewhat comfortable with Obama, if for nothing more than his consistent message of hope. I think he means it; it doesn't "feel" like empty rhetoric, which I sense regularly from Clinton.

Hope's a good thing. We'll know tomorrow night.

Hi Doingnotdoing! I sure hear you. I never expected to get interested in the political primary, but wonders never cease, even in politics! I do think Clinton is sincere, i guess, but there is a fresh energy in the Obama campaign that seems very positive...we will see!

Obama inspires with his charisma; Clinton would be able to do the job just as well though. Ideally, I'd like to see Obama as President and Clinton as his Vice-President.

For me, though, the issue isn't so much who gets in; it's more whether or not anybody in that seemingly out-of-control country has the ability to avoid the pattern we saw with the Bush administration: an increasingly in-debt-up-to-its-funky-eyebrows America is distracted from the real issue of imminent bankruptcy and crash by foreign military adventures orchestrated by cynical/stupid politicians aiming at nothing more than staying in power. Bush: "The crap's starting to hit the fan; let's distract 'em with a trumped-up war abroad. We'll get some oil out of this while we're at it."

Do you think either Obama or Clinton has the integrity and strength to avoid that sort of dangerous nonsense? Do you think *anybody* in the US has the ability to get it back on the road of sound financial management?

Geez, dobro, we're discouraged enough already. As I mentioned earlier, Obama's message of hope's a good thing.

Not that we couldn't use some prayers also . . .

Hope's a good thing when you're out in the middle of the lake in a canoe and the big, black storm's approaching fast. But I much prefer skill, insight, heart and strength.

dobro said:

Obama inspires with his charisma; Clinton would be able to do the job just as well though. Ideally, I'd like to see Obama as President and Clinton as his Vice-President.

For me, though, the issue isn't so much who gets in; it's more whether or not anybody in that seemingly out-of-control country has the ability to avoid the pattern we saw with the Bush administration: an increasingly in-debt-up-to-its-funky-eyebrows America is distracted from the real issue of imminent bankruptcy and crash by foreign military adventures orchestrated by cynical/stupid politicians aiming at nothing more than staying in power. Bush: "The crap's starting to hit the fan; let's distract 'em with a trumped-up war abroad. We'll get some oil out of this while we're at it."

Do you think either Obama or Clinton has the integrity and strength to avoid that sort of dangerous nonsense? Do you think *anybody* in the US has the ability to get it back on the road of sound financial management?

Click to expand...

Hi Dobro, Maybe as a Canadian you have a longer lens to see thru, better perspective. I had a different take on it: the real issue of bankruptcy thru funding an imperial war is obstructed by reality shows on TV and a fictionalized news machine run by financial institutions that fund increasingly helpless politicians aiming at nothing more than treading water and putting fingers in dikes while the state crumbles beneath their toes.

I don't know that we can ever expect America to look the same, politically, financially, after these 8 years. But the machine of the electorial process is in gear, another election lurches on, and I was very surprised to see that there was some genuine energy and inspiration left in the process at all. For some reason, the Obama presence has brought fresh energy, and a wind, that I did not think possible at this point in the game.

And right now, that, is a lot.

hollis said:

As the "Super Tuesday" primary approaches,I wondered what the YJ would indicate about the candidates.

Click to expand...

Just in case the comment could be of any interest, here is my take on the democrat party electoral process

I made the following dialogue
a) Under wich Sign can we found the Democratic's electoral process?
57>31
+ between second-half of January and second-half of march, there would be an intese activity to find out the causes and remedies to the acual situation.
+ between´last week of may and the end of july, the party would reach it's peak in electoral strenght
+ between second week of october and second week of december, the party would face a serious risk of defeat.. a lack of impulse in the final sprint.

b) Clinton's Diagnosis
55>50
+ between last week of december 07 and first week of february 08, she would find good signs and recognition due to wise aliances and advicers
+ between second week of february and all mach, she would find inner oposition, mistrust and plots. She would need to be very active to convince she is honest
+ between second week of september and all october, she need to be very cautious and avoid arrogance. Otherwise, she would find herself isolated

c) Obama's Diagnosis
17>47
+ Several shifts between last september and october allowed him to sieze the oportunity to run
+ Wrong decisions made last october or november related to his aliances and choicing his advisers would affect now his chances (line 4, time frame for today)

d) Who would win the super-tuesday election, Clinton/Obama?
37>10
This is no a conclusive answer. Too much people active, it would be a very close result, favor lightly to Hilary. But seems this tuesday won't solve the democratic election.

From this, seems Hilary has a good chance to become (not today, but later) the democratic candidate.. but there is a serious advise for her to avoid arrogance, or she can lose the presidential election

Best

hollis said:

I don't know that we can ever expect America to look the same, politically, financially, after these 8 years. But the machine of the electorial process is in gear, another election lurches on, and I was very surprised to see that there was some genuine energy and inspiration left in the process at all. For some reason, the Obama presence has brought fresh energy, and a wind, that I did not think possible at this point in the game.

And right now, that, is a lot.

Click to expand...

I'm with Hollis. FYI - There's a pretty good analysis of today's races available here:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3627

The essence of the thread is that the Democratic race is likely to carry on to the convention. Most of the posters at the link above feel that unless Clinton awakens tomorrow with a lead more than 100 delegates, which is highly unlikely, the Obama tide will be difficult to stem. The danger is that a drawn-out battle on the Democratic side will give McCain an advantage in the general election, and McCain may expand our military presence and associated expenditures.

Will the new president change the course of America in a positive direction? Who knows? Perhaps that's a question someone should ask the Yi.

I am reminded of the Chinese proverb. We certainly live in interesting times.

doingnotdoing said:

Will the new president change the course of America in a positive direction? Who knows? Perhaps that's a question someone should ask the Yi.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, unequivocally no. I really hate to rain on your parade but candidates are not chosen they are cleverly picked via a mixture of inside selection and game theory. Shocking I know, but there hasn’t been an honest election for decades. I recommend an excellent documentary on the subject by the BBC's Adam Curtis called The Trap along with many others.

There are no two parties only factions expressing a largely identical mindset. If you look at the candidates themselves they have the most objectional sponsors.

All this aside from the controversy of electronic voting machines themselves which are painfully easy to corrupt.

Pretty essential to step away form the idea that one is actually voting for change from either camp. Obama is just another straw man I’m afraid. Demonstrating against the scam of elections and getting the system changed is the key here. Otherwise you end up voting for monkeys from the same zoo just with different coloured bottoms.

As to what the I Ching says on this:

Will any of the candidates offer a fundamental change for the better?

8.2.3 > 48

Wilhelm: 2: "If a person responds perseveringly and in the right way to the behests from
above that summon him to action, his relations with others are intrinsic and
he does not lose himself. But if a man seeks association with others as if he
were an obsequious office hunter, he throws himself away. He does not
follow the path of the superior man, who never loses his dignity."

Crisp: "2.Give sincere support or non at all. If you support for your own selfish ends alone, you may hit the target, but you miss the central point."

Wilhelm: 3. "We are often among people who do not belong to our own sphere. In that
case we must beware of being drawn into false intimacy through force of
habit. Needless to say, this would have evil consequences. Maintaining
sociability without intimacy is the only right attitude toward people, because
otherwise we should not be free to enter into relationship with people of our
own kind later on."

Crisp: 3."Be careful of who you associate with. There is a possibility of joining with the wrong company, leading to misfortune and commitment to those not of like mind."

Pretty much no I'd say.

Topal

topal said:

Demonstrating against the scam of elections and getting the system changed is the key here. Otherwise you end up voting for monkeys from the same zoo just with different coloured bottoms.

Topal

Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you..... but how does one "demonstrate and get the system changed" if the people you are demonstrating TO are part of the machinery? Theoretically, people stage a demonstration to petition government, not to preach to the choir. (Nor to arouse the sleeping giant of the multitude. ain't gonna happen, at least not in any constructive way). Once again, you can't solve a problem on the level of the problem.

the mountaintop stance looks better and better

listener said:

I am not disagreeing with you..... but how does one "demonstrate and get the system changed" if the people you are demonstrating TO are part of the machinery? Theoretically, people stage a demonstration to petition government, not to preach to the choir. (Nor to arouse the sleeping giant of the multitude. ain't gonna happen, at least not in any constructive way). Once again, you can't solve a problem on the level of the problem.

the mountaintop stance looks better and better

Click to expand...

Unless the mountaintop is just an illusion too... But I take your point.

I guess I mean demonstrating in the sense that if we are all more informed collectively about some of these core reasons - at least to make a start - then those demonstrations represent the activity of using one's voice in order to make a stand both for oneself and to ignite information into knowledge. You honour truth - as far as it is possible and more importantly - because we can. The latter is important I think. It also doesn't have to be walking down main st. with placards. I think the quality of the demonstration or making a stand against lies and deception can take many forms while keeping the mountain top in the heart and intellect. They can co-exist. Activity and receptivity. I do think that's possible. As I've mentioned before I respect both ways to align yourself to the Creative/Receptive Universe or Dao: going into retreat or being an activist or ideally, creating a mix of the two within oneself.

Perhaps it need not be about "arousing the multitude" either. As you know, it only takes one person to affect lasting change. And it may be that for the kind of change I'm referring to, it need only be 100, or 1000 people to tip the balance if we give some credence to the branching if reality ideas in contemporary physics.

Then again, it might all be hokum and I'm just running on empty. Still yer gotta try the best way yer know how eh?

Topal

jesed said:

d) Who would win the super-tuesday election, Clinton/Obama?
37>10
This is no a conclusive answer. Too much people active, it would be a very close result, favor lightly to Hilary. But seems this tuesday won't solve the democratic election.

From this, seems Hilary has a good chance to become (not today, but later) the democratic candidate.. but there is a serious advise for her to avoid arrogance, or she can lose the presidential election

Best

Click to expand...

Good call Jesed, it is too close to call any kind of front runner now. Well, Super Tuesday is done, and ompom: yawn, ready to sleep on the whole election process till the big election day itself.