One of Barack Obama’s aides referred to Hillary Clinton last week as a ‘monster’. The aide promptly resigned. It was a very harsh thing to have said, and probably not uncalculated. But it needed saying, because there is an element of truth to it. It had the effect of reminding me of my basic response to Hillary Clinton, which is that she ain’t right (technical psycho-analytic term.)
This is not a response I have to that other hard-man of politics, Dame Margaret "What did feminism ever do for me?" Thatcher. I do not like her, she is dogmatic and narrow and brutal, but she is who she is. And in certain respects she successfully did a job that needed doing.
What I feel with Hillary is that she is not who she is, because there is a big bit of her repressed. This is why she comes across as calculating and lacking in passion. In astrological terms, the problem is her Moon in Pisces, which is a potentially wonderful place to have the Moon, and which has found partial expression throughout her adult life in her ongoing work on behalf of children (which she seems to keep quiet about). But Moon in Pisces is also easily crushed, and in this case it does not stand a chance against the ambition and ruthlessness of her Scorpio-Leo configuration.
We do not know her birthtime, and if she was born after 9.30pm her Moon would be in Aries. But I don’t read her that way: if she was Moon in Aries, she would be right up front about how she felt, you wouldn’t have had, for example, such a big deal about the ‘emotional moment’ in New Hampshire. Which was in any case too little, too late.
So this is the difference between Margaret Thatcher and Hillary. Thatcher is who she is, a Caliban-like creature that needs exposure to culture. She has Sun in Libra, the politician who wanted to set the country to rights, the iron fist in the not-so-velvet glove; Saturn Rising in Scorpio gave her determination and lack of compassion; and Moon conjunct Neptune in Leo reflected her ability (at one point) to connect with the public and her eventual royal airs.
Thatcher was firing on all cylinders, her Sun, Moon and Saturn Rising were all fully functional: it wasn’t very pleasant in many ways, but she was all there. Hillary is not all there, the woman in her is missing, and we can all feel that - maybe that's why we call her Hillary? Obama’s aide reminded us of this. What she needs is healing. She does not need to be President, and the US does not need her as President. She needs to have her ambitions foiled so that she can find another way of being.
Fortunately for her, she does not have that indefinable quality, that Zang, that you need to be a leader. If you’ve got Zang versus no-Zang, the Zang wins every time. Take, for example, Bill Clinton versus Bush senior (who used to scratch his head over ‘the vision thing’); or Bush junior versus both Gore and Kerry; or, in the UK, Tony Blair versus John Major, William Hague and then Michael Howard. In each case it was the one with the Zang who won – the ability to connect with people, to know instinctively what the people want, and to communicate a sense of passion and vision.
This ability doesn’t make you a good guy or a bad guy, and in itself it doesn’t make you a good leader. But it does win you elections, and we all recognise it when we see it, even though we might not vote for it. In the case of the Democratic nomination, Obama has buckets of Zang, Hillary has very little, and we can all see that. For that reason alone, it seems certain to me that Obama will eventually win the nomination.
In the UK, David Cameron, the leader of the Tory Party, has much more Zang than Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. I think Brown has more depth and experience than Cameron, but that's not the point. Cameron will probably win the next election. (Like Thatcher, he has Sun in Libra and Moon in Leo: there has to be something in this.)
As for Obama versus John McCain, I haven’t seen enough of McCain to know. But a man who sets himself against popular feeling so readily and strongly, whether in the country over the Iraq War, or within his own party over social policy, doesn’t look like a winner to me, whatever the merits of his positions.