You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Why it will be 'President Obama' in 2009
2006-12-05
By Kevin McCullough
Barring several series of near seizure-like corrections, Barack Obama will take the Presidential oath of office in January of 2009. It will be a cold January morning, his beautiful wife and daughters will be by his side and they will shiver as he places his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His presidency that will follow, if reflective of anything at all of his legislative record, will then seek to dismantle that same Constitution.

I have a long track record of predictions on Obama, and all of them have come true. I have no reason to believe that this one will conclude any differently.

There are reasons that this event is destined to take place, and given the option of knowing them but remaining silent, or mentioning them in the hope that the scene I've just mentioned never comes to path - I choose the latter. If any of these were to take significant turns, the formula might collapse. This is given the fact that the nation will be in a holding pattern for the next two years with absolute gridlock on pretty much everything (with the possible exception of amnesty for illegal aliens.)

RAGING LIBERALS - In 2006 the message of the voters was not Ned Lamont. Rather it was the "Crash Dummy Class of '06." Democrats who looked, and tried to talk like people of faith - at least long enough to get elected. George Soros, the Daily Kos, Al Gore, Susan Sarandon, and not to be forgotten Howard Dean, have made their go at it. They failed. But since their party won the midterms - they believe they've been justified. Their anti-American rhetoric will increase. They will express dissatisfaction with Pelosi/Reid and demand an increased presence in the 2008 picture. The democratic primary voter will reject this increased extremism and look for a "consensus builder." They will long for someone who is "above the frey." Obama will fit that profile and will bring "together" the left and right in his own party. He will do it with a sense of style, smoothness, and humor - a stark contrast to Hillary, Gore, Kerry, et al.

DIGUSTED CONSERVATIVES - Still reeling from the "ginormous" let down of the Senate under Bill Frist, and the second term Presidency of George W. Bush, normally energized conservatives will look to a field that offers a pro-choice/pro-gay mayor from New York, a Mormon from Massachusetts - who was pro-choice/pro-gay but genuinely seems now not to be - but may have hired illegal aliens, blah blah blah, or John McCain (whose single biggest problem is that he IS John McCain.) Normally eager "tax-cutting, government shrinking, let's defend our nation, pro-life, pro-family" voters, organizations, and leaders will be assaulted with speeches on Romney's health care reform, or GiulianiÂ’s crime initiatives, or John McCain. Whoever emerges, will have not one tenth the oratory skills of Obama and they will come off looking as tired, dry, and stale as day-old toast.

EXHAUSTED MODERATES - They are tired of the stale toast, and will be looking for anything exciting. Mind you, moderates by definition don't truly stand for anything so it doesn't really matter what the candidate stands for. These people voted for Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton all based on one thing, "how does he make me feel?" Realizing this Obama will be a lightening rod on the campaign trail. He will draw record crowds for every appearance he makes (something he's already begun to do.) Money will flow in as a result. Obama's strategy of talking about cooperation, sounding bipartisan, and seeming to curtly rebuke both sides of the aisle will seem to validate his "ability" to "stay above the frey."

ENERGIZED BLACKS - The true voice for alternatives for black voters will not be heard because the voices of great men like Bishop Harry Jackson will not yet have become distinct enough within American media, and because the media, in ignoring the Bishop, will instead return again and again to the altar of Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Instead, as the media is already doing, there will be near non-stop fawning over the Senator from Illinois as he flashes the big smile. Black voters, who in the majority vote for party and not conviction anyway, will see Obama as the personality that no one since Dr. King has been able to live up too. Obama will be invited to each and every significant black pulpit in America. He will rail with poetry, sing with soul, rhyme when appropriate, and never will the IRS even think of threatening even one of these houses of worship for illegal political action.

GULLIBLE EVANGELICALS - The most reliable base of voters for the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan have been the social conservatives. Church-going born-again Christians who believe in God, the importance of His word, and the significance of living out their faith in an open and compassionate way every single day have been the backbone of the GOP. This past Friday Rick Warren, through the implied endorsement of allowing Obama to speak at one of the largest evangelical churches in America gave Obama the opportunity to split evangelicals who will be misled by Obama's words instead of opening their eyes to his actions. In my gentle admonition to Rick Warren over the past couple of weeks I reiterated time and again that it was this opportunity being extended to Obama that would be manipulated by both the press , and Obama himself to pose as a "person of faith." Warren's stubborn action of insisting upon having Obama speak at Saddleback Church in southern California has had that exact effect .

From this point forward should the trend of any of these five areas shift significantly Obama's chances could be compromised. But there are credible reasons to believe that they won't be.

So mark this date down, because it is the first time anyone accurately predicted that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

And you have no idea how much I hope this prediction does not come true!
Posted by:anonymous5089

#17  Will say again that Iff the WOT is unresolved or mostly unresolved by 2008. HILLARY will NOT WANT TO POTUS - as for OBAMA, few iff any Amers will want a mostly inexperienced Pol in the WH, espec now that Israel keeps being threatened and Radical Iran is going hell-bent for self-sufficiency in nuke materials, whether for domestic energyu or weapons. One of the primary functions of the post-Bill Clinton, Billary-led/centric anti-Amer Amer DemoLeft is TO CONVINCE MAINSTREAM AMERICA THAT THE STATUS QUO IS UNCHAMGED AND WILL GO ON FOREVER, MEANWHILE EMPOWER + ENTRENCH ANTI-US US SOCIALISM=GOVTISM + PRO-OWG'ism AT HOME WHILE WEAKENING USA's POSITION OVERSEAS. Obama is best left for Year 2012 - IMO, it remains Senator = VEEP Hillary's CO-POTUSes GORE, KERRY, or DEAN for 2008, prob GORE. The RINO CINO Lefties are calling or labeling COMMUNISM, LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENTISM + TOTALITARIANISM, etal. as anything + everything but what it truly is - e.g. Its NOT OWG, NOR "WAR FOR THE WORLD/EMPIRE", NOR "WAR TO THE DEATH", NOT EVEN "THE FINAL STRUGGLE, etal. but "GLOBALISM"! Amers are the ONLY ONES being demanded to pay any future REGIONAL = TRANS-REGIONAL/CONTINETAL = GLOBAL TAXATIONS WHILE SIMUL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE, CONTROL, DOMINATE OR GOVERN OUR OWN GLOBAL EMPIRE.
AMERS CAN WAR FOR EMPIRE AS LONG AS WE VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY DON'T RULE OR GOVERN IT.
AMERICA = GOOD GUYS > ARE THE ONLY ONES WHOM HAS TO SURRENDER, NOT OUR ENEMIES.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-12-05 23:30  

#16  I don't know what, or where, or when, but it *will* be huge

I'm with Sea on this one. Gonna be a bumpy ride, IMHO. I also predict widespread (hopefully sublethal) effects from exposure to Pelosium-2007.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-12-05 22:05  

#15  Obama's problem is that he will never get past Hillary! She'll kneecap him but good, and the Angry Left will pile on too.
Posted by: Mike   2006-12-05 21:02  

#14  Wow. That's purdy ugly.
Posted by: .com   2006-12-05 19:03  

#13  Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags


You have a very valid point. My father and Godfather are both faithful Donks, but there is no way in hell they are voting for a "Smoked Irishman"
Posted by: Mike N.   2006-12-05 18:58  

#12  He wasn't particularly impressive in New York, I hear.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-12-05 18:15  

#11  I've seen elsewhere rumormongering on what the full ticket is to be: Obama / Ellison. Nothing would do more to destroy the 2 party system than that...which is probably why it will come to pass. Buy stock in JollyTime while it's still cheap.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-12-05 18:08  

#10  I thought Swann lost cuz he was a Trunk in Donk Political Machine Country, but that's just me.
Posted by: .com   2006-12-05 18:00  

#9  Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-12-05 17:58  

#8  "...take his oath on the bible"

what was his middle name again?
Posted by: Chetle Clasing1203   2006-12-05 17:47  

#7  The MSM has its own dictionary. Per your first point, rjschwarz, No Experience = Fresh, Uncontaminated (lol), Not an Insider (lol), etc.

They can spin anything, either way, given enough time to make the meme stick.
Posted by: .com   2006-12-05 16:54  

#6  I just don't see it. Even the lefty media slurping at his shoes will have to admit his lack of experience. And when was the last time a Senator was elected President? I think you have to go back to John F Kennedy.

LBJ was Vice President first, So was Nixon, and Bush Sr. Ford was never elected as President. Reagan, Carter and Clinton were all Governors. Seems we've gone over four and a half decades without electing a Senator (and never elected a Mayor). The only thing going for Obama is the last Senator we elected was also somewhat inexperienced.

Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-12-05 16:48  

#5  why it won't: "Barack Obama"
Posted by: Frank G   2006-12-05 16:44  

#4  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Heeheeheeheeheehee

*guffaw*

*snort*

Good one, "Kevin McCullough."

Best masturbatory fantasy laugh of the week.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-12-05 16:04  

#3  The author might be right...if the US and geo-political situations remain exactly the same eighteen months from now as they are today.

I'm in the way of thinking that something major will change between now and then. I don't know what, or where, or when, but it *will* be huge and we'll be talking about a different cast of characters in August '08. IMHO.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-12-05 16:02  

#2  This McCullough guy does realize that if the Republicans had gotten Mike Ditka to run against him, probably nobody would remember who Barack Obama was?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-05 15:47  

#1  I've never had a good feeling about Obama. I think I'd rather see Hillary in the White House than that guy.
Posted by: The Doctor   2006-12-05 15:17  

00:00