Presidential predictions: Obama!?

Let's have a look how my and Nostradamus's presidential prediction for 2008 is backed up lately by the behaviour of the two standing opponents: While John McCain knows to positively surprise and serve his supporters, the bookmakers' favorite Barack Obama is not shy to distance himself with arrogance from potential voters, I'd say.

The Republican presidential candidate did everybody a favor by chosing Sarah Palin as his running mate; a generous move which will pay back just in time. The Democrat for his part left Hillary Clinton and her crowds out, not even commenting on his fatal decision. Is it really a wonder that a person like Lynn Forester de Rothschild turns to John McCain, calling Barack Obama an elitist whom she does not like?


Clinton Hillraisers: »Frankly, we don't like Obama!«

Let me prepare you for the following: More people like Lynn Forester de Rothschild will endorse John McCain for President in the next days and weeks - because a clear difference in characters between the presidential candidates is getting too obvious...



John McCain truely seems to be in politics and campaign for the reason to serve, help and protect, and no American is going to hate him for that. In the same time his younger rival loses more and more contact with reality and people, that's the overall impression. Obama loves to think that he is the great new leader the world has been waiting for. And he has proven enough arrogance to throw a Hillary Clinton overboard without listening to the huge crowd of her supporters.

The fact that Obama is also not ready to admit mistakes (like his bad judgement on the Iraq surge, e.g.) doesn't make him a person of political trust and change, but a less likeable guy, as he continues to present himself as a man of no good principles. You see, the more people told him that he is the coming messiah of politics the more he tries to present himself like one. The more people told him that he is handsome the more he tries to look like it...


To me it seems like this guy is going further down with every clap on his shoulder, isn't he?! And yes, at the end of each day he looks more like a vain elitist and career driven media clown in fancy suits, but not as the worrying politician who is going to change the world for the better while protecting the middle class, fighting corruption and so on.

Going with Nostradamus: Despite all current polls and odds, which seem to fancy Barack Obama as the next president, on the long way to 4th of November 2008 his tank will be empty soon and his bad political calculations will lose fans where no taxes can be risen in the next future due to the current financial fallout, thanks to Wall Street.
At the very end we will see between romantics and pseudo-romantics a low turnout of Obama voters and the American President 2008 will be John McCain.

Newer Post

Earlier Post

Nostradamus knew about Obama and Mabus

As we have to admit, that Nostradamus wouldn't be a big fan of Barack H. Obama and Mabus these days, some seem to like the candidate anyway. Those who support Barack H. Obama most fearless are against war: They »know« Barack H. Obama is against war as well. But is he?









The word is that Barack Obama would bring America's troops in Iraq back home, if they want to be brought home or not.
The word is that he is the man of change, positive change that is. But is he?

One thing that striked me in the last weeks was that Barack H. Obama didn't complain at all about being treated so much better than Hillary Clinton by an obviously biased U.S. press. I happened to find that quite unappealing, to say the least - and stupid. Imagine Barack H. Obama would have spoken out against it with only a single sentence during one of these televised debates: He would have scored a homerun, I guess, and his nomination could be most probably in dry towls already since long time.

But what did Barack H. Obama, the Democrat, do instead, while the unfair media tried to take over the Democrats' democratically election? He sat there and let injustice happen to his seemingly own advantage - not very gentleman-like, a living lie, I'd say. One might argue that's a secondary matter of taste, if at all, and anyway it is election time, so gloves should stay off, no presents allowed. Well, firstly I don't think it would've been a present too much for the Clintons, as a little revolution in that matter could have well played into Barack H. Obama's own hands, and secondly it is Barack H. Obama himself who claims all over to be all change and against the old dirty rules and tricks of political games where he just wants to unite. I say: Barack H. Obama missed to give a good example. Indeed he himself is too much of a campaigning Clinton to understand his failure at all.
Q.e.d.: The way Barack H. Obama willingly watched injustice to happen and go on, didn't mark him for me as the »saviour« he claims to be. The fact that Barack H. Obama didn't speak out, at least to build up a real advantage for himself, showed that he is not a smart politician either.

And while I got more and more suspicious of that Obama guy and his showing aura, while I read around to learn that Barack H. Obama was and is connected with dubious people (some too radical and racist, some too criminal, others too corrupt and many too obsessive), I also found out that his stand »against the Iraq war« is nothing much more than a farce.

Yes, in his Illinois state legislature Barack H. Obama opposed the war in Iraq at first...
But when he ran for US Senate and public opinion supported the war with a record high, Barack H. Obama put his nose with the wind and said very clearly: »There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.« (July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune)
Indeed Barack H. Obama believed by then that US forces had to remain in Iraq - just as U.S. President George W. Bush himself thought as well.

Barack H. Obama's campaign says now that he did talk back then only about the ongoing occupation and the need of stabilization in the region. But if Barack H. Obama opposes war, as Barack H. Obama's too many followers choose to believe, why didn't Barack H. Obama take the chance to call for withdrawal somehow anyway, as others did? Because Barack H. Obama was telling on Barack H. Obama's way to be elected into the U.S. Senate some conservative voters that Barack H. Obama's anti-war position didn't mean necessarily anything final, for sure not if it could cost Barack H. Obama an important step forward in Barack H. Obama's political career.
And since Barack H. Obama took office in January 2005, Barack H. Obama constantly gave Barack H. Obama's vote to approve every war appropriation the Republicans came up with, in total for more than $300 billion.

In addition and not to forget, Barack H. Obama did vote for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, even though she had been partner to the Bush Administration who went to war with Iraq in the first place. Look at Barack H. Obama: He supported herewith one of the main architects of the Iraq war to be(come) the head of U.S. foreign policy, while thirteen of Barack H. Obama's colleagues didn't!
So, as anti-war protesters chant »war criminal« at Rice on Capitol Hill, these very same ignorants are all ready and fired up to vote for Barack H. Obama, who actually helped with all he had to put Condoleezza Rice into office in the first place.

Next thing we know about Barack H. Obama, who loves to present himself as a civil rights lawyer, is the fact that he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, obviously the biggest attack on civil liberties in the last fifty years, allowing for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

But now, since anti-war sentiments are on the rise, Barack H. Obama over and over again reminds us of himself having opposed the Iraq war and everything that came with it once upon a time, as he announces to get America's combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. All of them? Really? Wow: Before the September 2007 New Hampshire primary during a debate moderated by Tim Russert, saviour Barack H. Obama refused to commit to getting (m)any troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

Barack H. Obama's only commitment is to keep enough combat troops in Iraq to »carry out counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al-Qaida in Iraq.«
Therefore Barack H. Obama's idea of warfare will need around 60,000 troops to stay in Iraq, following the report of the Center for American Progress.
And as if that wouldn't be enough, Barack H. Obama repeats for everybody who wants to hear it, that he intends to »redeploy« troops he takes out of the sometimes unpopular war in Iraq and send them right to Afghanistan instead - heavily engaging in war.

Yes, it is no wonder, that Nostradamus, truly a man of peace, wouldn't be a big fan of Barack H. Obama these days; and I really don't get it why anti-war voters see a saviour in Barack H. Obama, whom the predicting Nostradamus might have called »Mabus«, the Antichrist, already long time ago.

Newer Post

Earlier Post

Conspiracy: Obama, Farrakhan, Black Pope, Mabus, Antichrist and Nostradamus in 2008

Radical anti-semists and racist scholars like Al Sharpton and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan (National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and The Nation of Islam) are allowed to do what is forbidden to all of us: They can believe in a new Messiah and a hidden islamic agenda when it comes to Obama's run on the White House, and Barack Hussein's pastor Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. expresses admiration for them all.

However, we shouldn't and mustn't even try to remember how much is one plus one.

While political correctness doesn't have to be correct per se, I find it quite remarkable, that people like Farrakhan, who lived a long experienced political life, should all over sudden be totally wrong when it comes to their very own subject and candidate Obama. Why should I believe they don't know nothing about the guy they support?

The Nation of Islam under the leadership of their Minister Louis Farrakhan is the catalyst for growth and development of Islam in America. When after some long nights of thinking Farrakhan, the master of his subject, now comes out to endorse Mr. Barack Hussein Obama and »Change!«, then I and his most tasteless followers should trust him to know exactly what he is doing: Taking the presidential candidate's middle name for guaranteed while the rest of the world is ordered to ignore it, eventually better adviced in these post 9/11 times during an ongoing Iraq war.

A win-win situation for a possibly hidden agenda and for Barack (translate: flash of lightning), whose names are so close to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as his social connections are not too far away from any understandable suspicions: With Louis Farrakhan there is a clear message out for certain voters and a golden opportunity for Obama to seemingly political correct distance himself from any possible allegations that have been there anyway.

Now, with that said: Is it too much to ask for, to just not be forbidden to recognize the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama as existing? After all, some of his most enthusiastic supporters are very political people and could without mistake know what they do and for sure not mean harm to their own course and followers, don't they?!

As for my prediction, I and Nostradamus have to be happy with the latest developments, which serve as forseen the Republican John McCain more than any Antichrist, where the Democratic candidates and their supporters hurt and embarrass themselves in internal warfare, with the Clintons becoming increasingly less relevant as an upcoming McCain-Obama battle already captures lots of attention. But B. Hussein Obama and H. Clinton have one more round, next Tuesday, before she will have to concede defeat - unless she manages to surprise everyone yet again. To await that gives me some time to reread Nostradamus' predictions about the Black Pope, to find out where Farrakhan fits in.

Republican contender John McCain's campaign team is preparing files with incriminating information about Democratic candidate Barack Obama. McCain's advisers are eagerly looking forward to the great debate between these two candidates, in good hope that we will never have to meet again with that fat man Michael Moore presenting us one day just another homemade picture about conspiracy theories and all kinds of long known connections between a U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, Minister Louis Farrakhan, the Black Pope, Al Sharpton, Ray Mabus, the Antichrist and Nostradamus or whoever.

Newer Post

Earlier Post

John McCain: "It's Israel, stupid!"

John McCain on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference: »Those [Democratic] senators won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally Israel in the region. I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.«

Where a candidate like George W. Bush had to repeat over and over again the names of enemies along a certain axis of evil, Mr. McCain has the pleasure to just name an ally for the same effect, addressing safety and security: Israel. And it is by far not only the Jews who McCain is courting with such gestures.

Naming the Iranian threat alone could after all not play too well into McCain's hands, since that might too easily sound like another Iraq war to come - so mentioning Israel instead quite a lot will do the trick, I predict: Not to do anything that might compromise Israel's security will be an often said phrase by McCain and his biggest supporters like Senator Joe Lieberman, worth more than any rhethoric tricks and promises all together, it seems. For McCain Israel will become a most effective tool, leaving the ecomomy to »stupid!« Democrats.

After all John McCain will have to win the trust even of the most conservative Republicans from the right wing of the party, and those he can't impress with pure social matters alone. To perform the long balance act between radicals and moderates among Republicans until November and therefore to win those who don't trust him without losing his strongest support which lays with the less conservatives, McCain shall be well adviced to play the Israel card here wisely, directly and indirectly but a lot, to connect all those he needs. No radical Republican will want to miss the chance to vote in favor of Israel, I'd say - and no moderate has to be ashamed to do just the same.

Already two weeks ago, when asked about his chances of winning the Republican nomination despite polls, odds and his poor relations with evangelical Christians, McCain noted that an influential segment of this community is very committed to Israel, and »obviously I have been a very strong proponent to the State of Israel...«, Israel, Israel, Israel.

And earlier, in the summer: »The State of Israel has never needed your support and your hopes and your prayers they way they need it today,« McCain said. »And God bless you for your commitment.« (At the annual Christians United for Israel Summit in Washington)




Yes, when it comes to Israel (psst: and Iran), Mr. John McCain indeed has an unforgetable fine and conservative record that should do a lot for him now: azstarnet.com/news

Newer Post

Earlier Post

Election Poll: McCain leads Obama

Senator John S. McCain made an obvious step in the right direction to become the 44th president of the United States and win my bets: The newest USA Today Gallup Poll has him with the momentum from the Republican Party's national convention with 50% in front of Barack Obama's 46% among registered voters.

Does the Republican vice president candidate Sarah Palin (44) win all sympathies? It seems so: In the past week McCain was in another Gallup poll still seven points behind his rival, despite all Nostradamus prophecies. The political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia called the Republican Party convention a great success, the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice president candidate made a »big difference«. According to the survey 29% of respondents said they would rather vote for McCain in the presidential election on 4th of November because of Sarah Palin; on the other hand only 21% wanted to rethink their support for McCain because of the female governor of Alaska.


In other news:

Oprah Winfrey will not interview Sarah Palin. How biased is that while Obama was a guest in the show twice (until now)?
The New York Post endorses Senator John McCain, while during the primaries that paper supported Obama.
Las Vegas betting odds finally show some change towards reality: Barack Obama 1.57, John McCain 2.30 now.

Newer Post

Earlier Post

New lines and bets

1. Party to win 2008 Presidential Election:
   
   

   Democratic Party: 1.48
   Republican Party: 2.60
   Any other party: 26.00
2. Who will be President 2008?
   
   

   Hillary Clinton 2.25
   John McCain 3.25
   Barack Obama 3.50
   Mitt Romney 8.50
   Rudy Giuliani 8.50
   Mike Huckabee 21.00
   John Edwards 26.00
   Michael Bloomberg 31.00
   Ron Paul 81.00

To close with an update I can report that odds for McCain as the Republican Candidate for President 2008 dropped just another little bit, down to 1.74 now. Whoever likes to believe the public and bookmakers may be happy with my prediction so far, but don't forget that my prediction was made way before the primary in South Carolina and before the public finally followed.
Odds for Hillary Clinton as Candidate 2008 are falling as well, now down to 1.45 - but she doesn't matter in my prediction, so lets skip it.
There are still no bets available on who will be the next U.S. Vice President though - way to go, have a nice one!

Newer Post

Earlier Post