TYT: Cenk Makes a Bold Prediction on the Presidential Race

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 03:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOrB4-q6QsQ   Posted on YouTube: May 23, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 26, 2008 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 987

 
Predicts Obama in a landslide. I do, too. :)

[nichomachus]

1. Cenk -- this is exactly why there will be a "world changing" event before Nov.

The election in November will be nothing like what we imagine it to be today. This is why all predictions, polls, prognostications etc. are just bogus.

The people will change or the landscape will change -- but it will not be like we imagine it.

The fascists have not spent all this time, money, and political capital to build a dictatorial presidency, with the president able to imprison, torture, and kill without accountability -- only to smile and hand it over to someone who will use it against them. That just doesn't make any sense. Think about it for ten seconds.

These are people who crave power, and who aren't afraid to kill other people to maintain their power.

I have asked people to please convince me that the fascists would allow Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to become absolute dictator of the US. So far, no one has.

[speedoo]

5. There could very well be an attempt to create a world-changing event.

Whether or not such an attempt succeeds is an entirely different matter.

Remember, as bad as McCain is as a candidate, he is not Bush. He is not at all like Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc.

[nichomachus]

6. McCain may not be Bush, as you say,

but he has proven himself to be very malleable. He went from "maverick" to "eunuch" in a very short time.

If he gets elected, he will be kept sedated, Reagan-like, while the fascists run the show without him -- and without any accountability.

McCain would be a disaster simply because he has no agenda other than smiling and having Hail to the Chief played for him.

The fascists would simply go on as if he weren't there.

[speedoo]

7. I agree.

But I do not agree that he would willingly be complicit in an attempt to recast the dynamics of this campaign.

He would certainly side with Bush in an attack on Iran. But the Democratic Congress is not likely to sit idly by in that event. It would not be an Iraq replay.

[nichomachus]

9. Never say never.

I can think of a dozen scenarios under which the Dems in Congress could be made to applaud an attack on Iran.

Scenario #1: A false-flag attack by some black-ops group on American interests -- either a minor target inside the US or a major one outside. This would involve fatalities. Maybe a dirty bomb at the US elementary school or a major attack on a US ship or overseas base. Clear (manufactured) "evidence" that the attack was conceived and planned by Ahmadinejad and carried out on his direct orders. Maybe, we'd capture an "operative" who would gladly tell us that it was Ahmadinejad, that he planned more in the near future, and that he definitely had nuclear weapons.

The CIA and/or Mossad could whip this together in about a week. Get the corporate media on the case 24/7 and you'd have the Dems begging Bush to bomb Iran. In fact, they'd link arms with John McCain and sing "Bomb Bomb Iran."

[speedoo]

10. I don't believe it's that easy.

I recall voices in the Pentagon criticizing Bush's Iran propoganda. The Pentagon is painfully aware of how stretched thin our military is and wants no part of another commitment in Iran. They are not all Petraus lemmings. Rumsfeld is gone, as is Wolfowitz. Bush and Cheney don't have all their wormongering cohorts still in place.

Bush is at least 60 points lower in the polls than he was in the post 9/11 days. His credibility is shot.

And the MSM would also be very wary. Not Faux, of course, but the three networks, MSNBC and CNN would all be very careful. They won't be as gullible as they were six years ago.

Democrats like Kerry, Kennedy (if he is able), Feingold, Dodd, Durbin, Boxer, and certainly others would be very skeptical and would be prepared to take a hard stand, with no fear of political backlash, because they have no presidential ambitions (unlike the IWR situation).

[nichomachus]

11. You're missing the point -- it's not about Bush

It was never really about Bush. He was, as he has been his whole life, the idiot front man who kept people dazzled while the guys behind the scenes ran things. At the Texas Rangers, he sat in the owners' box and schmoozed, while the real owners robbed the city and the state blind.

It's Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Perle. These guys have been plotting this for over 30 years. They're not going anywhere.

[speedoo]

12. I know that, but Bush is the front man.

The fact that he no longer has the post 9/11 CinC credibility makes him an inept spokesman.

[nichomachus]

13. I'll bet if they tried hard enough

They could get some Dems to demand Bush take action.

[speedoo]

14. Oh yeah. That's likely.

But we are just speculating here. Let's wait and see what happens.

[gateley]

2. Hold on to this thought, fellow Dems! We'll PULVERIZE McCain come November! nt

[speedoo]

3. I'm looking for a landslide as well.

McCain is a terrible candidate. Obama is, at worst, a very good candidate, maybe the best presidential candidate in decades, with a very strong campaign organization and ability to raise a LOT of money.

[harun]

4. Cenk is correct, Obama will win 60% of the vote (n/t)

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I agree with Cenk 100%

McCain is running on the Bush redux platform of more wars and fewer jobs. Never mind dirty campaigning by surrogates. That dog won't hunt.