Fake Election 2008: MTBC - 1 Pundits - 0

On June 4th of 2007, I wrote a column opining about the corporate candidates for the 2008 presidential race. In that post, I predicted that John McCain would be the Republican nominee , that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and that Barack Obama would end up as her VP.

I made the McCain prediction based on media coverage and that one was easy. When the mainstream media gives potential candidates almost weekly free national coverage of one kind or another, you know they are the chosen corporate candidates.

I made the Hillary prediction based on some of the same media reasons but also because she is very much like McCain on issues of war and peace and terrorism. The centrists in the Democratic Party always take over in every election cycle and choose a nominee who seems most like a Republican. I may not have predicted Barack Obama's current lead but thats largely irrelevant. I am absolutely certain that the "terror-fied" middle in the Democratic Party will not choose him and the two (supposedly opposing) camps will cut a deal (personally, I think they worked out a Pres/VP deal a LONG time ago). Interestingly, I just heard Hillary saying in one of her victory speeches that Obama might do well as her VP.

Many people had trouble believing my certainty about the candidates. Few believed that my predictions would come true (about McCain, particularly). Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seemed like shoe-ins at the time. Many people were interested to hear my opinion but took it with a grain of salt as the so-called "experts" were all saying that McCain was out.

Yesterday, John McCain secured easily the Republican nomination. This would be a huge upset if those media pundits were ever called to the carpet. They almost universally predicted that he was all washed up, of no interest and that he had no shot. I knew that it was pre-ordained but prior to the New Hampshire primary, McCain was a loser who had run out of money and his campaign manager and many top aides had left his campaign.

I also predicted in that same column that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate. That may have seemed logical at the time but since then my prescience has been severely tested as Barack Obama has won primary after primary and has gained a small lead in the delegate race. Many who follow the "Faux Progressive Pied Piper" have watched as his "Hope Machine" has rolled across the country and they think he is unstoppable. I told them all to just wait. As soon as the centrists in the party see that an unknown may actually be their candidate after 8 years of Gee Dubya, they will stream to the polling stations by the millions to ensure that their party choose "experience and security" over "hope and change".

Last night, Hillary narrowed Obama's lead and cemented her underdog status within the party by winning the bellweather states of Texas and Ohio. It is widely thought that her ads questioning Obama's lack of experience had a lot to do with this. Again, this is true because Obama is an unknown commodity and the party's centrists will always demand a vetted, seasoned corporate puppet so that there will be NO surprises. I am absolutely POSITIVE that Hillary will "win" as I predicted (I put quotation marks around the word "win" because you can't really "win" anything that is totally rigged from the get go).

If big mainstream media ever want a source that can give them a clue about what is actually going on around them, all they need do is check out MTBC occasionally. ;-)