You are hereBlogs / Tony Campbell's blog / The Dream Ticket - Clinton / Limbaugh

The Dream Ticket - Clinton / Limbaugh

By Tony Campbell - Posted on 06 March 2008


Hillary Clinton owes her political life to Rush Limbaugh.  Let me say that again:  Rush Limbaugh saved Hillary's political career.  How ironic is that... 

The man who was the mouthpiece for the impeachment of her husband, and who tried to make her homeless by kicking her out of the White House in 1998, led the movement of raiding the Democrat primary in TX to keep her nomination hopes alive.  What strange bedfellows politics make?

The tragedy is the only group who benefited from Tuesday's draw is the Republicans.  Clinton only picked up a net of 4 delegates.  She will lose that advantage, and any momentum, she has gained within a week.  Obama is predicted to win in Wyoming, Mississippi, and American Samoa.

What is so sad is that Democrats allowed the Limbaugh / Colter wing of the Republican party to highjack their primary.  Instead of coming together and campaigning against the failed policies of "McBush" , Democrats will now be in a protracted fight until May (and possibly until the convention).

The only way McCain can win in November is with a Democrat party that is fractured beyond repair.  Congradulations, Dems - you may have signed your own execution order.


Based on voter turnout,Money raised and Bush Fatigue, Democrats will win the Presidency no matter what this time

Well, that's the longstanding assumption.

BUT, if the Dems run Hillary, GOP voters will turn out in unprecedented numbers just to keep her out of office.

AND, if the Democratic Party doesn't sort out its nomination soon, they're going to take so much negative publicity and ill will into the general election that it's going to be really hard for their nominee to recover.

Houston Chronicle Colummnist reported that Republicans voting in the Dem Primary pretty evenly split the vote between Clinon/Obama,with the edge going to Obama

"Congradulations [sic], Dems - you may have signed your own execution order."

Why is it the Democrats' fault for something Limbaugh orchestrated? Because the Dems want to vote for Clinton if they feel she's the best candidate, instead of falling in lockstep behind Obama? Remember that less than a year ago Clinton was the presumptive nominee, and some people were wondering how soon the other candidates would drop out. 

 Many people seem to assume that Clinton can't get enough delegates to win... wrong. McCain has been firing more shots at Obama lately. What if this causes some of the Dem superdelegates --who are not locked into supporting a candidate -- decide that Obama isn't as "electable" or as qualified as they thought, and decide to switch to Clinton? Clinton will pick up more delegates that way.

 And it looks increasingly like Michigan and Florida will be allowed to vote again, or some other way have their voices count. 


Why is it the Dems' fault? Because the Dems should have stepped in earlier to encourage Hillary to concede. It would have been the only hope that the whole thing would blow over and we could move on with the general election.

Instead, Hillary stuck around and "won" Tuesday even though she fell further behind (proportionally) in the delegate race. Now, no matter who wins, it's going to look like the nomination came down to a series of technicalities in a process that was markedly un"Democratic." The longer this goes on the less likely it seems that there's any chance the Party can come out of this without facing accusations that the nomination was fixed in some kind of back room deal. This will haunt them and their nominee in the general election.

I just learned of this site and couldn't resist taking a look. 

Do you folks REALLY believe that Obama can attract genuine Republican voters??  This clown is to the left of Trotsky.

 It's a great gimmick though and there are probably 4 people in this country who will buy it.  BTW, I think that's 1/2 the number of people who believe the moon is made of cheese.

What makes a Republican genuine?

As genuine as Mitt "flip flop" Romney? As genuine as George "fake tax cuts" Bush? As genuine as John "sell out to the neocons to get the nomination" McCain?

Seriously - is there anything genuine about our party anymore? 

And your middle name is Hussein? OUR party? The GOP usually filters your type out with physical activity....*cough*war

This is just childish, silly.  Every time someone from either party attempts to use Obama's middle name as a weapon, it simply reveals a tireless, misguided, shallow bitterness.  Please, if you're going to try and argue sensible, stick to facts, and don't count on bigotry to boost whatever point you're trying to make.

Truth is the GOP party is in conflict this year too.  McCain does not equal=traditional conservativism, and is a poor reflection of what are largely considered "republican values".  Truth is, even if McCain wins (which he likely won't), the GOP suffers a loss.

Way to go Sarg and defend my gal Barbara! However, this guy Anonymouse, has been banned from this site. This was actually one of the nicer postings from him. We aren't even sure if he was for or against any candidate. He just enjoyed antagonizing people. Until he gets a new computer location, IPS? he's pretty much gone, I believe.

Well I've heard a lot of people who sound like this person.  Sadly, quite a few are adults.  If nothing else, he is a reminder that there are folks out there who are Hell bent on corroding their own minds with negativity.

In the end I think some (not all)  Republicans are rightly  upset about their nominee this year.  Focusing on the Dem nominees seems to be a way to distract themselves from their upset and disappointment within their own party.  It's sad actually.   

Also, some (not all) Republicans claim that Obama is an extreme leftist.  Please offer the specific facts that back up your claim - you know, policy points (something tells me this request won't be honored).

Obama and Clinton are equally liberal - their policies are practically identical, with one major exception being that Obama is for the death penalty (a typical GOP stance).

So you're a "real" Republican (whatever that means) - clearly, you aren't a real conservative.  No conservative would spend much as a fraction of second considering voting for Sen. Obama.

I suppose that just shows that the two aren't "mutually inclusive", as it were.

BTW, it was Senator Kennedy that first called Sen. Obama "Osama", more than once in the same breath, in fact.  I've heard the audio.  Is Sen. Kennedy "small-minded"?  Never mind - forget I asked.

And just exactly what is "flip-flop" about Gov. Romney?  He changed his mind about abortion.  That's the "flip" - where's the "flop", eh?  And he really changed his mind, he didn't do it for the sake of expediency or to tailor his message to fit the audience, like certain politicians I know of.

Frankly, both Democrat contenders scare the hell out of me, perhaps Sen. Obama more than Sen. Clinton, because, at least with the latter, you have a pretty good idea of what you're getting.

In contrast, Sen. Obama is the past master of the pleasant-sounding platitude and saying lots of words that don't actually amount to anything substantive.  The few times he's approached substance, it turns out to be more of the same, old, warmed-over liberalism the Democrat party has been doling out for decades.

As for some "white voters", voting (or not) for a particular candidate - that signifies approximately nothing.  No presidential candidate has ever won without a majority of the white male voters, and it's not going to happen this time, either.

I'm not advocating identity politics here.  I wouldn't vote for Sen. Obama if his land name were, say, "Edwards", whom I found to be an equally mush-headed liberal.

See the article on the Aspen Times web site (all one word with no space), called "In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man".  It talks about how Republicans want Clinton to be the Democrat party nominee, because we know Senator McCain can, in the words of the author, "beat her like a drum".  Frankly, I think he can do exactly the same thing to Sen. Obama.

 We'll see.

So it looks like I'm stuck with voting for another Republican who, despite his considerable protestations to the contrary, is NOT a conservative. 


I already answered these protestations earlier today from someone else. Let me find the link. 

And I don't want to get into the details of Romney, but he flipped on several issues at times when they each appeared to be coincidentally politically expedient.

Here you go. My answer is in the WTF thread: 

After reading the link Barbara sent to you, I refer you to this post also....

<BTW, it was Senator Kennedy that first called Sen. Obama "Osama", >

I've heard that clip also.   Believe me, I am no fan of Sen. Kennedy, far from it.  But as you well know, a slip of the tongue when pronouncing an unfamiliar name, is completely different than deliberately using it to hint at something sinister.  Such a comparison by you is ludicrous.

"So it looks like I'm stuck with voting for another Republican who, despite his considerable protestations to the contrary, is NOT a conservative. 


This is the only thing you said that is sensible.  Advice: stop calling the kettle black.  As soon as you clean up your side of the (republican) street, then feel free to cross the street and sweep someone else's yard  :)

Why not Republicans for America?  The GOP has obsessed for so long with retaining power they forgot about the other 50% of America.

Hillary owes Rush nothing, and getting his endorsement was like when Ron Paul got a donation from a White Supremacist.   Uh, thanks, but no thanks, just because you like me doesn't mean I'm going to pay any credence to your twisted agenda.

It seems that all of the candidates have gotten endorsements from less than desired places.....some have been made more public than others.  I understand and can accept that the candidate has no control over who chooses their side.  What I do have a problem with is when an endorsement is played up in the media over and over, and a similar endorsement for a different candidate is all but ignored!  Fair and balanced??  I think NOT!
I am for Obama, but with that said I believe the democratic nomination being drug out is a good thing. No one is talking about McCain, they are all talking about the dems.

Yeah, McCain has complained about this. But I think it hurts the dems more than it hurts McCain. Hillary and Obama are busy fighting over petty matters and pointing out all of each other's weaknesses, while McCain is busy gathering support, saving his funds for the GE, and planning out his strategy.

Part of the savings and strategy will be given to McCain by the HRC camp.  She has given McCain a lot of ammunition to use already, and the GE is still way down the road.   I could not believe when she said she was experienced in foreign affairs,  McCain was experienced in foreign affairs, and that Obama had given a speech!!  I'm surprised that the Dem party let her get away with that one.  It's like the party has picked up a snake behind the head, and don't know how to put it down with it biting them.

Republican here, who knows of trailer trash Clintons that can't even say anonymous much less spell it. Personally, I think all the candidates are qualified to run the country if the US operated in a vacuum, but we don't. It's the foreign policy that I'm worried about. Obama is our strongest foreign policy candidate. He's right about Afghanistan. He doesn't make rash and emotional decisions. He is excellent in a debate, and transferring the debate scenario to foreign policy, you can catch more flies with honey. Clinton reacts emotionally, as does Bush, which I don't see helping our relations with our allies. She brings with her the rubbish of Bill. Our country was a joke, foreign countries imagined him spending all his time trying to get into panties and no time running the country--and we're thinking about electing his wife? Not to mention, she has the same wily tongue as Bill. I don't trust her. At least, as far as anyone can tell, Obama actually believes what he is saying. She might (big might) do okay, but why risk it. McCain simply doesn't have it in him to work out our foreign policy problems. If he wins, we run the risk of all becoming trailer trash, we can't afford to keep fighting in Iraq; furthermore, we can't afford the consequences of continuing to piss off our allies. If he wins, I'll be wondering whether Chinese or Russian is the best language to start learning, and praying I won't need either. Clinton can't run against McCain. The idea of voting for Clinton just makes me shivver. I'm not sure I can even vote if she does.

To the OP: What is so sad is that the Republican party lacks the ability to control its extremist Limbaugh/Coulter wing. You've forced out rational, thinking conservatives and replaced them with Repug mobsters who believe their god christened them the savior of the world. If Madison and Jefferson were alive today, we would have already raised arms to defend this nation against the threat of their ilk in order to preserve this Union. Their hired-guns incite with the threat of violence [ ] when fair elections are held and push beyond the extremes of the envelope, reducing our physical security, our economic security, and the very libertarian liberties which have served as this great nation's foundation for over 200 years.

If it is civil war Repugs want, as unfortunately seems to be the case, all the Corporate welfare in the world cannot save them from those who understand that Liberty is our greatest asset worth dying for.

Thank you so much for your Repug(nant) opinion.

 I am an Independant supporting Obama.  I despise Hillary, but if it turns out that she gets them dem nomination because Dittobrains helped her in the primary, I will vote for her in the general election.

 Her healthcare plan troubles me but it wont make it through congress anyway.  Obama was at least pragmatic enough to say focusing on driving the cost down was more important than his proposed plan.  




I'd probably have to vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, but I'll cry all night--maybe even all week--no, make that for four years.


The way I see it, voting is a right we have in the US, but we can also make a political statement by exercising our right not to vote in certain situations. 

If you feel so negatively about Hillary Rodham Clinton, why are you voting for her?  If part of your reason (?) you aren't for her because you feel she is conniving or corrupt, then how do you justify voting someone corrupt into office?  If your reason is to keep your party in office, how is that justified?  If it's to keep McCain out because he's a war monger,  Hillary is a double-speaker and voted for the war and could easily go back on her word.  I bet you'd cry less if you simply exercised your right now to vote.

Oops ... misplaced post.

If you feel so negatively about Hillary Rodham Clinton, why would you vote for her??  If any part of your reason is that she is conniving or corrupt, then how would you justify voting someone corrupt into office?  If your reason is to keep your party in office, how would that be justified?  If it'd be to keep McCain out because he's a war monger,  Hillary is a double-speaker and voted for the war and could easily go back on her word.  I'm confused.

Republicans for a black man for president?  Don't make me laugh........this will only happen when pigs fly .........OR..........when Clarence Thomas  runs.  Then do NOT get in between me and the ballot box.   You will know what it feels like to be run over by a truck.
Look up Fred.......PIGS ARE FLYING!!!!!!!
Actually Freddy Boy I live in the South in a county thriving with KKK and Aryan Brotherhood(Galveston County) It  is also solidly Democratic!! Read your history my friend!
If you're referring to Galveston County, TX, and further regarding national elections, the claim of it being "solidly Democratic" is simply not true as Bush had 11 and 16-point wins in both 2000 and 2004, respectively.

Did he mean locally, perhaps?

Many areas in the south and midwest are locally Democratic but vote Republican in presidential elections.

On the other hand, I have a friend who lives down there and works for NASA, he says it's one of the "reddest" parts of the country you'll ever see. 

Sure. That could be the case. I've seen some boll weevel Dems, in the legacy of the worst examples of the early 20th century, who still try to run government the same way. Reagan's revolution adopted the majority of them though.
It's wild:  How is the opinion that the pubs have a chance this year, fly in the face of reality (present statistics, for example)?  How?  How? 
Clear Lake (Nasa) is mostly rich white and non native Texan.(republican)
True There,For the First time ever,Republicans did ride on Bushes Coattails in 2000 and 2004. WwENT BACK IN THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS.But to be fair the hicks dont know why theyre voting except cause "Mah Daddy and Grandaddydone did so!!"

Hey son, if you live in the South, you're likely living on a land teeming with Obamamites (many are black).  That's how Obama has taken the majority of the Southern states so far  ... many with overwhelming margins.  The KKK can kiss my caboose  ;)  

God bless America.

I live in the true deep South, southern Louisiana.  Let me say, that most Texans don't consider themselves southern, they consider themselves to be......well, to be TEXANS!  ;-)

But back to my point, there are a tremendous amount of black Obamamites here, as well as a good segment of the white vote.  Here is how I see it among people that I know....Most blacks support Obama over Clinton, by about 90%.  I personally know three blacks that support McCain.  The white vote pretty much follows obvious divides.....The older, old money, "society" element is overwhelmingly for McCain.  (they would be for the Rep. nominee, no matter who it was).  The youth group, college age and slightly beyond voters, as well as the educated professionals support Obama.  The blue collar vote is mostly divided between Clinton and McCain, with McCain having the edge, IMO.  (My areas is dominated with a petro-chemical ecomony, so there is a lot of support for the best interests of the large oil companies.)  Of course, I do not claim to speak for the state as a whole, just the people I know or come in contact with.  But I come in contact with an awful lot of people, so I can kind of judge the pulse in my area.

True, us Texans do think were unique!!!!lolJust like you Cajuns!!!! Yawl have better food tho!!!

INterestingly the first president of teh texas Republican Party was Black 


Look Fred, the gig is up:  you convinced yourself you used to own all the crayolas in the box, but now you are being forced to share.  You have two choices:

1 . Stay in denial, continuing to overvalue your skin color because something else is missing in your life and all the fears that spring from that loss are funneled into your racist attitude ... take this route and prepare to die a miserable person who was inflexible in the face of change.   OR

2. Face the fact that your ethnicity never made you superior; that you are not owed anything through "race entitlement",  and realize that you can't stop historical changes and therefore should try not to whine about it.  Finally, face whatever it is that really is making you angry and hurt (it's not about race). You could be a lot happier and healthier that way.  I'm dead serious.

<face whatever it is that really is making you angry and hurt (it's not about race). You could be a lot happier and healthier that way. >

Sarg, you are my kind of people!!!

Isn't it funny how our take on a situation is colored by our own experiences?  I took Fred's post as implying an ignorant, stereotypical view of the south, and southerners, as being too backward and too racist to vote for a black man.  That angered me.  I hate to tell him, but the times, they are a-changin'!  As a white, 60 year old southern Rep woman, I feel qualified to make that statement!!

Nativeeyes, most of the posters here agree that racism is an ugly and evil thing.  As our site recieves more and more exposure, there are some who come in to harrass us and expouse their prejudiced views.  The real RFOers are as diverse as the America we live in, working together towards a common see Obama elected as the next president of the United States of America.  We believe in his message of unity and hope. 

We are the change we have been waiting for.

Yet, there is nothing but the sound of crickets when the name of John McCain is brought up. What's the Obama plan to judo-flip the unholy onslaught of the Republican slime-machine, once your candidate is solely focused on McCain? Where's the beef?

There is every possibility that the Limbaugh-crats (they're merely a cool-aid swallowing sub-class of traditional reps) will inadvertantly help Obama to win:

There is talk that the superdelegates will move more delegates Obama's way to compensate for the reps who vote for Hillary Clinton heheheh.  In this way, Obama will still likely win, not Hillary Clinton.  Yes, the dems have a screwy voting system that allows for cheating, but as just stated, there will be compensation. Your opinion on this?

This is sickening.

How can this behavior be justified by people who call themselves Americans??

Consider how Republicans would feel if the tables were turned and Democrats interfered with their right as Americans to have their votes accurately represent their choice for a presidential candidate.

This is un-American.

We agree, cbmtrx. Rush and his antics are part of why we're so un-enamoured with our own party anymore.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.