Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« WARNING: Don't Read William Kr... | Tucker Carlson No Longer Hurti... »

Monday, March 10, 2008

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Watch

posted by on March 10 at 8:07 AM

On the day of the Texas primary Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show—Limbaugh had been urging Republicans to show up at the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton campaign wasn’t above working with Limbaugh to scare up votes. Christ.

RSS icon Comments


Wow. This makes me like the Clintons even less than before. I didn't think that was possible. . .

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 10, 2008 8:17 AM

I'm pretty sure this is why Hillary prevailed in the primary vote. I went down to Texas to volunteer for the Obama campaign and part of my job was to encourage people waiting in an hour+ line to vote in the primary to stick around for the caucuses that started after the primary. Two folks told me they definitely would as each had a co-worker show up in the a.m. saying he had just voted for Hillary, per Rush's instruction, so that Clinton would continue to attempt to inflict wounds on Obama and thereby increase the Repubs chance in the fall. The fact that Bill Clinton was directly involved is enough to make me wretch. I think its time to start making it repeatedly clear that many of us will bolt from the Dem. party if they really hand this thing to Clinton despite Obama winning the most primaries, regular delegates, and popular vote. Can you imagine the screams of sexism that would ensue if Hillary had the lead in these categories and the supers were talking about giving it to a man. I'm of the growing opinion that if this happens its because our party brass, in their heart of hearts, are racist.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | March 10, 2008 8:26 AM

I think Hillary thinks she will get the Super Delegates behind her and steal the nomination.

I am fucking freaked out since I can not see myself voting for the monster at this point. Hell, McCain is looking better than Hillary at this point (if that is even possible)

But one thing is clear, the Dems are bound to loose the White House at the rate we are going. I suggest we put our energies in protecting Gov. Gregiore at this point; cut our loses and focus on the local stuff.

Posted by Andrew | March 10, 2008 8:27 AM

I don´t know, Dan, I`m still not convinced. Maybe if her face comes off at the convention and leering devil-eyes hypnotize America through the TV monitor, sulphur smoke fills the arena and it starts raining blood...

Posted by Grant Cogswell | March 10, 2008 8:30 AM

You set a pretty high bar, Grant.

Next thing you know, you'll be demanding to see her tax returns, or something.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 10, 2008 8:37 AM

What happened to unity? one america?

Posted by yah | March 10, 2008 8:43 AM

What, the OTHER party poisoning the waters of a party's open primary? Shocking. What goes around comes around.

Posted by raindrop | March 10, 2008 8:45 AM

Limbaugh wasn't there. They never even brought up getting any GOTV, Clinton didn't even ask for the listeners' votes.

I'm betting none of the above commentors listened to the link.

I think that HRC shouldn't have said that Mc was better prepared than BHO but I also think that BHO shouldn't have said that HRC had brought the war with W and Mc.

Sullivan sucks.

Posted by McG | March 10, 2008 8:46 AM

8: Why shouldn't he have said that she bought into the Iraq War? Is it not true? She gave the surge a standing ovation at the State of the Union.

And I did listen to the link. So if Rush Limbaugh, who has had nothing by vitriol and disrespect for the Clintons for the last 15+ years, suddenly "endorses" HRC in an underhanded political move to by time for his candidate, how is Bill Clinton appearing on the show not complicit with that? If Bill had made a point of saying, "Now, I disagree with asking everyone who's listening to vote for my wife..." or something. But he didn't. That's what I heard.

Posted by Ziggity | March 10, 2008 8:50 AM

Did you listen to the audio? Bill didn't say anything dirty and there's no evidence he knew anything about Rush's suggestion for Republicans to vote for Hillary.

There's nothing wrong with Bill Clinton appearing on someone's show who he obviously disagrees with. Aren't Obama supporters the ones who trumpet their candidate's promise to talk to world leaders like Kim Jong Il? Is your next post going to be, "Isn't the Obama campaign above working with Kim Jong Il to scare up votes?"

Posted by obama blinders | March 10, 2008 8:55 AM

@10: the mere fact that WJC spoke with that drug addled fascist makes her ambition that much more monstrous.

The Big Dog should have punched Rush's fat face in, and then signed up for Michael Savage's show to do the same. And so on.

Posted by max solomon | March 10, 2008 9:01 AM

I once hip-checked Andrew Sullivan into a bush. True story.

Posted by Mr. Poe | March 10, 2008 9:03 AM

Is Hillary's campaign strategist a guy by the name of Rove, by any chance?

Posted by UnCommonSense | March 10, 2008 9:06 AM

#9: Do you think Bill Clinton listens to the Rush Limbaugh show every day? Do you really think he heard Rush Limbaugh was encouraging republicans to vote for his wife and dropped everything to call into his show the same day?

#11: I suppose if an Obama campaigner has ever been interviewed on a right wing radio/tv show you'll drop all support for Obama and call him a monster?

Posted by obama blinders | March 10, 2008 9:07 AM

I'm all for Republicans voting for Democrats, because it's one less vote for a Republican.

Posted by Y.F. | March 10, 2008 9:08 AM

@10 - Wow, how naive to assume that Bill's visit to Rush's show on the day of the TX primary was just for some benign little chat.

Did you sleep through the Clinton years in the 90's? These people know how to play the campaign game, and they do. Now, it's possible that some folks might be reading too much into this, but the political calculations behind his appearance on that particular show at that particular date should be blatantly obvious.

Posted by Hernandez | March 10, 2008 9:11 AM

the question remains; does poe have a crush on hockey players?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 10, 2008 9:14 AM

Clinton's tactics the past month have destroyed any respect I had for her. If you had asked me in January who I supported, I would have said Obama, but I like Clinton too. Not anymore.

If she wins I will probably still vote for her, unless Obama leaves the party over supers picking the nominee and runs as an independent. But I don't really see myself doing any thing more then that.

Posted by Giffy | March 10, 2008 9:20 AM



Posted by Mr. Poe | March 10, 2008 9:23 AM

You hip checked that notion right out the window!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 10, 2008 9:25 AM

Hernandez if you listened to the link you know that WJC talk would have only pissed off the Republicans and made it harder for them to cross over.

Max - Rush was NOT doing the interview

When McCain supporters were encouraged to come over to Obama during primary votes that was OK?

Ziggy - go find the clip, see for yourself. She shouldn't have said Mc had the experience and he shouldn't have put her in the sentence with W.

Posted by McG | March 10, 2008 9:26 AM


what @ 16 said. i haven't forgotten the impeachment farce.

clinton gets my vote if she gets the nomination. i don't respect any politician to begin with, so i don't expect them to be respectable.

Posted by max solomon | March 10, 2008 9:27 AM

An interview with with Mark Davis of WBAP Dallas/Ft. Worth doesn't have the same conspiratorial ring.

Posted by umvue | March 10, 2008 9:30 AM

@14: Do you really think the Clintons, who revolutionized campaigning in the 90s, don't have someone whose job it is to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter so they can get a leg up on spinning things in favor of the campaign? Do you really think a former president would go on a talk radio show famous for its hatred of him without first asking, just once, what the show's recent content might be?

@21: I'm not disputing that it wasn't said. I'm disputing the fact that you think it's somehow false or inappropriate to say she isn't a huge Iraq War cheerleader. She voted for it, she continues to support it, and she would slobber all over the surge's knob if she could. And you're right, she shouldn't have said McCain was experienced. But she did.

Posted by Ziggity | March 10, 2008 9:31 AM

Shame on Hillary for trying to reach out to Republican voters. Doesn't she know Obama has a copyright on the word "bipartisanship"? Doesn't she know that only crazy old people and dumb poor people vote for her? That all independents vote for Obama? Sheesh.

Bill was awesome, by the way. I hadn't known that the FL primary move was done by a Republican legislature against the wishes of the Florida Democrats. Though I disagree with Bill that they should let the existing vote stand- I think they need to have a do-over.

Posted by Big Sven | March 10, 2008 9:31 AM

It's funny that some Clinton supporters (ahem) express concern that Obama's bipartisan rhetoric represents a willingness to concede too much to the right wing. I mean, it's not like he's appeared on Limbaugh's show.

Posted by tsm | March 10, 2008 9:32 AM

And what does ECB think about Bill on Rush?


Posted by Andy Niable | March 10, 2008 9:38 AM

Um, Sven, I hate to break this to you, but William Jefferson Clinton told you a lie about how the Florida primary was moved. It was unanimously approved by the Florida House, including many Democratic votes. The state party chair wanted a primary on January 29.

Posted by elenchos | March 10, 2008 9:47 AM

#26: I think Obama having anti-gay hatemongers in his campaign and promising to have republicans in his administration is a little more than "bipartisan rhetoric."

I can't believe anyone really has a problem with Clinton going on Limbaugh's show to discuss his Democratic talking points. It would be like calling John Stewart a right-wing hack for going on Tucker Carlson's show. You're just grasping at straws.

Posted by obama blinders | March 10, 2008 9:53 AM

I agree with Obama Blinders on this. How are you seriously going to begrudge Clinton for doing what politicians do? Are you all the same subset of people that are consistently whining about right of centre people being interviewed on NPR?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 10, 2008 9:57 AM

"obama blinders" = flamebait.

Posted by elenchos | March 10, 2008 9:57 AM

But elenchos the Dems only voted to move up the primary because the majority Republicans would have claimed the Dems didn't have the backbone to stand up to the national parties.

It is similar to voting present on birth control issues.

Ziggy - the point I was making is that both sides have spoken what is truth but neither should have said these particulars because of effects in November.

Big Svem - you haven't been reading all the slog comments or you would have known.

Posted by McG | March 10, 2008 9:58 AM

I get it: they opposed it, but the had to vote for it or they would have been called wimps. They were really voting for something else, i.e., the exact opposite of what they voted for.

Where have I heard that before? Isn't that why Hillary voted for the war? So she wouldn't be called a wimp. And now she says she was really voting for something else, diplomacy, not war.

It truly amazes me the kind of Democrats some people will listen to.

Anyway, Bill Clinton lied. The Fla Dems voted to move the primary, and their chairman supported it.

Posted by elenchos | March 10, 2008 10:10 AM



Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman also wrote the House committee members in a letter, warning them not to push the primary any earlier than Feb. 5 to avoid potential backlash.
Posted by Big Sven | March 10, 2008 10:10 AM

If the commenter who referred to people crossing party lines to manipulate primaries was referring to the Dems who caucused for McCain in 2000 (I was one of them) that was done in total sincerety, to keep the other Christian nutjobs and corporate whores off the ticket. By no means do I think McCain has been any shining star since - he would just continue the Bush disaster, minus surveillance (hopefully) and torture - but the Clinton campaign`s shenanigans and attitude are pushing me further and further toward thinking that if she is the candidate I will sit this one out. The wave of support for Obama comes exactly from fatigue with the lesser-of-two-evils crap we are handed so often. If Hillary uses her DNC power play to scare up a majority with superdelegates, it WILL tear the party in two. I would like to see a woman president, but if they are doing the same old shit (see Margaret Thatcher, and don´t tell me after the Clinton administration that Thatcher was a million miles to the right of the First Couple) then its just a bump in the patriarchic road and all goes on as normal. This was what city politics was all about in the 90s in Seattle: "Honor Diversity" with those of less empowered genders and races who are willing to toe the line, stick your thumb up your ass and let corporate capitalism and militarism and rape of the Earth go on and on and on.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | March 10, 2008 10:27 AM

Dem infighting continues. hahaha

Posted by McCain/Crist '08 | March 10, 2008 10:38 AM

All you people talking of bolting to Mc Cain make me sick to my guts.

Are you for real? Just because Hilary does not fit you idea of the perfect lady. No, she sure ain't your granny or your mommie.

And, when Warmonger Mc Cain launches the preemptive nuke strike on Russia and engulfs the whole world into that agony - HOW WILL YOU FEEL??? Vindicated cause Hilary is such a hard ball player????

You make me wonder where your politics really come from ... an inch deep and two inches wide ... or less.

This has been a close and hard fought primary contest from the beginning, what is all the fuss about? Hardball is a real term with real meaning.

Clinton has the up hill battle and she is a fighter and will see it to the end. Why the surprise? That was predictable ten years ago.

If she takes Penn. and a Florida recount - it is a new game. Surprises abound and working the convention should be on the minds of both Obama and Clinton.

(note, Clinton and Obama are raking in cash, what a pleasant surprise for Democrats)

Posted by Adam | March 10, 2008 10:43 AM

McCain = anti-choice US Supreme Court.

McCain = 100 Years War

McCain = MANY more TRILLIONS in US Debt

You sure about that?

That way lies MADNESS.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 10, 2008 10:50 AM

Oh, come on, e@35. Your quote is just a note from Thurman written *after* the legislation passed telling voters to participate. Faced with a LEGAL requirement to hold her primary on that date, what do you think she should have done?!? Said, "hey everybody, the Rs shoved this down our throat. Don't come?"

The point is that Clinton's statement about Florida Dem's opposition to the date change WAS correct. Your quote doesn't do anything to weaken that argument.

Posted by Big Sven | March 10, 2008 10:59 AM

I agree with Adam @ 38. The Clintons are unprincipled and ruthless when it comes to winning elections, and they will be lukewarm toward progressive issues in how they govern. But they're still a damn sight better than McCain. And you thought the Clintons were unprincipled...

Posted by Matthew | March 10, 2008 11:00 AM

Big Sven seems to be the winner. The Dems fought the move but when made they tried to make the best of it. They could have gone to their people with their tails between their legs begging for the $20 million to run a separate primary or having fought it (boston globe from january, swampolitics blog from september) say that since all candidates are on the ballot let her roll.

Did the DNC offer to pay for a vote? No.

Elenhos you heard it before from Obama on choice in IL and later when he voted for every war funding bill. Oh and why he was OK with radioactive water, even after the Dems had the majority.

Posted by McG | March 10, 2008 11:04 AM

Grant you said the exact same thing in 2000 when you supported Nader.

Elenchos - Sven's was an AP story. Yours was a blog.

Posted by McG | March 10, 2008 11:13 AM

Man… Bill Clinton reminds of Saturn devouring his children… Only the Democrats could snatch defeat form the jaws of victory with such gusto…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | March 10, 2008 11:53 AM

McG - Obama saying that Clinton is like McCain and W on the war vote won't have an effect in November. There is no distinction on their initial vote. The comparison won't hurt her in Nov. the way that her claims against him will. Her argument provides an argument to vote for McCain over him. His argument is a reason for people to vote for him, over both of them. There is no comparison between those two things and her tactics are too much.

Posted by Ed | March 10, 2008 12:17 PM

McG, you're a Clinton flack. It's pretty meaningless for someone like you to declare who won anything.

This passed the Florida Senate 37-2 and 118-0 in the House. Democrats in committee voted to merge the primary date issue with the must-have requirement to have paper ballots.

The the more you look, the more you find that this was a bipartisan move, and thet the Florida Dems thought they were going to outsmart everybody. And blame the Republicans when it blew up in their faces.

I'm fine with a revote. In a fair fight, Hillary picks up maybe 10 delegates, and that's not enough. When you look at how slick the Florida Democrats are, and how they like to pretend their votes mean something other than what they mean, well, you can see why Hillary is their choice. Florida deserves Hillary Clinton. The rest of us deserve Obama, which is why he is ahead and will stay ahead.

Posted by elenchos | March 10, 2008 2:17 PM

smart. shrewed.

Posted by infrequent | March 10, 2008 2:24 PM

Yeah, McG, supporting Obama is JUST like supporting Nader. I have said that was wrong, a huge mistake in retrospect - but consider, Gore was running a terrible campaign (hadn´t become Mr. Global Warming yet) and LIEBERMAN (now being considered for McCain´s VP slot) was his running mate. Nobody saw that history was going to hand the fucking monkey now in the White House carte blanche to do his worst. Yes, I made a mistake. Everyone who never has been wrong about a politician please now stop blogging.

Given that this moment is so crucial for the party, and for the country, and that these kind of blogs are used to test the waters - and that is why I will not shut up about this: I was actually a Hillary supporter until a couple months ago - why are there only two people here using their real name?

Posted by Grant Cogswell | March 10, 2008 4:00 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).