Posted on 03/05/2008 6:46:48 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Clinton: ‘Be careful what you wish for, Rush’ By Klaus Marre Posted: 03/05/08 09:30 AM [ET]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), buoyed by important victories in the Democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, on Wednesday offered some words of warning to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who had urged Republicans to vote for her as the presumptively easier Democrat to beat.
“Be careful what you wish for, Rush,” Clinton said on Fox News.
For the second time during this campaign season, the former first lady survived what many viewed as a potential knockout punch from frontrunning Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). While Obama maintains a significant delegate lead, he was unable to seal the nominations Tuesday night, having to concede another two populous states to Clinton.
“By getting the most delegates, by having won twice as many states, by having a lead in the popular vote we feel as if we are on pace to get the nomination,” Obama said Wednesday morning in an appearance on the same network. “And it will take a little longer than would be true if we weren’t running against a Clinton, but we’re still going to end up getting it.”
However, instead of being able to focus on Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the newly crowned Republican nominee, Obama must now continue to expend his considerable resources on the Democratic primary.
The Clinton campaign is seeking to use the breathing room the former first lady was given in polling places in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island to map out its “path to the presidency,” as a memo from strategists Harold Ickes and Mark Penn was labeled.
In the document, the Clinton team says it is “time for a second look” on the race and the candidates and argued that the “momentum has swung
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
You obviously married him for his looks rather then his brains!
Hildy gets the black vote by naming Obama her VP and him saying “I’m cool with her.”
Maybe we’ll be listening to tap dancing, but no apology!
You have to be winning in order to get the other guy to agree to be your VP. She is not winning...in fact he probably got a couple of net delegates yesterday. He won the Texas caucus.
AND right there you are looking at an almost sure SIXTEEN YEARS of Rat rule! At the minimum.
Just damn.
How would "we" have done that, exactly? Even in Texas, only 9% of primary voters were Republicans, and Obama won the majority of them, 52%.
Assume that he had increased his winning percentage to that he achieved in Leftie-friendly Vermont, approximately 66%. He would have garnered another 40,000 votes or so, and Hillary would have still won the popular vote in Texas.
You're blaming Rush for something that made no difference. Look at the numbers. This result was going to happen, Rush or no.
Agreed.
Take her out...while we have the chance. McCain is weak; we could see the Clinton’s back in the White House-disgraceful.
Spot on. And now the Dems will be in the MSM spotlight up to the convention. Such coverage is priceless. McCain will be in the background with no one paying any attention to him.
((the sound of tap dancing on the radio))
I will say Hillary is known for dirty tricks but there is no legit way to win the nomination.
Yeah! “Let’s lose one for the Gipper!”
The difference is that Obama would be ahead in pledged delegates. Clinton would not be. Thus the Supers would have to overturn primary voters...not going to happen.
I have seen and heard countless places that Rush made the difference. He made a difference. He called for this...even if what you say is true. I don’t think it is though. Hillary was smirking and so was Rove. I was disgusted. Even rush has no honor anymore.
I agree. There is no way the Dem party commits political suicide by overturning the results at the ballot box and stealing the election from the people’s choice who just happens to be black.
Off topic, but could Patrick Fitzgerald be in Clinton’s pocket by going for REZKO, Obama’s supporter, at this time??? Fitzgerald tried to bring down Bush by going after Cheney and Rove, so I wouldn’t put it past him.
Here’s why we seem to be talking past each other.
You are talking about the math. I am talking about the zeitgeist.
Both are important, but the math doesn’t determine all.
While I agree that Hildy MAY have won these states, I am not as sanguine as you in concluding that she definitely would have won. My criticism of the Rush strategy is that, because it was a very close race, it was entirely too risky to vote for Hildy.
If you think Hildy definitely would have won anyway, as apparently you do, then of course you see no risk in this strategy.
I see it as Hildy was closing the gap, but it wasn’t clear at all that she was going to win or win by the margins she did.
Therefore, I saw it as too risky to try to game the system. (Further, I think it’s a disgrace to view one’s vote as a part of a game anyway.)
That is all.
We carried Rush at one of the radio stations I worked at back in the early '90s, and I can tell you that that has always been his goal, politics is his "shtick" or gimmick as you will, for his radio show.
If it goes to a brokered convention, she has just as much chance of winning as he does.
The man is selectively brilliant with a great mind for chemistry, dentistry, and nutrition. When it comes to Rush though, who in his book is always right, he has total devotion. The only times I can get him to admit Rush might be wrong is when Rush has gone off on a rare explanation of some medical or pharmaceutical issue, about which Rush is not that well equipped to argue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.