The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time.
I am the host of this program, Rushlin Boy, highly trained broadcast specialist serving humanity simply by showing up.
Great to have you with us.
My friends, we'll get to your phone calls quickly in this hour.
People have been waiting since the beginning of the program to contribute.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
I want to expand a little bit on this debate last night.
And we've got some audio soundbites of it coming up, and I might get to them later on the program.
But, you know, to analyze this debate in a sort of horse race fashion, who did better here versus here?
Did Hillary slap Obama around on health care?
Well, it misses the whole point.
It misses the whole point.
The first place, at this stage, when it comes to Obama's supporters, it doesn't matter what he's saying.
I'm not trying to be funny.
I mean, I know it sounds funny to say he says nothing better than anybody's ever said it.
He's saying a little bit more than nothing if you listen carefully.
But right now, it's just totally about how he's saying it.
He's cool.
He's calm, collected.
He's conversational.
He's competent.
He's very articulate.
This is something that a lot of people have told you all for eons, folks, the way you speak will have a lot to say about how smart people think you are.
And he's perceived to be smart.
He's perceived to be brilliant.
I found the whole thing, I don't care who won what.
I found the whole thing scary last night because in terms of the policy differences between them, there are none.
And if Obama is elected president, he's got policy.
But his voters don't care.
This is the scary thing.
That's not why they're with him.
They don't even know.
That's not the attraction.
This is a movement.
This is a movement designed to make people feel like they matter again, to make them feel like they have purpose in their lives, meaning in their lives.
They're behind something.
They don't even really know what it is.
And these are the kind of people that when you tell them, they're going to reject it.
If it makes them feel bad, they're going to reject it.
They don't want to feel bad about Obama, and they're not going to want to hear how he gets facts wrong.
They're not going to want to hear the absolute evidence of his total inexperience in dealing with foreign policy.
Some of the things that he said last night about he's going to have a worldwide ban, for example, on fissile material.
Do you realize what, I mean, that means he's going to turn everybody's lights out around the world.
He wants a worldwide ban on fissile material.
That means he's going to shut down every power plant that there is.
I don't even think he knows what he's saying.
It just sounds good when he says it.
He's got an audience that's made up of class envy types.
I mean, if you have no meaning in your life and you're searching for it and you want purpose, well, it stands to reason you're going to look at successful people, achieved people, as you're going to look at them with envy.
You're going to look at them with anger.
If you're being asked to, if your leader is promoting that, and you're going to want to get even with them.
And so there's really nothing new here.
This is standard Democrat liberal dogma.
But he's not acquiring support on the basis of that.
He's acquiring support on things.
So when the time comes to start trying to talk to his supporters, and his are not supporters.
His are followers.
And this is going to pose a great challenge.
When You start trying to talk followers out of following, you are up for a huge challenge.
You've got a big challenge when you try, you know, pardon the analogy here.
I don't mean to be insulting, but try to dissuade devout Christian against Christianity.
You're not going to do it.
You're going to solidify the attachment.
And that's the kind of, I mean, I thought about opening a program today, actually asking, is Obama even qualified to be president on the basis of separation of church and state?
Because he is a religion in the sense that he has followers.
So it's going to be very, very delicate process here to pick off his followers and get them to abandon him.
Now, there are a number of variables here.
We've got all these national polls.
And by the way, the national polls are not uniform, as people are telling us.
The drive-bys are trying to tell us that Obama is cleaning everybody's clock, Hillary's and McCain's, nationwide.
It's not true.
There are a couple of polls.
Rasmussen is one, or forget another, where McCain is beating Obama right now.
But in those polls where Obama's leading, you can't rule out the Wilder effect.
You just can't.
That is where people lie to pollsters about their desire to support the black candidate because they don't want the pollster to think that they're racist.
But when it gets time to go vote and you go in the voting booth and it's just you in there, then hell with what you told the pollster, you vote your own way.
So it's way too soon to make anything of these polls, but it's not too soon to explain to people what Obama and his presidency would mean, either Hillary or Obama.
You listen to that debate last night as I listened to it, and you're listening to two people argue about how to destroy capitalism.
That's what I heard.
How can we destroy capitalism?
On one hand, we had Mrs. Clinton once again talking about taking $55 billion in profits from special interests.
Well, all of a sudden now, big oil has become a special interest.
Big pharmaceutical has become a special interest.
So we're going to take their profits and we're going to do what?
We're going to reinvest them in what?
Health care, whatever social program that liberals want to utilize to create serfs out of people.
And this is, we're not just talking about people that want to create dependence.
We're talking about two people that want as many Americans to become serfs, S-E-R-F serfs of the state, as they can make, as they can manufacture.
So I watched this last night in utter, well, I wouldn't say I was palpably frightened, but it's scary.
It's scary, and they're just going to, they're just going to, yeah, they're going to whip out treaties.
They're going to cut down trees.
They're going to do whatever they're going to have to do.
It's going to be so easy to do.
They just wave a magic wand.
And all of these things are going to happen.
They're going to tell Canada and Mexico, hey, screw it, we're getting out of NAFTA.
You know, by the way, the people of Youngstown, if I lived in Youngstown, Ohio, after last night's debate, I'd be offended.
I would be sick and tired of my town being made out to be some ghost town of losers.
But that's what they, and this is how Democrats relate to various people.
Youngstown, Ohio is not a community of losers.
But that's how the Democrats made Youngstown sound last night and a couple of other Ohio towns.
And it'll be on to Texas.
They'll find a couple loser towns in Texas that they can, well, there aren't any more debates, but ads or what have you.
But It's going to be a nifty trick to separate Obama from his followers because they're not going to want to hear about his flaws.
And they're going to get very difficult.
It's going to be like attacking a family member.
You know, a family member can rip a family member to shreds.
You try it, and a family will circle wagons against you.
And all the reprobates in the family that know they're reprobates will get rid of you and let you know what is.
So it's going to be fascinating.
It's going to be a big challenge here for Senator McCain to find a way to distance Obama's followers from him.
By the way, the House Oversight Committee has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether baseball star Roger Clemens lied during his testimony to Congress about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.
So now, I guess Clemens asked for this.
He asked for his day in the sun.
He wanted this congressional hearing.
He got it.
And apparently now the House Oversight Committee of Henry Waxman has believed the trainer, Brian McNamee, and they've asked for essentially a criminal referral here on Roger Clemens.
Brief timeout.
We'll come back.
Some soundbites, your phone calls, all straight ahead after this.
Okay, let's go to the phones.
A lot to do here, lots more to do, but people have been patiently waiting.
And we'll start in Knoxville, Tennessee.
This is Susan.
Thanks for your patience.
Hi.
Yes.
Rush, I'm just glad you took my call.
I had just gone out to the mailbox to get my copy of the National Review, which I found in there.
And when I came back in, I heard you giving those good words about William Buckley.
And I just wanted to thank you for doing that.
I think you really well, very well captured what he meant to so many of us.
And by the way, what does sybaritic mean?
The pursuit of pleasurable delights as separate from hedonism.
Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasurable delights for the sake of it as an occupation, as a character trait.
Sybaritic pursuits are your good times.
Well, you see, he would very often send me stirring to the dictionary as I would read his stuff.
And I just found the spelling of sybaritic in the dictionary, and you just answered my call.
So thank you for that.
Well, you're more than, you know, I can remember watching Buckley on Firing Line and not understanding a word he was saying.
We'd be mesmerized by it.
I know.
And every other word.
Yes, and the mesmerization.
But you really captured the father-like sort of, I don't know, kind of an oversight kind of thing.
You know, one of the things I've been doing, I've been checking the corner, which is the primary blog at National Review Online, and all kinds of people are posting there as to their remembrances of Buckley.
And without fail, without fail, I'd say 99% of them are all talking about the pleasure, the honor, and in some cases, how blessed they were to be personally impacted by him, gotten to know him.
He meant a lot to a whole lot of people.
There's no question about it.
It's just wonderful to hear you and your personal recollections of him, because those of us who just knew him through print even thought of him as a father-like.
Everybody would love him.
Everybody that had the chance to meet Bill Buckley would love him.
Yes.
So I just wanted to thank you so much for doing that.
I'm sure it's much more than we'll get from Associated Press or any of those people.
Thank you, Susan.
You're welcome.
Appreciate that so much.
Dick in St. Louis, you're next.
Sir, hello.
Fine.
Rush.
Yeah.
I want to put a stake into the Clintons now while we have the opportunity.
I don't want to depend on the central election to do so.
And yesterday, you were urging the Republicans to vote for Hillary.
I don't want to take that chance.
Yeah, but even I, in good conscience, can't continue that.
In fact, I was thinking about, until I received news of Mr. Buckley's death today, I was going to open the program praising her performance, talking about how masterful it was, how she really cut Obama down to size.
But I didn't think I'd be able to pull that off with any credibility.
I understand where you're coming from.
There are a lot of people like you too, Dick.
That's what I was going to say.
I voted in the Missouri primary.
My whole family were Republicans, and we all voted for Obama.
We don't want to take any chance on Hillary.
Yeah, I understand there's a lot of people like this.
I mean, this is the effect that Clintons have on people.
When you got a chance to show Dracula the cross, you do it.
When you got a chance to drive a stake in the heart of the vampire, you do it.
You don't wait for some more opportune time.
I know that there are people who are looking at this as an opportunity to be done with these people forever in the sense, in the context in which they have been so dominant in Democrat Party life since 1992.
Jennifer in Havelock, North Carolina, thank you for waiting.
You're next on the program.
Hello.
Hey, Jennifer.
Hi, Rush.
Nice to talk to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just wanted to ask the question that I was very inspired by what you said about Buckley.
And I belong to a book club, and a lot of the books that we read are from a female point of view.
Yeah.
And I'd like to read something from maybe Buckley's point of view to introduce something new into our group.
Okay, here's what you do.
One of his most recent books was, wouldn't call it autobiographical, but it was a review.
I'd go out and find a copy of Let Us Speak of Many Things.
And you'll get a comprehensive collection of Buckley on everything.
Cool.
Another book that if I were you, I would really try hard for you to get this.
I read this book.
He didn't write it, but he edited this book.
I read this book in 1980.
I guess 83, 83 and 84.
I was in Kansas City, and I had gone back into radio after having left the Kansas City Royals.
And it was an all-news station.
I could not keep my opinions out of the news.
And they kept admonishing me.
I said, why Peter Jennings puts his opinions in the news?
Why can't I put mine in?
Hey, you can't.
So they gave me a commentary.
And this was during the Democrat primary, Gary Hart, the Reverend Dach and others.
And of course, the commentaries were quite the church, the Mormon Church owned the radio station, Bonneville Broadcasting, and they had not had this kind of controversy before.
And it was just political controversy.
It was just opinion-oriented controversy.
People were outraged.
So I had to do coaching sessions on how to not make people mad during commentary and stuff.
And I just stumbled.
I went home to Missouri, and I've stumbled into a book that was collecting dust in my dad's bookshelf.
It was called Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking?
And it was edited by Buckley, and it contained essays and sort written by a variety of people that Buckley had known over the years, Whitaker Chambers and a number of others, and critiques of some of these people, their performance.
And I'll never forget there was a Whitaker Chambers had reviewed in an essay somebody else's public speech on some issue, and Whitaker Chambers had taken this person to task for a totally incorrect tone that would accomplish the exact opposite of the persuasion that he was trying.
And it was just one of the many lights that went off in my head.
And I don't know that that book is still in publication, but it is one of the most important books I've read.
I love reading books that every page turns a different light on in my brain.
And this one did.
Well, very good.
So, have you ever seen A Dream Walking edited by William Buckley?
I'll tell you something else you might do.
Okay.
Go back if you can.
Don't be offended by this.
Again, 1985, 86 around there, Playboy magazine asked William Buckley to write a piece on the new definition of smart.
I forget the exact title of the book, but the point of the article, but the point, what do you have to know today to be considered smart?
That was one of the most unbelievable things I had read, even though I had to get Playboy to do it.
I was one of those few people who actually read the words in Playboy.
But if you want to expose Buckley to people, any number of wrote novels, too, with his main character and hero, Blackford Oaks.
He also wrote a book about James Jesus Angle.
Buckley was a CIA agent in Mexico.
And he wrote a book about James Jesus Angleton, who was the premier number one counterterrorism analyst in the CIA back in its early informative days, all the way up through the 60s and 70s.
They just wrote a prolific number of things.
But if you go out and get Let Us Speak of Many Things, which is fairly recent, I think that'll give you a good overview of Bill Buckley.
All right.
Okay.
Thank you so much, Rush.
Okay, you bet, Jennifer.
Debbie in Omaha, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Thank you, Debbie.
Longtime listener, it is my pleasure.
When you began speaking about Mr. Buckley, my first thought was that you are now being passed the torch to continue that fight for conservatism.
You think so?
Yes, I do, sir.
You are more important now to this fight than ever before.
You're right.
Yes.
I know I'm right.
Well, I'm sitting here trying to, one of the questions I always ask, what would Bill say?
I always asked my, when I was stuck in an issue or an opinion, what would Bill say?
What would Bill think?
And I think Bill would probably thank you and say, yes.
Madam, you're very intelligent, very wise, and you'll write.
I want to tell you about a guy named Sam Zell, ladies and gentlemen.
Sam Zell is a billionaire investor in a number of things.
He used to own JCorp Broadcasting.
When he owned JCOR Broadcasting, this program happened to send, had to be partners with JCOR Broadcasting for a period of time.
Mr. Zell owned it until he sold J.Corp to Clear Channel Communications, which is now this program syndication partner.
Sam Zell recently bought the Los Angeles Times.
He lives in Chicago.
He has a home in Malibu.
Sam Zell was on CNBC this morning saying that the U.S. economy will avoid recession as the housing market begins to recover this spring.
He was on this program they call Squawkbox at CNN, and he said he attributed much of the current economic troubles to fear-mongering and politicking by Democrat presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Sam Zell's company's chairman of Equity Investments Group, he owns the Chicago Tribune, the L.A. Times.
He also owns the Chicago Cubs because he bought the Tribune company, which owns all those other entities.
And he said on CNBC today, he said, obviously what we have going on is an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We have two Democrat candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse.
The reality is, if you live on Wall Street and you're into credit markets, the world couldn't be worse.
If you're a farmer and you're getting $25 for your wheat, you're having a great time.
If you're a CEO and you've got a balance sheet that's bulletproof, you're in a great position.
The whole thing is way out of control, way out of hand.
Zell said that although he doesn't try to pick bottoms in the markets, he believes housing has hit its nader and it'll turn around this spring as inventory clears out.
He also voiced support for the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.
He says, I think we should be renewed.
He should be renewed when his term's up.
One of the positives of the U.S. is having people in a position of the Federal Reserve Chairman for long periods of time.
Now, he is exactly right.
It's so great to see one of these guys with the guts to say, you know, a lot of these guys think this stuff.
Warren Buffett is an example of one who doesn't.
But a lot of these guys in Zell's league think this stuff, but they just don't say it.
And I'll never forget Andy Grove, when he ran Intel, was a guest on This Week with David Brinkley.
And it was during the period of time that Bill Clinton was proposing a cap on corporate salaries.
Anything above a million dollars couldn't be expensed.
And what Clinton was, it was a typical class MV.
Clinton was attempting to show the little people of the country that he was going to really take it to those CEOs.
And he's going to make sure they didn't get paid as much.
He exempted actors and baseball star athletes and so forth.
So Andy Groves on the program and they start asking him, what do you think of this move to cap CEO?
I don't want to discuss.
I'm not going to discuss these silly social things.
That's not why I'm here.
I have my business.
Of course, he's not going to discuss it because he knows no matter what he says, he's not going to get sympathy for it.
So these guys don't talk about this.
That's what's so great about Zell coming out saying, look, we got two Democrats here trying to destroy the economy with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They're trying to talk it down and talk it down and make everybody think that it's rotten.
And in fact, where did I put this?
I've got, there's a poll out today.
I'm going to have to find this in the break.
There's a poll, a Quinnipiac poll.
It's not the most accurate poll out there, but it shows just how effective the, ah, here it is.
It shows just how effective the drive by media has been in talking down the economy.
By the way, John Lewis has made it official.
He has abandoned the Hillary Camp, one of the old guard civil rights activists, and has now fled over to the Obama side.
And so John Lewis has become an Obama follower.
This is pretty big because these guys, John Lewis, the others, Charlie Wrangell, some of the others in this group, were hanging with the Clintons because these guys have their seats of power at the Democrat Party because of the Democrat machine.
John Lewis was a proud Uncle Bill.
He was willing to sell out Obama in order because Obama is not going to owe these guys anything.
Obama doesn't owe these guys.
Obama's not gotten elected anything because of John Lewis.
Hillary would have owed John Lewis.
Bill Clinton did owe John Lewis.
Same thing with Charlie Wrangell.
But this is a sure sign to me that Lewis has figured out it ain't going to be Hillary.
Because how good is a loser?
What can a loser do for you?
He wants to go with where he thinks the action is going to be.
And I'm sure the Obama camp will accept him here.
So the Uncle Bills, the first of the Uncle Bills fleeing to, well, by Uncle Bill, to take off on Uncle Tom.
I mean, there was Clinton out there throwing the race card ever since South Carolina, and these old guard civil rights guys are still hanging in with Bill, you know, after dissing the Reverend Zach and others.
We call them Uncle Bills.
So the first of what I'm sure will be a cascade now of many Uncle Bills on the way to Barack Obama.
Now, we got all these polls flying around.
We got the accurate, we got the not so accurate, the seriously flawed.
It's refreshing that when you see a poll that delivers solid insight, some really useful data.
And it's from today's Wall Street Journal, page A10, the Quinnipiac University poll.
This is traditionally not one of the better polls, but this is interesting.
The poll reveals or exposes for everyone to see the influence of the drive-by media on public opinion.
Now, this is not the ambulance chasing drive-bys.
I'm talking about the wise men, the elders of the drive-by media.
Now, I always knew, and you did too, you always knew the drive-by media influences public opinion.
This poll shows just how much they do.
And it is far more than any of us suspected when it comes to the economy.
The poll was conducted in Ohio, said to be an economy in near shambles.
Like I said moments ago, if I lived in Youngstown, Ohio after that debate last night, I would be frothing mad.
Now my town's being portrayed by these Democrats.
At any rate, a question of people in Ohio: Do you rate the economy as not so good or poor?
86% said, yes, it's not so good or poor.
The combination of not so good and poor equals 86%.
However, when asked about their own personal financial situation, that 86% slices in half to almost 44%.
Same old phenomenon here that we have theorized about on this program many times.
So the cries of disaster from the liberals, magnified by the drive-bys, added 42 points to the doom and gloom in Ohio.
When only 44% of the people think the economy is not so good or poor, but 86% say it is in a poll.
What you have here, 44% who are not reacting to their own circumstance, but worried about everybody else.
And see, that's how it gets even better and more confirming.
When broken down by party, Democrats, who by nature of their existence are more susceptible to gloom and doom, when asked if the economy is not so good or poor, 95% in Ohio said it's not so good or poor.
Do you realize that's almost every last Ohioan?
95%.
But when asked about their own financial situation, Democrats, the number dropped to 42 points or to 42 points and 95 to 53 percent.
So again, when asked about the economy, not so good or poor, 95 percent of Democrats say it's not so good or poor.
About their own financial situation, 53 percent say it's not so good or poor.
What about the Republicans?
Even they got suckered in.
68 percent said the economy is not so good to poor.
When asked about their own finances, the 68 percent number dropped to 26 percent, a difference of 46 poll points.
Even the independents were influenced.
But see, that's the dirty little secret.
Moderates and independents are always influenced by polls.
The Indies went from 87% poor to 44% poor.
That's a difference of 43%.
So, while we all knew that liberals in the drive-bys can sell doom and gloom, we now have, at least in Ohio, a measure of how successfully they do it.
And if they could have that much of an effect with something as close to home as the economy, imagine how much they are influencing the public on something as far away as the war or global warming and other similar hoaxes.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Okay, time to return to the audio soundbites.
Angry White Women Tour.
This is yesterday NPR on point with Tom Ashbrook.
He's talking with Katha Pollitt, who is a columnist for the Nation magazine.
And Ashbrook says, let's remember Rush Limbaugh, wondering if America wants to watch a president, a woman president, age in office.
Katha Pollitt, you've carried the feminist flag for many years.
Well, I've written many pieces about the sexist onslaught against Hillary Clinton, which I think is really shocking.
Just really shocking.
You know, here's something that listeners can do at home is just pick an anti-woman insult like Ice Queen, Madame Defarge, Lady Macbeth, Feminazi, and all the dirty ones too.
Put it into a search engine in your computer, and you will find hundreds of thousands of hits linking, put that with Hillary Clinton, and you will have hundreds of thousands of hits.
And these are not all from nuts on the internet, but they're from people like Rush Limbaugh.
I just think this stuff is so disgusting, so horrible.
I mean, how did our media come to be controlled by these aging frat boys, you know, who are on the radio because nobody wants to watch them age in office either?
They're not so cute.
That Katha Pollitt is who that was, Mr. Sturdley.
She's a columnist for the nation.
She left out some of the best ones, Nurse Ratched, Lady Macbeth, and Madame Defarge.
But at any rate, they're just upset.
They're upset.
They think I killed a Hillary campaign.
You know, well, I did, but actually, I did it with two ways.
Not just the illegal driver's license issue in New York, but let's not forget after one of those debates, I actually called her sexy.
Do you remember that?
Yeah, I'm sure you blocked that out, but I have not forgotten that.
Well-known white comedian, Paul Shanklin, his wife traces Hillary's decline to that day when I called her sexy.
Katha Pollitt, however, ladies and gentlemen, was not finished.
NPR's Tom Ashbrook said, well, does that mean, I mean, never mind the media for a minute, but is the country over it?
Or is there still some kind of subterranean resistance to the idea of a woman as president that leads the country to reach out to Barack Obama or John McCain or you name it?
I know people.
I know women who will say things like, I will never vote for her.
They're Democrats.
They're feminists.
They will never vote for her.
And if you say, well, why is that?
You get the weirdest answers.
For example, one of my old classmates said, she's elitist.
And I'm thinking, well, let's see.
We both went to Radcliffe.
We both live in nice apartments.
None of us are there working in a light bulb factory.
But Hillary Clinton is too elitist.
I think that there is something that both men and women feel deeply threatened in their gender identity by a woman who is frankly ambitious, who is not spending her entire life giving them a great big maternal hug.
Well, Kathy, you're agonizing here over a lot of things.
The answer is right in front of you why some women aren't voting for her, while a lot of people aren't.
She's not likable.
When you get down to it, I mean, to strip all this other stuff away, she's just not likable.
And she's, you know, for all this talk about feminism, she's where she is because of her last name.
And she's where she is because her where her husband went.
Now, she might have played a role in getting him there by stomping on the women who might have gotten in his way, but she wouldn't be where she is if her name wasn't Clinton.
We spend a lot of time on Mrs. Clinton's policy here, too, Kathy.
You might want to look at that.
You might want to find people just don't like her ideas and her autocratic.
People are frightened.
This woman is going to end up becoming a giant dictator, control freak.
Anyway, we don't even belabor the point.
It appears to be a fait accompli now that the Democrat race is over.
This is Don in Charleston, South Carolina.
Hi, Don.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
I had a question I wanted to ask you about.
I was watching Fox News the other night, and I heard them announce that Ralph Nader was entering the race.
And I immediately thought he is doing this just to cause the Democrats to lose.
And I wanted to hear your thoughts on that.
You know, I've wondered about Mr. Nader's motivations myself.
Why he would want them to lose, I'm unclear about, unless they're not sufficiently anti-corporate enough for him.
But clearly, him getting into this is not going to make anybody on the Democrat side happy.
He's certainly not going to take votes away from Senator McCain.
So whether he's got some sort of a desire to harm the Democrats, it could well be, I don't know what's in his mind.
I don't know who he holds grudges for or even if he does hold grudges.
But he's, what is he running?
The Green Party candidate.
Well, I mean, it's just an offshoot of the Democrats.
And it could well be that Ralph doesn't think he's gotten the respect from these people over the years.
I hate speculating on these kind of things.
All I know is that he's in there and they don't want him to be in there.
And he took 2.7% of the vote in 2000.
And that 2.7% of the vote, depending on where it came from, could have been the margin of victory for Al Gore had Nader not been in there.
So it's an interesting question.
It's also an interesting question whether he can get enough signatures in enough places, stay on enough ballots in enough states to even be a factor.
One more thing to Katha Pollett here before we go to the break.
Kathy, here's a dirty little secret.
You're talking about all these women that you know that are not supporting Hillary.
This is, is it not the case that Mrs. Clinton represents the most feminist female ever to get to this height in American politics?
Well, by that I mean feminism has been about various things: women going into man's world and taking over.
That's one of the things it's been about.
I think it's one of their miscalculations, but it's one of the things it's been about.
Mrs. Clinton is probably the most prominent feminist to rise to this level of politics, right?
And why is she?
And she's losing.
Feminism, Katha, is losing.
The nation is rejecting feminism, and so are a lot of women, and so are a lot of Democrats.
And that's your lesson.
Yeah, you know, everybody's talking about the death of talk radio.
The real story is the death of the feminazi.
Well, at least the temporary death of the feminazi.
They're always going to be climbing back out of the coffins.