RUSH: Boy, folks, let me tell you, when Mrs. Clinton, yoga and all, went to the United Nations last week for that ill-timed, ill-fated Pretty in Pink 2 type press conference, boy, did I nail it. And I don’t mind saying so. I spent a lot of time, ’cause I know a lot of people in the audience today might not have been in this audience, simple math, dates of birth and all that, might not have been old enough or even listening back in 1994 when Hillary did the Pretty in Pink.

The thing she did at the United Nations was a repeat, an attempt to replay the way the Clintons got themselves out of jams back in the 1990s. And I, El Rushbo, focused on that, because I was the cause of the Pretty in Pink press conference. And, lo and behold, none other than the New York Times has so written. A story that ran on March the 14th: “A Young Manager for Clinton Juggles Data and Old Baggage.”

Get this, now. This is the New York Times. “On MSNBC last week, 70-year-old James Carville denounced the coverage of his old friend Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s use of a personal e-mail account at the State Department, ticking off two decadesÂ’ worth of scandals surrounding the Clintons that he attributed to an irresponsible news media. Mr. Carville complained to the host, Andrea Mitchell, that he had ‘lived through this.’

“‘Do you remember Whitewater?’ he asked. ‘Do you remember Filegate? You remember Travelgate? You remember Pardongate? You remember Benghazi?'” (imitating Carville) “And where’s my gumbo?”

“Meanwhile, far from the television lights, Robby Mook, the 35-year-old who is likely to manage Mrs. ClintonÂ’s 2016 presidential campaign, kept his head down and worked the phones from his standing desk to build a field operation in Iowa, set up technology to collect data to target voters and hire a campaign staff in a handful of key states.”

Now, all of this happened, dare I say it, after I pointed out Mrs. Clinton and her team seemed to me to be stuck in the nineties. And let me give you some pull quotes from the New York Times story.

“Ultimately, the strategy they settled on — having Mrs. Clinton publicly address the controversy on Tuesday — harked back to the approach used in 1994, when Mrs. Clinton, wearing a blush-colored sweater set, held a lengthy news conference to address the Whitewater inquiry and a 1970s commodities trade in Arkansas. Comparisons quickly erupted. ‘Mrs. Clinton is stuck in the Â’90s,’ declared the conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

“The next day, the operation took its first coordinated step toward wrangling the ClintonsÂ’ old friends and former aides, like Mr. Carville. Mrs. ClintonÂ’s 31-year-old press secretary, Nick Merrill, hosted a conference call with about 25 far-flung surrogates –” Anyway, the point of the story is, after I pointed out — now, they don’t actually say this, but the timeline gives it away. After I pointed out that Mrs. Clinton seemed to want to replay the nineties and seemed to be stuck in the nineties, the New York Times does a story the next day claiming because of that, they are moving younger, they are trying to Millennialize, as it were, and modernize.

It just last week we were talking about how Hillary’s been hiring all of these old retreads from their former lives in the White House. Nobody young, no new blood, no new ideas, and Carville — and he’s still out there, by the way, and you want to hear why they’re making the change? Did you happen to see — you probably did. I don’t know anybody that watches it anymore. Did you see This Week yesterday on… (interruption) Yeah, it’s still on. Here’s the thing, though. The host of that show is George Stephanopoulos.

Now, back in the nineties, George Stephanopoulos was one of the members of the war room. He was partnered with James Carville and they sat in what was called the war room. The purpose of the war room was to destroy anybody who came up with any criticism that might stick against the Clintons, and they made a documentary about it. It was part of their campaign in 1992, and they took it with them to the White House, and it was called the war room.

Well, now, one of the members of the war room is a journalist over at ABC News. And he was interviewing the other member of the war room, James Carville, yesterday. This speaks for itself. George Stephanopoulos talking to former war room buddy James Carville said, “What has the Clinton camp taken away –” now, let me preface this by pointing out, reminding you again just how scared I believe the Democrat Party is.

Her book tour was an absolute bomb. This thing, this United Nations press conference did not happen in a vacuum. Her book tour was an abject bomb. Nobody showed up. She makes no connection with people. Her book sales were an absolute bomb. There is none of the accompanying excitement about who everybody seems to think on the Democrat side’s the next president. People like that draw crowds. People like that create enthusiasm across all demographics. Mrs. Clinton didn’t draw a crowd. Nobody bought her book. She shows up at this UN press conference conducting herself like it’s 20 years ago, and they’re worried.

So they send Carville out. Now, listen to this answer. Question from George Stephanopoulos, former war room member. I find the irony — here’s a former war room member who worked with Carville to destroy Clinton enemies is now on ABC asking his former war room buddy what has the Clinton camp taken away from all this, meaning the UN flub and that bad press conference and all that.

CARVILLE: What this is, is the latest in a continuation. And if you take it all and you put it together and you subtract 3.1415 from pi, you’re left with not very much. And that’s what — at the end of the day, so the Republicans can’t pass a budget. All right, we’ve got another investigation, just like we had the Whitewater, just like you go through the Filegate, you go through Travelgate, you go through seven or eight different Congressional committees and you wonder why the public is not following this? Because they know what it is.

RUSH: All right, what this is, is the latest in a continuation. And if you take it all and you put it together and you subtract 3.1415 from pi? You’re left with not very much? This was incoherent. This was wandering aimlessly for a structured thought. And all the guy could do was go back to the nineties and revive what it was that worked then in terms of defending the Clintons, that all these people that watch this show, Watergate, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, they don’t know what that is, yet.

Some of the audience does, obviously, but some of the Millennials have no idea what Filegate is. They don’t know what Whitewater was. They have no idea what Travelgate was. They know zilch, zero, nada. The media doesn’t talk about these things and it’s not taught in their history textbooks in school. So we still have a lot of educating to do. So that was the first answer, the first part of the answer, then he continued with — and this is a mistake that the old Carville would never make. He gave up the game. He actually admitted why Hillary is hiding her e-mails.

CARVILLE: It was something that she did. It was legal. I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take. So it amounts to — just like everything else before it, it amounts to nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.

RUSH: He just admitted that she did what she did — this private server, and the private e-mail domain, he just admitted that she did that to avoid congressional oversight. Now, the Carville of 20 years ago would not have made this kind of blunder. Mrs. Clinton is running around trying to say, “No, no, no, I was not trying to hide anything from anybody, I want people to read my e-mails. Why, here are 30,000 of them right now.”

By the way, I have a question for you. Mrs. Clinton printed out 30,000-plus e-mails, sent ’em over to the Justice Department after claiming (imitating Hillary), “We’ve gone through all 60,000, and this is it, there’s nothing in there that — just trust me. The 30,000 e-mails we’re keeping, it’s all private, just me and Bill going back and forth even though Bill says he’s only sent two e-mails in his life. Yeah, and it’s just me and Chelsea, and it’s Bill, you know, Chinese donor here, what we promised. No, no, sorry. Not that. There is no e-mail from a Chinese donor. We’ve searched and there aren’t any e-mails from the Chinese. Trust me. And here are the 30,000 you can see.”

Now, the Justice Department has said it’s gonna take maybe a year, several months to go through 30,000 e-mails, precisely because Mrs. Clinton printed ’em out. There’s no keyword search. There’s no way to do an advanced search, keyword or otherwise, to try to put anything together. It’s all gonna have to be done manually, read manually, marked up manually. How did Mrs. Clinton go through 60,000 e-mails in a matter of days and the DOJ says it’s gonna take them months?

So you put all this together and the bottom line is they’re stuck in the nineties. The Democrat Party’s worried about it. The New York Times does a story on that very fact, after I mention it, then they make a big deal, the Clintons do, of going out and hiring a bunch of Millennials now to do their high-tech end. And Carville goes on TV yesterday and admits that the whole reason Mrs. Clinton did this was to avoid congressional oversight.

That is a boo-boo, that is an error that Carville would not have made way back then. (interruption) Well, I know it was pi day, it was 3.1415, but the Millennials don’t know what pi day is. Carville may be trying to relate to ’em. We have a little bit more. Remember last week, ladies and gentlemen, I had heard and I had passed on to you that — it happened during a phone call, we had a phone call from somebody who thought that the whole reason Hillary was doing this was to set the Republicans up. Remember that call, Snerdley? You gave it to me.

A guy called in, he said, “You gotta be very careful here, Rush. I think the Clintons did this on purpose. There’s nothing in those e-mails, Rush, and it’s set up that way. Republicans should be very careful, ’cause they’re gonna make a big deal out of this and they’re gonna start speculating about what kind of bombshells they expect to find in there. After all, it’s the Clintons. And they’re gonna go through all these e-mails, you’re gonna find out there’s nothing there, it’s a Clinton set up.”

And I said, “Wrongo.” I said, “This is the Regime doing this.” I said, “This is Valerie Jarrett, this is Obama attempting to sabotage Mrs. Clinton.” And, lo and behold, in the New York Post yesterday, Ed Klein had a story, a little article. He’s written a lot about the Clintons, books and so forth. And nobody ever denies his stuff. His most recent book is Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas, published by Regnery. Nobody refutes Klein’s stuff. The Clintons and the Obama’s tried to say he’s a kook and an oddball and they try to attack his credibility, but they never refute what he actually says, and Ed Klein came along yesterday and said it is indeed Valerie Jarrett who was behind the leak of the information that has led to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal.

In other words: “ItÂ’s the vast left-wing conspiracy. President ObamaÂ’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary ClintonÂ’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me. But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldnÂ’t be traced to her or the White House,” even though Klein seems to have done it.

“In addition, at JarrettÂ’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into HillaryÂ’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation. Six separate probes into HillaryÂ’s performance have been going on at the State Department. IÂ’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that thereÂ’s more to come.” On what, I don’t know, and about what I don’t know.

And then Klein says that members of Bill Clinton’s camp — and you gotta wonder who those people are. Who are in Bill Clinton’s camp these days? How many women are in that camp, for example? “Members of Bill ClintonÂ’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.”

Klein quotes one of Bill Clinton’s friends here. “My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that theyÂ’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us. The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and theyÂ’re spreading rumors that IÂ’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department whoÂ’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.” That’s all quoted, attributed to Bill Clinton.

And then Clinton added, supposedly: ” The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”

And that is markedly different from the nineties. Back in the nineties there weren’t any Democrats trying to get the Clintons. I mean, the Democrat Party loved and adored ’em. It is clear the Democrat Party is spooked, some elements of it. And I’m telling you, you won’t hear much about this, but her bomb of a book tour was the first and maybe still the biggest red flag — well, I think her foundation, the money and these foreign donors and the privacy of the e-mail, that’s a big red flag as well. The point is, it is not the slam dunk everybody has been led to believe.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right. Now, the absolute latest on this is: “Hillary ClintonÂ’s camp late Sunday issued a significant clarification about the steps they say were taken to review thousands of personal e-mails before they were deleted, claiming her team individually read ‘every e-mail’ before discarding those deemed private.” Again we’re just gonna have to accept their word for what we don’t need to see, what’s private and irrelevant. They’ve gone through it, all 60,000 e-mails, and we are to trust them.

“Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill made the clarification in a written statement to Fox News. This comes after the former secretary of stateÂ’s office revealed last week that while more than 30,000 ‘work-related’ e-mails were turned over to the State Department, nearly 32,000 were deemed ‘private’ and deleted. This admission raised questions over how her team decided to get rid of those messages.”

Here’s the thing, just to repeat this. The State Department said it’s gonna take several months, and the investigators say that it will cost more than millions of dollars to go through Hillary’s 33,000 e-mails, and yet we are supposed to believe that her tiny personal staff went through twice as many e-mails in little more than a month. October 28th to December 5th of last year. That’s when Mrs. Clinton’s staff went through e-mails. Now, I don’t know how they can do that.

I don’t know how their staff can go through all of these e-mails. They had to read each one, and then determine which ones were public and which ones were private (and we don’t have a right to see), and furthermore, we are to trust them. The State Department says it’s gonna take them several months to read half of the e-mails, about 33,000, and cost millions of dollars.

Now, clearly somebody’s not being straight with us here. It’s either the Clintons not being straight with us when they tell us they’ve read all 60,000, or the State Department not being straight with us by telling us it’s gonna take months to read half of them and cost millions. Somebody here is lying. When the Clintons are involved in something, you can make book on the fact that somebody in the equation’s not telling the truth, and here we go again.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I’m sorry. I’ve been engaging in verbal dyslexia here. I’ve been saying Justice Department investigating Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails. State Department is what I meant to say, and I’ve been saying Justice Department. I associate justice with law enforcement. I don’t know why. Heh. But I do. And since we’re talking about enforcing the law and Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails, I just got kind of confused out there. But it’s the State Department that is investigation Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails.

Now, I also checked the e-mail during the break: “Rush, what’s so important about the Clintons? I thought you were bored by them.” I am bored by ’em, but I can’t go anywhere without everybody telling me how scared to death of Hillary they are, still. I mean, I went on the golf course over the weekend. “Do you really think Hillary’s gonna be the nominee? Oh, my God, we can’t beat her, can we?” I get so sick of it, I can’t tell you. So I figured there must be a lot of interest in Mrs. Clinton out there, so I’m just trying to fire everybody up and tell you not to be worried about it.

It is what it is, but I don’t understand the paranoia. Maybe people are paranoid because of past experience with the Clintons and they always slither out of whatever grasp people think we have ’em in. I don’t know. I don’t think she’s that formidable. Look, the book tour bombed. The press conference that she had at the United Nations was embarrassing. She was ill-prepared. She was not charismatic in any way, shape, manner, or form. There’s no dynamism there. That’s my whole point. She’s stuck back in the nineties and relying on the techniques that they used in the nineties to slither out of all of this stuff.

Look, The Atlantic — this is a left-wing, if anything, publication. They’ve got a big, long story on these e-mails. They actually quote David Von Drehle of TIME Magazine in describing how Mrs. Clinton went through these 60-some-odd-thousand e-mails. She commissioned a review. Mr. Snerdley, would you commission a review of your e-mails if you had to find something? What the hell does that mean, commission a review? I guess it means she paid some schlubs to go through it.

At any rate, she commissioned a review of 62,320 e-mails in her account only after the State Department, spurred by congressional investigation, asked her to do so. And get this. This is from The Atlantic — actually, TIME Magazine. This review did not involve opening and reading every e-mail. Well, there’s the answer to my question. If the State Department says it’s gonna take ’em months and millions to go through 30,000 e-mails, how did the Clinton camp, commissioned or otherwise, go through 60,000 in a month? Well, here’s how. They didn’t open and read every e-mail.

Nah. Who would have to do that to find out if there’s anything in ’em? You know what they did? The Clintons’ lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and then keyword searched those names and terms. Well, did they search “bribe”? Did they search “payoff”? Did they search “pedophile,” “playboy”? What were the search terms? We don’t know what the search terms were. But her lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those.

Slightly more than half of the total cash, 31,830 e-mails, did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s commissioned staff. So they were deemed to be private, personal records. Well, isn’t that quaint. You know what this is like? This is like Haldeman and Ehrlichman explaining the 18-minute gap by saying, “Look, there’s 24 hours of tape here from the day you want it at the White House. There’s 18 minutes over here we can’t find, there’s a gap, but trust us. There’s nothing in those 18 minutes. We’ve gone through remaining 23 hours and 42 minutes, whatever it is, and here’s what you need. Those 18 minutes, trust us, there’s nothing there.”

“Oh,” the media would say, “Fine and dandy. So you tell us there’s nothing in the 18 minute gap.”

“Yeah, the Rose Mary Woods gap. She inadvertently erased 18 minutes, but it was clearly inadvertent. There was nothing key in there.”

And the media is going, “Oh, okay.”

Well, that’s what they’re — (laughing) “We came up with the keyword search terms. We’re not gonna tell you what the terms were or the keywords and then we searched. And any e-mail that did not have our search terms is deemed private and you can’t see it. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. Or we threw out,” one of the two.

Now, one of the problems with this obviously, ladies and gentlemen, is the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea foundation. They have been raising money from foreign donors while she was secretary of state. And one that has come to light is Wang Wenliang, who is a Chinese — in fact, we’ve got the sound bite. Grab sound bite 16. This is just one example. This was on CBS This Morning. Julianna Goldman had a report on Clinton’s ties to foreign companies that have been giving generously to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation.

GOLDMAN: The Clinton foundation has raised at least $42 million from foreign governments, and according to an analysis by CBS News at least $170 million from foreign organizations, companies and individuals. One donor, Rilin Enterprises, pledged $2 million in 2013. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate thatÂ’s run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, whoÂ’s also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012, lobbying Congress and the State Department.

RUSH: Now, of course there’s nothing to see there, right? So here we have this Chinese conglomerate owned by Wang Wenliang, and he’s donated $2 million to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation, while she was secretary of state. And his is just one of at least $170 million in similar type donations. And after he gave Mrs. Clinton, the foundation, the money, he’s a member of the Chinese parliament and he is lobbying Congress and the State Department, meaning Mrs. Clinton. So she’s accepting money from the guy, and then he’s telling her things that he would like as a lobbyist, while she’s at the State Department.

Those e-mails are not released. That stuff’s deemed private. That stuff was deemed off the record and not anybody’s business, and so forth, and it’s given rise to just who’s gonna own this country if Mrs. Clinton’s elected president? Just what are they selling? What have they been selling at this foundation? Now, I have long believed ever since Whitewater, that in addition to being full-fledged Alinsky leftists, Mrs. Clinton certainly is — in fact, I believe they both have been. I believe they ran a very clever tag-team. I think Bill adopted the personality of good old boy, maybe moderate centrist. (imitating Clinton) “He-he, good old guy. Run out and have a nice time at the ball game, maybe go chase some women afterwards. Have a good time, yeah. And Limbaugh, I wouldn’t even take you with us if you’d shut up about what you see.”

And then Mrs. Clinton, behind the scenes, is doing all the radical stuff, like finding Janet Reno and Donna Shalala and working on health care, while Bill presents the public image of the Clintons as sort of moderates, centrists, good old guys. I’ve always believed that to be true. But in addition to all that, I think they have been obsessed with money, and I think that’s what Whitewater was all about. I think the Clintons — remember, this is the eighties, and in the eighties, once the recovery kicked in, and Reaganomics fully kicked in, the economy started growing left and right, and wealth was being created at a more rapid rate, rivaled by the wealth creation of today, except it was more widespread then.

There were many more people participating in the wealth creation than just the 1%. The Clintons didn’t have any money. I mean, Bill’s 25 grand, as the governor of Arkansas, and Mrs. Clinton maybe making a hundred grand at the Rose Law Firm. Everybody they ran with, everybody they ran with was hugely wealthy. And I think they had a jaundiced view of wealth. I think they looked at wealth as a get rich quick scheme. They didn’t buy into this hard work business, and the Whitewater land deal was I think one of the Clintons’ schemes to get rich quick. I think they’ve been obsessed with money.

Mrs. Clinton, remember her story: we were dead broke when we left the White House. They even stole some furniture. Do you remember they had somebody steal some furniture when they left the White House. It was later found. It had to be returned, if I’m not mistaken. I’m not mistaken about they took furniture out of there. Mrs. Clinton whining and moaning about how they were dead broke, they didn’t have anything. They’re obsessed with money. They’re literally obsessed with it. And that’s what this foundation of theirs is really all about. They’ve been collecting money from all over the world.

They’re doing it on the QT and they’re taking it from wherever they can get it, and a large percentage or portion of it is foreign. Foreign governments and foreign businesses, while she is secretary of state, while he is a former president. And there’s no doubt, as they solicit this money, they are running around claiming and promising they’re gonna be back in power, that Hillary’s gonna be president someday, and they probably don’t say it directly, but there’s a clear implication that a donation now will be looked upon favorably when they have regained power, run the country and so forth, whenever that is, after 2016.

All of those e-mails have been classified as private and none of our business and by way of keyword search on behalf of Clinton lawyers. That’s why all of this stuff is relevant. The Democrats are uneasy today on a host of things. Do you know on this Iranian nuclear deal, the Senate may have enough votes to override a presidential veto? If it ever came to that. I mean, there are a lot of Democrats that are signing on to the anti-Obama position on a number of things that are occurring out there. There’s a lot of unease. I’ve got it in the Stack. I’ll get to it the program unfolds here before your very eyes and ears.

And there is a lot of disquiet and discomfort over all of this that Hillary and Bill have been doing, and there’s a lot of nervousness over the sheer incompetence of that press conference that she did last week at the UN. Now, don’t misunderstand. They’re not alarmed the Clintons have done something illegal. They’re alarmed they might get caught. They’re alarmed there might be guilt by association. They don’t care what the Clintons have done. They’re worried the Clintons aren’t as good as getting away with it as they used to be. That’s the fear.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Keith in Chicago. Keith, great to have you on EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: How you doing, Rush?

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: Question for you. I’m a corporate CEO. I probably only get 5% of my e-mails that are personal in nature. How is it possible for the US secretary of state to have that high a percentage of personal e-mails?

RUSH: Great question. It’s how you define “personal.” For example, if Wing Wing Ling from China is gonna donate $2 to your foundation, that’d be personal e-mail, obviously.

CALLER: You got it. This is the biggest fraud.

RUSH: If you get to define what’s personal… Did you hear? He’s a CEO, and he says 5% of his e-mail is personal; 95% is work related. But Mrs. Clinton says, “No, no, no. Over half of mine is personal and private, and we’ve deleted it. We’ve thrown it out. Trust us.” That’s a great point, Keith.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, just a couple more sound bites here on the Clinton thing and then we’re gonna move on. What happened is on Friday night, Eric Bolling filled in for Ted Baxter from The O’Reilly Factor, and he played a clip of me on this program talking about the media’s recent treatment of Hillary Clinton.

RUSH ARCHIVE: If Hillary’s being treated like a Republican, it means she’s being treated like Sarah Palin to an extent, which means the media’s out to destroy her. Which means it could. It’s not nearly as focused and targeted as the media is going after a Republican. But it’s different this time, and the Democrat Party powers that be are worried that Hillary doesn’t have the ability to overcome this…

RUSH: Now, again, placing this in context, this was late last week, Friday night when that clip aired. I actually said it on Friday, maybe Thursday. But there was negative press for Mrs. Clinton about that presser that she did at the UN that the Clintons don’t get. It was negatives press, negative coverage, more akin to what Republicans get. And my theory was that this did not sit well with Democrat Party at large, and this is one of the reasons why there was so much media fallout, and so much panic.

Now, one of the guests that Eric Bolling had on Fox Friday night was the Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein, and Eric Bolling said, “Do you agree with Rush here that she’s being treated a little bit more harsh than in the past, maybe even by other Democrats?”

GOODSTEIN: Rush Limbaugh is never gonna be in her corner. Here’s why Democrats are not nervous and why I think it’s really (pause) way off to say the media’s turned on her. When have they last had, in an open-seat situation — Obama’s term is up — somebody who is way ahead of her competitors in the polls and beating every single Republican in the polls? Never! That’s a gift. As far as returning to the nineties are concerned, which of these parts do people not want to go back to? The unprecedented economic growth, or peace, in contrast to the two wars and economic collapse of the 2000s? I’m not quite sure what it is about that that the public is now not willing to embrace.

RUSH: I never said the public didn’t want to go back. I never talked about the public at all. I talked about the Clintons being stuck in the nineties in terms of how to get out of jams, and that it’s not working in 2015. Mrs. Clinton’s United Nations press conference is proof. She tried the same technique that she tried with Pretty in Pink and it bombed. Pretty in Pink was an overwhelming resounding success back in 1994. The attempt to re-create that fell flat. It bombed out.

It’s the Democrat Party that doesn’t want to go back to the nineties.

The Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of the nineties. The Democrat Party of the nineties was trending in this direction, but we are now full-on, radical leftist Democrat Party. There are no moderate Democrats left. There were some back in the 90s. I mean, you could put ’em in a thimble, but there were some. It was trending this way. That’s the whole point. It’s been trending this way for 50 years.

In the nineties we were laughing about it, making fun of it, nobody thinking that any of this radicals stuff that was being said back then would ever really take hold because the American people wouldn’t fall for it. Now here we are, 20 years later, and it appears that a bunch of Americans have fallen for it. We don’t know how many, but it’s no longer theoretical. We don’t anymore take a crazy, extreme example of belief or theory or action and say to people, “If we don’t stop this, in 20 years this is gonna become mainstream.”

Now it is mainstream for the Democrat Party.

It isn’t theoretical anymore.

We don’t have to warn people about what’s going to happen because it has happened. Now, Goodstein. The Democrat Party has this myth that the nineties, because of Clinton, were an economic paradise and who wouldn’t want to go back to that compared to the Bush 2000s. You see, Bush’s 2000s. You note that he didn’t even include Obama in this. Obama’s supposed to have made things better, and here’s Goodstein. He was part of this troupe back in the nineties defending Clintons left and right.

They want to re-create that. I’m telling you, they do. I think that’s one of their problems. They’re stuck there. They haven’t advanced, they haven’t moved forward, and they haven’t gotten with the times and understood the change that’s taken place. I think what it is, is that many of them resent the change that’s happened. You can do that all you want, but it isn’t gonna fix anything. People have been resenting change ever since there’s been change. Some people adapt to it and some people don’t.

I’m just saying that the Clintons don’t appear to want to adapt to it (or in Hillary’s case, to be able to, quite frankly). But that would require us to accept the premise if Hillary was ever hip. That’s always been tough for me to swallow, that Hillary was the definition of hip. But, to some people, she was. So we will just see where all this goes. But I’m telling you, do not doubt me on this. This idea that she is a slam dunk again for the nomination — and following that, is a lock to win the presidency — just isn’t true.

They told us the same thing in 2008, and it didn’t take much for half the Democrat Party to abandon her. Over half! I should be correct. Over half the Democrat Party abandoned her in 2008, and she has not risen, she has not gained in stature, she has not — What would you say? — prospered in the time since 2008. If anything, it’s gotten worse. So many myths accompany the Clintons, and a lot of those are media myths, and they are designed to quell all opposition.