{"id":6880,"date":"2015-03-11T16:52:37","date_gmt":"2015-03-11T16:52:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-11T16:52:37","modified_gmt":"2015-03-11T16:52:37","slug":"mrs_clinton_is_stuck_in_the_90_s","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2015\/03\/11\/mrs_clinton_is_stuck_in_the_90_s\/","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Clinton Is Stuck in the 90\u2019s"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah, yeah, I think I\u2019m gonna have to do that. I\u2019m gonna have to go back to the nineties and explain a lot of things. In order to understand what\u2019s going on with Hillary Clinton today, you have to understand what happened in the nineties. And what I mean by that, folks, in order to understand what the media is doing today with Hillary, we\u2019re gonna have to go back and revisit the nineties. But don\u2019t worry. It\u2019s gonna be fun. It\u2019s gonna be some great memories revived from the Grooveyard that many people have forgotten. <\/p>\n

Anyway, great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, back at it on hump day. Telephone number at the EIB Network is 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com<\/a>. <\/p>\n

All right. So we had the press conference. The first thing to point out, and, folks, please do not doubt me on this. None of what I am going to offer in terms of analysis or explanation of Hillary Clinton is ego oriented. It is fundamentally necessary, if you want to understand. For example, the press, AP has sued. AP is suing to get hold of her records. Most of the Drive-By Media is not tolerating what she said yesterday. Most of the Drive-By Media is not accepting it. Many people are mocking her and making fun of her, justifiably so. <\/p>\n

People are puzzled by this because the popular conception is that Hillary is the fait accompli Democrat nominee for 2016, the fait accompli next president. People assume the media loves her. People assume that the media can\u2019t wait for her. People assume the media have been lining up ready to launch her, get behind her, and stay in her good graces. None of that appears to be true, and it\u2019s leading to some confusion in terms of people doing analysis of this. <\/p>\n

I mean, that press conference was an absolute disaster, folks. That woman is not the smartest woman in America, not the smartest woman in the world. She\u2019s not even a good liar, and that\u2019s the difference between her and her husband, one of the many. She evokes no sympathy. People don\u2019t really feel sorry for her, not even the feminazis. It\u2019s a strange thing. She\u2019s stuck back in the nineties. <\/p>\n

You know, I didn\u2019t want to say it yesterday all during the program, but when it was announced that that press conference of hers was gonna be at two o\u2019clock, I told myself, and I mentioned it to Snerdley, I said, “There\u2019s no way that she\u2019s gonna come out and do this press conference before this program ends. It isn\u2019t gonna happen.” I didn\u2019t tell you that \u2019cause it didn\u2019t seem relevant at the time. It was no big deal. What was relevant was that she did this at the UN. That was purposeful because, as we mentioned yesterday, at the United Nations you have to apply for news credentials 24 hours in advance of any event. <\/line><\/p>\n

She didn\u2019t give \u2019em 24 hours so the people that were on hand, the media people on hand to query her yesterday were the UN beat reporters for all the news networks and agencies. So it wasn\u2019t the White House crew. It wasn\u2019t the daily news crew that you\u2019re used to. It was a bunch of people whose beat is the UN. By definition, they were not the most up to speed on whatever this scandal involving Hillary and her e-mail is. That was done on purpose. And right on schedule, I mean, to the second when this program ended, out she walked. And that told me that this woman is in a time warp, that this woman is stuck in the 1990s. <\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been thinking the past hour how best to put this in perspective and to make the most sense out of it. In order to do that, I need to ask you, do you recall the Pretty in Pink Press Conference that Mrs. Clinton did in 1994? It was on April 22nd, 1994, and it was called the Pretty in Pink Press Conference because she had on a pink pantsuit. The reason for that press conference was me. And if you have not been listening to this program from the beginning, if your listening doesn\u2019t go back any longer than 15 years, you don\u2019t know what I\u2019m talking about. That\u2019s why it\u2019s necessary to put this in perspective. <\/p>\n

Back in 1994 Hillarycare was all the rage, and the Clintons were just getting started on ramping it up. There had also been already the controversies over Whitewater<\/a> and what had become known as the Rose Law Firm billing records. There had been numerous bimbo eruptions. We had not yet had the election in 1994 that the Republicans would go on to win and retake the House of Representatives. The Clintons were arguably still in their honeymoon. It was the second year of the administration. <\/line><\/p>\n

But what had happened that week, prior to the Pretty in Pink Press Conference, there was a town hall edition of Nightline. And everybody was in Iowa. There was something going on in Iowa. Ted Koppel was in Iowa, and Geneva Overholtzer was on that show. She was at the time the editor of the Des Moines Register. She would later go on to work she at the Washington Post and USA Today, a number of other places like that. James Carville was there. <\/p>\n

They asked me to be on this program, and I agreed to do it. I was the only one not in Iowa. I did it from my TV studio on West 57th Street in New York, across the street from the CBS broadcast center, just to give you some perspective. And on that program, as they began detailed discussions of Hillarycare and any number of other things, when Ted Koppel came to me, I said, “Ted” — essentially. I mean, I\u2019m gonna have to paraphrase this. I don\u2019t have it exactly at my fingerprints what I said verbatim. But I said, “Ted, I think this is all pretty much a waste of time. I don\u2019t know how we can believe anything these people tell us. I think it would be ridiculous for us to believe anything the Clintons say.” And then I went rat-tat-tat why. <\/p>\n

Carville was reduced to a mumbling failed attempt at rebuttal. It caused a mini-firestorm on the set in Iowa because I was not falling into line. I was not discussing the topic as — that\u2019s why Koppel had me on. Back then he liked me. And it caused the program to, in a mild way of expressing it, blow up, because essentially what I was doing was telling everybody, “You guys, this is all a bunch of hooey here. I mean, we can\u2019t believe what they say about health care, it doesn\u2019t matter, they haven\u2019t told the truth about a lot of things.” And I went down list by list, item by item, what they\u2019d lied about. <\/line><\/p>\n

Well, the next day the New York Times wrote a scathing review of what had happened on Nightline the night before. Two or three days later she scheduled that press conference that became known as Pretty in Pink. And she sat right under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and sat in the chair exactly as Lincoln was posed in that portrait. And the picture, the image, you know, Honest Abe, here\u2019s Hillary in the pink pantsuit, and she was masterful in the press conference. She was relaxed. She was the exact opposite of the way she was yesterday. She was relaxed. She was in command.<\/line><\/p>\n

My name didn\u2019t come up, don\u2019t misunderstand. But I was the reason because I had changed the direction of the way all this was being looked at. I had challenged their veracity and their honesty. Remember, there\u2019s no Fox News yet. There\u2019s barely any other talk radio. There are no conservative blogs yet. The Clintons, the reason why this is relevant to yesterday, I believe Hillary Clinton\u2019s stuck in the nineties in a host of ways. And coming out at three o\u2019clock yesterday waiting until this program was over to do whatever she did yesterday, to me, is an indication. <\/p>\n