RUSH: Yesterday we had Nora Ephron at the Huffington Post lamenting the fact that white guys, racist white guys are going to determine the outcome in Pennsylvania today. It was the most incredible piece, if you didn’t hear it. She actually said it’s going to come down to who the white guys ‘hate most,’ women or blacks. Hillary versus Obama. She went on to talk about how, anybody who has ever dated a white guy understands how unreliable they are. Today, Thomas Edsall at the Huffington Post is pretty much saying the same thing — and, ladies and gentlemen, Thomas Edsall, just so you know, used to write for the Washington Post. He was a, quote, unquote, ‘journalist.’ He was a reporter. So yesterday it was Nora Ephron, and today we have Thomas Edsall. ”On Course For Another White Guy Election’ — Hillary Clinton’s release Monday of her first Osama Bin Laden ad sets the stage for a general contest that Republicans could only dream about: an election fought over issues of patriotism, 1960s radicalism, liberal elites, gun control, terrorist threats, intimidation by a black preacher, and a 3AM phone call signaling enemy attack.
‘With the Bin Laden spot, Clinton has set the stage for an election in which a crucial voting block will once again be white men… [T]he issues will be those that tend to push these voters to the right, towards the Republican Party, regardless of which Democrat is the nominee.’ He goes on to lament the power of white voters. Why do they have so much power, and why is Hillary running around pandering to them? Hey, Mr. Edsall, the dirty little secret is, they’re all determined by white voters! All elections are, particularly white men. It’s just the way it is. Why is Mrs. Clinton pandering to them? She wants to win! She’s up against a guy who’s pandering to every anti-American voter he can find, and she’s trying to draw a contrast. This is the primaries. Don’t worry, Thomas, if she happens to win. She’ll straighten it all out for you liberals to the general, but right now she’s just trying to win this thing. Boy, the libs, I’ll tell you what: They’re liberals first, whatever else they are. If you drift off the liberal reservation, like Mrs. Clinton has done with this ad — have you heard about this ad?
This ad, she came out with it yesterday and it’s got the left up in arms. The only thing she did is she put a picture of Bin Laden in the ad, and the left is up in arms! By the way, Mrs. Clinton and all the other libs were running around the past six years, five years, decrying and lamenting and pointing fingers of accusation at the Republicans for running scare tactic ads by putting Bin Laden or images of 9/11 in their ads. They were just livid. Now Mrs. Clinton is doing it herself, and the lefties are mad at her. All there is… There are a whole bunch of pictures that flash in this ad, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a number of things to point out that there are big things that happen to a president; unexpectedly big, disastrous things that happen. Now, her whole point is to say (ineffectively, but her whole point is to say) that she’s more qualified to deal with these than the messiah, Obama, is. So you put this picture of Bin Laden in there, and the left is up in arms over it. She appeared on MSNBC, some kook leftist show on MSNBC. She got this question: ‘Your campaign put out today an ad that flashes images of Bin Laden. For six years now, since Max Cleland was cut down by a commercial that featured pictures of Bin Laden, that tactic has been kind of a bloody shirt for many Democrats. Is it not just, in your opinion, as much of a scare tactic for a Democrat to use it against another Democrat as it is for a Republican to use it in a race against a Democrat?’
HILLARY: There’s nothing at all that is in any way inappropriate in saying, ‘Look, presidents face the unexpected all the time.’ Katrina was also, uh, part of that ad. We don’t know what the next president will face. And I like to ask audiences to consider this as a hiring decision. If you were to hire the person you thought was ready, on day one, to do the toughest job in the world, what would you look for? Uh, what kind of resume would you be trying to seek out? I obviously believe that I have a unique set of qualifications and experiences that prepared me for this moment in time.
RUSH: Okay, she says that. She didn’t. I mean, she wasn’t part of the administration. That’s not the point, to me, anyway. The point is, she runs an ad with Osama Bin Laden’s picture in it, and the liberals get mad. Why? All you have to do is run an ad with Bin Laden’s picture in it, and somehow you’ve committed a major, major sin. And I’ll tell you why it is. It’s precisely because all these kook fringe leftists know full well they’re on the wrong side of this issue, that Bin Laden — who equals 9/11, which equals all of those horrible images that we don’t want to see but we are reminded of them. Liberals know they’re on the wrong side of that. Liberals know they’re weak on national security. They have proclaimed the war on terror unnecessary. They have proclaimed us to have already lost it, from Harry Reid, to Nancy Pelosi, to you name it. They have waved the white flag of surrender.
They have done everything they can to besmirch and impugn the ability and the integrity and the competence of our fighting forces. So they panic when they see this. Now Mrs. Clinton, to them, is a traitor on this. All she’s trying to do is simply contrast herself with the peacenik, Barack Obama. Now, there’s a related issue to this. Mrs. Clinton was displaying some tough talk in an interview on Good Morning America today. Now, let me see if we have this sound bite. I didn’t have a chance to go through it all. No. It doesn’t matter. Chris Cuomo, ABC’s Good Morning America, asked Hillary Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Mrs. Clinton said, ‘I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran. In the next ten years during which they might consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.’ ‘Obama has to be worried about obliterating his repeated promise of a new kind of politics, but he told ABC News’ Robin Roberts that his attacks on Mrs. Clinton are necessary.’
He says, ‘You’ve always got to measure if somebody throws an elbow at you, and after three or four times of getting elbows in the ribs, you know, at what point do you sort of say, ‘OK, you know, we, we, we’ve gotta put a stop to that’?’ A very powerful, wimpish statement there from Barack Obama. But let’s take a look at Mrs. Clinton’s claim here, that she would nuke Iran if they attacked Israel. This, again, is Mrs. Clinton attempting to tack to the right of Barack Obama, which is not hard to do. She knows that this election is going to hinge on white voters, white male voters. She knows what their interests are. She’s trying to portray herself as tough. Now, a lot of people are saying this was an absolutely stupid thing to say, because basically what she’s done is invite a retaliatory attack against a United States city. If Iran attacks Israel, we will obliterate Iran or an Iranian city. The Iranians presumably will have the mechanisms with which to nuke us at such a point in time — the time frame she gave ten years, and so people are saying, ‘I can’t believe she did this. She went out there and she said — why, why, she’s going to give up an American city for Israel!’ and a lot of people have thrown their arms up.
‘This is incompetent; this is inexperience. You don’t go out and say something like this; this is something you tell them in private during famous diplomatic sessions, but you do not announce this to the world.’ In fact, who was it? I think it was the days of de Gaulle when the Soviet Union was threatening to nuke everybody around them that didn’t toe the line. De Gaulle… I think it was de Gaulle. (sigh) Cut me some slack on this. It might have been Giscard d’Estaing. I don’t remember which. It was one of the French presidents. He decided he couldn’t count on, because of diplomatic talks, the United States to take care of the Soviet Union for him if the Soviet Union did happen to nuke Paris. So he started his own nuclear program to take care of it. A lot of people are saying, ‘Mrs. Clinton, let Israel deal with this. If Israel is hit, they can fire back. They’re closer. They’ll know the incoming is on its way.’ But this is an appeal to obviously two groups: Jewish voters and to white male voters who are hawks, and she’s trying to establish her bona fides here as a competent president in terms of national security, in contrasting herself with the wimpish Barack Obama.
RUSH: We have the Hillary comment about nuking Iran from Good Morning America today. Chris Cuomo said, ‘You said, ‘If Iran were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation.’ Scary words, Mrs. Clinton. Does ‘massive retaliation’ mean you go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?’
HILLARY: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran, and I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully, uh, at their society. Because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s like a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
RUSH: I’m sure they’re quaking in their boots. Now, here’s the problem. Little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably has his feelings hurt all to hell today because he’s for Mrs. Clinton. He’s for Mr. Obama. He thinks that they are allies, and now Mrs. Clinton on Good Morning America today promised to obliterate him and his little country if he took out Israel. Now, there’s a story in the LA Times today from Tehran, and the headline is: ‘Iran Watching US Campaigns with Hope for Detente.’ Iran is watching US campaign with hope for detente! This is not detente when you promise to obliterate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his country. ‘If an Iranian woke up in America and glimpsed the front page of a newspaper, he’d be reminded of home: a teetering economy, a restless populace, a tough-talking leader.’ Give me a break! Are you kidding me? The LA Times just compared Iran to the United States of America. Anyway, ‘This nation is fascinated by what it calls the Great Satan…’ Remember, this is written from Iran.
‘This nation is fascinated by what it calls the Great Satan, and it is watching the US primaries for signs of how it might benefit from crises similar to its own facing the new American president. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, this theocracy has clashed with Democratic and Republican administrations alike…’ They didn’t ‘clash’ with Jimmy Carter. They totally dominated Jimmy Carter! ‘Iranians know the new U.S. leader will inherit an overextended military in Iraq, a declining dollar, high oil prices and a sub-prime mortgage crisis that are straining the American economy. This scenario, analysts [in Iran] suggest, may lead to a softer US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become widely admired for his harsh line against the Bush administration. Iran would be seeking signs of detente from the new American leader, including the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of about $20 billion in Iranian assets and Tehran’s membership in the World Trade Organization. …
”If Mr. Obama won the election, it would be good,’ said Hooshang Tale, a former member of parliament. ‘He’s a newcomer without the old ties, and we can hope that American policy would undergo a deep change. I think Mrs. Clinton still represents old Washington, the past regimes. The US must take the first step. If a small country like Iran takes the first step it can lose face, but the big power doesn’t lose his face.” So, sum total of the story is the Iranian leadership wants Obama to win the presidency of the United States. Now, I ask those of you out there who like Obama because he’s ‘sincere’ or because he’s got a messianic personality; he’s a nice guy. Does it bother you at all that the Iranians want him to become president because they think a new age would be born? We can have detente, somebody who won’t stop them from doing what they’re doing. Lift the sanctions, unfreeze assets while they continue to develop nuclear weapons. I know it’s ‘change,’ Snerdley. Precisely it’s change. I’ll tell you who else can’t wait for Obama to be elected, and it’s Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega who heads the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Kim Jong Il in North Korea.
All these people are hoping that Obama is the next president, because they see weakness. Don’t give me this, ‘They see change and hope.’ Well, yes, they see hope. They certainly as hell do see hope. Don’t give me this change garbage, although you’re right about it. They do seek change. But primarily they seek hope, like… Grab that Obama commercial with hope. Go back and recycle this, because this is the magic that the Obama campaign has lost ever since the preacher showed up. Ever since the preacher video showed up, Barack Obama has crashed. He crashed in the debate last week, but up until then he was messianic. He was the man who was sincere, he was gentle, had a great smile, cute little ears, great eyes. Now that’s all gone. But this is what Obama’s trying to get back to and will never be able to do it, folks.
(playing of Obama spoof)
RUSH: That’s the magic Obama had. People didn’t care what he stood for. He wasn’t saying anything. He was saying nothing better than anybody else ever said it. Now when he tries to say something, it doesn’t work. He has spent months now trying to explain why he does not wear a flag pin on his lapel. He says, ‘It’s not just that I’m a Christian. Some of these e-mails are misinforming people. They’re also feeding on an anti-Muslim sentiment, and that’s wrong. We don’t have a religious test in this country, and I want to make sure that nobody gets hoodwinked, if anybody gets that information, make sure to correct…’ Oh! Maybe you want to talk to Mitt Romney, Barack. Maybe you two guys could do a joint ad on how America doesn’t have religious tests.
RUSH: One more thing on Mrs. Clinton and Iran. You know, we’ve spoken with the author Joel Rosenberg on this program. He has written a series of thriller novels, and in addition to writing… His thriller novels actually related to current events. But Mrs. Clinton thinks that she was Miss Tough Guy by saying to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ‘Hey, look, pal. You attack Israel, we’re going to annihilate you,’ and she’s talking about how she can deter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with this kind of talk. What she doesn’t understand is, Ahmadinejad cannot be deterred. All of you people out there who hate religious fanatics, and think religious fanatics have no place in American government and life and you want to compare ‘religious fanatics’ in this country to religious fanatics around the world? The babes at The View do that. A lot of liberals say, ‘There’s no difference in Christians and Islamofascists,’ and so forth and so on. The libs like to say this.
But there is a huge difference, huge. Ahmadinejad cannot be deterred. He believes, and the reason he’s out there rattling sabers and promising to do this. He’s telling us everything he’s going to do. It’s just so unpleasant, people don’t want to listen to it — and Obama’s naive, too. Obama thinks he can schedule a meeting with Ahmadinejad and talk him out of his intentions! Hillary thinks with big talk she can deter him, but this guy is a religious nutcase who believes that his God-given mission as president of Iran is to annihilate the US and Israel. And why? Because it is those two acts which will usher in the 12th Imam — the 12th Imam, who’s hiding in some well somewhere! He’s at the bottom of a well, and when the two great Satans are destroyed (the United States and Israel), then the 12th Imam, who is the Islamic messiah, will make his grand reappearance. Ahmadinejad believes this, and he’s out there saying it, and he’s writing about it. People want to chalk him up to being some little lunatic, and he is. He’s a total lunatic driven by a religious fervor. The point is, he can’t be deterred.
So when I read stories sitting around hoping for detente? Of course they’re hoping for detente. They would love for somebody in this country who is weak and thinks that he can bargain with this kind of evil to be elected. In a decent world — in a sensible, sane political climate — any political party or candidate who was, for all practical purposes, endorsed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayman al-Zawahiri, should so scare the American population as to disqualify their chances. Imagine if Adolf Hitler did this. Let’s say it’s World War II, and Adolf Hitler had endorsed I don’t know, whoever was running against FDR. What do you think the reaction in this country would have been? What if Hitler was out there saying this, and the Drive-By Media was covering it, and the Drive-By Media was saying, ‘Oh, yeah! They’re hoping for a reduction in forces and reduction in tensions with the United States and the Third Reich, and therefore the Third Reich is hoping a more reasonable American leadership will be elected with President X than incumbent warmonger FDR.’ What do you think the reaction back then would have been?
Today, it’s almost like a badge of honor because with liberals today, anybody else who hates your country is your friend. Anybody else who’s suspicious of you — maybe hate is too strong a word. There are some people, there are some liberals who hate this country. I’m not going to assign that to the tell-me party. I’ll make that stipulation. But there are enough of them in this country that hate it, and they’re all on the left. You don’t find the blame-America-first crowd among Republicans or conservatives. You don’t find the hate-America crowd anywhere but the left. Here come all these communist leaders from Chavez to Daniel Ortega. They may be insignificant to you, but to me it’s quite telling. Kim Jong Il? They want somebody elected they think is weak and malleable, somebody they can threaten; somebody they can, quote, unquote, ‘do business with.’ A Jimmy Carter. Iran would love another Jimmy Carter-type in the White House, and they’re telling us this. But today, that doesn’t seem to register, not as much as a Hitler or a Hitler crony endorsing the opponent of FDR in any one of his reelections.