Are you implying that certain races are more susceptible to drugs than others? How does a position on this issue show racial preference? Regardless, here is a quote from an MSNBC story on Limbaugh: During the same [1995] show, he commented that statistics that show blacks go to prison more often than whites for the same drug offenses only illustrate that “too many whites are getting away with drug use.” He did show hypocrisy in castigating drug users, then using drugs himself, so no one should consider him as a moral authority.

In response to your claim that only people who agree with him listen to his show, there is anecdotal evidence – there are a couple callers each week who “converted” after years of listening to the show – but no hard data for either side. Though his audience is sympathetic, his show is broadcast nationally, so it -could- be heard by anyone. Clinton, though appearing before mixed audiences, does not have his speeches broadcast this way anymore.

Which is nitpicking. No, I wouldn’t place Limbaugh above Clinton, either, for the reasons you mentioned, and upon further review, Oprah is also more influential. But the fat man is no lightweight.

I guess I can’t bring myself to acknowledge as powerful someone as blatantly hypocritical as Limbaugh. Limbaugh has, for years, blasted those who use drugs, and, like the latent racist he is, supported mandatory minimums for drug offenders and advocated jail sentences for drug users… until he was the one who was addicted.

And I don’t think he’s quite the same animal as Oprah or Clinton. Oprah is an empire… her TV show is the tip of the iceberg. As much as some of Rush’s mindless minions probably fervently defend his moral hypocrisy, I would argue that Oprah’s are much more loyal to her. Clinton I don’t think is in the same category as either of them, as he is not in media as much as he is the subject of media.

As for Rush’s ability to influence votes/opinions, I would argue that Rush’s ability to do that is wildly limited by the fact that the only people who listen to his show are people who agree with him in the first place. Clinton, for example, through his stature and activities, is constantly in front of an audience comprised quite diversely of people who agree with him and people who would disagree with him just because he’s Bill Clinton (and everyone in between). Oprah, for her part, doesn’t present herself as politically influential; her power isn’t based on her ability to influence politics, so that’s a specious comparison.

And Limbaugh, by now, I think is getting to be in the Falwell category–they’re the figureheads, but not the grand pooh-bahs of the conservative movement than they used to be. Bill Clinton is still the most powerful Democrat in the United States; attempts to make the Democratic Party anything other than the party of Bill Clinton have failed miserably (see: nominating John Kerry). No politician in America can galvanize a crowd of Democrats the way Clinton can… I remember reading an article about how one of Hillary’s biggest problems is getting upstaged by Bill (something like this):
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/01/24/hillarys_dilemma_what_to_do_with_bill

Bill Clinton is, and, for the foreseeable future, will be, the face of the Democratic Party in the United States. And in many quarters, the face of America to the world. Whether you associated him with an ideology is almost irrelevant–it’s all about perception, and people perceive him to be The Man.

I understand your points about Limbaugh, but I still object to him being placed above Clinton. In a practical sense, Clinton has a far better chance of influencing policy on wide range of issues all over the world. In a wider sense, he’s more popular, has access to a far larger segment of the population (beyond just his “base”), and has a far greater stature as a former President than Limbaugh does as, well, a big fat idiot. Or rather, a big fat drug-addled idiot.

Regardless, that stuff is a matter of opinion, and we can agree to disagree. What -is- shortsighted of you, though, is to assign him the same amount of influence as A-Rod and soap opera actors. He’s in the same category as Oprah and Clinton. Consider: he revolutionized talk radio. He’s the host of the most popular show in the country, with 14-20 million listeners each week, not counting the millions of people who read his transcripts on the Internet afterward. (NBC, ABC, and CBS News combined have a weekly audience of 22 million. The New York Times has a weekly circulation of 1.1 million.) It’s a hard news program that strongly affects people’s political opinions and actions and even their votes. You can’t say that about Oprah. Furthermore, Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the conservative movement. Bill Clinton has a lot of powerful friends; he’s fuelling Hilary’s campaign, and he’s the most popular American politician in foreign circles, but is he the face of an ideology? When was the last time Clinton mobilized his base the way Limbaugh did over the immigration bill?

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, but he certainly deserves a spot in the Oprah-Clinton tier.