Democratic Nomination?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

and

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

Originally posted by Strangelove
As above, I'm willing to try. Well the fact that I was referring specifically to that post when I wrote I wasn't making a blanket statement as others assumed. So when Bardock made a reference to "well thought-out arguments" I naturally referred back to the post that I was actually responding to when I made the statement in the first place.

Satisfied?

*Had to quote like this because I can't find the first one

Stangelove in bold, Bardock in italics

"Yeah, also lets just be honest, the last 8 years Osama Bin Laden had a million times more influence on American Politics than any voter. Strangelove is really just dismissive on the grounds that foreigners (relative to the United States) actually have valid points and he's not into debating well thought out arguments. Please, lets not kid ourselves, one vote counts **** all."

This:

"Also, reading Hillary's political believes, I really, really, don't want her to get shit done."

Is not a "well thought-out argument". It's an opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I see what you mean to a degree but to anyone who glanced real quickly at this, Bardock is a complete ass. I understand your logic but I disagree with your conclusion.

Those two posts are not really even about the same thing. One is talking about the affect foreigners have on U.S. politics; the other is saying Hillary is not a viable candidate in his opinion.

Well, as a Clinton supporter, I feel obligated to say that working-class whites is a crucial voting bloc in elections. Al Gore and John Kerry both performed quite poorly with them, and we lost those elections because of it.

That said, perception is politics, and that was a really stupid way of putting a valid point, Mrs. Clinton.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

and

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

LOL, just ask him to click the link

You think I'm an ass? touching

we all do

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, as a Clinton supporter, I feel obligated to say that working-class whites is a crucial voting bloc in elections. Al Gore and John Kerry both performed quite poorly with them, and we lost those elections because of it.

That said, perception is politics, and that was a really stupid way of putting a valid point, Mrs. Clinton.

The key is that she said "working, hard working, white Americans." She could have stopped at hard working Americans. The distinction is going to kill her in other areas. She means poor, rural areas and all of that but she ruins multiple other demographics with her poor articulation (I'm assuming that's all it is).

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, as a Clinton supporter, I feel obligated to say that working-class whites is a crucial voting bloc in elections. Al Gore and John Kerry both performed quite poorly with them, and we lost those elections because of it.

That said, perception is politics, and that was a really stupid way of putting a valid point, Mrs. Clinton.

Actually I agree. I know what she was trying to say and it makes sense. But as I said earlier she appears a total (racist) *****, by saying it that way. And I don't understand what her intentions might be.

The weird thing is that she makes Obama seem so much more appealing to me, even though I basically disagree with him on all the same stuff as with her. I don't know, Obama is just really, really likable. Excellent speaker, too.

Might be the antichrist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think I'm an smart(edit)ass? touching

I sure do

Originally posted by chithappens
I see what you mean to a degree but to anyone who glanced real quickly at this, Bardock is a complete ass. I understand your logic but I disagree with your conclusion.

Those two posts are not really even about the same thing. One is talking about the affect foreigners have on U.S. politics; the other is saying Hillary is not a viable candidate in his opinion.

Strangelove is really just dismissive on the grounds that foreigners (relative to the United States) actually have valid points and he's not into debating well thought out arguments.

Oops.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I understand where you're coming from as well, but this: Is really all I was talking about. I suppose I did take it out of context, though.

Oops.

Ok, now I follow.

Originally posted by chithappens
The key is that she said "working, hard working, white Americans." She could have stopped at hard working Americans. The distinction is going to kill her in other areas. She means poor, rural areas and all of that but she ruins multiple other demographics with her poor articulation (I'm assuming that's all it is).

Originally posted by Strangelove
I understand where you're coming from as well, but this: Is really all I was talking about. I suppose I did take it out of context, though.

Oops.

Yeah, sorry bout that. I can see how that was a quite assholish thing to say.

Hugs all around.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

and

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

Funny enough, if you substitute Clinton's name and insert Obama, the media would obliterate Obama.

White privilege is funny

If this was a couple months ago, I'd say you were out of your mind. The media had been anointing him as the "Chosen One" for weeks before they were shown a mirror.

Meanwhile they were being all but blatantly sexist to Clinton.

Originally posted by chithappens
Funny enough, if you substitute Clinton's name and insert Obama, the media would obliterate Obama.

White privilege is funny

Blacks have equal rights.

Segregation never happened.

Racism is long gone.

Originally posted by Strangelove
If this was a couple months ago, I'd say you were out of your mind. The media had been anointing him as the "Chosen One" for weeks before they were shown a mirror.

Meanwhile they were being all but blatantly sexist to Clinton.

The media are biased assholes.

Which by the way is also a plus for my opinion, since I am also exposed to the German press' take on the elections.

You'd like it, btw, they dig Clinton.

Clinton's comment about working class whites wasn't so much racist as it was simply clumsy and poorly worded.

Besides, the Democrats never carry white votes. Bill Clinton never carried white votes and he won. It's not a necessary block in order for the dems to win.

What bugs me about Clinton is her constant attempt of changing the goal line. First the number of delegates needed is 2025, everyone is fine with that number, Clinton included. Now that it looks like Obama will reach that number possibly next week she's lying and saying that the number that needs to be reached is 2210 because of Florida and Michigan. It's like she's just going to just keep making up rules and metrics in order to keep herself in a race that is all but over. What she's doing is akin to playing a game where both parties say "okay, first to score 10 wins" and then someone scores 10 and the loser says "no we need to go to 15".

This idea that she cares about the voters in Michigan and Florida and THAT's why she's championing for their votes to get counted is so bogus that it's insulting. She knows it's the only way she can attempt to spin a win, by acting like this is Cuban politics and bringing up the popular vote counting Michigan (where Obama's name wasn't on the card, and thus he didn't get a single vote) and acting like that's fair. It's such shit and really is a shameful and utterly desperate ploy to simply not lose a race that she's completely blown, through no one's fault but her own.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Stop playing Angry Black Man.

Blacks have equal rights.

Segregation never happened.

Racism is long gone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The media are biased assholes.

Which by the way is also a plus for my opinion, since I am also exposed to the German press' take on the elections.

You'd like it, btw, they dig Clinton.

Or at least that's what I hear.