Um…wow. That was an inartful way to phrase whatever the hell it was she was trying to say:
From here:
Yikes.
Yeah, but she’s not lying- per the same article she’s winning over 60 percent of the white vote is the last few states, and last I checked, the white vote is the one you need to win…
Kinda like Dennis Hopper’s True Romance speech- now tell me, if that’s a fact, then am I lying?
The “working, hard-working Americans” followed by “white Americans”, as though these are synonymous, is a bit jarring.
Yes. This, Wee Bairn, is what I’m Pitting. What an awful choice of words.
No doubt it was stupid and should never have been said, true or not.
Well, that’s a bit impolitic, innit?
Then she will have to do her best to persuade those voters to support the Democratic nominee, namely Mr. Obama.
You also need the black vote to win if you’re a Democrat. As much as the black vote is taken for granted by Democrats, I don’t see the black community turning out to vote for Clinton, not after this nasty primary and especially not if it’s perceived that Clinton stole the nomination. I used to believe that either candidate could easily beat McCain, but I don’t think Clinton can win now.
Are you saying that “hard-working Americans” and “white Americans” are synonymous terms?
Yikes indeed! But surprising? Not really. 
So not surprising that she was unartful or are you assuming she meant white=hard working and are unsurprised by her blatant racism?
It seems obvious to me she was talking about a specific demographic - working poor or blue collar caucasions. They are indeed out there, folks. In fact, more poor white people than black, last time I checked.
Good question.
I meant that, given how desperate she must be, I’m not all that surprised that she would say something like this. Mind you, I’m not saying that she’s a racist, but given prior statements by Bill along similar lines, and all that BS over Rev. Wright (which I’m not blaming on her, BTW)…well, I’m not diggin’ what I think could be coded language, yknow?
So, do you believe that “hard-working” and “white” are synonymous?
Also, while it’s true you need the white vote to win, your argument rests on the assumption that, if Obama is the Democratic candidate, white Democrats won’t vote for him. I think that is, in itself, a problematic assumption.
In fact, the last poll i saw, a few weeks ago, suggested that if Obama wins the nomination, the vast majority of Clinton supporters will vote for him in the Presidential election. The same poll suggested that, if Clinton wins the nomination, a smaller percentage of Obama supporters would vote for her in the Presidential election.
Now, i’m not sure if these figures have changed in the past few weeks, especially with the whole overblown attention being paid to the Reverend Wright issue. I haven’t seen a more recent poll.
Sorry for not being clear, no, I meant white Americans are voting for her in larger numbers now than previously, I was not commenting at all on the white = hard working angle. When I read that I took it as she meant hard working Americans (of any color, i.e. not wealthy people) and white Americans are on her side now, two groups. If I misread or misinterpreted, my apologies.
But assuming most Democrat blacks would simply **not vote at all ** insted of voting for her or McCain, she could absolutely beat McCain on the white and Hispanic democratic vote. I don’t see Democratic blacks voting for McCain in large numbers out of spite- they would in effect be taken out of the equation entirely.
I don’t think you’re right. That’s being discussed here and in a GD thread.
I don’t think either her language or the context of her remarks support this interpretation. I think she meant to say that working-class white voters support her (as opposed to “working-class voters of every color” and “white voters of every income level,” and as opposed to “hard-working Americans, which is the same thing as white Americans”). That’s not how it came out.
And if Obama loving Democrats are so juvenile they wouldn’t vote for HRC if nominated, then they deserve the resulting four more years of Republican crap that they might get as a result, and shoudn’t say word one if it happens.
I’m flashing on the Chris Rock comedy Head of State: On e-day, when early returns from the East Coast are leaked, showing African-American candidate Rays Gilliam in the lead, formerly indifferent white voters on the West Coast stampede screaming to the polls!
I was just going by this in the article quoted in the OP- surely she wasn’t getting over 60 percent of the white vote per state when she was losing 11 states in a row?
Exit polls from Tuesday’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina show Clinton won about 60 percent of the white vote in both states. That percentage is down from the Ohio primary on March 4, in which Clinton won upwards of 65 percent of the white vote. Meanwhile, Clinton garnered 63 percent of the white vote in Pennsylvania on April 22.
Back atcha. I think it’s perfectly valid for a voter to abstain from making a selection if his or her preferred candidate is no longer on the ballot; more important, though, it doesn’t have to be a conscious choice to abstain: it can be merely a reflection of diminished impetus to get to the polling booth to begin with. And I think it’s crucial to nominate the Democrat who will be most likely to spur high voter turnout among Democratic voters – and, if possible, not encourage high voter turnout among Republican voters (coughallthepeoplewhoreallyhatetheClintonscough).
But I’ve heard as many Hillary voters say they’d have to hold their nose to vote for Obama as the other way around, so let’s not use too narrow a brush here.