Yea, I was thinking it gets down to the dirty. I wish, on the music end, but I was actually listening to my little girl call me for playing CandyLand with Fox and the Hound playing in the background....
Ah... ok that makes sense.
What a "Foxy" answer... Maybe it was the "Copper" standard. ;-)
Sorry couldn't resist.
... with the lights out, it's less dangerous here we are now, entertain us I feel stupid, and contagious here we are now, entertain us ...
It all comes down to the malarkey of anarchy, neh?
Just want to clear something up... let's just take the issue of the racial language out of it since it's a touchy subject. You think it's perfectly acceptable for some Clinton-supporting Democrats to spend the summer publicly sowing doubt about the party's presumptive nominee?
That doesn't make any sense to me, as someone who's interested in having a Democrat win the White House. Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on figuring out how to win with the nominee we have rather than waste our time with endless grumbling over the possibility that he or she might lose?
And sowing doubt in racial terms.
If they keep saying over and over again "whites won't vote for Obama" -- which is what's going on, poorly worded or not -- it's not hard to see this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In other words, it's not making the case for her message, that will carry working class whites, but making the case that HE, Obama, can't carry working class whites. And those are very different arguments.
And lastly, you can dismiss it as being "politically correct," but poorly worded or not, claiming sole support for "hard working Americans" that is, "white Americans" is a construction far more incendiary than the "bitter comments." Certainly more so than Biden's "articulate" comment.
That may be my opinion, but if she wasn't already in such dire straights, that quote would be driving the news. I don't believe it was all that accidental, because it's the same racially tinged speak that fills up Hillaryis44.com and even here sometimes. There's a fine line, I'm sure, but there's lots of imprecise stomping going around that line.
equating hard working with white is a whole different matter.
You should get out more. There is a subtle 'word warfare' going on here. It's not that the Hillary camp is equating hard working with white, it's that against a Black candidate she is insuating that Blacks are not hardworking, which is a well-established stereotype that has been been around since slavery. Reagan used this tactic back in the 1980's by painting a picture of Black 'welfare queens' gaming the system and living in luxury. The Dems didn't have enough balls to call him on it, which is why he was able to slash so many social programs that poor whites were the beneficiaries of.
Yes, Hillary is playing the race card when she tries calls lower income, blue collar whites 'hardworking' whom she 'identifies' with against a Black opponent. Knowing full and well, that she is from a rich suburb in Chicago, and Obama's mother had to use welfare, and that he had to be raised by his grandparents. Obama graduated with a Law degree from Harvard and then went back to work as a community organizer. That's not hardworking?
The only thing they're hurting is their legacy. Obama will trounce McSame.
Any evidence of this?
May I?
McCain is Mr. Magoo, both in his disasterous inability to remember important foriegn policy issues, inability to care about economic issues, and inability to remember his past positions on a host of issues, and his inability to seperate himself from the least popular National leader since Vice President Babyeater O'Atheist.
In fact, McCain is SO BAD that "both" constitutes FOUR actual items. That bad a candidate.
That Fark photo of the squirrell with large testes would defeat McCain as a write-in third party candidate.
