I don't call it Machiavellian, I call it realistic. The problem is that most people can not differentiate between West coast, East coast,Internet America and the rest of America.
Gworld, of course you would call Clinton's "fuck the white southerners - what have they done for us!" "realistic" and not "machiavellian." Because, well, you would do this.
Again, you miss the point which doesn't surprise me even when what I wrote is pretty clear. I meant her assessment of white America and how they vote. I hope this will make it clear for you but I won't hold my breath.
Gworld, you're just lost again - you're confusing statements. Here is the relevant quote: "Screw them": Fuck them. "You don't owe them thing": Do nothing for them. "They're doing nothing for you, you don't have to do anything for them": You don't owe them thing; Do nothing for them." (Repeat) Not to be confused with: Which was her machiavellian attempt to split the vote, gain a leveraging point for the VP spot, or otherwise strengthen her loss. Now, both are: But one dealt with white southerners specifically (the quote of mine that started you on your knee-spasm), and one dealt with white voters generally. Let us know if you need some more help untangling the issues before leaping to the attempt at a stalk. I find it good to "read" before "replying."
It starts to look more and more like this could be a possibility. I guess an affidavit has been filed with regard to Donald Young's murder. Only time will tell..
Forcing somewhere to explain a viewpoint a family member shares is quite ridiculous, look at yourself and see how you sound. I guess because he’s running for the presidency of the country he’s accountable for everything said by everyone? People like you compare this position in a way you’re instantly a superhero who has to take full responsibility and explain things your friends and family thinks. It amazes me that none of anybody with your viewpoint actually went to Kenya and heard anti-American rants from Obama’s family. Just look at yourself, WTF does Obama have to do with his damn cousin? I usually avoid people like this but the ignorance is outstanding. It isn’t even generalization it’s pure stupidity, everyone acts as an individual opinion. Until you see Obama exclaim “anti-American†rants don't compare him to friends and family who may have that idea (still waiting on the proof).
Really scraping the gutter aren't we? Next you're going to say you think Larry Sinclair is a really believable dude -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=GquA1sObQq8
He does not sound believable, but he does raise doubt, especially when no one has bothered to follow up. It's not the believeability at play here, but the doubt.
What I said was that her statement above was not Machiavellian but realistic since it was obvious that both statements was about the same group if you want to call them white Americans or white southerners. If that is hard for you to understand, then please continue with your rant and try to prove to everybody how "smart and intelligent" you are.
Absolute nonsense. Anyone can go on YouTube and say anything they want. That doesn't mean it deserves even one second of consideration. He raises doubt like I have doubt whether cows can give birth to aliens (I saw it once on the cover of the National Enquirer.) I can go make a YouTube video right now saying I was involved in a gay sex orgy with John McCain. Does that deserve a "follow up" too? Give me a break. The neocons are desperate. I believe that the American people are tired of these sorts of character assassinations. We've seen what happens when people vote on that instead of the issues (8 years of Bush.) This kind of gutter slimeball politics makes me as mad as Bill O'Reilly.
Whether her statement was "realistic" or not is open to debate. But the fact is there's not much difference between saying "I won't vote for him because he's black" and saying "We can't nominate him because some of our party won't vote for him because he's black." That's just unacceptable. Just as unacceptable as if the situation was different Clinton was ahead and her opponent (a while male... let's say John Edwards) said "we can't nominate her because some of our party won't vote for a woman." Can you imagine how angry her supporters would be (and rightfully so) at such a situation? It's mindboggling to me that anyone can't see how obviously morally wrong Clinton is with this statement.
Sigh. It does get old. Firstly, You replied to this post. This post referred to white southerners. That tactic referred to her saying "screw them - they've done nothing for us," and it was this I referred to with (in case you missed it): Secondly, Don't tell that to the white folks from Pennsylvanians, Indiana, and other non-southern states, about which she was also speaking in the 2008 election. If you'd bothered to read it, the 1995 speech was specific to white southerners: And the "whites support me" speech was designed to drive a cleavage on race, generally. But then, I'm just repeating myself, it falls on empty air, and life is just too short. She's not being "machiavellian," she's being "realistic." Speaking in the 1990's, about the congressional slam from white southerners to her husband's administration, she was not talking about white southern voters, but presaging her 2008 statement on whites generally - and white southerners from the 1990's south are actually white voters from the 2008 North, in toto. You win.
It really does. Can we all vote that North is the smartest, most intelligent person ever and get over with it? It might be morally wrong and politically incorrect (the same about your second example) but it is realistic. The question is if you want to be politically correct or win the election? I think John Edwards could have won the election without even campaigning against McCain but the chance of Obama or Clinton winning is as much as snowing in LA in the middle of July. It is theoretically possible but not very likely. as usual, I hope I am wrong about this.
I think you are "misunderestimating" (that's a Dubya-ism for old time's sake) Barack Obama. While I do think Edwards would have been a strong general election candidate, I'm not sure he would have inspired the same excitement that Obama is. I think that the Dems will see insanely high turn out this November. I also think you are greatly overestimating McCain's standing. He is running on the platform of the most unpopular president of the past 70 years. He is not a particularly charismatic candidate and while this hasn't been brought up much - I saw a poll that said more people would not want to vote for a man over 70 than they would not want to vote someone because they were black or because they were a woman. McCain's age will be an issue. I also think that Bob Barr will cause problems. If McCain is able to keep it close (which I don't think he will) then even if Barr gets only 2% that could be enough to change the outcome of the election.
I think you are "misunderestimating" (that's a Dubya-ism for old time's sake) White American bias for race.
Possibly. But I did grow up in southern Virginia (and I'm moving back there in September so I can help Obama turn Virginia BLUE) and I know a lot about how racism is still a factor in a lot of people's lives down there... But I really believe that by and large the GOP has got the majority of the racists - so I don't think it's going to be that huge of a deal. What I'm sayin' is that all of the racist folks I've ever known wouldn't have been voting for John Edwards either. I know that's not the case entirely - there are racist Democrats - West Virginia will prove that tomorrow... BUT... I think overall their numbers aren't so great as to swing this against Obama. I think the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters, and a great voter turnout will overcome any the problem of racist Dems voting against Obama. I also think that many of them will just stay home rather than actually going out and voting for McCain. *** Editing this in here: I don't mean to imply I'm moving to VA just to vote for Obama - hah! I'm not quite that crazy. Although I am happy that I may be involved in a state that's actually close. I think New York will be a huge landslide for the Dems. It's lame how your vote is really only important if you live in certain states. But that's a tirade against the electoral college system... Good for another day.
I don't think she wants a VP spot and I doubt it's likely to happen even if she does. The whole unpledged delegate structure(super delegates) was created so that basically the elite of the party could help choose the more electable candidate if the pledged delegates choose a clear loser. Hillary's only hope is to convince the super delegates that she is more electable than Obama. Of course it doesn't seem like they are listening but it's the last card she has.