Clinton has very little left to lose of the black vote.  It's actually been that way for a while (since before SC).  That's why polarizing the contest along racial lines is a good (vote wise, not morals wise) strategy for Clinton.  Whether Clinton has consciously pursued that strategy or not, I'm sure we all have our own opinions.

I think everyone will hear it shortly, and they'll hear it isn't the context best calibrated to maximize it's appeal white racist resentment. They won't hear Clinton saying it, they'll hear Clinton being described as "talking bluntly about race" and people accusing the down trodden white woman of being a racist.

Also, it parallels her constant stump speech use of blue collar and working class to mean white.  

about the environment argument.  People who are struggling financially should shut up because they are helping the environment by not driving.

However, if one is financially secure - it's okay if they drive about.

I don't have a car -  and I'm a great believer in conservation - but this is skewed - as usual.

I stand corrected; I should have checked against my memory, and apologize.

I will say your reticence on that matter did not spread to many diarists...

well in your post above you compare obama's grandma comments with hillary's "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" comments. It seems to me that the former was a (ham-fisted) go at inclusiveness and the latter either the outcome of being very tired indeed, or outright offensiveness. Or perhaps just a mere 'misspeak'.

It would be ridiculous not to talk about demographics and race, which is what you say some obama supporters want, but hillary appears to be equating 'white' with 'hard-working', and indeed with 'American'. Can't you see how and why people are antsy about this?

Obama said that she, being a "typical white person", felt afraid when she saw a black man on the street.  It's much less ambiguously insulting--and much less true--than what Clinton said.

It's now in the bulging Republican playbook.  We can discuus it further in September.

Citing two examples of something does not mean that he's "equating" them except on a very basic level.

I will reiterate my example from those days:

When I was young, my cat Sarah would come and sit on my stomach when I lay on the floor to watch TV. Being an ill-tempered cat, she would painfully extend her claws into my flesh if I tried to move and disturb her warm seat.  She did this even though it damaged the person who fed and gave her a warm spot to sit on sometimes.

Likewise, Comrade Stalin, when pressed by the nazis, similarly scorched the earth behind his retreating forces, making it unusable for feeding his people or housing them for a generation.

Thus, by your logic, I am equating Stalin to my cat, yes?

You may not have and I'm too lazy to check.  However, this site is yours and you didn't stop or speak out against those here that did.  

This is like Bill Clinton saying

I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.  That is my argument for her.

Notice, with the last sentence, he skillfully creates the set of devoted, issues-driven patriots to [Hillary Clinton, John McCain].

Now, Hillary Clinton is narrowing the "hardworking Americans" set to [white].

There's no reason other than to imply that blacks aren't hardworking Americans to even put the racial element in there.  West Virginia is almost entirely white (their idea of a minority is... Germans)... it goes without saying.  She could have stopped short of bringing race into it and it would have been fine.  Instead she chose to dogwhistle this like they've been doing race issues and Obama character hits all along.

I agree that "claws" would not have been used if he was up against a man.  And periodically/feels down/attacks, would probably also not have been used.  I think it was more of a humorous rebuke.  But I can understand that some people would be offended by it.  And I agree that he should not have used any of that phrasing.  The Tea Party comment was actually made by a woman covering a number of those visits first if I recall, I think he was just repeating it.  But have you not heard that kind of sentiment expressed in a way that is more humorous than hostile?  My girlfriend has gone to anger management classes because of her temper, when she gets in her rages I  typically make claws and feels down/attacks references with a smile on my face and laughter in my heart, because there is no other way to deal with them that doesn't escalate the situation.

And the idiocy of supporters should not be linked to the candidates themselves.  If we did that I do not think we could vote for anyone.

My issue with the Clinton comments vs the Obama comments, is I think she has the tighter and more calculated message.  I think Obama is not very tight with his message, and when he makes these "offensive" comments it is an error in speaking.  When Clinton does it I believe that it is very deliberate.  It is like her Iraq War vote, if I thought it was a vote out of ignorance I could forgive her for it, it is because I give her credit for intelligence and knowledge that I cannot.

Blacks were going to vote for Obama anyway, too much identity, and the perception that that identity has a negative impact for them to not have done so.  So he really did not need to "use" race in his favor.  He has taken deliberate steps with consultants for racial packaging.  Overall it does not help him to be seen as black, any time it comes up he suffers a little bit for it.  He would have been better off if no one ever brought up race.  Same with the Demographics for the Democratic Primary, does he really benefit from  saying things that have the potential to "alienate" women?  No, they make up the majority of the Democratic voters in the Primary election.  He doesn't want to "play" the race card because it is not good for him to do.

He just does not benefit from bringing up race or gender, so when he says something stupid, I think it is just that, something stupid he said. Poor phrasing ect.  Just like the bitter/cling comments were.

She has made it a point to bring up gender, which I do not think can be argued.  She wants people to vote along gender lines, because it benefits her.  And men are less likely to be influenced based on gender arguements, because they do not have the identity or feel that being male has had a negative impact on them.  So it has been very useful for her to bring up gender and make it a central theme to her campaign.  Her arguements now seem to center on a race question.  So when she says something stupid that could be considered "offensive" was it an accident or deliberate?  I think it was deliberate.  Based on her using other "divisive" physical characteristic issues (gender) and it being a benefit to her campaign.

So I hope people look at the comments to see if they were accidental or deliberate.   And if there was any benefit for the people making them.
And if you think Obama has played the "race card" why do you find that more offensive than Clinton playing the "gender card"?  Because the Clintons have complained about it?

I just heard the tape of her saying what was quoted.  I was wrong I think her phrasing was just accidental.  When I saw the transcript it was made to appear it was at a rally. (had a picture of her on a stage)  Hearing it, she did not have a complete thought together as she was saying that.   So I apologize for thinking diffrently.