http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_9216250

—–

There is no way you can say in the same sentence, “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” without diminishing black Americans as lazy.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/10/clintons_diminishing_of_black_voters/

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?ref=opinion

More on this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/9/141019/4319/894/512709

“Hard-working, white Americans.”

“Tall, red-haired men.”

Two adjectives applied to the same noun. In neither case does the grammar of the sentence make one adjective necessarily imply the other.

When it does, it usually means that the association is in the mind of the listener. This can be intentional or unintentional.

For example, I would at first blush guess that someone using the phrase “normal, straight people” thinks the two adjectives are the same. But maybe it’s part of a four-group set, normal/straight, weird/straight, normal/queer, weird/queer. Without context it’s hard to be sure.

Even “radical feminists” implies to many people that all feminists are radical, instead of that the feminists being referred to are the radical kind. This kind of phrase annoys some of us, even some of us who associate “radical” with “to the root” rather than “offensively crazy,” because we know most people, especially anti-feminists, don’t make that distinction.

But then there are those of us who use “extreme right-wing religious people” and are baffled when religious people who aren’t extreme right-wingers get upset, saying “you’re calling all us religious people extreme right-wingers.” What was supposed to be a fine-tuning of a phrase became an equivalence of the adjectives.

So. What is the context? I would assume Hillary’s been talking demographics with her team for yonks. So I think it’s more likely that she meant it as “the subset of working class people who are also white” rather than “working class people, who are invariably white.” The Venn diagram is an intersection, not one circle with two labels.

But I don’t know her, so I don’t know.

Or maybe a combination of race and age, with age being a good indicator of probable racism?

I don’t know why the media hasn’t told us very much about the age angle to this. Young people like Obama, the old folks like Hillary.

Thanks for people pointing out that Seniors are retired and therefore NOT “working class” since they are no longer working. Something else the MSM has missed the bus on.

This would be hard for Clinton to say since she dose not win the majority of people under the age of 65.

George Wallace’s racism, targeted with Mark Penn’s micr-trending (of racists in this case), and then covered up with a thin veil of Nixon’s plausible deniability.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE10Dj05.html

Though few fully realized it, this represented a significant erosion of sovereign independence even before the price of a barrel of crude soared above $110. By now, we are transferring such staggering sums yearly to foreign oil producers, who are using it to gobble up valuable American assets, that, whether we know it or not, we have essentially abandoned our claim to superpowerdom.

According to the latest data from the US Department of Energy, the United States is importing 12-14 million barrels of oil per day. At a current price of about $115 per barrel, that’s $1.5 billion per day, or $548 billion per year. This represents the single largest contribution to America’s balance-of-payments deficit, and is a leading cause for the dollar’s ongoing drop in value. If oil prices rise any higher - in response, perhaps, to a new crisis in the Middle East (as might be occasioned by US air strikes on Iran) - our annual import bill could quickly approach three-quarters of a trillion dollars or more per year.