As recently as last night I would have called myself undecided in the Democratic primary. In part that's because I decided a long time ago (2000, I think) that a wilting tomato plant would be a better president than the horror show we've got in there destroying the world right now. So as this race ramped up, I sort of backed away and said: who gets it gets it; I'm donating to the mofo; I'm voting for the mofo. Only an Lieberman nomination could have changed that.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” [Hillary Clinton] said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.It's clear that she's uncomfortable saying what she's saying because her grammar is stuttering. She wants to say, "less educated whites," but she knows she's essentially touting her popularity with racists, so she first says, "working" (is "working" code for "less educated"? Do "more educated" people not work?), but then she says, "hard-working" (that's a phrase with a more blatantly positive connotation -- is she replacing "working" with "hard-working" because she thinks "working" is a slur?)... Then she tacks on "Americans" -- a great word in American politics to make more positive any group, especially a marginalized one (Japanese-Americans sent to internment camps; African-Americans lynched in the South) -- are "hard-working" people marginalized? Or just "working" people? This then morphs into "white Americans" Ah, so now we're positive-izing white people? Why do they need it? Is is because they're also "working"? In the end she says it: "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.