Terry Mcauliffe Reveals Clinton's Contradictons

Terry McCauliffe revealed another gross inconsistency in the Clinton's argument today on Meet the Press. He argued that since the Clinton's had captured the White working class voter bloc in the primaries, they were the only ones who could defeat Senator McCain in the general election. However, when he was asked whether the party would unite after the primaries and those same working class Whites would then support Senator Obama were he to become the nominee, he replied that he believed they would. The obvious logical conclusion based on his comments is that the Clinton's White working class advantage in the primaries is irrelevant if those voters are going to unify around the eventual nominee anyway. The only assumption is that Mr. McCauliffe is implying that they won't support Senator Obama, then deliberately lying to cover the racially polarizing core of their message. Mr. McCauliffe later went on to state that he believed Black voters would return to support the Clintons if they were to get the nomination despite a lesser number of pledged delegates. This assertion is congruent with the argument of eventual party unification, but goes against the inference that the Clinton's advantage in one particular primary voting bloc is relevant in the general election.

The Clinton's need to convince the Superdelegates that they are the only electable candidates because of their dominance with White, lesser educated, blue collar voters. Simultaneously they must also convince them that the racial, social, and economic class divisions created during the primaries will be overcome in the general elections. It is quite clear that these arguments cancel each other out.

Hillary Unveils "Strom Thurmond" Strategy

Having West Virginia and Kentucky in their sights, the Clintons are reaching out to uneducated racists. Their strategy is obviously to remind the people of those States that the BLACK GUY only appeals to those lazy negro welfare recipients and their guilt ridden educated wealthy white enablers. Obviously after their 6% showing among Black voters in North Carolina the decision was made to join the Sean Hannity/David Duke club. Wednesday Hillary revealed her newest argument to the Superdelegates:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. 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.

It has been clear for some time that the Clinton strategy was to divide the voters by class and race, then claim the larger bloc of working class White voters as their base. Most of us just never expected them to be so transparent about that strategy.

Hillary is setting herself up for a public political execution by the Superdelegates and she may very well receive her wish. Allowing her to set the table for the Republicans should no longer be tolerated.

The Destruction of America is Incomplete

Apparently, the Cheney Administration has recognized that the economic and military destruction of the United States is incomplete. Despite their intense efforts there appears to be a sliver of hope that the Country may eventually be able to recover from the military and economic policies of the Neocons. Ignoring the recent National Intelligence Report to the contrary, the Neocons and their lapdogs in the media have returned to trumpeting the blatant lie that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

After replacing Admiral William Fallon at Centcom with their puppet Patraeus, the Neocons are primed for another unprovoked attacked on a Muslim Country. To that end, another aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf to immediately frighten the prices of oil up another twenty dollars per barrel. Being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I suspect that Iran's decision to completely stop conducting transactions in US dollars has sped up the Cheney Administration's need for war.

The people who brought us the cakewalk in Iraq have cooked up another military strategy and are set to make that disaster look like a wise move. Attacking Opec''s second largest producer, when oil has risen to 120 dollars per barrel, will be the final nail in the economic coffin of the Unites States.

Hillary Supporters Make the Case Against Her

Be careful when using logic to support a position, any failure to project that logic to all variables can destroy the very argument you are making. The latest case in point is the argument by the Clinton supporters that Senator Obama can't win because she took such overwhelming numbers of particularly classes of voters in Pennsylvania. The most glaring statistic which they point out is that she defeated Senator Obama 70-30 amongst White catholic voters. The argument is that this number is so lopsided that it demonstrates that this group does not want him as President and therefore will not unify with the Party to support him in the general election. The obvious extension of this argument is that any Democratic candidate who loses a large bloc of voters who traditionally support their Party is unelectable.

As has been the case throughout this election, the Clinton supporters have ignored the Black voting bloc in their arguments. If this argument is applied using Black voters as the variable unit it creates the logical conclusion, only to a significantly greater degree, that Senator Clinton in unelectable. Outside of Pennsylvania, Senator Obama has bested the Clintons amongst White male voters and nearly tied them in the overall White voting bloc on a number of ocassions. However, Senator Clinton has been consistently beaten by historic proportions for a Democratic primary contest (typically 90-10) in the Black voting bloc. If the argument is that a 70-30 victory is so lopsided as to indicate a fatal divison between a Primary Candidate and a voting bloc, then how much more so does the string of 90-10 losses that the Clintons have sufffered with Black voters indicate the same. Are we to believe that the Clintons can overcome a string of losses by 90% or higher to a voting bloc and ultimately make amends with that group, yet Senator Obama can't overcome a fewer number of losses by much smaller numbers?

No reasonable person would argue that any Democrat could be elected President without both a huge turnout of Black voters and an overhwhelming advantage in that voting bloc.

The Clinton's argument makes the point that Senator Obama has a far greater chance of reconciliation with their core supporters than they with his. This logical conclusion is obvious, unless of course those constructing the argument discount the value, and possibly even existence, of Black voters.