Poll | 05/13/2008 6:31 am

Should Sen. Clinton pack it in?

Read more about: Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics

185 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Renata: Now Hillary supporters don’t want you to be free to openly discuss…gezzuz h ! This my last post on this issue. Feel free to flame away! You paint everything in broad generalizations. You talk as though you were all of New York. You talk about purging the Clintons from the Democrats. You talk about ‘real Democrats’ and divide them into those who are ‘conscious’ like you and those who are unconscious. You demand respect from The Clinton group and give no respect. You demand that they listen, while you only hammer away, barely stopping fot breath. You demonize Hillary and Bill, smearing them with every bucketload you can dream up. Just page after page and post after post, stating innuendo as fact and pulling the heartstring words…like our precious children and a new world and all the while acting as though you were on the high road. As though you were part of an agenda for change. When in fact, your diatribes are just the ‘business as usual’ appraoch to candidate trashing. Balancing the rhetoric, indeed! There is no balance in your approach. You do not care in the least about balance. Your actions and words do not turn anyone to Obama. They alienate Hillary supporters even further from him. Yet you seem to enjoy this. You claim to be an Obama supporter. Really? Because I am an Obama supporter and I find your postings to be completely contrary to Obama’s message of hope and change and listening and reaching across to each other. You and your ‘swift boat’ approach to Hillary bashing are a neocons wet dream. Republicans are all over the blogs masquerading as Democrats and whipping up dissention. You claim Hillary is using Republican tactics. You claim she is running their race for them. To my eye, you are the one doing that.

By Deni G on 05/13/2008 4:07 pm

e-mail alert

Deni RE 4:07 —— oooooooooo I guess you’ve had enough. My sentiments exactly. Sometimes I wonder about these same questions over and over again. There are a lot posts, but sometimes that is only a few people. What does this speak to? I know there is a tendency in me that when I really get on a project I work for success, because for the most part, I can’t accept failure. Before I was married and was still dating, I would stick with a guy or a job even if it really wasn’t the best thing for me. Meaning my own growth and development. But I recognized that I stuck with something because it was hard for me to accept failure - I kept thinking that if I just did it a little different, said it different, persuaded them then the situation would change. It wasn’t about them, it was about me. I couldn’t accept failure. My parents encouraged me to go as far as I wanted to, but never give up. I had to realize that stopping something which was going nowhere wasn’t failure. It was good common sense. I would close a door and oddly enough a new one would open. I have had to stay in neutral about challenges in my life that it has changed me to be more receptive to new things. THere is always a new door opening.

By Frannie Em on 05/13/2008 7:09 pm

e-mail alert

Renata—“Flame away” you are extremely intelligent, politically informed and I enjoy your posts, and your active citizenry. Where those who criticize contribute absolutely nothing but flaccid victim “poor me” whines, or sanctimonious denouncements, because the fact is they have not once contributed anything of actual material weight. So ignore them. Post what you will I enjoy them and appreciate your insights and intelligence and the EFFORT you make to contribute rather than whine.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 10:11 pm

e-mail alert

Suzanne: I am not at all concerned with posts that don’t add value to the discourse, people who repeatedly attempt to shut-down, control, re-direct or leverage inflammatory language to put me in my place — in the “real” world or online. You will note I don’t insult anyone and/or make any claims I am superior (or inferior) to anyone. Further, I make no claims to define New York/New York City — but have a unique perspective I choose to post as an African-American, boomer, woman born and lifelong resident of New York City — HRC’s adopted home State. No worries. :-)

By Renata on 05/14/2008 3:33 am

e-mail alert

Suzanne: Addendum…losing is hard…and how one loses speaks volumes. This applies to HRC and her non-funding supporters, in particular — who cannot/will not admit THEY DIDN’T GET THE JOB DONE. They can begin by WRITING HER CHECKS…which, despite their stridency, they simply refuse to do. I am learning much from posts on this site — for the Fall — re HRC’s core demographic constituency. They talk a big game, but aren’t willing to do the WORK and make the SACRIFICES necessary to win. Had they done so, HRC would not have found herself surprised in Iowa — and been struggling ever since. She and her supporters CANNOT BELIEVE they lost…and haven’t a clue THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE.

By Renata on 05/14/2008 3:39 am

e-mail alert

Lily.Well I understand that and I also understand that the Obama/Clinton race is a major topic all over the US and the world, and the editors of this site will undoubtedly make changes as they see fit. The purpose of this board is Politics and Culture…there was a third I can’t even remember. And probably as long as it generates traffic (stats that we can’t see) and justifies it—-they’ll continue the questions in some form as the situation changes. As they say, a week in politics is like an year. And nothing against you at all. Really enjoyed seeing the link to you artwork someone posted—fantastic. Am a trained artist too—watercolors and have been prolific in past but not lately.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 10:51 pm

e-mail alert

Suzanne: The Editors will have to decide if they want the Politics and Culture section to have RELEAVANCY and MEANING — or, not. To think a WOMAN is running — win/lose — and WoW would be the ONLY site to NOT cover this and how it ends, free to voice divergent opinions — is STRANGE to even consider. I guess we ladies should repair to the drawing room while the men have their smoke… Amazing. Very interesting. Really FASCINATING, when you consider who the founders are. Gotta call the behavioral scientists friends of mine to check this out!

By Renata on 05/14/2008 3:47 am

e-mail alert

Lily… “I can’t believe we are being asked this AGAIN!!!!” I totally agree with you, this is getting tiresome. Questions about Obama/Clinton practically every day now - give me a break. I realize it’s important to your country whoever will be the democratic candidate - but could you PLEASE limit these questions to perhaps once or twice a week?? What will this site look like when we get closer to November??? I’m afraid to even think about it.

By Christina on 05/13/2008 6:10 pm

e-mail alert

At 4:42 PT as the chant to QUIT, QUIT, QUIT continues… “A.P. and Television Networks project Hillary Rodham Clinton as Winner in West Virginia.” (NY Times Alert)

By Buh- Bye on 05/13/2008 6:43 pm

e-mail alert

And the newsflash is? Because it was known that WVA was going to HRC all along. It is a very rural, racist state where her race-baiting strategy worked, and everyone knew it would work. That’s why Obama didn’t even go there. It cost her (read:DNC/Obama that are going to be forced to pick up the tab on her huge debt accumulated by financial mismanagement) and she picked-up very little. It’s a semi-open primary with 39 total delegates, including 11 superdelegates. She got 16 (as of 7PM PST) and he won 7. And if the superdelegates fall to him at his standard 80% rate since Feb 5, she’s netted zip. If Obama loses half the next six primaries he will still be ahead. Point? Meanwhile today, senior superdelegates including Bill Cinton appointees like former Colo Gov, Roy Rohmer, and senior Senators like Feinstein, and long-time Hillary advisors like James Carville [can’t get much more insider than that] said today—It’s over. That drawing this out is just wasting money and time that should be earmarked for winning the general election….because nothing short of a miracle can turn it around. Obama has 80% of the suprdelegates pledged since Feb 5. And her “go for broke to win on Super Tuesday with no backup Plan B” failed miserably. So am certain her cobbled together plan, after that masterplan, is even better. And this isn’t Hillary bashing, or ‘lack of balance’ on this site, it happens to be relevant and the truth according to the rest of the known world except for HRC fans who are delaying the inevitable to the cost of the party. But whatever they feel is best. Obama has a total of 1,874.5 delegates and needs 150 Clinton has a total of 1,696 and needs 328.5 There are a total of 458.5 uncommitted delegates left. (2,024.5 delegates needed for victory) There is one issue in the primaries. In the judgement of the party who has the best chance of winning the election. Everything else is superfluous.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 9:58 pm

e-mail alert

Lily: I agree this is getting very tiresome. As far as CNN goes I stopped watching that network 8 mos ago. They’ve become the tabloid of the media right up there with Britain’s The Sun.

By Frank Peterson on 05/13/2008 9:38 pm

frank —If it’s tiresome go elsewhere. The site specifically states it is for politics and culture. I am sick of all passive aggressive whiners who contribute little—if they don’t like it they can always introduce another slant but then that might require imagination and research wouldn’t it? Instead of active citizenship and interest it’s always easy to whine and complain like the chief whiner auntie em. Your 3 sentences contribute nadda, zero, zilche.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 10:59 pm

e-mail alert

Suzanne, first of all, I’m concerned about you. I feel the nastiness and personal attacks of your recent posts is very very different from your earlier posts, and I know that your father is ill, and I’m concerned. Second, Frank is right, it is tiresome. On the thread about whether or not Sen. Clinton is “negotiating her withdrawal,” of 542 comments, you and Renata accounted for 32% of the total by count, and of the word count, you contributed 41% or 25,700 words, many of which were to dismiss what other people were saying and to diminish them as people. I do not believe this is who you are, and I don’t believe this tenor of conversation serves any purpose other than to alienate people. We all know by now that you and Ms. Renata support Sen. Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. What we also know is that our opinions are of no interest to you or to Ms. Renata other than as target practice for your ready wit and quick fingers. I imagine you find it frustrating to talk to people who so clearly haven’t your superior gifts, but the lashing out at everyone is simply driving people away. It is really ironic that both you and Ms. Renata keep talking about how Sen. Obama is going to bring us all together, but because of this kind of rancour, many of his followers have simply convinced other segments of the population who consider themselves minorities that they aren’t welcome in the party. I am reregistering as an Independent, and will no longer donate except through Emily’s List. And if you want to discuss “race-baiting,” let me tell you, it will be a very cold day in hell before I see the African-American churches marching for gay rights in this country, or for the ERA. Now I’m going to go paint, because I’m really tired of this wrangling, and it is no fun to play this game. I hope you’re feeling better soon, Suzanne.

By Mugsy Peabody on 05/13/2008 11:33 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks for the sanctimony Mugsy….I’m concerned about people who are so divorced from their own humanity that they’d vote for someone who voted for an illegal war, is race baiting to the point the NYT and every party senior is trying to get her to leave…..I’m concerned about people who are so ill informed and a host of other things. You all can flame away and just don’t like it in return. too bad.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 11:51 pm

e-mail alert

Suzanne: Why let the attempts to shut people down concern you — especially when the premise is inaccurate? We are having a logical, opinionated discourse and I certainly never attack anyone. Quite the opposite. Further I don’t attempt to shut anyone down, or stop them from voicing their opinions. Finally, I have never — nor will I ever, direct my posts to anyone in a pointed or derrogatory manner. The SPIN that we do, speaks for itself…and, just because HRC and her supporters BELIEVE something or SAY something — doesn’t make it so. It is inappropriate for ANYONE to make personal judgements/assertions regarding the posts of a grown, professional woman — based upon subjective guesses — as a personal attack. One of the things I find fascinating is how the post I am referencing, mirrors HRC herself and her other supporters, who rather than support their position and validate their support with HARD CASH SUPPORT, would rather make pointed and lowball remarks as a replacement for real analyses and CIVIC ACTION. I wouldn’t worry about the Republicans on this site and their attempts to SHUT DOWN PUBLIC DISCOURSE and further HRC/Conservative FUSED machinations. It will all be over soon. Promise. :-)

By Renata on 05/14/2008 4:01 am