Back to Reality
Cindy Ruccia, a Bexley resident who was our party's 1996 nominee for the Ohio 12th Congressional District, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor tonight along with Jamie Dixey to announce the launch of Clinton Supporters Count Too, a group that will work to actively oppose Barack Obama in the general election in the key swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Florida. From Ben Smith's blog on Politico:
An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.
Led by Boomer-aged women, the group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, is holding a press conference in Columbus at noon to release this statement.
Organizers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, both from the Columbus area, say they’re coordinating women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan – all important swing states next November – to impress upon Democratic party leaders what they think has been outright discrimination – and not of the racial kind.
UPDATE: I didn't realize this, but Cindy Ruccia is actually a member of the Franklin County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
Kelli Crawford, an Akron City Councilwoman and President of the Summit County Young Democrats, gave BSB the following quote following NARAL Pro-Choice America's endorsement of Barack Obama:
"I found the NARAL endorsement quite hypocritical. If they wanted to hop on the bandwagon and endorse they should have waited until the primary was over. I can't wrap my head around how they are supposed to be an organization that fights for women's issues and they consciously chose not to support the woman that is most qualified to move this country forward. It makes no sense."
While I can understand these ladies' frustration at seeing the first serious female presidental candidate lose to the first serious African-American candidate in the primary, I'd like to bring them and all other folks with similar feelings back to reality and explain to them why it would be a REALLY bad idea to support John McCain instead of Barack Obama. Ready?
88-year-old (yes that's EIGHTY-EIGHT) John Paul Stevens is all that stands in the way of a Supreme Court majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. If the Republicans get to nominate Stevens' replacement (it's widely been rumored he's been holding out on the court hoping a Democrat will be elected in 2008) then we will have a Supreme Court majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. It's really that simple.
Not only that, but we will presumably also have a majority in favor of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, upon whose reasoning Roe v. Wade was based. Griswold gives unmarried women the right to take contraceptives.
Now, which do you think would be the bigger setback for the feminist movement? The overturning of these landmark Supreme Court cases, or the delaying by a few years of the first female president? And yes, I do believe it will be just a few years. I believe there are compelling female presidental candidates out there besides Hillary Clinton, first among them Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. If she runs for president, not only would I be on the bandwagon, I'd be driving it.
So, back to reality. The die is cast, Obama will be our nominee, now let's put our eyes on the prize and win this thing.
Until they think you understand how they feel, until they think you've heard what they have to say and until they think that you care about what they're concerned about. Beyond that, you (the generic you not you personally) will have to show these constituents and voters that steps, plans and/or actions are in place that will ensure that their concerns will be addressed.
They are not unlike any other constituency that is saying they won't support so and so unless that candidate makes such and such concession.
Even I hate to put it this way, but it's no different than in any other relationship where one party wants to just vent and NOT be given a solution per se, but just feel that they've been heard and will be considered, their concerns figured into all future plans. While often the other party is someone who, when hearing a concern immediately assumes the We Must Fix This Now position.
Yeah - we DO need to fix this now. But until the people who are angry feel like they are being heard, ain't gonna see no movement.
I read this crap to the extreme on Taylor Marsh and similar blogs where "looking forward to Sean Hannity tonight" or "let's go on O'Reilly to state our case" is common and encouraged.
These are Dem kooks who are attention seekers.
Going on Faux Nooze and O'Reilly's Show.
Have they no shame?
Barack Obama is about to win this nomination FAIR & SQUARE.
I can appreciate being disappointed that one's primary candidate won't win, but that's politics.
The "cause" of Ruccia and Dixey never came about until it became clear that HRC won't be the nominee, since that theme has been evolving post-Super Tuesday, these types have been hellbent on demonizing Obama.
And the more you say that, the worse you look.
First of all, they DON'T have to get over it. Who says they have to get over it? You don't get it, do you?
Why do you think Obama and his supporters stopped saying that Clinton had to get out? Why do you think they started to say, she should run as long as she wants to or thinks she should?
You are 100% wrong and demeaning in putting quotes around the word cause. The longer you hold onto your impression that there was no sexism involved in the campaigning over the last 15 months, the longer men and women, all along the political spectrum will be beating the drum about just how sexist it has been.
You are the one who needs to face reality: Obama will most likely win, but that has nothing to do with whether or not there was sexism and is sexism. There is and there was. And people - men and women - are still very, very angry about that.
Once YOU recognize that anger, give credence to it and express how you're going to make it passe, then people can let go of their disappointment.
So long as you deny the contributing factors to their disappointment - which isn't just that they had a candidate with some fatal flaws, they will remain entrenched and not "have to get over it."
Obama's win over a candidate with fatal flaws does not in any way, shape or form negate the sexism that went on. Just like any assertion that there hasn't been race-baiting doesn't make that so either.
UPDATED: Here's a post that expresses just how committed these folks are to their opinion that Obama will not get their vote. Although I disagree with the conclusion about not voting for Obama (I will vote for him), I
agreeunderstand 100% the sentiment being expressed when she says,Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won’t happen, but the Obamabots don’t seem to understand. And I know why: it’s because they don’t take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off.
Right. The better way to reward misogyny is to elect John McCain, who will appoint a conservative to fill John Paul Stevens seat on the Supreme Court, and overturn Roe v. Wade and God knows what else.
I just don't get that logic.
I also take offense to the logic that somehow disapproving of Hillary Clinton is sexist, for a similar reason I don't think its racist to criticize Ray Miller for raising $0 for the Ohio Senate caucus. You have to separate the person from the policies.
The White House Project, which is a non-partisan group that focuses on getting women into the political pipeline will be holding its first ever training in Ohio June 6-8. I will be speaking there and in attendance.
I am forwarding to some members of the steering group the suggestion that how this group is strategizing be discussed because I am 100% certain that there will be women who approve of it, and women who do not approve of it. And we must get that out there too.
But please remember, within any one "side" of any spectrum, there are always going to be people who want the same thing but do not share how to get there. That doesn't mean that they represent everyone. But it also doesn't mean that they are full of bunk.
Jill, is this the 5 stages of grief? Are Clinton's supporters grieving over her primary loss, and are angry because that's one of the five stages? And we Obama supporters don't understand why they haven't gotten to acceptance yet? And we as a party just need to let them process through their grief and air their emotions?
I've lost some close relatives in my life so I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.
At least partially, not entirely.
And although I feel as though I've been clear, I just read the quick post you have after this one and want to say: I AGREE. MANY people who voted for Clinton would AGREE: SHE DID NOT LOSE BECAUSE OF SEXISM.
But we can't excuse the sexism that DID occur just because there were plenty of reasons why she didn't win.
Likewise, shoe on other foot: what if Obama was on the less than enough of delegates and popular votes and states and Clinton had things tipping her way? Would anyone say that he "lost because of racism"? No - that wouldn't be right either. But again, we would NEVER EXCUSE racism simply because there are other reasons why he (might have) lost.
I am not saying, give them what they want - I don't even really want what they want re: Clinton or else. That's just not how I work - and I'm not at the level they are at.
But what they feel is very real and is very prevalent and is very, very dangerous.
They also happen to have a point: there was a shitload of sexism in this primary. In all different forms, from all different kinds of corners.
Just as there was and is racism.
People need to behave better, believe better and understand more.
You know, I'm veering here a little but hey - I don't comment so often so, just stop reading if anyone wants to:
Israel. You know, I have a real struggle with Israel - I lived there, worked there, love that country. But I do not consider myself a Zionist because I have very big issues with the country. I don't support AIPAC spiritually or financially and every time I get invited to one of their events, I pray I have a conflict in my schedule.
Why is feeling this way a problem? Because many Jews feel that it's Israel or nothing. That we must have one safe place we can always go to.
But I want to know why we aren't taking all our energy, or at least more of our energy, to make the entire WORLD a safe place for Jews? That's how it SHOULD be: we should be able to go anywhere, feel comfortable anywhere, be free from anti-Semitism anywhere. So I focus on efforts that explore and expand on that.
So, going full circle: I don't want McCain - that's absurd. I don't believe in such punitive stances as this group is taking. I want everyone to raise the level of their game when it comes to being anti-sexist and anti-racist. I'm not just picking up my game and leaving.
Never have been that way and I can't imagine what situation would ever prompt me to be that way (but I won't ever say never.)
Okay - lecture over. :) thanks.
There was no more sexism played against Hillary in this contest than there was racism played against Obama.
Politics is a rough game, especially since the Repubs have brought "normal discourse" into the sewer since Lee Atwater up through Karl Rove. Feathers get ruffled more often than not.
I'm not trying to be cute, but please tell me some specific instances verse where either Obama or the Democratic Party has been sexist to her.
We haven't seen it.
We would love to see a woman as the Democratic nominee, but not Hillary Clinton.
We were big John Edwards backers. We "got over" Edwards not being the nominee. We didn't hunt for reasons to explain it, or blame it on ant-Southern animus, or idiotic trial lawyer-bashing. He saw he was going to lose, fair and square, playing by the rules and he dropped out.
When Edwards was gone from the race, we didn't cry and say "screw the Democratic Party," we looked for someone we could believe in as our nominee. There's too much at stake to let Bush have a third term.
For us, choosing a new Democrat to support wasn't even close. Barack Obama represented a transcendant political figure to us and we liked the things he talked about and emphasized.
However, we both agreed that although we would be disappointed, we would back Hillary if she won the nomination, fair and square.
It's been a tough race, but only one person can be the Democratic nominee.
But people who claim they speak for a segment of the Democratic Party by publicly backing Republicans on a known Republican noise-machine, don't cut it with me or my spouse.
As they choose to follow and cozy up to Fox News and the Repubs, I have ZERO sympathy for their "cause" [Yes, in quotes, because Repub-backing by so-called Dems is a bullshit cause in my book] and I say good riddance, I brook no political favor for so-called Dems openly backing Repubs of the most repulsive sort.
I'm sure what you say is true, but I blogged about that here. As you will see, stuff has been written on exactly this line of discussion you raise by Tom Hayden (don't know how old you but he's a Calif. politician perhaps most famouse for being married to Jane Fonda at one time).
Couple of things:
1. I don't see their cause as a cause that focuses on supporting the GOP because they can't have who they want. I believe that's actually very inaccurate. Their cause is to raise the quantity and tone of discourse around issues of sexism. As I've written, I do not agree with their threats. I just don't. But I agree with the premise of sexism being a huge issue that's not getting the attention it needs if we're going to eradicate as a factor.
2. Your very first sentence: "There was no more sexism played against Hillary in this contest than there was racism played against Obama."
This is a fine assertion, but it really is irrelevant to the cause of eradicating BOTH racism AND sexism as having ANY ROLE AT ALL in campaigning. That is what we need to work toward.
I appreciate you taking the time to express what you say you and your wife have been thinking all along. Sincerely. But I obviously believe there is a lot more to be thought about.
So my wife's views don't count, because they agree with mine and I cite it to support my argument in the face of general charges of sexism by HRC supporters.
Nice, but doesn't that sound a little sexist in the context I wrote? Trying to compare my remark to one made by Tom Hayden is false and intellectually dishonest.
The problem is that claiming that sexism is the reason, is not convincing as to why HRC lost the Democratic nomination. She lost because of the incompetent men she surrounded herself with to run her campaign. They all thought it would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday; it wasn't.
Mark Penn "thought" California was a "winner-take-all" primary. It hasn't been that way since 1972.
She lost because she ran as the "experience candidate" when the country was yearning for a "change candidate."
She lost because many Dems are just tired of the Clintons.
She did not lose because she is a woman.
For God's sake, no one, not one person familiar to you, in this thread or any other that is dealing with this issue, on this blog, or mine or any of the several other Ohio political blogs that have commented on this has suggested that she lost because she was a woman. Why do you keep asserting that? You are as bad as the MSM.
Your defensiveness is really obvious.
As for the Hayden piece, for God's sake, just read the damn thing and think about the point the author is making. She isn't talking to you and your wife. Sheesh.
Unless she actually is - only you can tell us that.
C'mon, let's be intellectually honest here.
You entitle your response post, "the wife defense" then talk about a Tom Hayden article that includes some sexist remarks. If you weren't trying to impugn me with that analogy, then why did you say it? By inference, you imply because I mentioned my wife several times in my response, I too was justifying the use of sexist or misogynistic similies.
So, let me be clear on this, HRC didn't lose because she was a woman, and she did not lose because of sexism. Got it.
OK. Then why are these people, whose cause you are so ardently defending, citing sexism as the core motivation for their anger and desire to punish Obama by not supporting him?
Moreover, where was/is this sexism that is causing these people to support McSame over Barack Obama?
Other than unsourced, anecdotal bromides, you provide nothing to support the notion that HRC was the victim of rampant sexism in this campaign.
I can understand hurt feelings, discouragement, anger and resentment when your candidate does win the nomination. Been there, done that, more than once.
But I cannot understand, nor appreciate so-called Democrats going on national cable television, appearing on the show of a notorious right-wing talking-head who is hell-bent on undermining cadidates of the Democratic Party.
1. You are in total defensive, attack mode which is understandable and the reason why I don't support this group's tactics - because everyone escalates. It's a real waste of energy.
2 Intellectual honesty would mean that you read that link and comment on the link - not comment on me providing the link. Instead, all you can do is focus on why I would provide the link. Why did I provide the link? Because I've been providing shitloads of links that show, from countless perspectives, where there is sexism - overt, covert, societally accepted and rejected.
Don't suggest I'm being anything other than intellectually honest until you comment on what you think about the truth or lack of truth in that column. Otherwise, all you are doing is deflecting - and, I would suggest, being intellectually dishonest (or just plain scared of facing a reality - maybe not yours, but certainly plenty of other people's).
3. You ask, "...why are these people, whose cause you are so ardently defending, citing sexism as the core motivation for their anger and desire to punish Obama by not supporting him?"
Because they are fucking pissed that's why. But don't go conflating here. I support the cause of eradicating sexism, including how it has run rampant in this election and it needs to be eradicated and not ignored. That's all I support. I do not support becoming anti-Obama because of the sexism, I do not support voting for McCain. And that's known to every single person who has read what I've written or spoken with me.
4. Don't play this "show me" crap. You want to say there's no sexism, then you can be added to the legions who need some training. But the fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You want to see it? Go spend five minutes at Media Matters.
5. you wrote: "But I cannot understand, nor appreciate so-called Democrats going on national cable television, appearing on the show of a notorious right-wing talking-head who is hell-bent on undermining cadidates of the Democratic Party."
Again - this is because that constituency is pissed and that's how they are dealing with it. OBVIOUSLY not everyone who is pissed deals with being pissed the same way. Get over it and help find a solution so the party doesn't fall apart.
You responded to my initial post, where I said your friends should "get over it" that HRC lost:
"First of all, they DON'T have to get over it. Who says they have to get over it? You don't get it, do you?"
But now you tell me "Get over it ."
Breathtaking.
"Total defensive attack mode?" At the same time, that's a feat!
Again, there was no sexism by Obama to Hillary anymore than there was racism by Hillary to Obama. If it happened, neither was right, but none of it affected the outcome.
I'm already over it, but it's your friends who aren't.
You wrote: "it's your friends who aren't."
With this sentence, you seal the deal that you haven't read a thing I've written.
party. They are completely ridiculous. Obama is an incredible candidate and he has taken A LOT of crap from Hillary. They are as abusive as their candidate. They will do anything to try and get their way - even at the expense of the Party and the Country.
And, yes - they are indeed nut jobs if they are Democrats in elected positions going on the O'Reilly show to attack our Presidential candidate.