Buckeye State Blog - Back to Reality - Comments

I was waiting for debate

BuckeyeNation — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:43:44 -0700

not petty insults.

Ah I see you only read every 100th word?

Jill — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:36:49 -0700

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.

Oh, the irony

BuckeyeNation — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:24:49 -0700

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.

Now Obama supporters

Nov1976 — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:42:56 -0700

and especially African Americans understand what Ted went through when the big city mayors had a stink about endorsing him. I have seen this charade on gender and race before and it is highly unhealthy for us as a nation. It will come down to labeling everyone to the point that the lable that they carry is all that defines them. I happen to feel that Hillary is more then just her gender and Obama is more then his race. I am contemplating writing a book on this subject. Mainly that of the tribalism and political correctness that molds and shapes the population of this country.

Response

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:47:00 -0700

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.

Huh?

BuckeyeNation — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:42:56 -0700

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.

Do you read every 10th word or something?

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:36:35 -0700

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.

So dismissive

BuckeyeNation — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:07:57 -0700

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.

If they do that, they need to resign from their positions in the

Nicole — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:23:14 -0700

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.

As a Fellow Hillary Clinton Supporter and a person who

Russ — Fri, 16 May 2008 06:31:35 -0700

also ran, unsuccessfully for the 12th Congressional District, I can understand the frustration over our candidate now winning in this protracted Presidential Primary season. But, as I've said throughout the campaign, I will fully support the eventual winner of this important race. Why? Because our NATION is at risk and I will not help the Republicans retain the White House one second longer than necessary. I have always respected Cynthia and have enjoyed meeting Jamie, but I cannot follow them in this folly. Do I belive there has been sexism at work in this race, yes, do I think racism has been at work in this race yes. Both issues are repugnant and should be called out and those using those tactics called to the carpet. When all is said and done, if Mr. Obama is the Nominee, as it appears, I urge all the Hillary for President supporters to work doublly hard to elect him to the Presidency. John "McBush" is not an option. With that said, I think it is time to dial back the retoric against Mrs. Clinton and start to ask her supporters to consider Mr. Obama as their candidate. Continued attacks are pointless in a race that is all but over. All the best, on to November and on to a new and Bright America!

Again I agree but let me add

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:41:50 -0700

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.

The Wife Defense

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:36:11 -0700

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.

Yep

scurrvydog — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:33:13 -0700

Go ahead and cut your throat and bleed all over my drive way. I'll get the hose out and wash all the mess down the storm sewer. THAT'LL SHOW ME!

Bingo

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:25:19 -0700

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.

5 stages?

Nick D — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:58:45 -0700

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.

Back to Reality

Nick D — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:14:16 -0700

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.