"Clinton Supporters Count Too" : When is a groundswell not a groundswell?

The answer: when it's being led by party insiders masquerading as "regular people."  You may recall Jodi Kantor's NYT article, headlined "Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim", that was referenced in a front page diary.  In it, we were presented with the views of women inside and outside of politics, about sexism and the role of gender in the Democratic primary.  One quote that stood out as particularly galling:

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.

Who is this self-starter, this grassroots organizer?

Is she just a Sales Director for Mary Kay cosmetics, as the NYT tells us?  Or is she, as the always-obfuscatory Fox News chyron suggests, just a "Clinton Supporter," the implication being that she's just one of the electorate, Jane Q. Voter?

In short, no.  She's not.  
--She ran for congress in 1994 and 1996 by raising questions about her Republican opponent's sexuality.  The same year, Bill Clinton gave her props in a speech at Ohio State.
--She is on the Executive Committee of the Franklin County Democratic Party, an position so important in local politics that a candidate for State Rep. cited her endorsement.

All this and more was picked up and discussed last week on No More Mister Nice Blog and Blogger Interrupted.

To refresh your memory, a few days prior to this latest flap, Ruccia had appeared on O'Reilly:

In this appearance, she accuses Howard Dean of running an "incredibly sexist" campaign and then cites, as support for this accusation, something Chris Matthews said.  Go figure.  

Obviously, O'Reilly and Fox didn't care what her background was, so they either didn't dig into it or willfully avoided mentioning it.  I'd hope that the New York Times would be a bit more circumspect.  Why wouldn't they look into her history and at least mention it.  Maybe for the same reason they didn't think to ask Geraldine Ferraro exactly how Obama has run a "sexist campaign."

Anyway, from Nash McCabe to Cynthia Ruccia, I'm tired of watching the media dig only a hair's breadth beneath the surface in their quest to find average voters and grassroots types.  Are they so afraid of getting out into the field and doing some work?  And if they are, mightn't they give the ol' Google a spin?

•  No one in the media has asked

  a fundamental question--why has Clinton lagged so far behind Obama in fundraising?  I think it reveals a lot about the "loyalty" of her supporters.  She has a very committed core, but it's fairly small.  If Clinton had done as well among women as Obama has among African-Americans, she would have been the nominee, easily.

  by Night Runner on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:14:04 AM PDT

  •  Keep doing it on the Interwebbs

    This site and others offer an alternative to the laziness of te BFCM (Big Fat Corporate Media), and this is the future of news communication and dissemination.

    We know, and in time, that will be enough to expose the big lie.

    by MooseHB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM PDT

  •  A lot of women of a certain age, like me,

    never viewed her as a feminist, and never supported her from the beginning.

    Maybe these are the girls who got their way on the playground by yelling the loudest.

    (I know that sounds sexist in a way, but dammit, I'm tired of this charade by the Clintonistas about "women who don't support Hillary are anti-feminist.")

    by murasaki on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:22 AM PDT

•  They are not news organizations

  They are propagandists doing their best to stir up racial and gender-based resentment against the Democratic nominee. Were that nominee Clinton they would do the same thing with different 'citizen interviews'.

  by global citizen on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:18:15 AM PDT

•  In all of these articles, if you replace

  the words "Clinton supporter" with "Beltway insider," the whole thing makes so much more sense.

  Starting with Geraldine Ferraro and working your way down, these so-called "Angry Women for Clinton" are, in fact, wealthy upper middle class champions of changing nothing because they've got it quite nice as it is, thank you very much.  

  "Female solidarity" is just a handy banner behind which this small but noisy faction tries to hide their cheerleading for the status quo.

  by Loquatrix on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:19:36 AM PDT

  •  Very astute comment Loquatrix. thanks.

    by murasaki on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

•  Where's your tip jar?

  You've earned it.

  by Catte Nappe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:21:25 AM PDT

•  O'Reilly doesn't care

  For him it was a double shot -- another chance to slime KO and MSNBC, and at the same time to smear Obama and the DNC, and get Dems to argue among themselves over fake issues.

  I have yet to see anybody ask this "group" about membership or support or their origins.

  Hillary could stop this. She isn't doing so. I completely hold her responsible.

  by Montco PA Dem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:21:38 AM PDT

  •  She should have stopped it long ago.

    http://clintondems.com/
    New web site. I dont think these issues are being taken seriously enough.
    These people are becoming organized and vicious.

    by snowbird42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM PDT

    •  damnit - victimhood is NOT the new black

      not now, not ever ... will anyone be able to get through to these folks????

      Women in my family who are leaders in women's issues in their respective industries find the HRC campaign mantra of alleged sexism to be just a form of the 101st division of whiners.

      These folks do not even get that in fact THEY ARE THE ONES lowering themselves to said victim status. What a horrendous disservice to women past these political days - if it wasn't bad enough before, now women will have to overcome the negative (if not rancid) hillary campaign factor!

      REALLY AUTHENTIC PEOPLE grow through EMPOWERMENT.

      Sorry, very sorry for the shouting here, but I cannot stand it any more.

      by sundancekid11 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:42 AM PDT

    •  This fucking pisses me off.

      Hillary Clinton or any other solitary person does not the Democratic Party make.

      If they're not willing to support the Democratic nominee, they're not Democrats and that's all there is too it.

      I say let them vote for McCain if that's the way they want to be, because I don't want people like that in my party.

      Party first, above anything... anything else is petulance and ego and I want nothing to do with it.

      by MichiganGirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:19 AM PDT

    •  Interesting site

      But I wonder what the point is. Their blog roll includes quite enough other outlets for their views.

      by Catte Nappe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:01 AM PDT

      •  A lot of these sites I think...

        ... are published so they can put each other in their blogrolls... looks impressive to have that big blogroll, eh?

        Talk about a circle jerk...

        by highacidity on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:45:19 AM PDT

    •  If these are real Democrats...

      and there are not just a fringe minority, we are in trouble.  I mean the party and country are in trouble.  Based on the few dozen comments I read (all of them boastingly anti-Obama), they are eager to punish Obama and the DNC for creating a primary process that Hillary did not win by voting for McCain over Obama in the GE.

      Since there were no dissenting opinions (or even moderate opinions), these comments may have been heavily sanitized/sock puppets.  Not once did anyone mention how Hillary had every advantage coming into the election and she just plain lost to a candidate that voters preferred more.  They insist the sexist DNC and media have been out to get her the whole time.

      Hopefully, they were never Democrats to begin with.  One of the comments I read was actually asking if there were any GOP blogs that were friendly to Hillary supporters.  Another mentioned that the user would only be watching Fox News from now on since that is the only source for fair and balanced coverage.

      by maveg on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

  •  Anachronistic O'Reilly

    If it would "slime" KO, would bring on one A. Schickelgruber, and proceed to make him look calm and levelheaded.

    by MooseHB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM PDT

  •  BillO should have an inside track on who she is

    However, during his 1996 re-election campaign Kasich's Democratic opponent in his House race, Cynthia Ruccia, made comments regarding Kasich's sexuality in an attempt to damage him with conservative voters. Ruccia raised the question of the propriety of bachelor Kasich sharing a Washington townhouse with his male chief-of-staff.

    He formally hosted Heartland with John Kasich and also guest hosts The O'Reilly Factor, filling in for Bill O'Reilly when necessary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    by Catte Nappe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:45 AM PDT

•  Fox took great glee in having these

  two women on. They are also proud of having a contact within the Clinton campaign. I wonder who that might be?

  by Overseas on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:22:00 AM PDT

•  you know what?

  they'll get over it...

  move along...

  by Steven R on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:23:00 AM PDT

  •  Im not sure.

    Take a look at these websites and remember they are Dems...or are they
    http://clintondems.com/

    by snowbird42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:24:41 AM PDT

    •  under "friendly blogs" -- hillaryis44!

      LMAO, 'nuff said.

      by IndieinVa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM PDT

•  Who is saying they don't?

  The question no one asked about all this nonsense is the one that question that undercuts the premise of the group. Who is claiming Clinton Supporters don't count?

  They count, they voted, and those votes are counted.  However, Clinton lost. Plain and simple.

  by Larry Madill on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:24:15 AM PDT

  •  They're just pushing the "count MI and FL" meme

    That's why they don't think they count.  Ruccia's co-conspirator in the O'Reilly clip calls it disenfranchisement of millions, raising the dubious, charged connection to FL in 2000.

    by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:24 AM PDT

    •  Even if you count Florida and Michigan

      She still can't win.

      by Larry Madill on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:37:32 AM PDT

•  I was in the media..

  the reason no one looks too deeply is that the researchers and other "little" people are underpaid and overworked, straining just to get a show on every day.  It's not that they don't want to do a better job.  It's just that the producers and associate producers are working 16-hour days just to run in place. Why?  Because if they complain, as the bosses so often tell them, "Twenty-five people want your job and i could replace you tomorrow just like that" (cue finger snap)

  by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

•  Bottom line

  There is one person who can demonstrate leadership and set the expectation of what kind of support has a positive impact on the remainder of this race and the future unity of the Democratic party.

  The silence is deafening.

  by Vita Brevis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:28:58 AM PDT

•  Shun her

  --She is on the Executive Committee of the Franklin County Democratic Party, an position so important in local politics that a candidate for State Rep. cited her endorsement.

  If she keeps this nonsense going past the point where Clinton concedes then I certainly hope that she loses her position on this committee.  She should be completely shunned by the Democratic Party.  Trying to undermine our chances this Fall is unforgivable.  Hopefully she'll put the pipe down and regain her senses.  If she apologizes for this little media tour she's making and then supports the nominee then perhaps she can hang onto her position.  If not then she needs to be drummed OUT, and quick.  

  by Triscula on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:28 AM PDT

  •  It's not about that, I don't think

    I think it's about scoring brownie points with Clinton and a last-ditch effort to get the DNC to count FL and MI.

    by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:55 AM PDT

    •  the DNC is going to count FL & MI

      the lie comes when somehow the number of votes in MI&FL acquired mythical proportions and it will change everything, she won b/c according to Penn's math she won the popular vote.

      by  pushing that agenda they are de-legitimizing the whole primary process and BHO's victory, and that will be fodder to further divisions.

      by IamTheJudge on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:46:37 AM PDT

    •  I don't really care

      Whatever twisted motivations are rattling around in that woman's head her efforts are to the direct detriment of the Democratic party.  She's crossed the line with this crap and I think she should be gone from any position of influence within the party, at any level.  As far as I'm concerned she's a mole for the McCain campaign now.  She can go work for him.

      by Triscula on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM PDT

      •  are you talking about Hillary

        or Ruccia?  It's starting to get hard to tell.

        by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:53 AM PDT

        •  I'm talking about Ruccia.

          Hillary, despite some very unattractive campaign tactics and her campaign's apparent difficulties with math and remembering the primary rules, hasn't done anything other than run a very aggressive campaign.  She has also stated, more than once, that she'll support the nominee.  I'm looking forward to her exit but I don't think she's done anything egregious.  

          Ruccia, on the other hand, has crossed the line and I think she's forfeited her seat on any Democratic Party committee.  As I said above, suspending this effort quickly, followed by strenuous apologies might be sufficient for her to remain in a position of influence within the Ohio state party, but nothing short of that would satisfy me (not that I have any say in the matter, just expressing my opinion here).

          by Triscula on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:16:37 AM PDT

          •  The impression I get from my limited research

            Is that she's sort of a perennial also-ran local party hack.  If you look at the link to No More Mister Nice Blog above, you'll find that she runs a motivational seminar service for Dem Fundraising.  Their website, at least, gives the impression of a low-budget, not-so-in-demand deal.  

            She's probably looking for any and all publicity for herself, along with whatever twisted goal she has re: the Clinton campaign.  Just a guess.  Probably never got over being beaten badly twice in congressional campaigns, and is trying for some kind of comeback.

            My guess is that she's a pretty minor player in OH Dem. politics who has delusions of grandeur.  Hence her scorched-earth approach-- It's all or nothing, baby!  Now or never!

            by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:48 AM PDT

    •  if you are slavish to another woman

      say, a powerful woman who has master clout, does this make you freer and more feminist ... the irony with some ladies is totally priceless - even if their blinders render them blind to their own words.

      by sundancekid11 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

•  Whether or not you want to play chicken...

  ...with Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama is your own business, and fortunately it doesn't really matter.  It;s up to the actual Obama campaign, and Obama himself, to take a cold, hard look at things and determine whether they want to play chicken with those Clinton supporters.  I suspect their answer will not look like yours.

  by Rich in PA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM PDT

  •  When someone

    who is a Democratic party official reveals plans to actively campaign against the Democratic party nominee, you don't 'play chicken'. You say "Get the fuck out". It applies to Lieberman, and it applies equally to this turncoat.

    by ChurchofBruce on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:43:49 AM PDT

    •  Agreed.

      by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM PDT

•  Clinton using Rove to legitamize her math

  Karl Rove has destroyed American Liberties and thumbs his nose at Conyer's subpoena but Hillary uses his
  logic and findings to bolster her claims that she should stay in the race!

  Any democrat that uses Karl Rove to legitimize their actions has ceased to act or represent the democratic party.

  I was for Hillary until she sought the support of neocons!

  by marsbardem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:18 AM PDT

•  She is another one of those.....

  didn't care who the woman running was but by gosh it was a woman and she was going to win. That type of mentality will only get our country on the back end of losing.
  Thank god the people in her area saw through her gender/lying crap and did not elect her.
  I know this will sound crude but I am sick to death of women wishing they had a penis!

  by Sam In College on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM PDT

  •  I was a woman in a male-dominated industry...

    and I never once wished I could pee standing up.  Please don't insult us.

    by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:01 AM PDT

    •  If your insulted then thats your problem

      and not mine. When a group of women come out and attempt to say that ALL woman are for Clinton? I am going to call busllshit and say it the way I see it. If that insults you? Don't read or respond. Your just another case of being your own worst enemy and then trying to blame others.

      by Sam In College on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:09 AM PDT

      •  Sam, you're conflating a few HRC supporters,

        with womankind in general.  There are plenty of women who don't support Clinton.  I am one those.
        When you say:

        I know this will sound crude but I am sick to death of women wishing they had a penis!

        you made a blanket generalization.  That's why we are offended.

        by Alohilani on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:06:59 AM PDT

      •  Don't respond? Who the F*** are you to tell me..

        I didn't survive in a male job by sitting down and accepting crap form anyone of any gender. How dare you say I have a problem when I don't want to be told YET AGAIN that I and any other woman who achieves something suffers from penis envy?

        No one here said all women vote for Clinton. I certainly did not.  But don't pull that penis envy crap on anyone ever again.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

        And what am I trying to blame on others?  My incredibly successful career as a television director?  Hey buddy, I did it by being better than any of the men I came across.  Those were the rules and I played by them.  I was never a victim.  I just won Emmys.

        Oh, I forgot. You instructed me not to reply.  why, can't you take it?  What is it about me you envy?

        by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:11:48 AM PDT

        •  Sam has "a way with words"

          I've run across Sam comments before and they often manage to be needlessly inflammatory.

          FWIW, Sam also claims to be a 50ish female.

          by Catte Nappe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM PDT

          •  Actually, I apologize to everyone except

            Sam.  (S)he hit a hot button of mine I thought was long dead and buried.

            by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

            •  Nooo - don't apologize! You rock! /nt

              by Alohilani on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM PDT

              •  Yeah, us 50+ females..

                can still kick some butt.

                by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:25:23 AM PDT

      •  Easy, there.

        by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:11 AM PDT

  •  Well, certain women, anyway.

    Remember the remark about Hillary having "testicular fortitude"?  I don't remember any outcry among Clinton's supporters over that remark.

    by Alohilani on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM PDT

    •  Excellent point!

      by dorothyinchina on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM PDT

      •  I cringed when I read that.

        But all HRC and her supporters did was laugh, when it was said.  It was truly distasteful.

        by Alohilani on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

  •  If you knew it would sound crude

    Why did you have to include it? It doesn't particularly enhance your point.

    by Catte Nappe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:01:14 AM PDT

•  Ms. Myers and Ms. Ruccia

  O'Reilly mocked these two to their faces and it didn't even register.  It didn't come close to registering.  How dense can two people be?

  by EntrWriter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:42:49 AM PDT

•  Please send an email to the NYT about this. n/t

  by Tim in CA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM PDT

  •  I already did, but you know how these things go.

    Not expecting a response.

    by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:52:47 AM PDT

•  Hillary lost because of her Iraq vote

  not gender.

  And she was also dishonest.

  So let's get on with and win the GE.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:49:21 AM PDT

•  Ohio Dems should throw her out

  I live in Ohio and when Ruccia started getting TV exposure, I did a little research on her. I found exactly what you have discussed here: she is a party insider who has in the past run for office.

  I realize that Ted Strickland and many of the Ohio Democratic Party structure supported Clinton, but when Obama is the nominee this sort of activity can't be tolerated. I suspect that the Ohio Democrats will shut Ruccia up before too long. And she certainly should be stripped of her executive committee position.

  by Getreal1246 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM PDT

•  Has anyone seen all the journalists?

  What are all of the cable networks going to do when the election is over and the campaigns no longer write the news? I know that Fox will do what it did in the 90s: question the honesty of the president, criticize the integrity of the president, express fear at the liberties the president is taking, blah, blah, blah.

  The type of reporting we have heard lately about Ferraro and Ruccia are exactly what happens when the MSM takes dictation from Howard Wolfson. Does anyone remember the good old days when news reporters REPORTED NEWS and didn't just reprint memos from campaigns about nonsense?

  by voracious on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. But...

    My contention is less that HRC's campaign is connected to Ruccia (I don't have any evidence of that), and more that Ruccia has been a Dem. Party player for over a decade (who, at least back then, was nominally supported by Bill Clinton), but is being given publicity as a cosmetics saleswoman and a "mad-as-hell" grassroots type.

    by rambis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      You are correct. It seems like everything the media uses to tell a story is a total con. Let's call Ruccia out!

      by voracious on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM PDT

•  The Repubs. probably make these ppl easy

  to find.

  The reporters think they're going out on Usenet, or various blogs, or wherever and finding genuine Obama-hating Democrats for McCain.

  In some cases, of course, that might really be the case. McCain has a truly compelling story, and I'm sure that there are plenty of Democrats who simply have a crush on him.

  But my guess is that, 99 percent of the time, when you see a story like this, whether the reporter or the people interviewed it realize it or not, there's some kind of Republican public relations person lurking in the background.

  We're seeing all of these articles about how the Republicans have no money, and I'm sure that's a bunch of malarkey. Maybe McCain himself doesn't have that much cash, but the shadowy figures that control the party have plenty of cash, and it's probably not that hard for the PR people to gently, invisibly help reporters "discover" the Democrats for McCain on their own.

  Example: maybe a few sincere Obama-Hating HRC Supporters really start a sincere little Democrats for McCain blog, but then paid Republican PR shills post references to the blog all over the Web and make it really easy for a reporter to find the blog.

  by sclminc on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:07:35 AM PDT