Print This Post
May
24
UPDATE: Finally! Someone realized that I’m a Republican blogger. I’m sure that will completely floor Tom Blumer of Bizzy Blog and Dave at Nixguy. Not to mention the PD. From Securing America:
Original post:
Joyce, who left a comment in my first post about the Hillary Clinton Forum, reported back to the Forum on what she found at WLST. Here’s her report:
“All of your comments above by the way are listed on her website. I think she thinks that our outrage here is just “so cute”. I told her she should have more respect for her elders and should realize we weren’t that easily manipulated. By all means, go check out her assessment of the bloggers here. It leaves a lot to be desired.”
That led a fellow forum member to say that they can’t find the comments, probably because “all of your comments” are not listed here. Nor will they find an assessment of the bloggers in the forum – I didn’t do any. I let their words speak for themselves.
As for the “so cute” – not sure why she thinks I think that, but okay.
Here are a few more opinions they have of WLST:
Joyce says she replied to me but there’s no comment that I’ve seen in my regular or spam folder so here it is as she published it on her site:
I’m surprised that she does not know of Ellen Bravo’s work. But, okay.
Now I’m sure that several Ohio bloggy Obama supporters who’ve spewed at me because they think I support Clinton will just love this one:
Again, the assertion that I can’t possibly be a woman:
George, John, Wendy, Eric, Anthony, Jeff – I am so sorry – I have fooled you all this time. I am not a woman.
Now, this comment has a fascinating suggestion: have Geraldine Ferrarro read my work on the air:
And there you have it. Hillary Clinton supporters at the Hillary Clinton Forum.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:15 am May 24th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Blogging, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Voting, WCPN/SOI, Women
Comments
21 Responses to “[Updated] Update: Hillary Clinton Forum says I’m not a woman, wants Ferrarro to read my post on air”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
They have gone off into the fantasy land of a politician as messiah. Once that point of view is adopted any opponent is automatically evil. I, advisedly, use stark terms and exaggertion for some. If you attempt to point out errors or excesses in their thinking or point into another direction you become a part of that opponent’s schemes. This not a large circle and it is not tolerant of dissent and the closed and circular nature of their interaction results in a hyping of their view.
One of the Hilblogs wrote something slightly critical of Hillary (not unfounded) and the commenters quickly dismissed their host – “I don’t know why she wrote that” and moved on with the anger and frustration. Their ‘bestest’ friend was immaterial, Hillary is it right up until – you guessed it – Hillary pledges to support the nominee and all her supporters should, ’sorry, I won’t do that..’ If any news is trusted, it is Fox.
This is not a group that is subject to being reasoned with at this point. If they no longer have their closed loop within which to feedback they may break out of it. I’m dubious.
You stuck your foot in it with these folks, they may forget you after a bit. You don’t mention being surprised.
Thanks, Chuck. No – I guess I’m not surprised. In fact, you know what I’ve been realizing this evening?
I was thinking about how nasty and virulent bloggers who support either candidate asthough their lives depended on it have been around the sphere on blogs and news sites – just totally unwarranted craziness and shouting and not dialoguing or inquiring or anything. I mean, totally not the way people talk to one another – at least, no one I engage with.
And I was trying to figure out – how can this be? It’s over the top crazy – for a political candidate. I have people in my life with life-threatening diagnoses and accidents and real-time real-threatening things happening to them.
This is a primary political race between two politicians who want to “win.” How can we be okay with making every, single solitary statement as a personal banner for what we will live and die for as it relates to one of three ultimate victors for president?
Important? Yes. Important to call people all kinds of personal insults and accuse them of stuff that is nothing like who they are or what they do? (think of the forum people saying I’m a man etc.)
That doesn’t compute to me.
So – I’ve been trying to understand: why have I never seen this kind of behavior before? What is so different?
And you know what I think it is – why I realize now that those forum members’ obsessions with what I’ve written doesn’t surprise me?
Because think of how, classically, who votes in a primary? The base – the hardcore and, they say, the extremists – at least that’s what I’ve read re: how it is that we end up with far-right or far-left candidates who cannot win in the end: because the base comes out and nominates someone who is not palatable to the rest of the party en masse.
So my theory is, I’m now mixing in a sea of die-hards, of those average primary voters, who are not representative of the average voter in general.
Now – what’s different this year is that so many more people have registered to vote and so many more have in fact voted – so that’s extraordinary and welcome.
But for me, as part of the blogs, I don’t think that those new primary voters are really around where I go that much. I think I read and mingle among a very die-hard activist group.
And I’m just not nor have I ever been a very die-hard activist member of any group (with a few exceptions that have nothing to do with politics).
The die-hards really have little tolerance for my lack of die-hardness and I have little acceptance of their tunnel vision devotion – regardless of who it’s for – think of the Huckabee devotees, not just the Clintonistas or Obamaniacs.
I’m just not on the extreme, I don’t want to be pushed to the extreme, I’m not influenced by what people on the extremes try to call me and so on.
Because that’s not the kind of primary voter I am. Never was, not going to be.
What do you think Chuck? Does any of that explain anything, you think?
The fact that every politician has supporters that have a hard time maintaining even a small degree of decorum and intelligence is one of the sad facts of life in 2008 America.
When did we lose the ability to simply disagree with another person and not see them as the embodiment of evil???
Sheep, Shepard and Wolves
I wondered into the field seeking intellect, was taken back by the mindless back and fourth. The sheep all had their own agenda following each other this way and that way, they did not respond to reason, I did not sense any intellect. So I ate my fill.
Kevin – I agree completely with that sentiment. I don’t know the answer.
Oengus – not lemmings, huh?
We have people coming out for reasons of their own as opposed to politics. Race and gender are not political, they are cultural. Yes, I am aware they’ve played a role all along, this time they aren’t roles for many, they are front and center. Some who’ve been in right along have found new agendas – not so new – but new to front place. Ex: abortion is a female issue in the end, it is about a woman’s body and it has played high in the list, this year for many women Hillary’s gender trumps that. They will risk an election that puts reproductive choice at real risk. Stated by the other side risk with a court that could go any day. Let’s not even try to measure the effects of race.
The point is that long repressed desires show a chance of being realized so walls are going up all over the place. The main female vote breaks mostly by age, there is almost no break in black vote. Women of a certain age group never really believed they’d see a female president, wanted to, but not believed like having it happening in front of their eyes.
Either gender or race is going to get disappointed and neither is willing. Infrequently you will hear, it’s our turn or it’s her turn; but I’ll bet more wide spread than expressed. This promotes that messiah thinking I mentioned. Finally. Now. The opponent opposes ‘that?’ Evil person.
I’m good at politics. I’ve been deeply interested from pre-teens. I’m not much good at this, it isn’t politics. It is about something outside that and political calculations won’t do. I have a strong passionate belief system, but I understand consensus and I understand the longer view. We have two politicians, and one, Hillary, has had a real problem with being a short term thinker for at least 35 years. I’m not going to detail that, see my site, but it is an aggravating feature. Obama plays the long game (see primary strategy) and is subtle and leaves many things lay on the table unused – it is brilliant stuff but not splashy. Hillary’s is noisy and confrontational, quick hits and then a hole. Her supporters get yanked around, pumped up and then deflated as the long term rides through the holes. I can’t really take a measure of Obama’s supporters, he holds them (excepting a couple glitches) with pretty continuous effect.
Hillary’s supporters are seesawed along with the messiah thing. (I’m way over simplifying and lumping) Throw into that already explosive mix blogs dedicated to whipping it up. In ordinary life you might notice a few of these people, but in this season on the web it’s nuts.
Obama is going to win the nomination. It isn’t a question, the question is how messy will it be and how hardened Hillary’s supporters will be. I have a complete understanding of how the primary system works and I work with super delegates and know super delegates and I know the parliamentary proceedures that are used. (a super that recently announced that has been a complete mystery has been known to me for several months) Hillary has one card to play and that is just how messy she’s willing to make it, and believe me there are other cards that say ‘We can destroy you’ right back. A Senator can be made to simply disappear, a black hole. The problem is the GE.
Reality of policies says there is only one outcome for either’s supporters – and it usually isn’t this close. Self-interest says the response is vote Obama in the GE. That should be a given and it isn’t. VP probably can’t repair this problem and I doubt the candidate can. On blogs with the closed loop effect going I doubt surrogates can get any traction. Look how bad I pissed off one of your commenters trying to make nice. Simply stating that she wasn’t ready to hear about it pissed her off so bad she didn’t even admit knowing what I was talking about.
The web has the difficulty of anonymous communication. No visual or audiotory cues and an unknown on the other side. Boy is it easy to be rude or take offense. And you’re an intruder. There’s a whole boat load of people willing to drive the car off a cliff for spite – and deny it has anything to do with it. I leave this bunch alone, I only tried it here because I know the tone of WLST. Not on this one I didn’t.
I don’t know how hard core your people ordinarily are, Jill. I think you’re the best judge of that, but despite your affectation of not being a hard core activist, you are. Not a winger, I’m that, but you cannot describe your activities as ordinary committments. But you’ve been around systems long enough to be a bit cynical and that leads to thoughtfulness and reason. Your site is different from mine, but you’re not soft spoken or discrete quite often.
Posts like your Bravo one may do more good than you know, many who decide you’re right will simply read and move on, but if you persist you are going to get whacked. Feel fortunate if it is somebody actually taking time to type something, I get cut and paste spammed.
If I keep posting comments of this length I’ll be taking on the role of a writer and that’s not what I meant to do to you. I’ve had some time because it’s been raining and my current job is tearing off a roof and replacing it – surprisingly people don’t like me adding leaks.
thanks for asking me to play
I think there are a lot of others preying on these sheep. I’ve been perusing some of the many independent web sites devoted to Hillary and there are more than a few that appear to be set up by people seeking to derail dem unity while at the same time, making money from donations “to meet operational costs” of their sites.
It would be interesting to know who, for example, is behind hillaryclintonforum.net and what their political affiliation is. They’ve gone out of their way to keep that information private as there is nothing on the web site other than “The Hillary Clinton Forum is Funded & Maintained by an Independent Volunteer” and the site is registered through domainsbyproxy.com so you can’t (easily) get any information about the owners.
It is funny for a minute you were a man addressing a group of irate Clinton supporters.
They felt compelled to make you a chauvinist, how did that feel. Verklempt?
P. Springer – very good points. I did look to try and fine a sponsor of some type but couldn’t. Sigh.
Oengus – it hasn’t made me “feel” anything other than “they really need to demonize someone” and “they really have very narrow perspectives.” That’s about it. It’s a shame that saying what I said is so closely identified by some people as being gender-specific.
Chuck – you are the second person to say that re: being an activist in the last 24 hours.
I don’t know – I guess maybe I’m feeling judged by people who have a different standard of activism that involves being nutty crazy and bully-like. If I’m going to see myself as an activist, it can’t have anything to do with that – well, I suppose it’s okay to be in love with that which you are pushing for. But not inaccessible to how others feel or hearing other people’s reasoning etc.
That’s when the nutty activist thing scares me off. Going so far that no one can hear you, that you can’t engage – that’s no place I want to be. Because then you are just preaching to the choir – who wants to do that? There’s no challenge there, nothing to be gained.
Putting time, energy, and serious thought (as well as money?)in projects involving the public good rather than personal is activism. If you wish to buy into the “dirty” definitiion that makes it meaness and loonytoons, then you’ve let somebody with an agenda define the word for you. I am an activist – do you find me mean and divisive? I am a part of less than 1% of the Democratic Party that works seriously on the mechanisms, I am not a sometimes volunteer (no I get no money), I have regularly scheduled meetings (some real serious travel) and real responsibilities, things that are expected of me because I put myself in that position. I advocate and then I do the work of trying to make it real.
If you want a word that defines that part of your life, the things that you do that I call activism, what word would you choose? The fact that the (R)’s have mangled the definition of a word doesn’t change it, the left or such are activits, their people are values voters or the base or… Utter nonsense. You’re a writer – use the word that means what it means and screw the language manglers.
Chuck – you make an excellent point, you are right about the mangling of the word, I agree. I do have a lot of ambivalence about the word.
One of my fears: you find out what you don’t like with that which you’ve become aligned. I don’t want to be aligned with a formal party structure because I can tell you now from the beginning that there are things about them that I don’t like.
I want to possess and act on the deeds that are emblematic of being active or an activist, but I don’t want all the attending negatives to be expected of me as well – this is one reason I don’t like labels: because they are bound to not be accurate at least some of the time. Nothing is that monolithic.
I’m finding a lot lately that the fight to stay unable to be defined gets tougher and tougher.
Sorry, but you know better than this, you are defined by your actions, ie: one who steals is definably a thief. A political activist is one who engages deeply in the political area. A Democratic Party activist is one who engages deeply in Democratic Party mechanisms. You’ve read some of my stuff and know some of my reputation, do I fit the label “typical Democrat?” I know where I want politics to go and see the Democratic Party as the most likely mechanism so I try to cajole it in that direction – what box does that put me in? Plow through the archives of my blog and tell me how it is that I’m boxed in.
Other people’s assignation of labels is meaningless, so what? Are you a man? You’ve been labeled one. If you let that stuff constrain you then you are defined, but not self-defined. I have way too much respect for you to imply that you’re craven or submissive, but you are giving ground to a fiction by even being concerned by this.
Gads, if I were in the flattery business I could hang all sorts of definitions on you that you’d love to have and be proud of. Those are based on your writing and public actions, so they’re valid.
short version – KMA if you don’t like it. I am who I am.
Ok – now you are just being unkind!
You make a strong case but I’m in a weakened state, on my second day of Alka Seltzer Cold Plus to stay sentient (well, partly anyway).
I’m nodding my head slowly side to side but I still want to argue caution. Why won’t you let me be cautious? No one wants to let me be cautious. Why is that? lol
I have to agree with Chuck, Jill (piling on, I know
). I’ve become more & more active in politics over the last decade, yet I found myself cringing as a politician who you & I both know introduced me to his adult children as a union “activist”.
My reaction? (inward, not outward, as I nodded & smiled) “huh? whaaa? ME? uh-uh. Don’t pigeonhole me, don’t label me, PLEASE.” I learned to live with it.
Chuck is right, Jill. If you fight for what you believe, whether by words, deeds or financial contributions, you’re an activist. It’s not the worst label you could have slapped on you – and it’s certainly not the worst label that’s been slapped on you this week
Okay – what are they paying you? I’ll double it!
Sigh – oh, okay. I’m activist. Now watch, there will be no more WLST tomorrow because the sky fell down.
See?
Welcome to the dark side, Jill
Your official activist armband with the clenched fist (printed with the union *bug*, of course) is in the mail…..
It is entirely unfair to push around a sick person…nah.
I understand the Party reluctance, but the simple fact of life is that they are the most powerful influence in politics. I’m a gol darned insurrectionist, I burrow in and act all responsible as I try to co-opt the system. Classic guerilla tactics, revolutionaries, subversives, all my kind of people – in American politics and culture.
I know, I mess about in things like an even break for everybody in society, the idea that the Bill of Rights isn’t some optional theory, the idea that I want my nation respected before feared. (no, I really don’t mind the idea that there is an iron fist inside the kid glove) I insist that labor has value and deserves respect and real compensation. I want our people actually educated, not filled with superstitions and propagandistic crap. I want religion respected and kept out of the public square.
Would it please me to find out that Cyahoga Co Democratic Party (DNC) had its head out of its ass because Jill Zimon was in there pitching, sure it would. But that kind of fight takes a lot and not many are cut out for it. But…without the Jills of the world it stays the way it is.
Why is it that 0.5% of the registered voters participate in Party politics? At least partly because they don’t realize that it is the backdoor, the regular folk’s access to the politicians. Sure, I use the servant’s entrance – so what? I’m in the house which is where I want to be.
Take care of your illness. Take care of your head. Don’t worry about the loons, they’re sound and fury signifying nothing.
Oh,hey, I’m back in the OR BNN top 10, 10 in fact. Blogburst has tailed off to almost nothing, I’ll have to pick it up a little if I want that editorial attention.