A Word to the "PUMAs"
"PUMA," for those who have not heard yet, means "Party Unity My Ass." It is a rather catchy rallying cry of those who are determined to derail the Democratic Party this fall because Hillary Clinton is not the nominee. There are some who say that the peopl in this movement are insincere in some way, that they are DINOs, or racists, or Rovian WISCs (Wolves In Sheep's Clothing).
Personally I would rather believe that at least some of them are sincere.
This past winter and spring Hillary supporters raised their voices in righteous outrage about how she was being mistreated and disrespected. And why not? She was being verbally abused almost constantly. I am not a Hillary supporter or a woman, but I howled at the outrages right alongside them.
Clearly, things were said to and about Hillary that would never have been allowed were she a man. Her team has plenty of reason to cry foul. There is plenty of reason to believe that the PUMAs are exactly who they say they are.
Of course, I also howled at the abuse unfairly heaped upon Barack Obama because of his race (I'm not black). And, for that matter, at that unfairly heaped upon Mitt Romney because of his religion (I am an atheist). Lots of us did. We knew that it was all wrong, that it should never happen in America. I hope Martin Niemoeller would have been proud of all of us, but that is not the point. The point is respect. The point is courtesy. The point is to stop slinging fecal matter at each other long enough to have something resembling a rational discourse.
Well, now it's Hillary's turn again. But this time Hillary is being mistreated by... well... by some of her more ardent "supporters."
So here are a few stiff words for the "PUMAs": Your candidate is no longer running. She has thrown her full-throated support behind her former rival. You sully and dishonor Hillary by putting her name on a web site that actively works against her stated wishes.
You, who claim to be her supporters, are working against everything for which Hillary Clintion stands.
Please, show your real support for Hillary. Help her get what she really wants:
• a more sane foreign policy
• help for America's working families
• respect and equal treatment in the workplace
• health care that makes sense
• a court that will protect choice, free speech, and habeus corpus
• a truly progressive agenda in the Executive Branch
Hillary knows that we can only get these things if DEMOCRATS win, and win big, from the top of the ticket to the bottom. That is why she has put aside her hard-earned pride and is throwing all her hard-earned political clout behind the Democratic Party and its nominee.
And if your pain is so much greater than Hillary's, or your will so much weaker, that unlike her you cannot see the only sane way forward and support it, then at least have the common decency to stop abusing her name and stop abusing her face.
"Party Unity My Ass" is not about Hillary; it is about you and your pain. Hillary has more reason to be hurt than anyone, and she has already moved on. So should you.
Personally I would rather believe that at least some of them are sincere.
This past winter and spring Hillary supporters raised their voices in righteous outrage about how she was being mistreated and disrespected. And why not? She was being verbally abused almost constantly. I am not a Hillary supporter or a woman, but I howled at the outrages right alongside them.
Clearly, things were said to and about Hillary that would never have been allowed were she a man. Her team has plenty of reason to cry foul. There is plenty of reason to believe that the PUMAs are exactly who they say they are.
Of course, I also howled at the abuse unfairly heaped upon Barack Obama because of his race (I'm not black). And, for that matter, at that unfairly heaped upon Mitt Romney because of his religion (I am an atheist). Lots of us did. We knew that it was all wrong, that it should never happen in America. I hope Martin Niemoeller would have been proud of all of us, but that is not the point. The point is respect. The point is courtesy. The point is to stop slinging fecal matter at each other long enough to have something resembling a rational discourse.
Well, now it's Hillary's turn again. But this time Hillary is being mistreated by... well... by some of her more ardent "supporters."
So here are a few stiff words for the "PUMAs": Your candidate is no longer running. She has thrown her full-throated support behind her former rival. You sully and dishonor Hillary by putting her name on a web site that actively works against her stated wishes.
You, who claim to be her supporters, are working against everything for which Hillary Clintion stands.
Please, show your real support for Hillary. Help her get what she really wants:
• a more sane foreign policy
• help for America's working families
• respect and equal treatment in the workplace
• health care that makes sense
• a court that will protect choice, free speech, and habeus corpus
• a truly progressive agenda in the Executive Branch
Hillary knows that we can only get these things if DEMOCRATS win, and win big, from the top of the ticket to the bottom. That is why she has put aside her hard-earned pride and is throwing all her hard-earned political clout behind the Democratic Party and its nominee.
And if your pain is so much greater than Hillary's, or your will so much weaker, that unlike her you cannot see the only sane way forward and support it, then at least have the common decency to stop abusing her name and stop abusing her face.
"Party Unity My Ass" is not about Hillary; it is about you and your pain. Hillary has more reason to be hurt than anyone, and she has already moved on. So should you.
Advertisement
Apologies for the typos.
Good Lord TPM, how hard would it be to put in an edit capability, or at least a PREVIEW capability.
YYYEEEEEERRRERRREEEAAAAAAGGGGH!!
June 23, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Chairman Dean - excellent post (coming from a Hillary supporter who is backing Obama).
PS I know it's you Howie. The YYYEEEEEERRRERRREEEAAAAAAGGGGH!! at the end gave you away.
June 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No "cranky comment?" -- Bal Rag clearly complained about edit capability! Gee -- I guess you aren't an equal opportunity JUDGE OF ALL THINGS.
June 23, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shh, Senator Feinstein. We're tryin' to keep it on the down low, remember?
June 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those inclined to jump gt involved with PUMA should also check out the resume of Will Bower, the organization's founder. On the irrationality scale he's right there with Larry Johnson.
June 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give me a goddamned break! Hillary got a free ride. She got to campaign when she could be nothing but a spoiler; her spin fantasies set the agenda; her racist campaigning was scarcely protested; and now that she lost, it is sexism! Did no one notice that sexism never got mentioned until some isolated voices objected to Hillary's racis? And that commentators are so much more comfotable (and complacent) bemoaning a faint sexism than a virulent racism? Obama's nomination looks like an ever smaller baby step.
June 23, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she and Bill and their surrogates all said some pretty execrable things about Obama, but IMHO even more despicable things were said about her first (admittedly not by Obama or his surrogates).
Maybe it's just my strict upbringing but I was raised not call a woman a bitch, or a witch, or a whore, or a shrew in public (and to be damned cautious about doing it in private). Hell, let's leave sex out of it. I was raised not to do the equivalent to a man either. I cannot tell you how much I have respect I have lost for "liberal" media icon Keith Olbermann. He is now right up there with Joe Klein and James Carville in my "wipe it off your shoe before it starts to smell" meter.
But with any luck, James, Bill, Hillary, Joe, Keith, and I will all vote for the name with the "D" next to it this fall (Although Joe is iffy. I think he is at least a DINO, probably a WISC), because that is the only way we will keep making progress.
At least in this country.
June 24, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have respect I have lost"
should be
"respect I have lost"
CURSE YOU TPM!!!
June 24, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the fact that Hillary did get a tough ride from some members of the Mass Media, but I think each candidate is getting theirs in turn. Looking at some of the major PUMA sites, it seems like a small amount of people are really whipping themselves into a lather right now:
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=660
That site in particular seems to have devolved into a cultish echo-chamber. Spend a little bit of time poking around there if you are curious- I dont really think they allow dissenting opinions to post though. Hopefully, people will get their sh$$ together before November. . .
June 23, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If those people were true Hillary supporters they would follow her lead and support the party and Obama. Unity has been declared by her and will be exemplified in their upcoming rally together.
I think the majority of those stoking the flames on the PUMA sites are GOP operatives that are fanning the flames of the few bitter and spiteful ladies who wear this logo proudly.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/D/A/2/vote-for-spite.jpg
June 23, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear unity from Hillary, have yet to hear it from Obama.
Heck he choreographs his photo-ops to exclude whoever he thinks would make his image other than how he's being packaged, like a product, not a president, but like toothpaste, or soup. We saw the scarf wearing females , blacks too trying to get next to Mr. Unity only to be pushed aside.
He's actually the polarizing one and all those people I mentioned are speaking out the inconsistencies in his messages. I think Obama should begin looking for unity from within.
One thing is for sure, Obama will say AND DO ANYTHING to get your vote. If he sold his soul to the devil to get the presidency, I wouldn't be surprised.
June 23, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even a mediocre response. If that is all you republicans have, I will sleep well tonight!
Tootpaste? Soup? Is that really all you got?
June 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, this is completely ridiculous. Obama's whole entire message is "Unity".
From "Yes We Can" to "I'm asking you to believe in YOUR ability to make a difference" the overarching, overriding, complete, and total thematic content of his campaign is "Unity." This man has created the largest grassroots campaign organization in the history of American politics with almost no other message but the power of "Unity".
If you don't believe he is sincere (and it seems you don't) that is one thing, but to say "I have yet to hear unity from Obama" only makes it seem that you are deaf.
June 24, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We are not red states. We are not blue states. We are the UNITED states of America!"
Said four freakin' years ago. That's when some of us first started to notice him.
June 24, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sing it, grrl!
June 24, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its not what I got (not a R either), it is what it is.
Think about it, face it,live with it,. obama's campaign is all about HIS image, his hermetically sealed image with a little substance sprinkled here and there, not too much.
But the cracks are beginning to show,it started with NAFTA now its FISA, a few more and he's going to completely fall apart.
June 23, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Lyndon Johnson was a self-serving, cynical, two-faced, imperialist, lousy excuse for a President. He was so awful that even HE realized it, and he refused to run for a second full term of office. I would gladly have made LBJ President-for-Life if it meant that we could have avoided the curse of President Richard Nixon.
Now, personally, I don't think Obama is another LBJ. In fact, I kinda like him (without -- I might add -- conferring sainthood on him). But it is clear to me that John McCain aims to extend the worst policy mistakes of the worst President of my lifetime (yes, Bush is worse than Nixon). Even if I thought Obama was the kind of weasel that you seem to think he is, I would STILL vote for him as a vote against McSame.
It is a complete no-brainer.
June 24, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
BalRog,
I know this point is sort of a non-sequiter to the main thrust of discussion, and I don't intend to get diverted onto it. However (as an aside), it's interesting that you would use LBJ and Nixon as examples of some of our worst Presidents.
True enough, I suppose, in terms of line 1 in the history books: "Sank us in Vietnam", "Watergate". Big, big mistakes, no doubt. But the paradox is that BOTH of these men also performed worthy, lasting deeds: LBJ with voting rights, civil rights, and Medicare. Nixon with EPA, opening to China, getting us out of Vietnam, and getting us on a more rational and less dangerous relationship with the Soviets.
Both were men of enormous talent and ambition. Each had an equal capacity for both large deeds and great mistakes. I tend to group these 2 with Bill Clinton, in that sense of great possibilites only partly realized - but in each case, their "partly" was greater than the whole of most others. Their reach was so great and the problems they confronted so serious, that they were doomed to fall short - and each had large and even tragic personal flaws that hurt them (and us).
I'm sort of running-on here to theorize a bit on the nature and the difficulty of judging a Presidency. Almost all of our modern Presidents have had at least some agreed successes and some agreed failures, with the jury still out (maybe as much as 50 years after the fact) on many of their larger or more complex endeavors.
I admit to having trouble seeing GW Bush in that generally positive big-picture sense. I do NOT place him in that category of overall success with notable failures. I try to give him as much benefit of the doubt as I can, by saying that whatever positve aspirations he might have had were completely unhinged by 9-11. I cannot completely buy that: He made deliberate choices in that terrible afermath that have come close to unhinging the Constitutional fabric of the country. He made choices that have made us doubt as Americans that we are still the "good guys". I can't excuse that on the 1-line grounds that he "kept the country safe after 9-11", but none of us can know for sure yet what history is going to decide about that.
June 24, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not question LBJ's goals. I question the way he accomplished them. In my mind the character of a leader counts at least as much as bullet points on his resume. To wit, the ends do not justify the means.
LBJ, Nixon, GWB... wow, how can I even compare them. Where LBJ was a liar, Nixon was a thief, but Bush was a murderer. Where LBJ was crass, Nixon was profane, but Bush was blasphemous. Where LBJ was self-serving, Nixon was ego-consumed, but Bush was a megalomaniac. Where LBJ was short-sighted, Nixon was monofocused, but Bush was obsessed. Where LBJ was ruthless, Nixon was paranoid, but Bush was sadistic. Where LBJ used the Constitution as a napkin, Nixon used it as a Kleenex, but Bush used it as toilet paper.
But perhaps I am wrong about ends and means. Perhaps the goal of preserving our way of life, or of preserving our life itself matters more than how it is accomplished. Those trying to make a serious case for W's legacy will no doubt cast it in those terms, with generous sprinklings of "War on Terror" and "9/11" to add spice.
But I am not yet willing to give up on the idea that ethical government matters, that MORAL government matters. So talking to me about positive and negative results -- as if a presidential legacy is an engineer's "black box system", inputs and outputs but anything could be inside -- really does not do it for me. Maybe I am naive, but to me what goes on inside that box matters. It matters a great deal.
June 24, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was (and am) a Clinton supporter. I jumped aboard with Sen. Clinton pretty early, primarily because of her important accompanying role in what I regarded as the finest Presidency of our modern times, and the excellent chance that she had the grounding and the skill to carry that good work forward. As time passed, I became more and more impressed with her deep preparation for the task in her OWN right, independent of her husband. It wasn't a hard decision for me on that basis, and it continues to mystify me as to why a clear majority of Democratic Primary voters didn't have the good sense to see it that same way.
Now, I'm back to square one. I certainly LEAN Democratic, but my only sure definition is CLINTONOCRATIC. I just don't KNOW yet about Sen. Obama. I'll give him a fair hearing, and I'll try my best to give him as much benefit of the doubt as I can, but I'm personally a long way from "SOLD" at this point: Too many airy atmospherics and too much contrived stage managment for my taste. Too little of a sense (so far) that he plans to DO something, as opposed to BE something. At least ONE time (about ANYTHING - even basketball), I've got to hear myself saying, "You know, he REALLY DOES know what he's talking about. He knows a LOT more about ---- than I do."
It's early, and there's time. Sen. Obama needs to use that time wisely, if he's going to count on my vote. I've got to be convinced (yet) that he's got the real credentials for the job. When that time comes, I'll know it, without being told or ram-rodded. Until then, neither Hillary Clinton nor anyone else is going to talk me into that commitment prematurely. I can agree with her on many things, without feeling like I have to agree with her on EVERYTHING.
I'll make up my own mind (in my own time) on this one.
June 23, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can respect that. But please respect HER enough not to use her as some kind of icon against the Democrats.
She has made it pretty clear where she stands. If you can't stand with her, at least don't surrealistically stand against her in her name!
June 24, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You Know the thing is most people only pay attention to the big beautiful hope and change speeches that Obama delivers so well. What is lost are the smaller speeches that he does that are more pragmatic that looks more into the depths of the problems we face and the solutions he's proposed for those problems. It's funny to think that just 8 years ago Obama was actually chastised for being to "policy oriented" with his speeches so he learned how to make a crowd swoon with his voice and words.
Listening to his speeches on the Economic Tour he's undertaking you'll understand that this is a man who is trying to fix the practical problems that practical Americans face. The other part to look at is the viewer numbers of his speeches. The more policy oriented speeches only attract 20-30 thousand viewers, his flowery motivational speeches (Race Speech, Victory Speeches) attract millions. If you want to see a man with a firm grasp on policy check out these speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw2gbiW1Oqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULSukLwozEk
June 24, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for taking your time and keeping an open mind. Democracies work best with an informed citizenry, after all, and information takes time to gather.
But do also keep in mind that Obama has listed most of his plans/policies on his website, so that you can review policies such as granting a college degree in return for the graduate's pledge to help the country (such as by teaching in inner city schools) and not asking senior citizens making under a certain income to pay income tax.
June 24, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOVE your comments, BalRog.
June 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thx, Q!
June 24, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that although you assert you are a democrat you are consistently denigrating the presumed Democratic nominee and his supporters, such as:
"Bill Richardson lost all respect I had for him. I wonder what he was promised. BO reminds me of GWB in sooo many ways."
If you (or anyone) has concerns about Obama's abilities, that's fair. However, to consistently belittle and insult him (and his supporters) begs the question about your agenda. Because you have also posted remarks that his nomination isn't secured until the convention:
"Neither (HRC or Obama)has the magic new number until the convention despite the blogosphere claims BO has the nom. He's ahead, but that is all."
Gee, one might surmise you are a charter member of PUMA.
June 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was intended to be reply to 'heh' re her postings above.
June 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I kinda figgered.
June 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even our party has dead enders and 20 percenters. It's best to ignore these guys because they are a small minority. 99% of Hillary's supporters are rational people who will turn out to beat McCain in November. Even most of those PUMA people will, at worst, write in Hillary's name, vote Nader or Barr, or not show. Forget about them. They live for your attention and they all get very excited when they see PUMA in a subject like at TPMCafe.
Their favorite mantra is that we need their votes so we have to go to them and beg. Let's just... not.
June 24, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And seriously, they want you to think there are more of them than there actually are. They do it by posting a lot of things on the Internet. I do it to make you think I'm 23 Destors. Don't worry, I'll vote Democratic 23 times in November.
June 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Joe Lieberman, the PUMAs draw attention by claiming to be your friend while at the same time stabbing you in the back. It doesn't matter that there aren't many real PUMAs any more than it doesn't matter that there aren't many "Joementums". The "bearded lady" curiosity factor draws attention to them if nothing else. But of course it doesn't end there. Since there is conflict involved in both cases, media sharks of all stripes smell them out by the blood in the water.
In Joe's case, he caucuses with the Dems but never misses an opportunity to point out why we are wrong or to undercut our Presidential candidate and putative leader.
In the PUMAs' case they push Hillary's name and image as if they are leading a charge on her behalf, all the while undercutting her actual message that we must unite behind Obama as the nominee.
In both cases you can't just ignore them or their talking points go unanswered. You have to confront them. You have to expose them to the sunlight. You have to put the counter-meme in people's minds:
"Joe is an Independent, not a Democrat. He is currently caucusing with the Democratic Caucus, but probably not for much longer."
"PUMAs are not loyal Hillary Clinton supporters. They are in fact ignoring her call to support Obama and the Democratic Party in general. The fact that many of them are using her name and image to do so is more than a little dishonest, and it actually hurts Hillary's real cause."
I do not say this cynically. As I said earlier, I am open to the idea that the PUMA rank-and-file really are who they say they are. But to use Hillary's name and image for their cause is dishonest, disrespectful, and hurtful to Hillary.
June 24, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. But I recommend that rebuttals be kept to simple declarative statesments, as you're doing. Some of these people are infreakingsane (sorry for using technical psychotherapeutic language there) and any long conversation with them tends to make both parties look like what clinicians call "batshit crazy freakzoids (BCFs)."
June 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
we have already been told PUMA voters do not matter, that our numbers are not significant enough to matter. then why the harsh anti PUMA post?
June 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) You did not hear me say PUMAs don't matter, so I would thank you not to lump me with those who do.
2) If you sincerely can't in good conscience vote for Obama in spite of all that is on the line, then I really have nothing against you for THAT reason. Honest people can differ. It happens.
3) However, if you use Hillary's name and/or image to promote your cause then you are disloyal at a minimum, and most likely dishonest too. Hillary left absolutely no doubt about who she supports, and it is Barack Obama. If you can't get behind that, fine, but have the decency to leave Hillary out of it.
June 24, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
More about point 2 above. I will still work my ass off for Obama and against you, but on the basis of honest adversaries. I don't think of you as a traitor, just an honest person who is wrong and must not be allowed to win.
Nothing personal, it's just politics.
June 25, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because we miss you when you don't comment here, sweetheart. It is a little game we play to call out the trolls and giggle a little when they come running. Hehe. Human always want to stop and watch a crazy person acting out - it is perversely fasinating - getting to do it on the net is just as fun.
June 24, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, that's not why I posted. But if that is how you get your kicks, knock yourself out.
June 25, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reply to Michelle who asks why the hash anti PUMA posting - Because we miss you when you don't comment here, sweetheart. It is a little game we play to call out the trolls and giggle a little when they come running. Hehe. Human always want to stop and watch a crazy person acting out - it is perversely fasinating - getting to do it on the net is just as fun.
June 24, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've replied to her before - we laugh at her, never with her.
June 24, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink