On The PUMAs

As someone whose vote and support for Barack Obama for President in this election is unshakeable (I know what John McCain is and I want no part of a John McCain Presidency), I am decidedly NOT a fan of the PUMA movement. Indeed, I oppose it. But I was outraged by the behavior of the Media and the blogs towards Hillary Clinton and I will not soon forget what they did. John Cole, whose tin ear on the issues of sexism and misogyny is pretty well established, thinks that the PUMAs will not like this Rebecca Traister article. Since I am not a PUMA, I can not say for sure, but I know I liked these parts of the article:

. . . In reality, however, it's more that the other female politicians whose names are being bandied about (cough, Kathleen Sebelius, cough) seem like pallid substitutes, and the only reason Team Obama would even pick one is to placate stubborn Clinton supporters. It wouldn't placate them. But this is one of the facets of post-Clinton anger that puts Obama in a hell of a bind. Because the truth is that many of Clinton's most devoted supporters overcame their own ambivalence about her because they believed it was so important to establish a precedent, to break the glass ceiling and put a woman in a job that has never been filled by a woman before. A female vice president, especially a Democratic one, is not nothing. And everyone who watched the glee with which Clinton's failed bid was met should know that. But it's true that if Obama goes with a woman, and decides (as seems certain) not to tap Clinton herself, he must pick someone who has something more going for her than a pair of mams. He needs someone who generates heat of her own, who can energize a crowd, who can do something for him besides providing him with a gender credential. Who is that?

4. They are angry that we started to talk about sexism only once Clinton stopped being a threat.

Yes, it's great that we are finally having panels and conferences and news stories about the way in which Clinton's candidacy was met with an enormous amount of gendered antipathy from the media. (And for any of you sitting at your computers yammering about how the coverage of Clinton had nothing to do with her sex, allow me to be frank: can it.) Those discussions shouldn't stop. But it is painfully obvious that this was a conversation that could only be had once Clinton stopped threatening Obama's prospects, or men generally. This is really depressing.

5. They are angry at the media's repeated denial of sexism, and they are angry at Keith Olbermann.

The first should be quite obvious. In a New York Times story last week, members of the media heartily denied that there was any sexism in the way that Clinton was discussed. This in the face of zillions of examples of gender-fueled language both explicit (comparisons of Clinton to a nagging spouse, to an ex-wife outside of probate court, to Lorena Bobbitt, to a sexless monster, to Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction") and only slightly more subtle (the unabashed determination on the part of print and broadcast media to put her campaign down as early as possible, and the hyperactive joy they betrayed whenever that wish appeared to be coming true). To deny that this happened is foolish, and it doesn't make any of the eagle-eyed women who spotted Tucker Carlson crossing his legs in emasculated fear any less angry.

As for Olbermann, outrage at him has supplanted displeasure with Chris Matthews, perhaps because Matthews has been publicly excoriated for his bias, while Olbermann is still held up by many as a talking-head hero of the left. Of course, those surprised by Olbermann's clear distaste for Hillary Clinton, or the venom he directed at that nutsy Katie Couric, who meekly ventured that maybe there had been some media sexism during the race, obviously missed the time he once wondered on air if anyone had ever ejaculated on Paris Hilton's face. Olbermann's simultaneous tenacity on the side of good, coupled with his utter disinterest in gender equity, makes him emblematic of the unpleasant position in which Hillary-supporting feminists find themselves -- members of a progressive party that doesn't seem particularly interested in their progress.

(Emphasis supplied.) Personally, I think these paragraphs some of the best analysis of the situation I have yet seen. But I can not speak for PUMAs.

Indeed, I am speaking for me only in this post.

< Why We Fight Part 2 | Supreme Court Rules Right to Lawyer Begins At First Court Appearance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm PUMA, but the article misses so much. (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    Go ahead and object.

    had a conversation with a GOOPer (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    anfd they hate Obama even more than they hate her.

    well no they have contempt for him and fear of her.


    I'm a PUMA (5.00 / 13) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    and the article had very little bearing on the real world feelings of PUMA's.

    Almost none.

    It's as if the woman interviewed ABSOLUTELY NO PUMA's.  It's as if she were trying to apply characteristics to PUMAs that simply AREN'T THERE.  It's as if she were a propagandist working for OBAMA.

    And I have no more right to object to BTD's non-PUMA status than BTD has a right to object to my PUMA status.  Our votes are our votes.  IMHO, voting for a person simply because they have a D next to their name is IMHO ridiculous.  But I'm not going to "object" to anyone's desire to do that.

    I'm an independent, and quite proud of that.


    I wonder why they couldn't find a PUMA (5.00 / 10) (#196)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    leaning writer to write the article? Wouldn't that have assured a bit more accurate picture? Honestly, would a description of Obama supporters and how to understand them from a McCain-leaning writer be considered the best way to present the issue? I doubt it. More double standards.  

    I'm a sentient female human at that awkward age (5.00 / 11) (#232)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    ... between birth and brain-dead existence for fourteen years in a coma, kept alive by machine.

    In short, I'm the type of voter and supporter Dems and Republicans ignore -- except to threaten for my vote -- for my two counterparts coming and going from the planet.

    That profile of Clinton supporters reflected me not at al. I haven't signed up with PUMA but I won't be told what my thoughts and feelings are by either party or Obot twerps getting their pscycho-caca off an iPhone.

    Good grief the load of sh!t I've heard in the past month taxes all credulity.

    I simply won't be threatened by anyone dangling hostage my inalienable reproductive rights. Their "offer" is self-defeating.

    If they have the time to attempt to bully or guilt me, they have the time to stand beside me and FIGHT FOR MY F*CKING HUMAN RIGHTS.

    If they don't, they have no business talking to me about SCOTUS or what Obama or McCain will do if he gets into office.

    I can vote for either or neither.


    another observation (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    if one truly cared about unity, one should be able to ....

    Still having a hard time not summing this up as anything more than "yes it was there, it was bad, and people who knew better wilfully went along with it, and we understand why you're angry, but we implore you now to get over it and not do anything about it."

    I'm a PUMA, but I'm not old or female (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    Traister is clueless about who PUMA's are and what motivates them.

    The only good thing about the piece is it was better than the companion article by Wally Shapiro, which was condescending and isnulting.

    Aye, Shapiro wins the day (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    ... insofar as the Cluelessness Trophy is concerned.

    Busk up, Traister. It's a long season ... and there's always next year.


    Me, too, although I disagree with your... (5.00 / 14) (#37)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    ...assessment of Traister. Given that the article was about why I'm angry, not why I'm not voting for Obama, I think that she was on target on a number of reasons. Only one applied to why I'm actually not voting for Obama. And I finally found out what PUMA means, and it fits me like a glove. I did disagree with her conclusion, though. I am not "kicking and screaming" (which sounds like something that a child with a temper tantrum would do, not a grown woman), and I don't see that I don't have options. Staying home is a valid option, and I can only hope that enough women feel that way to seriously get a message out to the Democratic Party - you can no longer take your largest constitutency for granted.

    The companion piece by Shapiro is beltway journalism at it's worst. Of course, he has not comported himself glowingly this entire election cycle.


    Almost none of the reasons she gave (5.00 / 9) (#181)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    were even close to what I hear from PUMA's.

    We're mad about Mark Penn?  I've never heard that from a PUMA, but that was a big gripe of John Cole's about Hillary.


    She missed big on that one (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    And on hating Bill Clinton. But she nailed about 6 of the other reasons for my being angry. Only one actually applied to why I'm not voting for Obama, but she did get it. A lot of people are angry for different reasons.

    Well PUMAs are like snowflakes (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by tnjen on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    :) Seriously, one of the neater things about the PUMA movement is that is coming together from ground-up -- it is a true grassroots movement. Unlike a lot of other grassroots movements where people sit around and say we need a movement that deals with X this one was much more sui generis. It arose on its own in the hearts and minds of a gigantic mass of individuals and then a few people named it and are now trying to harness and organize it. When something arises so organically and spontaneously it's going to have the feel of what it is -- organized chaos that has tapped into a significant common bond. A clearer picture of what PUMAs believe as a whole will arise when more PUMAs and the intelligentsia of the PUMA movement sit down, listen to one another, compile, and articulate the broadest aspects of PUMA ideology and complaints.

    to be fair (4.33 / 3) (#21)
    by airwon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    To be fair to Traister, she doesn't say that all PUMAs are old and female.  She says,  
    To be fair, it's not just women. There are plenty of Clinton supporters of every demographic description who are still ticked. But yes, it's true that the Clinton base skewed female, and that women over 30 are the most vocal of the malcontents. Some of them are calling themselves "PUMAs"

    I think that she has a lot of empathy for PUMA.


    The way it's written sounds like (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    only vocal over 30 females are calling themselves PUMA's though.

    It's More Than 'Ticked' (5.00 / 20) (#170)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    "There are plenty of Clinton supporters of every demographic description who are still ticked."

    'Ticked' doesn't cover all that PUMA's feel. It is also, and probably more so for a lot of us, about Obama himself. Not everyone supported Clinton because she was a woman. We supported her because she was and still is the better of the two candidates.

    We also supported her because we felt by intelligent observation that Obama was not a true Democrat. Our observations are now starting to become reality to all but the blind who refuse to see.

    It's More Than 'Ticked' because we know that Obama will destroy the Democratic Party not build it and move it forward. Obama is also weakening the grassroots by trying to consolidate all the money for himself by taking it away from people and organizations who have been working for much longer than he has even been in politics.

    That is why my vote and support, and many of our votes and support, are NOT for Barack Obama for President in this election - and that is unshakable.

    Pity to those who can't see, or refuse to see he is already destroying the party, not by winning the nomination, but by his actions after winning the nomination. The sad tale of the dismantling of decades of work has just begun.


    I was surprised how many Salon readers... (5.00 / 9) (#211)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    ...were not planning on voting for Obama. Of course, Shapiro's article is pretty much a textbood case in how to convince people not to do waht you want them to do, but the letters on that were overwhelmingly "I won't vote for Obama". Usually I'm one of the few Clinton supporter's there in a crowd of Obama fans. I had assumed that Talk Left was more densely populated with spiritual PUMA's because of it's pro-Clinton position, but if the letters responding to Shapiro and Traister are any indication, the problem is much more widespread.

    Could you expand (2.55 / 9) (#180)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    I'll buy that Traister doesn't represent the true "PUMA logic" or whatever.  But at the same time, I haven't seen any treatment at anywhere near that level of clarity.

    I mean, from my perspective (and that of a huge chunk of other loyal democrats), it really does look a lot like plain old spite and fury.  We're stuck without a clue about what to do to please you guys, and would dearly love some guidance.  A nice, big essay like this, organized the same way, would go a long way to helping us out.  You seem to have your writing chops together, care to oblige?

    I'm serious; we want to be friends.  Help us out here.


    There really is nothing (5.00 / 18) (#218)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    you can do. It's not about you "loyal democrats". It's about Obama himself and I partly summarized that in my post. The problem is that you can't see who he really is.

    Which makes your statement of you "and that of a huge chunk of other loyal democrats" kind of funny. You think if you vote Democrat no matter what that makes you loyal. It doesn't. What makes one loyal to the party is to not do something that will destroy the party.

    You are thinking short term. Others here are thinking long term. We don't want all the hard work people have put in over the decades unwound in one election. We don't want to be set back 10-15-20 years just because of one election.

    We don't want a guy who will bend like a weed to compromise and pacify the Republicans to water down health Care reform and thereby cementing that so called reform as the health care of the future. That is where people are short cited. They think if Obama wins, we win. We won't win. Healthcare won't win. Public education won't win. The fourth Amendment won't win. Listen to his words on those subject or watch his recent actions and you will see that what I say is the truth. The only thing that wins is post-partisanship which doesn't empower Democrats or Progressives. It empowers blue Dogs and Republicans in a so called Democrat Administration. Is that really what you want?


    You say you do not want a (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    McCain presidency..yet..you continue to berate and be dissatisfied with Obama. Perhaps if you were a woman this sorted-type article bandied above would have put you over the top and teetered you on the fence about how to vote. I believe (and I'm not supporting McCain)that Obama is the one who is going to be most like Bush (arrogant, childish, inexperienced, and on and on)not McCain. We live in a dangerous time..that the media is in charge is off-putting and dangerous. I respect your postings a great deal, but I am hardpressed to understand this "supreme loyalty" to someone you consistently knock-down.

    Maybe (2.87 / 8) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    You are used to getting exactly what you want all of the time, but most of us are used to getting something close enough. Given the choices, Obama is closest to my values and certainly, nearly identical on issues to your favorite ex contender.

    Not sure what the problem is here, you seem to have lost all perspective on the election process for POTUS.


    Close enough isn't good enough anymore (5.00 / 20) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    I'm through with settling. Over and over again the Democrats cave on issue after issu because they figure at the end of the day you'll settle because they are narrowly closer ideologically(at least as far as action if not in deed)then the GOP.

    There comes a time where you either tatoo WELCOME on your forehead and call yourself a doormat or you stand firm and say my values mean something Darnit enough with the lipservice.


    Settling is the only choice, ever. (4.66 / 12) (#34)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    Taking the long view of progressive interests, I'll settle for President McCain.

    I love comments like these (3.20 / 5) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    The way to really achieve Progressive goals is to have John McCain elected.  

    Because what we really want is to screw the country up so bad that the only choice is radical change.  Sounds great.

    For those scoring at hime.

    John Mccain's American Conservative Union lifetime rating...... 83.

    Barack Obama's ACU lifetime rating..... 8.



    wonder how that rating has changed (5.00 / 17) (#49)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    in the last two weeks

    Public Finance


    Some elements of the extreme Left (1.83 / 6) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    used to argue that the way to bring about a Socialist revolution would be by electing the most extreme, reactionary, right wing government possible. It is a view that does not carry any weight with me. One thing that isn't discussed much is the way that the Communists in the German parliament in the 1930s facilitated the delegitimization of the Center party. They would often vote with the Nazis on procedural motions in an attempt to scuttle the government. I don't have to tell the rest of the story.

    Very true (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    Radicals understand that the only way to achieve their objectives, or gain power, is to create an unacceptable environment.  

    I have no use for radicals whatsoever.  Perfect is the enemy of good and radicals always demand absolute adherence to their principles.


    Remember (5.00 / 10) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM EST
    carter was more radical than Clinton.

    You can try with others but painting me as a radical will prove you to be quite silly.

    This is no overton window deal.   This is about people finally figuring out that there is more to politics than an ideological pissing match.


    Oh please, (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    are you comparing McCain to the Communists or the Nazis?  Now who is being irrational.

    I'm discussing the apparent strategy here (2.37 / 8) (#100)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    Unless you articulate why you want McCain to win, and why you think he would be a more progressive choice, you have no argument.

    That is absurd. (5.00 / 23) (#137)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    You just have a different metric.  Some people think that the corruption in the Democratic party, typified by the handing of the nomination to Obama, is so awful that short term sacrifice may be required to reach long term goals.  I understand very well that you disagree with this.  But to call people irrational for not agreeing you is very poor style.  It is a lazy retort.

    I will vote for McCain (4.33 / 18) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    because I have no intention of rewarding Obama and the DNC for their behavior in the primaries.  PERIOD

    If we reward their behavior this time, what will stop them from doing it again?

    Obama is already employing the "race card" tactics that worked against Clinton on McCain.  In fact he is perfecting it now.  He hasn't even waited for McCain to say anything Obama could twist into racism.  He's just going out there now and warning people that McCain WILL play the race-card.  So now we have Obama playing the "pre-emptive" race-card.


    The point is that if you don't settle, you'll get (3.28 / 7) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    a worse deal than if you do.

    Well (5.00 / 18) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    I guess the argument that being stabbed in the back is better than being stabbed in the chest may work for some. I'm not so sure.

    I don't believe it (5.00 / 36) (#55)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    In terms of sexism, in terms of hating women, in terms of support of hatred of women, I don't see that McCain is worse than Obama.  I don't see a worse deal.

    I'm urged to be a single issue voter on choice because that presumably benefits Obama. I'm told that I have to ignore all my other issues with Obama's own sexism, his use of sexism, his utter failure to stand up to sexism, and his win because of sexism.  Vote for choice! I'm told.

    But when I become a single issue voter on sexism and see no substantive difference between McCain and Obama, I'm excoriated for being that single issue voter because it doesn't benefit Obama.  Take the long view! I'm told.

    Well I am taking the long view:  standing up to sexism, right here right now, is the only way to protect choice.  Standing up to what was done to Clinton and every woman who supports or supported her is the only way to protect women's equality.  Because if we don't stand up to the sexism, we will continue to get what we have gotten from the Dems since time immemorial:  lip service to women's equality.

    I do not, for the life of me, understand how I'm supposed to give any credence to Obama's words about choice and women's equality after what he participated in during this primary season.  Now is the time to stand up exactly because of Obama's behavior. Now is the time to send the message because of what Obama has done and not done.  I didn't make this the time.  Obama did.


    what exactly did Obama (3.00 / 6) (#79)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    do that you find so outrageous that you would torpedo the entire progressive agenda?

    What progressive agenda is Obama supportive of? (5.00 / 17) (#94)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    the one Hillary supports (2.33 / 3) (#201)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST

    Oh, please. (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    What progressive agenda would that be?

    You guys are just making it up.


    ask your favorite politician (2.33 / 6) (#206)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    what SHE supports.
    Then tell us all why you (if you are one of these puma people) are determined to work against what Hillary is working for.

    Strange way to show your undying support for a politician - to go to work for the person that she will be working agaisnt.


    Frankly, if you see no difference (2.90 / 11) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    between McCain and Obama, then I would suggest that you're letting anger cloud your vision.

    I can see there's no discussing this rationally with you.


    Right (5.00 / 28) (#95)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    It's about me being irrational b/c I disagree with you.  

    In terms of sexism, I see no difference between McCain and Obama exactly b/c Obama colluded in, used, and participated in blatant, outrageous, horrifying sexism against Hillary and her supporters to become the Dem nominee.

    That you disagree with that doesn't make me irrational.  It makes me committed to something you're not committed to.


    Misreading of the data (2.66 / 6) (#177)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    The Obama campaign did stay silent while HRC was getting smeared, but they did extremely little direct smearing of a gendered sort (the race stuff they did was worse).  Obama and HRC were engaged in a tough primary.  He's a pol, not a messiah.

    And Obama has a long history of being excellent on women's issues; McCain has a long history of being very conservative.  Obama married a strong partner who's been outspoken this campaign; McCain's wife walks behind him.  Obama says he wouldn't want his daughters to be punished with unwanted pregnancy; McCain will appoint more Scalias to the court.  Obama is endorsed by HRC; McCain is endorsed by the Moral Majority.

    And, well, Obama is a brilliant person and an excellent politician with a slew of smart policies; McCain is another party guy who came into money and wants to be president without knowing very much.


    As soon as you said (5.00 / 21) (#191)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    Obama has a long history of something I tuned out.  Obama does not have a long history on any political issue.  He has very little history.  That is one of the big problems.

    As soon as you said (3.00 / 2) (#212)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    "As soon as you said" I knew you didn't want to actually engage in reasoned discussion.  A decade is a long time.

    I'm Going to Disagree Slightly (5.00 / 10) (#208)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:25:02 PM EST
    Obama has an solid voting record on women's issues.  However, he often talks about such issues using right-wing framing, which undermines public support, IMO.  And as I've asked before, if you can name one women's issue he's ever spent any political capital to advance, ever did anything other than show up and vote the right way, I'd appreciate it (I mean that sincerely).  Because I'm unaware of one.

    Obama on women's rights, tends to be like Obama on everything else. If you read his policies on his website (good luck finding the "women" area, last I look it was tricky to locate) they aren't bad, but if you listen to him, he's squishy, preferring to couch support for progressive issues in conservative rhetoric, like he does with so many other things.

    Does that make him worse than McCain, who is outright hostile to women's issues?  No.  But given that women make up the majority of voters and that no Democrat wins dogcatcher, much less the presidency without winning women, I'm kind of sick of having to accept this crap from leading Democrats.  

    Not sure I agree that Cindy McCain walks behind her husband, either.  There's a reason they file separate tax returns and that's because she's kept control of her money.  She may give him some for his campaign, but that's what she's doing giving it to him - because it's her money, not their money.  And I know he called her that awful word, but that doesn't mean she has no power.  It could mean that, but it could also mean that he's resorted to name calling because HE has no power.  John McCain would be nothing without Cindy's money and I suspect she knows it. So while she does seem to play the loyal wife in public, I'm unconvinced she takes a back seat to him in private.  


    But That's Not What This Is About (5.00 / 22) (#152)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    At least not for me.  I honestly don't know who I'm going to vote for in November (it won't be McCain), but if I decide to vote for someone other than Obama it's not because I think McCain won't be worse for women than Obama.

    It will be because I'm sick of Democrats taking women's votes for granted and they've been doing it for at least two decades.  They've sat still for the erosion of Roe and other advancements women had made.  

    Basically what we've got is a party that's hostile to women and a party that capitulates to that hostility because it thinks women will support it anyway.  

    This dynamic is awful for women.  Has been awful for some time and will continue to be.

    The truth is that women have mostly supported the Democratic party for the last two decades and we have little to show for it.  We are taken for granted because the GOP will be worse.

    So, for me, it's not a matter of convincing me that Obama will be better than McCain on women's issues, it's about convincing me the Democratic Party will do more than simply slow the erosion of my rights.  Because if that's what we're talking about, then I want a new party.


    Silence in the Face of Misogyny (5.00 / 21) (#156)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    And the party's silence in the face of the misogyny only convinces me further that it has no interest in protecting women or their rights.

    I agree (5.00 / 14) (#176)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    If I vote for Sen. Obama, nothing will change. Ratifying the party's behavior will not induce the party to change. I respect anyone's decision to decide and vote differently. But my non-vote this year is a protest. It won't make a bit of difference in the election in my state, but I am not ratifying the party's behavior and their choice. And they do not get one more penny of my money.

    that's because you think (4.66 / 12) (#102)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    the only "rational" answer is to vote for Obama.

    Obama has already started the same campaign "tactic" on McCain thta he used on Clinton.  Obama has already "played the race card" against McCain by warning that McCain will play the race card against him.

    What a crock.  And, someone should knock Obama down a peg or two and make him pay for that "tactic"


    heh, sorry (2.60 / 5) (#105)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    I'm not going to do things that will play directly into the hands of Republicans, as you are.

    There is no longer any advantage for Obama to play the race card. That all goes to McCain now, especially if we're talking about Virginia or North Carolina.


    Please look at all of the "party (5.00 / 14) (#133)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    unity" Obama has brought to us. Look at all the "change" Obama has brought to us.Look at the "rights" he wants upheld and will not take a firm stand on he's brought to us..Look at the "unifying with Repubs" he's brought to the table. Look at all the campaign "reform" he's using. He wants the power, the bragging rights, the ego trip, and he will fight even dirtier than Karl Rove to get it. He's already shown his true side. I will not support that. It's against my principles of believing we are a country, of the people, by the people and for the people. He did not "earn" this presumptive status, he was handed it.

    Meh (3.16 / 6) (#138)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    You just pick an argument and run with it (5.00 / 9) (#210)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't see an advantage in playing the race card against McCain, please explain his speech in Florida with the heavily laden racist charge in it.

    Read that statement over and over (5.00 / 19) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    until to grasp what it says.

    We've settled for the past two elections. There are too many people in this country who are happy to absorb the messages of the MSNBC talking heads.

    PUMAs see that we had a competent, enthusiastic candidate who could make real headway in repairing the damage of the past 8 years. But, the idea of "as long as it's a democrat, who cares" has become commonplace. At least the PUMA's, who, by the way, are NOT supporting McCain, are trying their level best to STOP the practice of putting up two poor choices for the hold your nose balloting game.


    Non PUMAs See the Same Thing, Except (3.16 / 6) (#179)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
     we see Obama as the "competent, enthusiastic candidate who could make real headway in repairing the damage of the past 8 years" Another difference is that if your candidate Clinton were the candidate now, I'd still be singing the party unity chorus and lining up behind her candidacy.

    Because as much as I dislike elements of her senate voting record and the manner in which she and her campaign operated, at times, during the primaries, yes, she would be the 'democrat [who must get elected] who cares'.  Hands down.


    I went to their website (2.33 / 9) (#215)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM EST
    and saw explicit signs for McCain.

    Look, maybe this is your first election, but I can guarantee you that 90% of the voters in EVERY ELECTION talk about "lesser of two evils", or "hold your nose" candidates. Its not a bug in the system - it would be weird to call it a "feature", but it is an INHERINT part of a democracy in a country this large and diverse.

    Its a big country. Any successful candidate has to appeal to 100 million diverse people. Every individual voter wants the candidate to agree with them - 100%. Just can't happen. Probably even Michelle doesnt agree with Barack on 100% of everything. We ALWAYS have to make sophisticated and calibrated judgements about which of the two candidates more closely approximates our views.

    Personally I have never heard a coherent argument from someone who enthusiastically supported Hillary Clinton, that the agenda that brought them to her could possibly now lead them to McCain. That strikes me as, literally, insane.


    I refuse to settle, be told who to vote (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    for, pick the lesser to 2 evils once again! If my vote is sooooo precious, why does Obama "expect" me to "come home." He said (and his campaign)we always come home. Some do, I have in the past, not this year. I will not vote for POTUS and I have lost not one ounce of "perspective." It is I, who believe you, have lost your perspective. Again, vote how you will, we have a country based on those principles. I still have not heard anyone tell me why Obama will be better than McCain oh, except for the judges part. Gotta do better than that!

    Well let's see (3.62 / 8) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    Here are a few ways that Obama will be better than McCain.

    1. He will not kowtow to Neo-Conservatives and their Brave New World foreign policy.

    2. He will not start yet another preemptive war with Iran for the sole reason of maintaining regional hegemony in the Middle East.

    3. He will begin negotiations with Iran in an attempt to bring Iran back into the global community.

    4. He will push for better health care options including a Federal health care programs available to all people.

    5. He will be a strong advocate for minority rights.

    6. He will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire thus improving the budget deficit considerably.

    7. He will push to eliminate DOMA.

    8. He will push for giving illegal immigrants a realistic and humane path to legal status.

    9. He will NOT allow hard core fundamentalists to push him into terrible positions because they control his party.

    Those are a few things.

    #1 (5.00 / 12) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    So he'll be standing up and filibustering on the FISA legislation?

    Sorry, you have no (5.00 / 20) (#99)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    idea if Obama will or won't do any of those things.  All we have are the half-promises of a man with no experience actually, you know, making tough decisions, as well as the only major party candidate who has openly gay baited to win a primary this season.

    What you recited probably says more about your own wish list than about Obama's.  


    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    Think you clicked the wrong msg to respond to...

    Sorry, I was responding (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    to Flyerhawk.

    #1's already inoperative (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    after his speech to AIPAC, the original Neo-cons. Number #2 may be gone as well. The rest are simply hopes, not particularly borne out by his sparse record.

    My suspicion is that the best reason to elect Obama is the number of competent Democrats he will bring into his Administration: people who understand government and the good it can do. However, its possible he will disappoint on this too, especially if he decides to add a lot of Republicans to his Administration. A Republican Vice President like Hagel would ice it for me. No vote from me for an Obama/Hagel ticket. Not only because of Hagel himself, but because of what it will say about Obama's dedication (or lack of same) to long-standing Democratic Party values.


    really?... I could maybe give you #4, 5 & 6. (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by jeffhas on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    1.  He already voted to continue funding the war - over and over.

    2. He has already stated he would invade Pakistan given actionable intelligence.

    3. Negotiate without preconditions?... where is there a guarantee Iran will come back to the Global community? - Even if we give away the farm in advance - there is still a great chance they will regard us as weak and continue their ways.

    4. I hope so.

    5. Will it be all minorities or just one.

    6. I hope he does - and I hope it does.

    7. No he won't... McClurkin.  He's already tossed that constituency right under the bus.

    8. So will McCain - In fact, McCain co-sponsored legislation already - an actual accomplishment, not just words

    9. Maybe he'll just allow his own monied interests to influence him... FISA.

    I could easily put together a list of things McCain will do better than Obama... as a centrist Republican (maybe even left wing Repub).  But I'm not trying to make a case for McCain. It really is a lesser of two evils argument now, and McCain has his own good points and bad points - just like Obama.... Only McCain didn't limp across the finish line, and had to have the nomination handed to him by the party leadership, so he hasn't inspired my anger.

    A response (3.50 / 8) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    1. Funding the war at this point is the only option available.  Unless you think the Dems should deny soldiers food and ammunition?

    2. He did not say he would invade Pakistan.  Let's not use Republican talking points.

    3. There are no guarantees in life.  Sorry to disappoint you.

    4. Well since he's black obviously he wouldn't want to help any other minorities.

    5. I'll see your Donnie McClurkin and raise you a John Hagee and a cast of thousands.

    6. McCain has swung hard to the right immigration rights.  Perhaps you missed the past 6 months?

    7. Empty rhetoric.

    Feel free to list the items that McCain will do better than Obama on from a Liberal perspective.  I'm all ears.

    False (5.00 / 9) (#195)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    Funding the war is not the only option. Cut off the funding and the troops will be withdrawn. It has been done before.

    If Congress believed that the American people really wanted out, they would cut off the money. If we said you don't get any more of our money or our votes until you do this, then they would do it. They want to be re-elected, and we should not re-elect them unless they do what we want. They work for us.


    Obama has... (5.00 / 8) (#161)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    1. repeatedly declared his desire to "unify" the right and the left
    2. said that although negotiations are preferable, he will do anything to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons
    3. established a health care plan that is destined to fail and criticized better plans using right wing tactics
    4. said that he will continue the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 and expand cuts for seniors making less than $50,000
    5. campaigned with an advocate who is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-gay people,
    6. backed "secure borders" and cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers
    7. met with fundamentalist right wing religious leaders (as one of his first acts as nominee).

    He has also proposed some very good measures in these areas, and I'm not going to pretend that his positions are all like McCains, but it is not reasonable to pretend that Obama is campaigning as a leftist. He is doing what he said he would do - campaigning as a centrist with ideas from both sides.

    Thank you. He has already pulled (5.00 / 14) (#164)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    back his commitment on Iraq, he has already pulled back his stance on pre-conditions speaking with other leaders, I've not heard him at all speak on immigration for a while, his health care plan is not "universal" as he now contends (didn't to begin with), are women part of those
    "minority rights" if so, he has said (and I have read speeches as such) that he will appt. judges who are "sensitive" to womens (and gay) needs (oh but he trusts we will first seek council of some kind),you have no idea what he will and will not do when it comes to preemptive strikes. He has taken a 360 turn on everything he has said. He wants to attract Reagan dems and repub. lites, he will say and do anything to get them.

    Based on his history (5.00 / 10) (#166)
    by suisser on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    his judgments, his actions, I see no reason to believe your laundry list of Hope

    Sure, vero possumus (5.00 / 12) (#216)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    as Obama would say -- "yes, he can" do all this.

    But will he?  Based on his record, looks like "no."

    He has a chance now to show me that he has guts.  Let's see.


    Exactly what I want? (5.00 / 20) (#46)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    Not likely. I wasn't a huge Gore fan, and I thought Kerry was a pompous ass. I've come to like Gore since he became a real, caring human being instead of a shallow, pandering politician, and I always sort of had faith that he would be a good President, but I have hardly gotten what I want. Kerry has shown himself to be exactly waht I believed he was. Last election I was a Clark fan, but loyally donated to and voted for and defended Kerry. I've settled for "close enough" for a long time. This time there is no "close enough". I haven't lost perspective - I've gained it. I've been defending Dems from attacks for years, and I'm sick of it. It's time they put up or shut up. What's the point of voting for people who won't fight for what I believe in?

    Nice to hear (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Lil on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    someone echos my sentiments almost exactly. I still hope for Obama over McCain though. There have been a lot of candidates and a lot of votes that went 51-49 against us (Or something close to that). And I really am quite sick of it.

    I used to want Obama to win (5.00 / 7) (#214)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    Since he met with those fundamantalist leaders (as one of his first post-primary acts - how symbolic) and caved on FISA I'm not so sure.

    I will vote for Obama, as I committed (4.88 / 9) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    months ago, after he first seriously disappointed me. But I will not hold my fire on him, and I have no illusions. But I'm with BTD, I will not enable a McCain Presidency.

    if not voting = enabling (5.00 / 15) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    we must conclude obama enabled bush on kyl-Lieberman.

    What Logic! (Snark) (3.50 / 4) (#153)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Your word play is transparently dishonest. But seems like you are thoroughly entertaining yourself.

    What are you trying to accomplish here anyway? To wake people up to the fact that Obama is worse than McCain?

    Or is it that you want McCain to win so that Hillary can win in 2012?

    No one here is under the illusion that Obama is the most perfect candidate since sliced bread, but any liberal, or progressive, who has a shred of reason available to them knows that he is waaaaay better than McSame.


    no (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out that not voting isn't enabling.

    Because if failing to vote=enabling, then we must re-evaluate obama's failure to vote on kyl/Lieberman.

    Do you think not voting=enabling?


    Wouldn't it be nice if Obama's (5.00 / 13) (#158)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    commitment to you was as strong as your commitment to him?

    As I've said many times (5.00 / 15) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    Some, like me, believe that enabling an Obama presidency enables many, many years of Republican presidencies in the future -- just as Carter enabled many Republican presidencies.

    It's a matter of preferences -- do you want a man with no history being defined by becoming president in a really horrible time?  Or do you want McCain to own the disaster? As far as I'm concerned if the president has no history to fall back on, he/she will be defined -and their party will be defined -- by what happens while they're in office.


    well-said--and ditto n/t (4.75 / 4) (#96)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    Yup (4.00 / 2) (#122)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST

    I'm a PUMA (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    and I think Rebecca is being an optimist if she thinks  will be voting for Barack Obama because of reproductiverights. I'll take a page out of Barack's book and vote "present" by voting downticket.

    Personally, since some of the Democrats had to sign on in order for the partial birth bill I don't think the Democrats have the moral authority to claim superiority on choice.

    I'm not a PUMA. I simply don't believe Obama is (5.00 / 16) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    qualified.  I can get over the anger and the sexism and misogyny. But I will not vote for someone simply because there's a D next to his name and they keep screaming, "Roe v. Wade"

    I'm PUMA and for exactly the reasons you (5.00 / 11) (#52)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:30:28 PM EST

    PUMA is non-specific (5.00 / 11) (#65)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    It doesn't matter why you don't want to vote for Obama. "Party Unity My A**" is a generic phrase for people who simply refuse to vote based on nothing but a desire to support the Democratic Party. If you won't vote for somebody simply because they have  "D" after their name, then you are a spiritual member of this cohort whether you choose to join the movement or not. And I'm not trying to get you to join the movement - I just heard about it yesterday, and I sort of like the idea. But I've always been reluctant to join internet "movements", and this isn't goig to be different. If I start seeing weirdness, I'm out.

    I don't join movements either (5.00 / 9) (#125)
    by aquarian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    but I am sympathetic with their motivations. PUMAs are deeply dissatisfied with their party leadership.  It is one possible answer to the question who is most likely to rethink their leadership approach -- the party who wins in November or the party who loses?

    The article is not complete (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    The last line says: "Yes, they're going to vote for Obama. Of course they'll vote for him. The truth is, they'll probably love voting for him."

    The truth is, if I vote for Obama (only if MD looks close, otherwise a Hillary write-in), I will never love doing it.

    I'll agree with the reasons in the article and add: Hillary Clinton had the fire to fight for us(women and kids and real people) while Obama dissed us. The article forgets that Obama directly insulted women and Hillary (claws, periodically, throwing furniture, hold on a minute sweetie).

    The article forgets that in the VP discussions it is so obvious that not only should HRC be top of the ticket, it is typical sexist BS to put a better woman under the guy.

    My biggest anger is to be so hugely reminded that after coming of age as a feminist in the '70's, working for decades for women's rights, that our 'allies' are as bad as the enemy and things haven't changed so much outside of the little spaces we've created for ourselves.

    The part that I don't get is (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by eric on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST

    8. They are mad at Bill Clinton. Um, obviously.

    Mad at Bill, why?

    i didn't get that either. (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    We're mad at him because he was misquoted,  painted a racist and insulted?

    Personally (5.00 / 11) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    I think this article was more of an attempt to toss stuf out there under the pretense of undestanding the anger and a wishful attempt again to put Roe v Wade out there as the reason we need to hop on the Unity bus. I was underwhelmed.

    Yeah, she lost me on #s 8,9 &10 (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by suisser on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    I disagree with her conclusion. Am I a PUMA? I don't know. But I do know that I won't be voting for Obama. Did she capture many of my feelings, especially on her first points? Yes.  I think of all the postmortem analysis I've read of the reasons for HRC supports to be pissed, it's pretty much spot on, but again, I disagree with her conclusion.  Thanks for the post.

    oh really (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    I see that even in their best efforts they can not help themselves at all.

    Profoundly INEPT to keep that lie alive within the context of unity.

    It will not work.

    Anyone thinks they want me in the party they can STFPH about that issue.   And probably be smart to say  "I was wrong, i am sorry."


    Mad at Bill Clinton? (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:31:10 PM EST
    Huh?  Well, there goes her credibility.  

    She had some good points, too (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    The article, overall, was an interesting summary of reasons that Clinton's voter's are angry.

    I have no idea (5.00 / 14) (#85)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    That one confused me, too. I suppose we're supposed to be mad because he undermined his wife's campaign with his "race-baiting", but I truly believe that his supposed race baiting was nothing more than an innocent phrase turned into something obnoxious by the media and by Obama's campaign. The entire media universe had been predicting that the high concentration of black voter's among South Carolina's Democrats would result in an Obama win in the primary. It was one of only 4 states that Jackson won in both primaries, and Clinton never denigrated Jackson's campaign. Even Jackson didn't think that Clinton's comments were racist. It was the simple truth - Obama was going to win that state. If Clinton has suggested that Obama won Iowa because he was black, then that would have been racist.

    Bill Clinton was a legendary force for positive change among black voter's, but Obama's campaign chose to tar him as a racist because they had to neutralize him as an asset for Hillary Clinton. It worked. After the S. Carolina incident he had to take a very quiet role in his wife's campaign, unlike Michelle Obama who got to go out and get all of the press coverage she could get.


    What will make me vote for McCain? (5.00 / 20) (#18)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    More and more clueless "explanations" of why I'm angry.  More and more substanceless exhortations of why I "have" to vote for Obama (he's not McCain? Oh rly?  FISA would beg to say differently).

    Not only am I NOT going to vote for Obama, the discourse from June 3rd forward only pushes me closer to voting for McCain.

    FTR, I'm in no way angry at either Hillary or Bill Clinton.  That's just flat-out BS.  Bill did a h*ll of a lot of good for Hillary in the primaries.  Keep pretending that's not true and make me madder than ever.  As for Hillary not taking the fight to Denver, as a loyal Dem and a national-level politician, she has her own concerns which I completely and totally understand.

    But, I have my own concerns.   And all I have to express them is MY vote.  I don't have a seat in the Senate.  I don't have a national platform.  I don't have any say in the Party or what the Party does -- a point which has been repeatedly rammed home over the last 8-9 months or so, culminating in the absolute outrage of the Dems stealing my MI vote for HRC and giving it to Obama.

    If the Dems wouldn't count my vote in January, they aren't going to count it in November, either -- unless they count it for McCain.

    Wow (3.00 / 12) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    You are easy to manipulate. McCain can count on you for that. I bet you are one of those rare types that would love to take everyone with you when your head explodes.

    Personally, as one that voted for Hillary I do not see why anyone would get so worked up over a Pol. Pols change like the wind even while staying in about the same place.

    Take Hillary who said during the campaign lots during the campaign that no longer is true for her. For example, at one point she said that Obama is not qualified to be president, now she believes that he is qualified and is 100% behind him. Fancy that, from a politician no less.

    Do you think that Politicians exaggerate, pander, and lie in order to persuade you to vote for them? Or is that only something Obama does, and McCain and Hillary are exceptions.


    It's not about (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    McCain.  It's about Obama.  

    Zero sum game (2.00 / 4) (#70)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    It's about McCain whether you want to discuss him or not.

    No (5.00 / 17) (#107)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    You want it to be about McCain b/c that supports your any Dem will do argument.

    This is about Obama and whether I will vote for him.  That's what I  have to decide on.  I'm done playing this jr. political pundit game the Dems force me into every election.

    If I decide to vote for McCain, then it's about McCain.


    It's also about McCain (2.71 / 7) (#119)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    if you decide not to vote, or if you vote for someone other than McCain or Obama. There are no other relevant alternatives than McCain or Obama. Anyone who knows anything about politics will tell you that. That's how a plurality election works.

    Right (5.00 / 25) (#139)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    I need to be lectured to by about how elections work and what a plurality is.  Thanks for your condescension.

    Whether or not I vote for Obama is about Obama.  Not McCain.  It may be about McCain for you.  It's about Obama for me.  But feel free to tell me again how things "really work".  

    Maybe you should be all up in Obama's face telling him how things "really work" while he continues to say that I'll vote for him because I've got nowhere else to go.  Here's a newflash:  Obama has made it clear to me that I have nowhere to go at all.  And that's on him.


    Molly Ivins had an interesting point (5.00 / 8) (#143)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    when she noted that living in TX gave her the freedom to vote for whomever she dang well pleased. And, as a result, she was voting Nader.

    Living is a "sure thing" state gives you a lot more leeway to vote your heart rather than your head.


    And, if your generation allows the DNC (5.00 / 19) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    to manipulate you, you will have a long fight trying to regain your power over the government.

    Many of the boomers went to great lengths to provide your generation with all the freedoms and privacies you are enjoying. It's time for you to take over the fight.

    The PUMAs are showing you a way to force the DNC and all the democratic members of congress to see that they mess with our security, we mess with theirs. Holding our noses and voting for the lightweight they forced on us won't have the same impact. Really.


    When did she say he was not qualified (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by D Jessup on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    "at one point she said that Obama is not qualified to be president".  She might have said that she did not know, but she never said he was not qualified.  She always said she would work for and vote for the nominee.  It took Obama a long time to say he would vote for the nominee.

    She said "he had not passed the bar..." (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    ..."to qualify as Commander in Chief". She said she had, and McCain had, but Obama had not. That is pretty clearly an argument that he was not qualified to be President. As usual, Obama supporter's responded by attacking Clinton for "helping" the Republicans (On the assumption that Obama was the anointed candidate and any attack on him was aid and comfort to the right) instead of explaining why he was actually qualified to be President. Noboby has ever come up with a satisfactory answer to the claim that he is not qualified. The closese they have come is that Abraham Lincoln had lest official experience than Obama, so Obama is more qualified than Lincoln. Except that Lincoln was a widely recongized stateman when he was elected, while Obama is known best for giving the keynote address at the last Democratic National Convention.

    Well, I'm not a big fan of the (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    Obama=Lincoln comparison, except for amusement.  But, otoh, can't we at this point consider that Obama is now also famous not just for his 2004 DNC speech -- not to mention his 2002 Iraq speech -- but also for the not inconsiderable fact that he managed to beat a rather formidable, experienced primary opponent?  

    And did so after engaging in a number of widely seen and reported debates?

    Lincoln had his slightly more famous debates, of course, but ended up not getting elected that year.

    Then he got more fame -- actually an unofficial endorsement from the Eastern Intellectual Elite -- from his well-received 1860 Cooper Union speech.  

    O's 2004 speech didn't have nearly the same intellectual heft, but it was comparable in the sense that it put him politically on the national map as a charismatic figure who'd make his mark one day.

    Not many at the time figured his day would come so soon.


    Did you watch those debates? (5.00 / 10) (#186)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    Believe me, Obama did not win based on his debate performances, he won in spite of them. The Lincoln/Douglas debates are legendary and are still held up as examples of oratory. Lincoln was, based on numerous assessments, an man of unusual intellect in a time when men of high intellect were not uncommon. Personally, I think that the way that society promoted men during that era resulted in many of the best rising to the top in politics and business. You had to be able to think and be solidly grounded in history, current events, and oratory in order to make a decent showing in debates back then. Now... you have to be charismatic and, preferably, photogenic.

    As a longtime HRC backer, (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    I recall seeing what I considered some suspiciously overpraiseworthy media comments about her debate performances -- solid though they were -- in the pre-October period.  I also thought O's performances weren't nearly as unimpressive as portrayed in some qtrs (Judas Bill's though were mostly pretty bad).

    Similarly, some of what has come down to us about L-D is slightly exaggerated, though no question both were very able debaters (more like Kennedy v Nixon than Hillary v Obama, imo).  

    For instance, Abe by some fair accounts really didn't begin to get the better of Judge Douglas until about debate #4 (of 7), and may have come up slightly behind on debating points after maybe the first two.  

    Iow, not unlike O's several mano-a-womano performances against Hillary.

    Had they gone on to have more debates, just those two, the final debating score, I have to concede, might have come out more even.

    Anyway, different eras, vastly different.  Quite different skill sets required -- especially the ability to carry a line of thinking for a full hour.

    The last time any modern presidential debaters had to go on for long was 1960 -- when both candidates got a full 8 minutes for opening statements.  Eight minutes!

    It's now down to about 2 minutes.

    Of course, Abe didn't have to face the gang banging media monsters at GE/NBC  ...


    When did she say he was not qualified (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by D Jessup on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    "at one point she said that Obama is not qualified to be president".  She might have said that she did not know, but she never said he was not qualified.  She always said she would work for and vote for the nominee.  It took Obama a long time to say he would vote for the nominee.

    Easy to manipulate (5.00 / 13) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    The DNC games the primaries and gives more than half the party a candidate they can't support, but believe they will hold their nose and vote for.

    Who's being manipulated?


    Since I'm a dude.. (5.00 / 22) (#19)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    this analysis misses some of my motivations. Not to say it is not on target. I do not want my daughter, wife, mother, or sisters treated this way. But I am outraged with the Democratic Party shoving an inexperienced candidate down our throats. The manipulation of FL and MI is enough in itself, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    To narrowly define the PUMAs as only motivated by gender-discrimination is just the first step in trivializing and marginalizing them.

    The truth is, most of us live in states that are safely blue or red. My protest vote will not change the outcome of the election but I hope it will send a teeny, tiny message. If it gets close enough in my state for me to re-think this, the election is over anyways.

    The point (5.00 / 21) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    may indeed be to trivialize and marginalize the PUMA movement. It would be n keeping with the tradition of trivializing and marginalizing sexism that seems to be many Obama supporters M.O.

    Personally, I am done with the Roe v. Wade argument. They have become as bad as the GOP when it comes to tossing this kind of stuff out during the election cycle. If they gave two figs about my reproductive rights they would have fixed the loophole that costs BC pills on campuses to rise, they'd have passed a requirment that BC be mandatory on formularies of insrance providers, they wouldn't have caved on Equal pay and they wouldn't have aided and abetted on patial birth. It's insulting that they trot women's issues out now and insist we need to votefr them to preserve what's left of our "rights" as women.  


    My Iraq War bloody shirt is on the coat hanger... (5.00 / 8) (#115)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    ... right next to my KKK robes.

    Picked 'em up off the discount rack at Polemics'R'Us.


    I want to send a BIG message to the Democratic (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by Mari on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    Party. As I live in a swing state, my decision to not vote for Obama will be more meaningful. As time goes by and the more I see of Obama (FISA, courting evangelicals, etc.) and the condescension and contempt of many Obama supporters towards my opinions, the more I am leaning towards voting for McCain.

    Amen, brother. (none / 0) (#169)
    by prittfumes on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    I will vote for Obama (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    but I will completely understand those who don't. In fact, if Obama loses because of those PUMAs out there, I will smile and nod my head knowingly, much as Obama would when told 'they'll HAVE to vote for you, B; it's all about RoeVWade'.

    He brought it on himself, no question, and he's looking for someone else to clean up the mess on aisle 5. Worse, he's EXPECTING someone to clean up his mess.

    Yes (2.50 / 16) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    because what Obama should be doing is spending his time pleading with a tiny portion of Hillary voters who chose to make the primary race a personal battle between themselves and Obama, rather than Hillary vs Obama.

    He brought it on himself in the sense that he had the temerity to run for President.


    What he should be doing... (5.00 / 17) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:01 PM EST
    Is stepping up and trying to earn the votes of the citizens of the United States...including those Base Democrats who voted for the other Democratic candidates.

    Jeeze...this really should be a no-brainer.

    Yet here we are, with you trying to help marginalize a particular set of voters as unimportant.


    17 million votes, net margin (5.00 / 9) (#66)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    That's the "tiny portion" per current polling. Will a majority of them come around by November?

    A majority of Bill Bradley's priamry voters never came around to Gore in 2000, and it cost Gore the election. (In a notable parallel, Donna Brazile's Gore campaign sewed up the nomination by painting Bradley as a racial villain.)


    I'm not sure of your assertion (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    about a majority of BB voters not voting Gore (cite?), but if only partly true, or slightly more true than on average for embittered supporters of primary losers, what does that say about the wisdom of picking up your toys and going home when the outcome gives us someone 1000 times worse?

    As for Brazile/Gore and painting poor BB with some racial stuff, iirc it was Bradley himself who tried to portray Bill and Al as less than caring about minorities (was it welfare reform?), but Al rightly noted that Sen Bradley had little to say when the NJ state police were roughing up black motorists in the 90s.  

    Not all the supporters of primary candidates come around in the fall, but the overwhelming majority do.  When they don't on our side -- certainly in 1968, maybe in 2000 -- the country tends to pay the price needlessly for some folks who still can't seem to see the real difference between the parties.


    I was addressing consequentiality. (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    Rebutting the assertion that hold-outs are so few as to be irrelevant.

    I'll address wisdom another day if and when the choice comes down to McCain or Obama (which is not yet the case).


    Clarification: A majority (54%) of those ... (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    ... who voted for Bradley in the 2000 primaries and were anti-Gore in June (about 52% of all Bradley voters) had not come around by November (when 28% still held out).

    I'm sorry, but you're not going to get away (3.00 / 4) (#80)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    with comparing Obama to Gore. If anything, the comparison is Obama to Bradley.

    Wow, that's great (4.60 / 10) (#60)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    Again with the Vinegar. You guys are really not very good at learning.

    Oh, and here's the problem: That 'tiny portion' of voters is going to make the difference in what is going to be a very close race.

    Good luck with that approach.

    As for temerity to run for President? Anyone can run for it; very few actually have the ability to fill that position. We'll see how Shrubama handles it; you can ignore the similarities as much as you like, but they're there and getting more difficult to ignore. I hope you practice Yoga, because the pretzelling is going to be a b!tch.


    Vote stealing (5.00 / 20) (#30)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    You know what NOBODY EVER talks about?  The vote stealing in MI.  Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?  How does that get swept under the rug so effieciently?  The DNC STOLE votes from Hillary and gave them to Obama.  Why isn't that a problem?

    Maybe because (3.00 / 4) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    the primary race has effectively ended and people are more worried about the general election?

    It's not over for lots of people (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    especially when Obama supporters try to tell us it's over. Sorry, FH, but this isn't the approach I'd suggest.

    Obama Supporters? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    especially when Obama supporters try to tell us it's over.

    You mean like Hillary?


    Especially (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    She's tied by the fact that she has to honor the Dem party and do what's good for the party.

    We are not so tied by loyalty to a party that actively campaigned against her.

    Between you and Flyerhawk I'm having trouble deciding who's more angry / frustrated by this whole thing. Being angry at us won't fix this, but go ahead and keep being that way. EVERY VOTE MATTERS, whether it's in a primary or a general election.

    PUMA votes will decide this election, squeaky. Count on it.


    I'm not sure what you expect (3.60 / 5) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    Should Obama and his supporters continue to argue about a primary race in which the opponent has already conceded(note:conceding and/or suspending their campaigns is the same thing)?

    Hillary Clinton has already ENDORSED Barack Obama!  What else is there to talk about?  

    If something crazy comes up about Obama then maybe we should reconsider but at this time the only people still fighting the primary fight are the so called "Pumas".

    If you want to do that, it's your right.  But you shouldn't be surprised when no one else is responding.


    Hillary has not conceded (5.00 / 5) (#229)
    by chopper on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    Because she knows there is a lot appalling news about Obama out there that hasn't surfaced yet.

    We are hoping some of it surfaces before the convention, not after.

    That's not likely because the GOP is sitting on it all until they know for sure that Obama is the nominee.  They do not want to get rid of Obama until the time is right.  They do not want to have to run against Hillary, they know she is the sure winner.

    We can only hope and pray.  However, there is that psychic with the good track record that said Hillary will win it all.


    shorter flyerhawk (4.00 / 12) (#61)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    She lost. Get over it.

    The thing is (5.00 / 22) (#74)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    I am over Hillary losing.  It's not about Hillary.  It's about the Party.  It's about Obama.  It's about me and my rights as a woman.

    That's what FH and squeaky and the rest don't get.  It isn't about Clinton.  It isn't about McCain.  It's about Obama, who he is, what he's done and said, what he hasn't done and said, what I believe and don't believe about him.  That I learned what I know about Obama during the primaries doesn't make it about Clinton.  It makes it about Obama.


    I totally agree with you. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    Of course it's about Hillary (2.07 / 14) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    you feel that she was unfairly treated by Obama and that this proves that Obama is some nefarious sexist who, apparently, only won because of his evil sexism.  

    The fact that you think that John McCain is a defender of women and women's rights is downright mind boggling.


    nah, I don't think so (5.00 / 9) (#136)
    by Lil on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    most of us just think Hillary was the better candidate who got muscled out by a smooth talking media darling. (among other things). We don't like having to settle, because we've been doing that for a long, long time. Some of us will vote for him anyway and apparently some won't.

    Mind reading. (5.00 / 14) (#151)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    You're bad at it. Give it up.

    She marginalizes Hillary supporters (5.00 / 21) (#31)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    in the same way as male writers. It's not that she's a woman that women support her and not only women support her. It's not that she's historic but that she's qualified and competent. The sexism was so horrible that now that we are talking about it, it just seems in retrospect that her candidacy was a feminist issue. She was a Clinton before she was a woman during the primary season. When the CDS didn't stop her, then the sexism  ramped up.

    There is absolutely no reason for Obama to choose a female VP. I can't think of one that would better his chances other than Hillary and possibly not even her(and not because she's a woman but because she's Hillary).

    My parents, the pissed FL voters (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    arrived yesterday with a McCain sticker on their car.

    Mom apologized to me, but she was so livid with the treatment that HRC & Florida (MI too) got from the DNC that the moment HRC bowed out, she decided she was done with being a yellow dog (voted Dem for every election since her first--JFK).

    If there are more like her, the DNC has some seriously broken fences that need to be mended.

    That's pretty frightening, frankly. (3.66 / 3) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    Yeah...pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    Her dad (my grandfather) was friends/neighbors (regional farms) with DP Moynihan. They've been Dems since way back.

    You don't have to vote for McCain to be PUMA. (5.00 / 13) (#63)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    It's a loose coalition.  It's all over the place.  there is not one way to be PUMA.  Further, it's about Obama and the DNC more than Hillary and the media.

    Do articles like this always have to say, oh they will vote for him?  It completely trivializes the subject of the article.

    OMG, these people can not be more wrong. (5.00 / 13) (#81)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    Let's not just speak to a handful of Hillary supporters and then assert the "truth".

    "Because the truth is that many of Clinton's most devoted supporters overcame their own ambivalence about her because they believed it was so important to establish a precedent, to break the glass ceiling and put a woman in a job that has never been filled by a woman before."

    Not true in the slightest.  I support Hill because she is the best person for the job.  That's it.

    Her conclusion is overly optimistic (5.00 / 10) (#97)
    by aquarian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    I think at least 25% of Clinton supporters will not come home in the fall.  Whether they vote for McCain is still an open question.

    In my view, the biggest source of irritation to PUMAs is MSM's attempt to explain why they are angry while holding on to the mistaken belief that in November PUMAs will come home because they have no where else to go.  Frankly, I would feel much better if the media would shut up and go away.  The MSM's navel-gazing is counterproductive because it is so utterly lacking in sincerity.  This "national conversation" about Clinton's mistreatment cannot be had because the people trying to converse are complicit.  

    I have stopped watching network news completely.  I no longer read the newspapers.  I have given up on most "progressive" blogs. I have stopped donating to the DNC.  I am tuning the voices out that I no longer want to hear.  It leaves me in a lonely place.  While I am not a PUMA, I can understand the motivations of those who are.

    I'm not a PUMA, many of whom (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by magnetics on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    seem actively engaged in defeating Obama, and some of whom will actually vote for McCain.

    I share, nonetheless, a deep sense that the Democratic Party has chosen (by a process not orthogonal to manipulation) a grossly unqualified candidate over one highly qualified-- and this for trivial backbiting turf-protecting reasons.

    I will not work to defeat Obama; neither will I work to elect him; I will not vote for him unless he chooses Hillary as VP.

    PUMA on the 2011 McCain Draft re-enactment (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MrPope on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    What is pumas stance on 2011 draft during the 3rd year of the McCain presidency/

    He did not "win" by the votes of the (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    people. He took it with the hands of the SD's. President's don't get to be President's that way, that would be a monarch, not a republic.

    Well, having now read the entire (5.00 / 10) (#149)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    article, I can say that it was, all in all, pretty offensive.

    For one, it was loaded with pejoratives:

    "grumpy old ladies"

    "like cougars in a very bad mood"

    "why are they such buzzkills?"

    "had never heard a woman's high-pitched forced laughter"

    "Clinton supporters remain so besotted by their woman as the history maker..."

    And so on.

    This was an article that did nothing - nothing - to dispel the accepted, negative image of the Clinton supporter, and might even have reinforced it.

    And just so Rebecca knows, I am not angry because I know that when all is said and done I will be voting for Obama - that does not get anywhere close to why I feel the way I do.

    I am not a child in the midst of a temper tantrum, to be described as "kicking and screaming" about not being able to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Traister makes it sound like there are only petty, inconsequential reasons to be angry - and she is yet another one with a pretty big case of "get over it."

    Sorry - this article did not sit well with me.  At all.

    To reduce PUMA to nothing more than a group (5.00 / 29) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    of angry bitter (old) women is in itself sexist. There are many reasons and not just women's issues why men as well as women are not real eager to unite behind Obama as the nominee. Agreed, women have been more vocal and the media is concentrating on that aspect but it is not the only reason.

    I for one lost much of my confidence in the Democratic Party long before the primary season even started. I spend a great deal of money in 06 getting the Democrats a majority only to see them rubber stamp Bush's Iraq and FISA policies after doing their little weak whiney token dance.

    With the Republicans in total disarray and the conservative movement being very visibly shown as totally incompetent in every area that effects everyday people, the Dems had a real chance to demonstrate by stressing the differences that they were the party of the people and could be trusted to lead the country. They had the opportunity to pull the curtain back on all the lies that the Republicans have perpetrated over the last 30 years.

    Instead the party has chosen a candidate and a party agenda that IMO  props up the Republicans and conservatism. Obama has gone out of his way to state that the gridlock in DC is almost shared equally between the Dems and the Republicans, has praised the Republicans on having better ideas on such things as government regulations and has stated that he wants to adopt a foreign policy like Reagan, adopted the Republican mantra that Social Security in in crisis, run Republican Harry and Louis ads against UHC, had cure the gays ministers campaign for him, made statements about choice that seem to indicate that a woman needs the approval of male and religious leaders prior to determining what is best for her and has been called to serve as a committed Christian that further blurs the lines between church and state. Obama stood silent when death threats were issued against Tavis Smily and his supporters harassed his family. Republican tactics were used to intimidate CBC members who chose to support Hillary.

    The New Democratic Party does not represent my interests or my values. A party that does not honor its oath of office to protect the Constitution does not represent me. A party that disenfranchises voters and assigns unearned delegates in opposition to the votes cast does not represent me. A party that abandons the working class, derides them as racist, low class and uneducated and no longer part of the base does not represent me. A party that stands by and allows or joins in the worst type of sexism to achieve a desired result does not represent me. IMO the Democratic Party has chosen to move even closer to the Republican Party and adopt some of its worse aspects. Right now I don't see either party representing me or my interests.

    Obama should be fighting for it. (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Don't you think?

    I'll wait and see exactly what he does in the next five months.  So far, he's unimpressive.

    Good grief (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    are you channeling squeaky and flyerhawk now? or have you always been this insulting and obnoxious and I just now noticed?

    If people want to bring age into this, fine (3.00 / 4) (#172)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    but don't expect me to be nice about it.

    No one expects you to be nice (5.00 / 7) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    I'm not talking about that comment (5.00 / 7) (#204)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    I'm talking about all of yours in this thread, and other threads. You've become a condescending insulter when you disagree with someone and you think you know everything - including throwing nuclear waste mindlessly into Nevadans' backyards.

    I disagree disagreeably (3.25 / 4) (#209)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    That's just me. But you'll never find a happier agreer, and you'll always know what I really think.

    Traister sets my teeth on edge (5.00 / 19) (#165)
    by songster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    with her on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand pontificating.  She is ripe for the Daily Howler treatment.

    What many are failing to understand is that for some of us (how many? I wish I knew) the pragmatic arguments aren't going to work any more. We're not "used to always getting what we want," on the contrary, we've been doggedly voting for the lesser evil for decades. Something fatal has happened. A line has been crossed that can't be un-crossed. Each of us experiences it a bit differently. For me, it's that the party has chosen to nominate someone who won, in part, by capitalizing on mass hatred, and no one in a position of power objected until it was too late to have any effect.

    I'm just not part of that system any more.  I can't be. I harbor no illusions that I can push the party in a direction I prefer; I'm no Naderite. It's more like being a conscientious objector. When it comes to presidential politics, I'm outta here.

    I feel exactly the same (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    who are you talking to? (5.00 / 10) (#171)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    I'm going to vote for Obama. I'm just critical of him. Is that not allowed? Don't you see that your knee-jerk defensiveness only serves to alienate more people from your cause? We had enough of "don't question him!" from Bushbots for 8 years. It's not an appealing quality in some Obama-supporters.

    And again I ask: what is his progressive agenda?

    His health care plan has been critiqued by Krugman and Elizabeth Edwards as less-than-universal. Universal health care was once a big progressive goal.

    His stance on FISA last week was not particularly progressive, was it?

    Ditching public funds--part of a longterm progressive goal to reform campaign finance--was not particularly progressive, was it?

    His votes in support of the Iraq War were not particularly progressive, were they?

    Vote for the guy, by all means. I'm going to. He's better than John McCain. But please stop calling him a progressive. He's a center-left pragmatist.

    The progressive "movement" is nothing at all if people don't know what it stands for and toss the term around as a meaningless identity badge. Hell, half the people at Kos aren't progressives but they think they are. They're anti-Republicans who were smitten with Dean and now Obama. It's all about personality, not policies. And that's disturbing. Fortunately, a few have principles and are sticking to their guns on this FISA thing, at least. But, if you truly consider yourself a progressive, beware the ones who have been curiously silent or who have scolded those who've dared to question Obama's poor decision last week.  Those people are not progressives.

    P.S. his corporatist approach to energy (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    isn't particularly progressive either.

    Look up his connections to the nuclear power industry in Illinois. And in today's NYT there's a story on his ties to the corn ethanol agri-industry.

    Again, by all means vote for him, but don't tell us he's pure as the driven snow--or that he's a progressive--or that you care much about progressive causes yourself if you're so infatuated with him that you can't bear to hear any criticism.

    Vote for him, as I will, but the more you know about him, the more you'll need to stick a clothespin on your nose when you cast that vote.


    Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    "His health care plan has been critiqued by Krugman and Elizabeth Edwards as less-than-universal"

    but they said it was good otherwise.

    "Ditching public funds--part of a longterm progressive goal to reform campaign finance--was not particularly progressive, was it?"

    He wants to win.  I want him to win.  Maybe the Rs will see themselves getting clobbered in money-raising for once and will see the wisdom of real CFR.

    Check out his LGBT policies.  Check out his stance on sunshine.  Consider that his FP positions were to the left of HRC.

    He's not Russ Feingold.  Who's not running for the White House because he wouldn't get there.


    Oh no - I think the fun will be all yours, (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    and for a lot longer than some of us who started voting a decade or more before you were born.

    I gave money to the Pumas (5.00 / 9) (#184)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    I find them the only sane people around (apart from TL of course)...
    Anglachel and Riverdaughter are the best to explain the movement.

    Not some jaded female journalist who equates"grumpy old ladies",with "buzzkills", then  takes as  her starting point "Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus" to affirm that "in conflict, women simply want to be heard", and concludes:  "The truth is, they'll probably love voting for him "(Obama), but they'll be "damned if they're going to be nice girls about it".

    The point I agree with most in Traister's article is that Pumas are angry with Howard Dean. See


    I also agree with Anglachel, who on Saturday, quoted Paul Krugman who had blogged "My biggest concern about an Obama administration is that, in the end, he won't make universal health care a priority." and said herself:

    "The problem with Democratic compromises is that they are over things that should never be bargained away, such as privacy, a social safety net, transparent government responsive to the citizenry, and other fundamental principles of liberal democracy."

    see also Riverdaughter for the first PUMA manifesto:

    There are leaders, and there are followers (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    you, andgarden, are a follower.

    It would be a huge mistake (5.00 / 18) (#193)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    to think that the sole reason PUMA's are angry at Obama and the media is sexism/misogyny. That's a major reason, of course. But there is so much more. There are also these troubling facts:

    1-The blatant smearing of Hillary Clinton as a racist by Obama, his campaign, the media, and his supporters.

    2-The blatant smearing of Clinton supporters as racists solely based on the fact that they voted for Clinton and not Obama.

    3-The constant smears of Obama and the media that had no basis in reality. The RFK assassination fiasco is a good example. And don't tell me Obama had nothing to do with that. His campaign was sending copies of Olbermann's rant on that all over the place.

    4-The totally undemocratic actions of the RBC in relation to FL/MI.

    5-The constant demand by Obama, his supporters, the media, and the DNC leadership that Clinton drop out.

    6-The very obvious way the DNC drug Obama across the finish line, even though ever since March he was weaker by the day and Hillary had the momentum, the votes and the strength.

    7-The deliberate framing of pledged delegate count as the only metric for gauging the winner. If that were true, why was it in February that everyone - including Howard Dean and the Obama campaign - that the popular vote was the most important metric?

    8-The blatant fraud that was occuring at the caucuses, and subsequently swept under the table.

    9-Vote suppression, particularly on the last day of the primary.

    10-The obvious collusion of the dem leadership into pushing SD's to endorse Obama to end it immediately, rather than giving them time to assess who would do the best in the electoral system, who was polling better in the actual states in the general, etc.

    11-The number of skeletons in Obama's closet, including Rezko, Ayres, Auchi, etc., that have yet to be fully examined by the press - but you can expect them to go into full gear after August. There is the nagging problem also that Obama could actually be indicted in the Rezko mess if you've fully followed it (the only place to do so is the Chicago media. They sure don't talk about it on MSNBC).

    And I could go on and on. Many, many PUMA's feel that this whole primary was deliberately tipped to Obama by a corrupt far-left DNC faction that didn't care what the voters want, that doesn't really care if they win the presidency in November, and that is happily trying to purge the party of voting blocs they find distasteful, such as blue collar workers and gays. Sexism is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. The more that is revealed, the more repelled I get. And no, Mr. Obama, I won't "get over it."

    You can sum it up in one statement (5.00 / 20) (#203)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    The democrats had one exceptionally well qualified candidate, and one unqualified. The DNC forced the unqualified candidate on the country. They have effectively taken the power of the people away, and that is a change we won't take quietly.

    His lack of experience (4.69 / 13) (#222)
    by katiebird on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
    was always presented as a lack of experience in Washington.  But he has actually barely held a full time job -- it's bizarre. And ask an Obama supporter for his significant accomplishments in the jobs he's had.  His accomplishments in the jobs he's had are nonexistent.

    BTD, i'm not letting (5.00 / 8) (#197)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    sen. obama off the hook as easily as you ignored his complicity in the sexism and misogyny displayed towards sen. clinton and, by extension, all women.

    in fact, his freudian slip constantly showing should be a clue to any thinking person: this man is a danger to himself and others!

    i'm not suggesting sen. obama is some kind of "manchurian candidate" (i don't think he's that competent), but i don't trust him. i fear an obsequious dem controlled congress would not act as a break on him, as they would on a pres. mccain.

    actually, i don't even particularly like sen. obama, which is kind of sad, since i did at the beginning of the primaries. congratulations to him on his accomplishment.

    at least with mccain, we pretty much know what we're getting (yes, he's a nutcase, but a known nutcase), and i believe i'd prefer a king lear to a macbeth in the white house, at this point.

    as jeralyn is fond of saying "better the devil you know.............."

    what is offensive (5.00 / 16) (#219)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    about this whole discussion is the marginalizing  of Clinton's supporters as a case study in anger management rather than an exploration of why those voters chose Clinton over Obama and continue to do so. The  study of their anger from losing the historic opportunity to reproductive rights, from every "ism" known to their just plain mad at men,  says why someone thinks emotion is the root cause of why some Clinton supporters won't support Obama instead of what Obama didn't do to garnish their support. It's a recipe for how  to turn the voter into something we can define as flawed. Antipathy rearing its ugly head, there has got to be an emotional rational of why they're not like us.

    The characterizations of the "creative class" and the "low information voter" are all signs of a lazy punditry driven to expeditious analysis of the current political psycho drama instead of a thorough examination of the strengths and failures of the candidates themselves.

    I'm not a member of PUMA but they have every right to organize and say no to the Democratic Party and Obama because the Dems are not who they say they are. I applaud their efforts. They are stepping up to do what they believe is right. The Dems profess the same thing, but in who's interest? The party's or the nation's. They are not necessarily one in the same. PUMA is saying nation first, it should not be trivialized to anger, just like the Dems choice should not be trivialized to stupidity.

    In the very least everyone knows who Clinton is. She never redefined taking lobbyists' money, she took responsibility for her votes, she never voted present or ducked a vote when her vote was needed. No one is still trying to figure her out. But even after nearly 2 yrs on the national stage after 200 million dollars spent everyone still doesn't know who Obama really is and its hard to say whether or not Obama even knows the answer to that question.

    PUMA appears to be taking a stand and in America nothing is wrong with that.

    Healthcare (5.00 / 10) (#221)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    is a HUGE issue for me. Gynecological cancer is a HUGE disease in my family, and I'm approaching the age (50) when Ovarian and breast cancer in my family shows up.   If I get cancer and can't get insurance, then bring it on terrorists, just make sure that my house is ground zero.

    To universal healthcare, Obama JUST. SAID. NO.  Therefore, I vote for McCain in the hope that we have a chance at a different Democrat in 2012.  I still hope (maybe to no avail) that there are still Democrats of the type that convinced me to become a Democrat.

    Those whose house is on fire because we might have McCain in the white house for 4 years look ridiculous to me.  For me, 8 years of Obama followed by more like him is the absolutely worst case scenario

    Bring me McCain for 4 years (with a Democratic Congress that knows where their spine is) and then another chance at healthcare in 4 years.  That's the best case scenario for me and probably a huge number of folks JUST LIKE ME.

    I'm a PUMA (5.00 / 6) (#225)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    and the article doesn't much bother me.  I don't think it's entirely correct - it leaves out some of what bothers me about Obama and adds some items I don't get at all (why should I be mad at Bill Clinton?), but the overall tone isn't horribly condescending.  Even her statement that we'll mostly come around strikes me more as a hope than a demand.  I think she's wrong, but I guess we'll see in November.

    That said, I really don't think the PUMA movement is going to be what does Obama in (assuming he loses, of course).  There aren't enough people like me to do that.  It'll be people like my parents - 70 years old, life-long Democrats, TV news watchers but not news junkies - who were so stunned by the DNC actions in Michigan that they switched their voter registrations to Unaffiliated.  Watching them watch that happen was painful.  My father kept asking, "How can they do that?  How can they take her delegates?" and the only thing I could say was, "They can do it because they have the power to do it."

    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
     "If they want to win in November, they have to actively solicit our votes and let Hillary make her case in Denver".

    Well, Obama and Clinton are going to be campaigning together starting this Friday.

    I don't really know what you mean by the latter.  Clinton isn't going to show up at the convention arguing they should make her the nominee.  There may be some revision of the Florida and Michigan decision(probably awarding full votes), and it's been reported that Clinton is on the short list of possible VP choices for Obama.  Clinton will also be afforded a prime time opportunity in the near future to talk about sexism during the primary campaign.  

    Since she's not going to be seeking the nomination at the convention(and she might not actually want the VP position(or her husband's post-presidency speaking engagements might be too big of a liability)), what else could the DNC and the Obama campaign do to earn PUMA votes?  Fully reinstate Florida?  Put Clinton-style UHC in the party's platform?  

    dieregard and disrespect pumas (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    at your own risk is what i would say to the obama campaign. look a signficant part of the democratic core base is out the door. why is that? well for many who didn't even have hillary on the radar at the beginning of this campaign has to do WITH THE MISTAKES THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN MADE. face it, the sexism, race baiting, dissing core democratic groups resulted in this. i know many don't want to hear it, but it happens to be the truth. as far as i can see the general is probably lost not because of hillary or the pumas but because of the mistakes i listed. that is the truth. face it because unless and until you do, the dems will snatch failure out of the arms of success again which is very sad.

    What about qualifications? (5.00 / 4) (#233)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    A lot of Clinton supporters feel that Obama is totally unqualified to be President----as do a lot of voters, generally.

    The single most depressing thread EVER... (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    ...at TalkLeft.

    I wasn't a partisan of either candidate in the Democratic race, my only allegiance was and is to making sure John McCain does not become president.  

    Apparently, however, there are many otherwise Democratic party folks, and it is certainly their right, who will be registering their outrage at the party by voting for McCain.

    Whatever problems I have with Obama's schtick and his lack of lengthy poltical record is more than outweighed by McCain's long record of far-right conservatism (the fact he occasionally, very occasionally bucks the far right somehow has landed him the b.s. "maverick" label), his lack of respect for reproductive rights, his malevolence (a more military-industrical complex guy you could not find; hell, he's got a nice rep for trying to physically intimidate colleagues who piss him off), corruption (for heaven's sake, he was one of the Keating Five!), his anti-intellectualism and Dubya'-like incuriosity, almost everything, you name it.

    No amount of antipathy toward Obama could make me rationalize a vote for McCain as a vote to somehow change the Democratic party.  That, to me, is simply not logical.  I understand the impulse, but the effect of that impulse will be much different.  Your vote for McCain will not influence McCain to do anything for you, since you are not voting FOR him, you are voting against someone else.  You want the worst Supreme Court in post-modern history?  Vote McCain.  You want American militarism to essentially operate status-quo?  Vote Mcain.  You want more tax cuts for the rich?  Vote McCain.  And on and on.  Of course, I can't guarantee Obama will do anything, and I have HUGE concerns about them, but one has a rational mind in the end, and no amount of twisting will convince mine that a vote for McCain is anything more than a vote for another decade of defacto Dubya.  

    And THAT, right now, with THIS presidential election looming, is more important to me than changing the Democratic Party.  You want to call it the lesser of two evils, fine.  Life is full of ugly, difficult ironies.  Some will choose to make theirs a vote for McCain.  I won't.  If I'm going to f*ck up, it's not going to be by voting for a the Republican Party in THIS election.

    After ten years of Dubya?  Mired in Iraq?  Treading water nationally on every level?

    No chance.

    Obama ain't no savior, but McCain has a long record of being a known destoyer.

    And I doubt a single PUMA could convince Hillary Clinton, their beloved and deserving candidate, that what they are doing is in the interests of the nation or the Democratic Party.  In fact, Hillary would easily refute them.  Without a doubt.  She's a smart cookie.  You think she couldn't knock their argument on its ass?

    Now THAT's irony.

    Can't vote for a racist; will vote for mccain (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by zridling on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    I've never voted repub in all my life (47 years), but this year will be a first. I'm organizing in favor of mccain and rallying voters against downticket Dems who are supporting obama in Missouri (e.g., Claire McCaskill). Obama said nothing for 20 years as Jeremiah Wright et al. spewed their racist hate in his own church. Then obama stood by silently as the media poured invective on Hillary for the past year. The obama not only did not want to count — or revote — votes in FL and MI, but somehow was awarded the delegates of votes he never received.

    THAT is not a Democrat, and stop saying that you are supporting a democrat when you support obama. You're not.

    Obama will win the popular vote, but lose the election on electoral votes. And he'll get a taste of what Hillary and Al Gore both know. And maybe, just maybe, he can peddle his hope/change/keep FISA politics somewhere else.

    Not a PUMA either... (4.80 / 5) (#8)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    officially, anyway. I will  vote for Obama this fall. I will also be leaving the Democratic party for good after my vote for many of the reasons stated in the article.

    I'm not an angry, sore loser either. I believe Maya Angelou spoke the truth when she said (and I am murdering the quote here, sorry) "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

    Well, the "new" Democratic Party has shown me what they are and I am not sticking around for more abuse.

    Why wait? (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    You can leave the Democratic Party and still vote for Obama in the fall. The primaries are over, and now is the time to send the message, if that is why you are leaving.

    Yep, I changed my registration in May. (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    After 32 years of being a Democrat, I'm now an Independent. I decided that I had to vote for the Democratic nominee over the Republican, but I'd be damned if I stayed with this party.

    I am still waiting for someone to articulate precisely what the Pelosi-Reid-Dean-Obama party stands for. It's not campaign finance reform. It's not energy independence (unless that means corn ethanol subsidies), it's not FISA, it's not privacy, it's not "count every vote," it's not the working class....What does this party represent?

    All I know is that the Dems are the Republicans, and that's enough to make me vote for Obama in November. But I'll do it as an Independent, not a Democrat. I won't belong to a party that is so ill-defined.


    I was for Hillary because the Clintons (4.75 / 4) (#87)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    are by far the most accomplished and knowledgeable people I know.
    I was disgusted with the media smear campaign, the DNC's grotesque smarm, and Obama's age, race, and gender baiting. Even now watching the media ignore all of that and invent a bunch of fantasies to explain Hillary's loss is unsetting by gastro intestinal system.
    I'll vote for Obama, though. But I'm so bummed that I won't get to hear the Clinton's vast knowledge and flawless reasoning for eight more years. I certainly won't be listening to Obama's shallow rhetoric.
    I know better than to watch MSNBC again. They're owned by GE, a huge defense contractor that's probably made billions on the war. As for Olberman, he throws insults at Bush to distract attention from the guys who sign his paycheck. How anyone can think he's a voice from the left is beyond my comprehension.
    The media have always attacked our smartest leaders, and since public opinion has swung to us, they've been in damage control mode. That's why they went after Hillary. Now they'll probably go after Obama, but more subtly, trying to cut back on his margin.
    I'm not much interested in the democratic party anymore. They're a bunch of honorless rubes as far as I'm concerned; but I won't leave the party unless Obama actually looses the election. That would be the straw that broke this camel's back.

    I'm a PUMA (4.71 / 14) (#57)
    by chopper on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    There are so many more reasons for being a PUMA and voting for McCain besides sexism.

    There is the way the DNC colluded with Obama in stealing Hillary's FL & MI delegates. Yes, they conspired.  You cannot pack up the DNC and move it to Chicago on a whim.  There was obviously planning well ahead of the DNC commission stripping Hillary of her delegates, but not stripping Obama of his SC delegates, even though SC broke the same rule.

    Without that deceitful move Hillary would have won the delegate count in addition to the People's Votes.  Didn't Pelosi say "go with the will of the People".  What is more representative of "the will of the People" than the People's Votes.

    There was the way Obama stole delegates through the caucuses by sending his thugs in to the caucuses and using threats, force, fraud, and theft.  There were over 2000 complaints filed in TX alone, and with the phone lines jammed.  Now that Obama has taken over the DNC I doubt that we will hear anymore about it. Don't believe me? - Google Texas caucus corruption, Iowa caucus corruption, etc.

    The proof is in the results with TX being the prime example - Hillary won the legitimate primary then Obama's thugs stole the caucus delegates.

    There are many articles on the disproportunate and inequitable nature of the caucuses, but Obama used corruption to guarantee those delegates.

    There is the problem of the DNC pushing Obama on the superdelegates even though Hillary is obviously more qualified with the experience, judgement, maturity, record of accomplishments, etc.  The SDs being bribed or threatened or both.  The AA Congressman and Hillary-backer  from MO spoke out about it.

    There are the threats, aggressiveness, web-site attacks, insults, lies and so forth coming from Obama's followers, and he encourages it.

    There are so many reasons we don't want Obama as president, some are out there and some not yet. The frustration comes from the media not doing it's job and vetting him.  We don't even know if he is eligible to be prez because he hasn't produced a legitimate birth certificate.

    I could go on and on, but I just want you to know that it's more than sexism and disrespect.

    The question is (4.00 / 2) (#64)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    even supposing all of these things you argue are correct, is that a sufficient reason to want McCain as President? No way.

    PUMAs don't want McCain as POTUS (4.14 / 7) (#77)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    At best, we're "Democrats Who Don't Like McCain for McCain".

    If and when the time comes, I'll lay out sufficient reason to vote for McCain.

    Until then, it's a long summer.


    You'll say why McCain is better. . .someday. (2.25 / 12) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST
     Until then, you're content to hold the rest of the party hostage.

    Sorry, but I don't play that game.

    Thank you for demonstrating how vapid your so-called movement is.


    My father is as yellow dog as anyone can be. (5.00 / 13) (#104)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    He holds a PhD in political science.  He was a fulbright scholar.  He has been watching presidential elections since he was six, and for the first time he doesn't have a dog in the race.  Everyone who doesn't support Obama is not some vapid idiot.

    If you can come up with a reason (3.00 / 7) (#110)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    to support McCain over Obama, great. If you think he'll be more progressive or a better supporter of the whole panoply of issues you care about, great. But if you can't, there is no good reason to vote for him over Obama, or even to not vote.

    Since when do people (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    have to have a good reason to vote for someone?

    Fine, vote irrationally (1.70 / 10) (#134)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    Be my guest.

    Oh, no. Not that! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    One doesn't have to vote for either. (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    if you vote for neither, you are giving (3.00 / 3) (#130)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    a half vote to each.

    Ok. (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    1/2 vote is perfect (5.00 / 9) (#192)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    1/2 vote for the candidate who has the qualifications to be president and 1/2 vote for the candidate who does not but who is closer (hopefully) to my views.  And bonus - DNC corruption not ratified.  Perfect compromise.

    That does not follow, logically (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    You want this to happen again in four years? (5.00 / 12) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    The PEOPLE own the government. The DNC gamed this primary and there is a large segment of the population who wants very much to make sure this never happens again.

    That you can be so compliant with their manipulation is fine for you, but not for those of us who want to see this country recoup and retain its greatness.


    RonK and I both live in reliably blue WA State (5.00 / 13) (#123)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    Obama will win handily here without our help.

    Unlike Ron, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for McCain. Neither will I, under any circumstances, vote for Obama.

    And, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being lectured to by people who weren't even born when I first started voting.

    Color me PUMA.


    As a co-founder of the PUMAs, I would like to say (4.55 / 18) (#183)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    that Rebecca Traister has no idea what she is talking about.  
    You can read the post, PUMA Power at my site, The Confluence to see what our goals were.  In short, Obama is a phenomenon that should have been of short duration but he was carried across the finish line by his friends in the DNC and the media.  In short, the game was rigged to favor the non-Clinton candidate  (I think we can all agree that the RBC hearing gave credibility to this theory).  Furthermore, neither the DNC or Obama has made any effort to reach out to the Clinton Democrats, which are mostly FDR Democrats, but they think we have to hand over our votes.  The superdelegates were supposed to intervene to prevent an Obama style candidacy from happening but the system failed and we got the weaker candidate.  
    Our votes are our own.  No one is entitled to them.  Barack Obama and the DNC has to earn them.  If they don't, if they continue to obstruct a fair and transparent convention, if they continue to ignore 18 million voters, there will be consequences.  We do not subscribe to the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" theory. There would be no reason for the DNC to ever pay attention to us again if we just handed our votes over without getting something back.  Uh-uh.  If they want to win in November, they have to actively solicit our votes and let Hillary make her case in Denver.  Otherwise, we vote our consciences in November.  If the party doesn't represent us, they aren't entitled to our votes.  They have a choice.

    The difference is (4.50 / 8) (#173)
    by chopper on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    Hillary has and will stand up and fight for her beliefs.  Obama goes with the wind and the money.

    As they say about Chicago politics, which Obama is a part of, there is no Dem or Repub, it's who has the money.

    Obama says he doesn't take lobbyist money, but he has taken more than any other candidate, especially from big oil.

    No links - just google Obama lobbyists.

    You prove with every comment (4.42 / 7) (#167)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    how little you get it.

    Have your own fun, sonny.

    Why do so many not get (4.36 / 19) (#20)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    that many of us WILL NOT vote for Obama?  

    I will not support the Democratic Shrub.  Obama has shown he will not fight for progressive policies (unless for some insane reason they benefit his big business buddies)

    I will reward the DNC, Obama and others.

    It's like a cancer, I can ignore that it is there and let it slowly kill me or I can cut it out and get really sick for a year and hopefully come back better than ever.

    sorry...will NOT reward (none / 0) (#22)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    flyerhawk (none / 0) (#28)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    thank you for that

    I consider that quite the compliment coming from you!


    No problem (2.33 / 3) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    when someone calls Barack Obama "shrub" they are truly deserving of a low rate.

    You may now go back to your self-created reality in which Obama is more Conservative than John McCain.


    and you can go back (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    to your dream world in which Obama is qualified in any way to be POTUS

    You don't know what you will get with a charlatan. (3.60 / 5) (#111)
    by chopper on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    It' starting to make more and more sense to vote for McCain.

    McCain will be a one-term prez.

    McCain will have his hands tied by a Democratic Congress.

    McCain will not touch Roe v Wade.

    The Iraqi Prime Minister said, after talking to Obama by phone, that there is basically no difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq.

    McCain may not have an abundance of knowledge on the economy like Hillary does, but Obama has no knowledge on the economy. Obama even put down Clinton's GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY.

    McCain works well with both sides, Obama has destroyed his own party. He is in no way a uniter, he can't be trusted, he has been proven to be a flip-flopper and a liar, and he and his gang use very dubious tactics to get their way.

    More and more voters are going to McCain and leaving Obama.


    The article listed (1.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    ... 12 reasons for this class of people. But, it didn't mention Republican Trolls.

    Great to see so many bad Democrats! (1.00 / 0) (#240)
    by Mad Donkey on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    It's funny; I keep reading about how there aren't really any Democrats, much less female Democrats, who simply won't vote for Obama. And then I keep on running into them in the comments sections of blogs, and hearing about polls showing 20% or so crossover to McCain. The press is heavily vested in pretending that we don't exist.

    Incidentally, not all Democrats are progressives. Hallelujah. Given a choice between McCain and a Democratic Congress and a novice, unprincipled, leftist opportunist with a Democratic Congress, I know which choice is beter for America.

    Don't Be a Good Democrat

    [Hillary] wants you to be [over it]

    First, I doubt it very much. Second, so what? Many people supported Clinton because Obama was a disaster, not because they were the equivalent of Obamatons over her.

    As for the article, I thought she got a good bit of it right (if not for me personally). Wrong: Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, and the "held hostage". Clearly, some of them aren't being held hostage.

    PUMA? (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    Geez, I go on vacation and suddenly I can't speak the language any more!  What is PUMA?

    Part Unity My A** (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Against the DNC and (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    Obama's candidacy. Membership growing by the day.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#14)
    by GregNYC on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    The article had some good point.

    As for Sebelius, if Obama picks her over Hillary the whole second tier media narrative will be how this is another "diss directed at Hillary."

    The main narrative will be positive because we know the media wants to frame it that way - but the second tier grumbling that Hillary supporters listen too because the loudest noise is glowingly knee-jerk will piss people Hillary's dedicated supporters.

    I doubt he'll pick Sebelius.

    The timing is still way off (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST
    re Sebelius as VP.  Too soon after HRC's concession.  More prep work needed by TeamO if he's serious about that one.

    O and Hillary are scheduled to campaign together later this week.  Let's see what happens.  

    The PSD hire would seem to be a fairly clear signal by TeamO however that HRC for VP is not gonna happen.

    With that potential out of the way (hopefully) we could consider some viable alternatives.

    Sebelius, like some others, has her downsides, but overall she doesn't hurt the ticket (requirement #1 for a Veep) and she furthers the successful Change theme.  

    Meanwhile there are far worse picks he could make.


    Sebelius will never be a good pick (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    to the Hillary supporters.  She and Richardson are the absolute worst picks.

    You don't need to be a Clinton supporter (4.75 / 4) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    to find Richardson (buffoon) and Sebelius (carbon copy of Obama, sans ability to give a good speech) poor choices.

    Obviously not. But the will never be a good time (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    to announce Sebelius as VP.  That choice will never appeal to the majority of Hillary supporters.

    Judas Bill is much more of a (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    self-generating gaffe machine.  I also suspect he'd alienate far more of the Clinton wing than O picking Sebelius.  

    And try to imagine how Bill and Hill could go out there, enthusiastically, to stump for a ticket with Gov Judas on it.  Almost unimaginable.

    As for KS, carbon copy/can't give speech isn't that strong enough of an argument against.  

    Did Carbon Copy hurt Bill in 92 when he picked CC Al Gore?

    And wasn't Al considered slightly wooden and leaden in giving speeches?  And wasn't Bill back then still considered a bit of a windbag behind the lectern?


    Correction (none / 0) (#194)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    Sebelius will never be a good pick to a [portion] of Hillary supporters. This [portion will never vote] for Obama, no matter what. A large portion of Hillary supporters will however be thrilled with Sebelius as VP. A large number of Republican women (and men) will also be extremely happy with an Obama-Sebelius ticket, they will cross over to vote. Sebelius would have been a viable candidate for VP even if she were a man. She has executive experience, has red state appeal (expanding the electoral map is important to Obama) and seems to be very comfortable working with Obama. IMHO, Sebelius, Wesley Clark and Tim Kaine are 3 of the best VP candidates in the list from which Obama can pick. I hope the fact that Sebelius is a woman will not go against her when the decision regarding the VP candidate is made, it would be a travesty of justice if that happened.

    Sibelius (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    would be a terrible pick from the point of view of unity and otherwise.  A female in many ways inferior to Hillary would be a direct slap in the face to Hillary and her supporters, regardless of how much time has passed. Sibelius would also add nothing to Obama's experience or national security/foreign policy know how.  
    A Sibelius pick would show Obama to be wrongly convinced that he will have no trouble going head to head with McCain on national security and that he does not need any sector of the electorate that voted for Hillary.  

    Iow, KS would be a terrible pick (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    -- except for nearly all of the rest.

    As for offending HRC backers, that's mostly because (again) this sort of pick would need more public groundwork laid.

    Though it needs to be noted that some HRC supporters on this board, including yours truly, would find it far more of a slap in the face to the highly experienced and older Hillary to have her take marching orders from the younger less experienced O.


    She got a lot right (none / 0) (#118)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    Didn't like these two:
    had never heard a woman's high-pitched forced laughter
    (cough, Kathleen Sebelius, cough) seem like pallid substitutes, and the only reason Team Obama would even pick one is to placate stubborn Clinton supporters.
    But I can identify with a few of these. She left out the one that maybe we see a big flaw with BHO being the best Presidential candidate the Democrats can offer and see problems with his Presidency.

    5,6,7,11, and 12. That is me. I don't care as much as losing a close one. Have gotten use to that. There were flaws in the primary but that is not what I dwell on. But she got me on 5 out of 12.

    An honest account of one woman's opinion. (none / 0) (#188)
    by halstoon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    For all the people to whom this article represents an exact rendering of their thoughts, the author herself notes that "It undoubtedly misrepresents the feelings of any number of Hillary heads."

    I think it's interesting to note that no matter how feminist one seems to be, sexist--or at least potentially sexist--language is simply unavoidable, as when Traister notes that one of the great things about Hillary for women was that they "had never heard a woman's high-pitched forced laughter when she answered interview questions on TV." If a man wrote that line, it'd be marked as a slight.

    As for the sexism itself, I agree with Candy Crowley, who noted the presence of sexism to the NYT, but also admitted "it was hard to know if these attacks were being made because she was a woman or because she was this woman or because, for a long time, she was the front-runner." I tend to see it as a this woman and front-runner situation, personally.

    I think Jeff Greenfield nailed it in the Times story when he pointed out that, "Throughout this campaign, people's perception of the press has been in line with what they wanted to happen politically."

    I do applaud Traister for pointing out that Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, and even Hillary Clinton are also objects of anger, and that it's not just the dirty, smelly boys of the media who messed this up for Sen. Clinton.

    She got (5.00 / 9) (#207)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    18,000,00 votes.  The SD's have apparently chosen the nominee this year, some for reasons that havenoting to do with qualificationsfor the job.

    Continuing to attack the Clintons will only deepen the rift.  You guys don't seem to be smart enough to realize that.


    Comments closed (none / 0) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:38:51 PM EST

    Personally, (none / 0) (#224)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    as a former Clinton supporter, I'm over it.  I think Clinton is too (and if she's not, it doesn't matter, she wants you to be).  Even the incredibly crappy Patti Solis Doyle stuff doesn't bother me, really.  Anybody who still thinks Obama is a prince has been in a coma since Hillary conceded.  The stench of special interests and money, the pettiness, and the unwillingness to fight for our Constitutional rights, is all over Obama.  The personality cult seems to be dissipating.  
    Obama can be your guy too.  He's imperfect.  But he isn't promising to keep us at war.  We can control him in office much more easily than we can McCain.  
    Pour out the kool-aid, and know that there is no way voting for an old Republican white guy like McCain is a victory for women or the Democratic disenchanted.  Spite voting isn't really effective - it serves to divide and further anger.  Fighting the sexism and undemocratic nature of the primaries should be done through writing and advocacy, especially as it is clear that few understand why anyone voted for Clinton, liked Clinton, or why anyone is still angry now.  But to just let things fester and then pull the lever in the voting booth for McCain of all people...I don't think that's good.  It's like beating Hillary Clinton with her own hand.  Republicans know it - we're going to beat the party of Hillary Clinton by pretending to like Hillary Clinton! - and I'm sure they are laughing.  
    Don't let them get the last laugh.

    Clinton is the VP done deal (none / 0) (#228)
    by MrPope on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    The more i think about it...Obama is brilliant.  he picks the FIRED Hillary Campaign Manager...but the reason he did is slick.  If he chooses Hillary now... It will be seen as he went AGAINST what his adisgruntled former  Hillary Campaign Manager suggested.  He will not look WEAK for caving to the pressure in picking Hillary... He will look Powerful for picking her DESPITE the pressure against it from his own campaign.  Brilliant.

    Hillary is VP    case closed.

    HRC (none / 0) (#234)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    was definitivly, irretrievably, smeared, slimed, misogynized and osterized by McThugs friends in the right wing slime machine years before those fateful primaries even started. The fact that no one in the ADD afflicted United States of Amnesia wants to (or can) broach that subject, speaks volumes about, among other things, how many of us take our cues, consciously or not, from the current controversy/emnity hungry media (it sells baby!) and how many of us find history too depressing and irrelevant to pay attention to.

    I am not a PUMA (none / 0) (#235)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Neither candidate has earned my vote up to now though either.  I deeply respect that while you yourself do not espouse a PUMA view of things you understand that angry people must express it and be heard in order to get beyond it.  I would in fact go so far as to say that you were not surprised at all by the rise of the PUMAs since you wrote so many clear writings about the dangerous waters that were being waded into by so many during the primary.  I hope that I haven't offended any PUMAs out there as I do understand their anger and their need for action.  It is simply that my chosen action is not the same as their chosen action.

    Emma (none / 0) (#241)
    by BC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    I just hope Emma doesn't vote at all.  She is one of those voters who uses her emotions for all decisions, the worst stereotype of a woman and not a good model of a feminist.  I wish she would just shut up - you are giving all women a bad name!