They're still at it over at No Hillary, No Peace:
I used to like Ed Rendell. He seemed like the straight up kind of guy that you could count on to tell it like it is. But no more. Seems Eddie boy has been sippin on the Cult-Aide. And now he wants all of us PUMAs to recognize the error of our ways and join him and the HOUNDs in defeating John McCain.
He starts with a ridiculous premise. And it goes downhill from there.
But here, have a look.We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago, the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama, whose policies are almost identical to hers.
Well Ed, if that were true then none of us would have supported Hillary to begin with. I mean come on, does it even make sense to say that the best way to achieve the changes Hillary championed is to vote for someone that didn’t champion those issues? Does it even enter that apparently tiny little mind of yours to consider that we supported and still support Hillary BECAUSE Obama does not champion the issues we feel so strongly about?
I probably not the only one who finds the awkwardly named PUMA's :
There is still very active resentment among Clinton supporters, mainly female, who believe sexism brought down their candidate.
They call themselves PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass). They say they will not support Obama and are organizing over the Internet.
Clinton, as she did in her endorsement of Obama when she bowed out in Washington earlier this month, told her supporters who have said they will sit out the November election – or vote for McCain – to think again.
...(with its uncomfortable echo of "cougars") a little, well, ridiculous if not, as noted at The Rage Diaries, positively Ellen Jamesian:
This is a line of reasoning that the people commenting on several of the articles seem incapable of grasping. Instead, they're slamming Obama in crypto-racist terms (They're calling him "arrogant." "Arrogant?" What's next, "uppity?") and tearing him down on weak grounds. For example, the same people who cannot let go of Obama calling a female reporter "sweetie" are perfectly willing to go vote for McCain, a man who called his wife a cunt in full view of reporters. Which do you think is more indicative of a lack of respect for women?
And this is where I lose sympathy for the angry and disappointed supporters. At this point, they're reminding me of one of pop literature's ugliest caricatures of feminists: the Ellen Jamesians.
For those of you who may not have read John Irving's The World According to Garp, one of the big narrative themes that runs through the work is the difficulty of negotiating a gender identity in a world that wants to impose one upon you. One of the novel's protagonists, Jenny Fields, becomes a feminist icon with her book A Sexual Suspect, and attracts a group of radical feminists who cut out their tongues as a protest against a little girl's having been raped and rendered mute by her attackers. The little girl, Ellen James, wants nothing to do with the Ellen Jamesians, but they persist -- and eventually kill her adopted father. The Ellen Jamesians are consumed by an inchoate and unproductive fury, destructive and completely selfish in its sense of assumed victimization. When I first read the book, I was outraged by the way Irving seemed to trivialize women's anger at a society that's fine with them being voiceless victims.
And this week, I'm sorry to say, I was reminded of the Ellen Jamesians over and over in reading comments from Clinton supporters. I do not begrudge these women their anger. What I do object to: the deployment of their rage. It's just stupid and shortsighted.
I think, in light of Hillary Clinton lovefest with Obama at Unity, that the Ellen Jamesians reference is a nice call. Personally I would have gone with the Hiroo Onoda Society except for the fact that Onoda knew when to quit when asked properly.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Unfortunately - it’s very apt.
There’s anger that’s understandable and there’s self-defeating, irrational rage. When you’re down to a handful of furious people and the diehard Hillary Clinton supporters have packed the truck and moved away, it’s time someone there wonders if they aren’t on the wrong track.
And I think there’s an excellent chance some of the bellowers are Little Green Football types, out for a joy ride. They have way too many bad RW talking points for comfort.
But some of the “share your rage” business reminds me of one of the first articles I saw in “Ms” magazine. Stories from many women were shared about their “zing” moment - damn if I can remember the actual word, but that’s close. Bottom line - women all over the country were realizing how common sexism was. It was a bit addictive to get into that but it was new then, it wasn’t irrational and no one was blaming just one guy.
I think people are stuck on a shared anger - the problem is they’re blaming Obama which is ridiculous. How can they possibly ignore the sexism and hatred from Republicans for the last 15 years about Hillary? How can they miss the things McCain has said or condoned?
And yes, willingly calling yourself a PUMA is as stupid a thing as I’ve ever seen. It’s right up there with “Freeper”, “Dittohead”, “member of Pajamas Media” or “Protein Wisdom”.
I don’t suppose that these folks would be willing to take the advice of HAL 9000 and lie down, take a stress pill and think things over…
…and take a Maalox…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Um, the Obama campaign has hired the HRC campaign policy director. This will not stop the gloating over FISA I am sure is going on, but it should speak to his sincerity on some of “her” issues.
I think this nonsense will soon run its course — except for Larry “I shoulda stopped when I had a winner with Plame and now I’m just super lame” Johnson) and a few other true nuts and a few Freepin’ ringers — once Teh Media grows tired of it and moves on to the Big Fight.
I have been an active Democrat since high school days, and I cast my first vote for George McGovern in ‘72. Over all those years, one important fact has finally sunk in with me: in any given election, the Jesus Christ/FDR ticket is not running. We weigh the fact that the Democratic candidate may disappoint us in some respects (FISA, for example) against the Republican candidate and the Naders, Perots, Wallaces (George or Henry, depending on our vintage), and we make our choice. Of course the hard-core Hillarians are angry and disappointed. We old Gene McCarthy people know the feeling all too well. Please believe me, PUMAs, you won’t feel better if you help elect McCain. Calm down, and do the right thing for your party and for your country.
So, if I understand this correctly, if the PUMA’s tantrums result in a McBush presidency, and the issues they hold so near and dear to their hearts are catapulted backwards, they will be satisfied into silence? I suggest they study another literary reference potentiality before they head to the voting booth.
Holding your nose while voting for your second choice is a time honored democratic party tradition. Revenge vote for a mentally ill misogynist who probably wont make it through his term is not.
The whole PUMA thing (other than the GOP shit stirrers) reminds me of a few really nasty divorce fights I have observed - it’s not about what’s best for you, or the kids, or even anyone: It’s about hurting the ones that hurt you.
If any noticeable public actions are taken, I would be really surprised if the main actors are sincere Hillarites, as opposed to GOP rat fuckers. I think the sincere ones are more interested in getting on a good self righteous ragegasm than actually getting out from behind their keyboards.
Amanda at Pandagon found that the person who started the PUMA PAC was a McCain supporter in 2000.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/.....gh_murphy/
I’m pretty sure the whole PUMA thing is a coordinated astroturf-style strategy by republican operatives to keep the democratic infighting going, at least in the eyes of the media. Notice how ‘clusters’ of anti-Obama ranters tend to pop up in comment threads simultaneously in large numbers, all shouting the same talking points.
It does have that tone.
Though it seems to be good for traffic on some blogs. NQs traffic is through the roof in June.
Either despite polls which show Obama consolidating the Democratic vote he has not closed the deal or NQ and Confluence are benefiting from some of the other pro-Hillary blogs getting on the Obama train. Jeralyn did have to say that a Heller thread was “not about Obama” but I have not seen what is going on in the comments there anymore.
I have no trouble believing this. I don’t put ANYTHING past them, including setting the Reichstag fire.
We’d be idiots to think otherwise. They saw how well the Brooks Brothers riots working in Fl (2000), and they will certainly continue/expand on this theme. Why mess with success?