Talk is growing on the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s name will be on the ballots at the Democratic Convention in Denver. There’re a lot of reasons to think that, just for the sake of catharsis, it should be: as one die-hard Hillary supporter put it (see below), it needn’t be about disrespect to “Future President Obama”. It’s just a way of getting long-simmering emotions out of the way, and letting the party coalesce once everything’s in the open. This is the positive case for Hillary’s continued relevance, and I have to say I support it:
And then there’s the negative case, ably presented, as always, by “The Confluence”: to get Hillary on the ballot, and smear Obama at any cost. While the rest of the world wonders aloud what Hillary Clinton wants, I’m stuck still wondering what die-hard Hillary Democrats (a.k.a., “PUMAS” - Party Unity My Ass) want. From a recent post, it looks that, if they can’t have Hillary Clinton, they want John McCain:
Our problems with Obama are based on the issues. We are not Republicans who go crazy because we are afraid Obama is not Christian enough to keep all the little zygotes from being murdered in their wombs. We don’t care if his middle name is “Hussein” and we don’t think he is a secret Muslim being brainwashed by Angela Lansbury to murder all the white people in their sleep. For Jeebus’ sake, WAKE UP! We don’t think Obama will be a good President because he is a liar, a total opportunist who will betray anyone and everyone in order to gain power and prestige. He has no beliefs. He has no principles. He loves himself more than should be humanly possible. And, he’s being financed by huge corporate interests who have no desire to rock their financial boats.
In short, he reminds us of George W. Bush.
All I can say is, if you think this Convention is going without a hitch… you are out of your freaking mind. And if you do manage to nominate Oba-moi, please know that he will never, EVER be President of the United States. You and your pathetic, elitist comrades-in-Unity(TM) will be going down in flames
To this issue, I have to ask: really? If your problem with Obama is that he reminds you too much of Bush, what exactly is the point of torpedoing his campaign, other than helping get Bush’s lapdog elected? People like “RiverDaughter” and her co-bloggers need to start to look at the endgame, see the forest through the trees, and other salient metaphors. The *realistic* logical conclusion (electing Hillary is unrealistic) of the anti-Obama, pro-Hillary hysteria these people are kicking up is chaos, disunity, and four (maybe eight) years of Republican rule.
I’m all for the continued relevance of Hillary Clinton, and all for keeping her name on the ballot at the DNC. But I cannot stand to watch Democrats advocate tearing themselves apart while Enemy #1 waltzes to victory: it’s like fighting a civil war over how to handle a foreign war.
My question is, what to do with these people? They’re too big to ignore: they hit the WordPress mainpage daily (although Obama happily brushes them off, as the fanatics that they are). What to do? Post and yell at them? Comment and yell at them? Let them fizzle out after the stated goal of getting Hillary nominated fails? I’m not convinced they will fizzle out.
Stumble It!
29 responses so far ↓
1 Oneiroi // Aug 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm
What I always find odd about this, is the sainthood of Hillary. They started acting like she was a complete victim, and not involved in attacking and trying everything she could to get elected.
I just feel like the whole thing is childish, but that’s a hard point to tell someone.
2 Steve // Aug 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Seems to me they described Hillary Clinton pretty accurately while explaining what it is they dislike about Obama: An opportunist whose principles either don’t exist or are the sort that belong in the dustbin of history and who’s backed by entrenched money interests.
And considering the accusations of sexism and racism that started getting made in some wings of the Obama and Hillary camps against each other during the primary, does anyone else think it’s odd that these people’ve given themselves one of the two common names of Puma concolor? The other one is “cougar”, and I can’t be the only person whose mind went down the path of “puma = cougar = elderly women = elderlies = obsolete has-beens = Hillary & her core base”. Can I?
3 didionsmommy // Aug 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm
my understanding of “puma” is that it is a play on “cougar” as meaning a 40-something (or older) woman who dates younger men … i suppose they are appropriating the term and by doing so, theoretically diluting the sexist angle. lame.
***
and i know! how childish they are behaving, and i have to laugh at everything riverdaughter barfs up. if hillary clinton is truly an up-from-the-bootstraps-fighting-against-all-odds success, then i am the dalai lama.
i am so sick of hearing these white women bitch about sexism in this election cycle. these women see sexism EVERYWHERE.
if we are to follow their logic: it is THEY who are best able to identify injustice … the gravest injustice being sexism, of course … they are continual victims of same, either directly (from alleged verbal abuse from obama supporters) or indirectly (through the tabling of hillary’s presidential campaign) … as victims of this, the gravest injustice, they are particularly qualified to identify other (necessarily less serious) injustices done to others and to defend the disenfranchised and alienated.
it is a patronizing, condescending, self-serving, delusional position.
i’m not sure it is worth trying to engage them on their own turf … if you read the comments to a lot of the posts, the threads often read like a coffeeklatch … i am interested to know, however, why riverdaughter doesn’t try to spread her message outside of her readership (of unknown size) … she can see the links you have made in several of your posts … why is she so shy?
4 Ames // Aug 8, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Her audience is HUGE; mine’s much smaller. Probably for fear of giving me more attention than I’m due. Although, if she was really mean, she could send all her minions over here and probably run up my server bills :-)
5 didionsmommy // Aug 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
o.k. … i did some digging on her site (shiver, cringe) … she’s been around in this incarnation since mid-january … she’s got 1.9M hits so far, so she is averaging just under a quarter-million hits a month …
so she is big stuff … dammit.
i clicked on one of her links, though, and found this site …
http://smartwomenforhillary.com/
the page design totally sucks, BUT these women are definitely NOT supporting mccain … and they call out pumas who are actively campaigning against obama and saying they will vote for mccain … that said, they also identify “the confluence” as one of their favorite sites.
i wish i had a sense of the threat these women present … it’s hard, being in a blue state (and in a small city): we don’t see the ads or get the campaign visits … there are no front lines …
what worries me about riverdaughter is her connections in pennsylvania …
***
ha! and if you were to get bombarded by a bunch of angry pumas, rejoice! sell advertising ASAP and retire at the ripe old age of 25!
6 FCD // Aug 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I supported Hillary for president from the beginning. She would have made the best president of any candidates on either side.
The sexism displayed by both the media and Obama against Hillary absolutely infuriated me (and I am a dude so I can’t imagine how much more insulting it was to women supporters). Not to mention, after the initial glow finally started wearing off on Obama (thanks Saturday Night Live), and the press really started focusing on him, he became a losing candidate. Hillary basically beat him from then on, and especially in the key states.
I know what I want, and that is for Hillary Clinton to end up being the democratic nominee in 3 weeks. I also know that it won’t happen. So, my choice has been made: I will not vote this election cycle. It will be interesting to see what % of Hillary supporters does as I do, or choose to vote for McCain.
7 FCD // Aug 8, 2008 at 6:13 pm
wow, excellent grammar there in my last sentence….
:)
8 Ames // Aug 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Hah, no worries :-). I have to ask, why not vote, though? If it’s a protest move, it might very well have the effect of bringing in a candidate who’ll lay waste to women’s rights, and entrench sexism further in the government. I don’t see what not voting/voting McCain does other than possibly punish Democrats - yourself included - with more Republicans.
And, I don’t recall any Obama sexism. I DO recall media sexism, though.
9 shadowcatdancing // Aug 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I was an early Hillary supporter, and I was furious at the sexism that showed up in the media, and from some in Obama’s campaign, though I did not and do not think Obama himself participated in it.
I am voting for Obama. I would vote for Obama just to keep McCain from getting a shot at stacking the Supreme Court further than it already is, but the fact is, his policy positions are good. From early in the primary contest I knew I would be happy to vote for whichever of the candidates made it to the nomination, and despite a lot of blog activity to the contrary, I believe that is the position of most Hillary supporters.
No one who takes what are generally considered feminist positions could vote for McCain on the basis of his policy positions.
Are there bitter women willing to elect McCain to spite the DNC? Probably a few, but only a few. As others have noted, all of this blog activity smells. It has been called the swift-boat attack of the 2008 campaign. The bizarre charge that Obama is just like Bush smells particularly Rovian in inspiration if not actual linkage.
Just as it is easy to hijack an internet poll (go to Pharyngula and watch the fun sometime) it is easy to set up a lot of blogs, and generate a lot of traffic with very few actual people.
This does not mean I don’t think we should be concerned about it; we should. It has the potential to draw off votes, if not by sending them t0 McCain, by getting them to stay home. But we should not let the apparent size of the phenomenon cause us to panic. I’m not sure what an appropriate response is, as this is much more amorphous than the swift-boat attacks, but we can’t let them bait us into doing something stupid.
10 Ames // Aug 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm
VERY good point. I’d think it might be a setup too, but “Riverdaughter” herself checks out as legit ex-Kos… right?
Excellent point on SCOTUS too. I’m a single-issue voter when it comes to Court picks, and anyone who relishes the right to choose ought to be too.
11 Gotchaye // Aug 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I think that protest (non-)voting depends on the dual meaning of a vote. You’re looking at voting as a nearly purely practical affair - you see a vote as a means of enacting political change. In any given election, regardless of history, one ought to vote for the candidate who will best achieve your political aims (including forward-looking strategic aims).
However, voting has another meaning. It’s also a personal statement of support. The election is seen as a referendum on the most tolerable candidate - to vote for a candidate is to endorse him or her, and not, psychologically speaking, only with respect to other candidates in the running. This usually results in non-voting, but even a vote for the least tolerable candidate is not an endorsement - it’s an active vote against the system which requires the voter to swallow his values and against the candidate who, while the best possible choice, still fails to represent (in every sense) oneself. This doesn’t effect desired political change, but it does have tremendous psychological value.
Obviously, the ability of this second purpose to motivate voters will vary according to the practical importance of voting, but the practical importance of voting in our present circumstances is negligible. Certainly the expected political return of voting for McCain, while negative for Hillary supporters, is incredibly tiny. If you vote only in order to enact political change, I have to wonder why you don’t also buy lottery tickets. All rational voting is psychologically motivated - you won’t vote to help Obama win but in order to feel like you’re helping Obama win. Some people don’t want to feel that way, though they would prefer it if Obama beat McCain, and some people want to feel loyal to Hillary to the point of feeling like they’re striking a blow against her opponent, though they would still prefer that Obama beat McCain.
12 didionsmommy // Aug 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Excellent point on SCOTUS too. I’m a single-issue voter when it comes to Court picks, and anyone who relishes the right to choose ought to be too.
agreed, absolutely.
and it just occurred to me … why so many dean haters among the pumas? let’s remember what dean did as governor of vermont … (1) near universal health care for children and pregnant women. since dean’s governorship, california and new york have instituted similar programs. i don’t recall hillary clinton being a major player in either … (2) dean also spearheaded state recognition and legalization of gay marriage, holding steadfast during what became an almost-civil-war over the issue …
since dean has assumed leadership of the dnc, the party has become more aggressive, savvier, and more energized. does that come at a price? sure, but it’s a price i am willing to pay. i like a less wishy-washy, feel-good democratic party. the republicans NEVER act this way, and guess what? THEY WIN! to quote you once again, ames: “expedience over honor.”
(if the situation were reversed and hillary was the presumptive candidate, riverdaughter, et al. would be chiding … say … blacks to come back to the fold.)
was there a sexist bent in the media? i’m not so sure. is it the politically correct thing to say now that hillary is not going to be the presidential candidate? i think so.
i do not identify myself as a feminist, but i certainly have feminist views. i am also very sensitive to sexist behavior, and i live with someone who is even more able to identify same: my husband. we are having a hard time saying, categorically, the media were gender biased against hillary. that might be our oversight, but i’m not so sure.
13 didionsmommy // Aug 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm
(incidentally, my husband and i are now arguing the finer points of dean’s pros and cons as dnc leader … lordy, what exciting lives we have …)
14 Steve // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Didionsmommy, it boils down to that there’s a divide between groups within the Democratic Party that, while not as sharp and obvious as the libertarian/social conservative divide within the Republic Party, is much the same in that two groups with opposing agendas are lumped together within the same party. Look at it this way: Clinton’s on the “Leadership Team” for the DLC; Dean’s been quoted as calling the DLC “the Republican wing of the Democratic Party”.
15 Progressive Conservative // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:45 pm
…and it just occurred to me … why so many dean haters among the pumas?
Dean has never gotten along with the Clintons and vice-versa. Bill was perceived to still be running the party when Dean got rolled in 2004 and there was a lot of bitterness on both sides.
16 didionsmommy // Aug 9, 2008 at 12:03 am
yes, yes, yes … but the whole dlc thing … in 2004 the dlc was viewed as the SAME THING the pumas are now accusing obama of being guilty of …
that there is a split is not in question … but the split is on a waaaayyy higher, more rarefied level than where the pumas operate …
of course, i assume you are participating in this thread as a concerned friend rather than as a gloating opponent … ;)
17 Progressive Conservative // Aug 9, 2008 at 12:12 am
Of course I’m concerned (insert wounded look here). At this point, I think American benifits the most from having a two-candidate race. Not 2 1/2.
I never liked Hillary and she ran a terrible campaign. She deserves what she got.
18 Pope Disturban the Vth // Aug 9, 2008 at 1:37 am
I’m a single-issue voter this time around, and my single issue is “getting Bush and all his loathesome cronies OUT of MY country’s government.” At this point, the Democrats could be running a stuffed owl as their candidate, and it would STILL have my vote.
I just wish the Dems could break themselves of their habit of eviscerating their dearest allies in public at the worst possible moment.
19 Radioactive afikomen // Aug 10, 2008 at 1:25 am
It smells, but not of swift-boating. This is closer to the Ron Paul Effect: angry denialists sanctify a chosen “underdog” candidate, who can do no wrong in their eyes. They then snort and bluster on the internet for six months.
It’s a perfect fit, really. Actually, I would rate the PUMA movement as being even weaker than the Ron Paul movement. Remember how the Paulites were able to swamp half the internet with Ron Paul propaganda? Outside of their blog circles, PUMAs are practically nonexistent.
20 Ames // Aug 10, 2008 at 1:34 am
…and THAT comment will go onto the next Carnival of the Liberals I’m hosting (next Weds!) since (1) it’s a great summary and (2) someone just submitted some NoBama Hillary crap to it. Grrr.
RA, missed ya!
21 Just Judi // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I believed in him, and although he got mired in the disgrace of his personal excesses, I still see him as a great politician. A great politician with serious ego and character flaws that ultimately disqualified his ability to lead this country. Bill broke my heart. Sad, but true. I also see Hillary as a strong Democrat with great leadership abilities, but minus the personal weaknesses her husband suffers. Honestly and truly, I love this woman and I think she would be a great president…if she didn’t have the baggage of her husband. I had a terrific struggle making my choice of candidate this election, but the obvious need for change and a fresh approach won out. I decided to go with Obama. It was a difficult choice for me, one I thought over long and hard, and I did a lot of toggling back and forth before I made my decision. Two great candidates, which one do I choose?
My point is, I think that most Democrats went through this same process of choosing their candidate. I think most Democrats saw great possibilities in both candidates. I just can’t accept that there are large numbers - any number - of Democrats out there that are blatantly hateful bigots like the ilk of PUMA. It is so obviously a radical faction of racists and/or bigots behind that group. The first time I ran into one of their sites while surfing political news, I was totally stunned by the hatred and bigotry expressed there. I had never, EVER seen Democrats use that tone and language in all my 61 years of life. It confused and frightened me. Then I did some research of PUMA online, and it became indisputably obvious that this was an attack campaign initiated by Republicans to disrupt and divide the Democratic Party. I believe their goal was to pull in unsuspecting Hillary backers with the premise that this was an honest movement to get justice for her failed campaign. Looking at the more recent activity on PUMA sites and blogs, I see that a great number of the legitimate Hillary supporters have pulled out of PUMA, having caught on to their true intentions. It seems that PUMA has lost their steam at this point, but I wonder if they will persist in their goal to disrupt the Democratic convention. I trust the DNC is alert to the true nature of this group and will take every measure possible to diminish their presence at the convention. It seems that racist groups have an unfathomable passion and drive to do harm, will go to any lengths, and will stop at nothing.
22 Ames // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Well and powerfully said. Do you mind if I put that on the mainpage? And do you mind sharing what tipped you off to it being a Republican scheme? I’d honestly never thought about it until someone raised the issue here, and then it sort of clicked on.
Thanks for the comment!
23 edfeeney // Aug 12, 2008 at 3:19 pm
These “bovine beasts” need to be treated for what they are–angry cows.They need to be herded into a penned-up, cow barn and kept there until after the election. Then you can let them out to graze in their pastures.
I heard one of these pathetic woman talking one day. and I couldn’t understand the moo-ing.
24 Ames // Aug 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm
The previous comment went straight to the spam filter; the thing has an uncanny ability to detect bullshit. I only approved it so that I could subject the commenter to my righteous wrath, which follows:
Feeney, if you’re a Democrat, frakking stop it. You’re the reason women think the Party is sexist. Abandon your bigotry and fall into line. You’re not privileged to create PUMAS with your hate and then bemoan it.
If you’re a Republican, then do you wonder why women rarely vote for your party?
25 Hillary PUMAs - Handmaidens of John McCain, or Weaponized Disappointment? // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:51 am
[...] “Hillary Democrats.” As one Hillary turned Obama supporter, commenting on this site, said of her encounter with a PUMA site, “I had never, EVER seen Democrats use that tone and [...]
26 Gina // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm
THE PUMAS ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED …
1. Contrary to what Obamabots say …
Obama and Hillary were in a dead heat,
when the DNC pressured Hillary into not
only conceding, but campaigning for Obama.
2. Obama is once again in a dead heat, but now
with McCain, even though Obamabots act like
Obama has already won (like they did in the
primaries against Hillary). So, this means that
half of the Democrats, and all the Republicans
(3/4 of America) dIdn’t want Obama. Plus, he
didn’t even win the popular vote, and refused a
revote in Michigan and Florida.
3. Obama has the thinnest resume in politics, and
he won state legislature and Senator by
disqualifications of his opponents, not by earned
experience, or votes.
4. Obama’s one claim to fame is being a community
organizer, where he boasts of registering voters.
Then he took their votes away from them, by
disqualifying his opponents on technicalities, prior
to the election.
5. Obama’s mentor of 20 years, was an anti-American
racist … not to mention other unsavory associations.
6. Obama is simply buying the election, since he’s
good at fund raising … hardly a qualification to be
President of the United States.
7. The media never vetted Obama, and they are
giving him a free ride, plus more than twice the
print and air time as McCain, as they did against
Hillary.
8. 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, because he is
black, while the campaign gained ground by
accusing most opponents of racism.
9. Obamabots were, and are extremely nasty and sarcastic
towards Hillary supporters, as well as McCain supporters.
10. Pumas should be applauded for putting country before party …
especially a party that did not represent them, and a party
which highjacked the nomination for Obama.
11. Obama added insult to injury, when he didn’t even consider
Hillary for V.P. … nor did he even call her … even though she
got 18 million votes in the primary.
12. Obama and the DNC are now holding a gun to the heads of
Hillary and Bill Clinton, giving them an ultimatum … either support
Obama, or kiss your future in the DNC and politics goodbye.
P.S. Michelle Obama subjected her two young children to anti-American racists … Jeremiah Wright, Farrakahn, Pfleiger, and others
at the black liberation Trinity church in Chicago, for several years. Is this who you want for first lady … I don’t think so !!
27 Ames // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Omg thread necromancy!
Let’s assume all those allegations are correct. What’s the proper way to go about it? Smear Obama and hurt him in the general, or talk responsibly to the Party to get it to go the other way? Trashing our party’s only hope in November isn’t the way to go. So, the question remains - what’s the point?
28 Oneiroi // Aug 25, 2008 at 4:24 pm
1. They wanted her to concede because she was losing by every commonly reported measure, and they were worried she would hurt the party. Which she obviously did if your ilk are still out there.
2. All candidates act like they’ve already won. Hillary agreed to the same rules Obama did before the race started.
3. There’s no single experience that makes you ready to be president. He has plenty of experience in different areas.
4. Eh don’t know the details of this.
5. Obama’s mentor was the largest and most influential African American church in the area. I think it was more of a political play rather than personal, but that can be seen as negative too.
6. Funds from several small donors excited in supporting their candidate. That shows strength. If someone is willing to give 10 dollars to their candidate, they’re willing to go to the polls for them.
7. I heard that more than 50 percent of the recent press on Obama has been negative. McCain’s gaffes slide and his attack ads get reported. How does that help him? And don’t worry, you’ve been doing a great job at trying to “vet” him with all the random attacks. That will help make it blow over faster.
8. 12% in Pennsylvania said race had something to do with their vote. If you think that doesn’t make a difference, you’re wrong. 12% think he’s a Muslim. There are racial issues here. Just as their were gender ones when Hillary ran. You can’t call everyone sexist then act shocked when someone turns it around.
9. People are tired of this meaningless destructive complaints. We’re trying to move on here to the election and the issues.
10. People lose in every election. You don’t get a right to hijack the party if your particular candidate didn’t win. That’s what PUMA’s trying to do. Doing this doesn’t help America. It fulfills some personal feeling of revenge. If these people wanted to help America they’d be working to support Hillary in the Senate, working for feminist causes, not trying to destroy Obama and the Democratic party.
11. There’s no reason Hillary should have automatically gotten the VP. She was a weak running mate that wouldn’t offer the things Obama needed in the election.
12. They’re trying to limit the damage of people like you. That’s a great move for the DNC. Party unity FTW.
29 Ames // Aug 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Oneiroi: 1. PUMAs: 0.
Leave a Comment