A Quick Note On PUMA's

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 17:21



There already have been, and will continue to be, protesters at the Democratic convention in Denver. Without doubt, the protesters who will receive the most attention at the PUMAs, although the terms “media attention” and “protesters” don’t mix much these days. A quick search for PUMA on Google News shows exponentially more results for a shoe company’s apparently botched endorsement of Usain Bolt that about anything happening stateside right about now.

But what I want to say about the convention related PUMAs might cut against the grain a little bit. Don’t argue with them, and don’t just ignore them, either. Rather, we should celebrate them. They aren’t helpful, or savvy, or even apparently making any demands. They are, however, the inevitable residue of several positive developments (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: A Quick Note On PUMA’s
  • PUMA’s are the inevitable residue of a primary campaign that moved Democratic self-identification to its highest level in a decade. There is no way to experience the many positive effects of a nomination campaign like 2008’s without having some very upset dissenters.

  • PUMA’s are only possible because of the self-publishing and organizing techniques created by the continuing expansion of the network neutral Internet. They are only possible for the same reason that the progressive netroots are possible.

  • PUMA’s act like idiots, and that is also a good thing. Self-identified Democratic concern trolls who are willing to trash the Democratic Party are a dime a dozen, and the media will pick up on them whoever they are. It is much better that our major concern trolls right now are idiotic PUMA’s who have no idea who to influence voters, then media savvy, corporate funded pundits who could do real damage. Even the McCain campaign knows this, because they aren’t throwing any money behind their ad featuring a PUMA. These are the sorts of concern trolls that we want. It’s the TNR’s of the world that are actually dangerous to progressives.

  • And, even if all that fails to make you feel good about PUMA’s, keep in mind that we do live in a republic. As such, we would be much worse off if there weren’t dissenting protesters at our major political events.

So, I say, take a look at the PUMA’s, smile, and move along. They are actually a good thing. Or, at the very least, they are a sign that other good things are happening.  

');
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Quick Note On PUMA's | 58 comments
Except .. (0.00 / 0)
And, even if all that fails to make you feel good about PUMA’s, keep in mind that we do live in a republic. As such, we would be much worse off if there weren’t dissenting protesters at our major political events.

we’ll be treated to endless orgasms by Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Brit Hume and Fred Hiatt over this nonsense.  Watch how much coverage the Ron Paul rally gets next weekend.  And they are supposed to have 15 to 20 thousand people there!!

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion


 
I haven't heard much from the Paul brigade (4.00 / 1)
Are most of them behind Bob Barr? What is going on there?

You are right that they won’t get as much attention as the PUMAs in Denver.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]  
Paul still hasn't released his delegates, ya? (0.00 / 0)
I have to assume he’s going to try to use his delegates to disrupt the convention somehow.  Maybe they’ll all collectively walk out, 1948 Democrats-style or something.

[ Parent ]  
Actually, Chris Matthews just ripped them a (0.00 / 0)
collective new one. It was brutal and an easy job for Tweety, one which he clearly relished.

That’s why I believe that if HRC and Bill come through (more or less) at the convention for Obama, then PUMA dissent is a good thing because it will make them, and by extension voting for McCain out of spite, look as petty and hypocritical as it is.


[ Parent ]  
There's got to be some way to capitalize on that … (0.00 / 0)
maybe an video of people pretending to be PUMAs, explaining their McCain vote in petty, unflattering terms. Then the tagline “vote spite, vote Republican.”

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
the worst thing people can do (4.00 / 4)
is tell PUMAs to “get over it.” I firmly believe that telling someone to “get over it” greatly delays the process of getting over it.

It’s better to listen, to reflect back what you hear the person saying and agree to disagree with the person.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


 
Won't work (4.00 / 1)
When you let them talk to you, they do nothing to belittle you and make you feel like the stupidest person in the world, a traitor and just about any disgusting thing they can say.

They want you to grovel for votes, they literally did it to my brother.

It’s better to just ignore them which is what I wish the media would do.  


[ Parent ]  
yeah, i went out canvassing yesterday (4.00 / 1)
and talked to a guy who was really pissed that Obama didn’t choose HRC as VP.  He basically demanded that I defend Obama’s healthcare policy and belittled me for having the gall to come to his door without being an expert on healthcare economics.  He didn’t want to talk about whether Obama’s healthcare policy is better than McCain’s.  He just wanted to rehash the primaries debate over again.  I was very polite, but I just wanted to tell him to grow the hell up and get the fuck over it.  There are two candidates left, one of which is much better than the other.  I can’t respect people who claim to care so much about healthcare issues but who threaten to stay home or vote for McCain.  It makes no fucking sense.

[ Parent ]  
We may lose (0.00 / 0)
because of people like that whose votes make no fucking sense, which is the core of the problem.  

[ Parent ]  
isn't this, well, always the problem? (4.00 / 2)
I think we’ve had eight years of people’s votes making NFS; it’s not just the “PUMA” people, it’s large chunks of the country. Obama’s campaign — and I think this is now conventional wisdom after “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, etc. — has to be about getting people to “make sense” of their needs, their country’s needs, and their role in the political system.

(A reason, IMO, that the somewhat goofy “yes we can” first-person-based campaign Obama is running is in many ways a very smart choice.)


[ Parent ]  
Their vote makes sense to them (0.00 / 0)
and that’s what matters.

McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]  
One good answer (4.00 / 3)
that I have used on a few occasions is “VP shmee-pee. What we need Clinton for is Senate Majority Leader. That’s what I want to see.”

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
it's a good line (4.00 / 2)
because it’s true.

Don’t you think Hillary can do more good in the Senate than as a ribbon-cutter for Obama? She can serve in the Senate for two or three or even four more terms, but she could only be vice president for at most eight years.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]  
I want to see her (4.00 / 4)
do a Ted Kennedy, or an Al Gore.

In other words, once they’ve given up on the brass ring of the presidency, some of these people really come into to their own, and get their priorities straight. They quit trying to please everyone and start standing up for what’s right.

Her FISA vote could be a sign of things to come, she could become a Lioness of the Senate.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
don't take it so personally (4.00 / 3)
You still get to vote for Obama. They are frustrated and lashing out, but who cares? Let them vent a little.

Most of them probably assumed Hillary had it in the bag, making it even more painful to see her lose to someone they think did not deserve to win. You are asking them to vote for someone they don’t even like, someone who derailed the dreams of the candidate they really liked.

I doubt many of these people will actually follow through and vote for McCain. In the summer of 2002 I remember wasting too much time arguing with a friend who had some stupid reason for not wanting to vote for Harkin and Vilsack. In October, he casually mentioned that he had mailed in his absentee ballot and voted straight ticket Democrat. I have no idea what was going on in his head, but clearly he needed some time to vent before he was ready to come home.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]  
You get it. (4.00 / 1)
desmoinesdem hits it on the head here. I was a hardcore Clinton supporter and Obama gets my vote now, but I’m still very sensitive to her loss and to commands to get over it.

Also, dealing with PUMAs can sometimes be like dealing with a 3 year old having a tantrum, the more attention they get the longer the tantrum lasts. The more upset you get, the more intense the tantrum becomes.

Grin. Nod. Move on. Obama won the primaries. He chose Biden to run with him. The drama is over. We need to lick our wounds and come to grips with this at our own pace….

…. there, I’m over it. The rest of my like-minded kin like to join me?

Give ’em Hill, er.. hell Obama!

Obama/Biden ’08!!!!!!


Maverick – An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.


[ Parent ]  
Support Clinton (0.00 / 0)
(and 153,000,000 other women) — Vote Obama!

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
Amen! (0.00 / 0)
Let’s go win this thing!!!!!

Maverick – An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.

[ Parent ]  
What is a PUMA? (4.00 / 1)
I realize that the PUMA acronym may be common knowledge here, but I don’t know what it is.

As a technical writer, my editors always force me to include the full wording for all but the most well known acronyms (e.g. LASER) at least once per chapter.

It might be helpful to spell out such acronyms, e.g.

PUMA (Please Underscore My Anal-retentiveness)

once per diary.


 
PUMA in this case stands for .. (0.00 / 0)
Party Unity My Ass

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

[ Parent ]  
Impressive (4.00 / 1)
Literally the same minute!

[ Parent ]  
New, family friendly name (0.00 / 0)
“People United Means Action”

http://blog.pumapac.org/



 I knew Incitatus. Incitatus was a friend of mine. Sarah Palin is no Incitatus!


[ Parent ]  
"United" (4.00 / 2)
in the sense of “committed to sowing division in the Democratic Party.”

The original name is more honest.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
Self-Parody On Parade! (0.00 / 0)
It’s like they actually crave being laughed at.

“Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition”

[ Parent ]  
Everyone gets the joke (0.00 / 0)
except the PUMAs and the media.

 I knew Incitatus. Incitatus was a friend of mine. Sarah Palin is no Incitatus!

[ Parent ]  
To give you an idea (4.00 / 1)
here is one of their flagship blogs:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress…

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
The owner of that blog (4.00 / 1)
was banned from Daily Kos for Islamophobic bigotry. That should tell you a lot about the PUMA movement in general.

[ Parent ]  
Plenty of people get banned from dKos. (0.00 / 0)
I don’t think getting banned from there automatically says much of anything about the person who is banned.  It says more about dKos.

[ Parent ]  
I got banned (0.00 / 0)
from DailyKos.

Seriously.  


[ Parent ]  
Go check out (4.00 / 1)
her last diary there and see for yourself.

[ Parent ]  
Ahhhh, I see now (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Even the title is offensive, on multiple levels.


[ Parent ]  
Oh there are going to be fleas aplenty (0.00 / 0)
when the PUMAs get up out of bed.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
On PUMAs (4.00 / 3)

 OK, I won’t tell them directly to get over themselves, but I do wonder what exactly it is that they want. I was an ardent Howard Dean supporter four years ago; when his campaign fell apart, I groused and moped for a week or two, but then once I got used to the idea of John Kerry being the nominee (a fact I couldn’t change), I got behind him enthusiastically, and by the time the convention rolled around I was firmly in Kerry’s corner. Dean got a speaking slot at the convention, and that was enough of a hat tip in my direction to satisfy me.

 Hillary Clinton is getting a prime-time slot to herself. She continues to garner an avalanche of media attention. The party leadership has been tiptoeing on eggshells around her. The primaries ended months ago. Exactly what more do the PUMAs want?

 As for Hillary herself — she has an absolutely golden opportunity to give Obama 10 points in the polls tomorrow night. Ten permanent points. What she could do is simply eviscerate John McCain in her speech tomorrow.  Call him a fraud and a phony (which he is). A simple line from her like “John McCain has the most misogynistic voting record in the Senate” (which isn’t far from the truth) would set a frame that would make any PUMAs blush with embarrassment at supporting the Republican, as well as force McCain to spend a week explaining that he’s really not as anti-woman as his voting record might suggest.

 She can also add a forceful statement riffing off McCain’s ad, “It is NOT OK for a Democrat to vote for John McCain. It is not OK for any American who cares about the future of the country.”

 If Hillary does something like that, the White House will be Obama’s to lose. That’s a perfect frame for a surrogate to set up, while Obama can stay above the fray.

 We’ll find out tomorrow how badly Democrat Hillary Clinton wants to see a Democrat win the White House.
 

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn


 
I'm not so sure. (4.00 / 2)
A simple line from her like “John McCain has the most misogynistic voting record in the Senate” (which isn’t far from the truth) would set a frame that would make any PUMAs blush with embarrassment at supporting the Republican

Some of the PUMA craziness has gotten pretty, well, crazy.

I know because PUMAs took over my old stomping ground at Tennessee Guerrilla Women. That’s why I started coming here all the time.

Anyway, one of their strongest memes is that Hillary is a helpless victim, traumatized and lost. She doesn’t know her own mind. If she were to say something like that about McCain, they would just shrug it off as further evidence she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

I’m not exaggerating, if you read some of these PUMA blogs you’ll see a common thread of “inside Hillary is feeling,” “what Hillary really thinks is …” They are convinced that they know what she really wants and thinks and her own words and actions mean nothing.

Anyway, having said that I also agree with Desmoinesdem that the best way to deal with them is, if you can’t be patient (which I can’t) leave them alone (which I do.)

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
Personality cults are dangerous (4.00 / 1)

 And your description of that Tennessee group is the latest example. That’s frightening.

  That said, there’s always going to be that unreachable element. But I still think there are enough Hillary supporters who WILL get behind Barack if Hillary shows that she is, too. I think she’s the perfect public figure to define McCain as a misogynist. He’d have a REAL hard time shaking THAT charge, given his voting record. And that would bring quite a few wavering independents over to our side, which would more than make up for the deranged PUMA element.  

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]  
I would love to see that. (0.00 / 0)
I REALLY want to see her ask McCain to tell that joke again, the one about why is Chelsea so ugly.

That’s some champion for women they’ve got in McCain alright.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
Yes, But Don't Forget, The PUMA Bloggers Are Just A Blip (4.00 / 4)
They may well be beyond embarrasment, and it’s good of you to point this out.  But that’s just a rhetorical flourish, and the people you’re talking about are just a few thousand. The real point–about the difference she could make to the race–concerns several million supporters who could easily put the race out of McCain’s reach.  It’s important not to confuse the two, IMHO.

I don’t see any real evidence that your average disappointed Clinton supporter thinks she’s been Stepfordized.  It’s just too nutty and self-contradictory a belief system to keep in place without constant reinforcement.

Isn’t it?

“Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition”


[ Parent ]  
I think the REAL Clinton supporters (0.00 / 0)
will back Obama. Most already do. But yes, some strong words from her at the convention will only help.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
PUMA confusion (0.00 / 0)
IMO, the reason that PUMAs are so difficult for many to understand is that they are a reaction to decades of Clinton hatred and obsession.  They are outraged that this obsession was carried on within the Democratic party in the primaries.  They are fundamentally irrational because they are against certain injustices with no remedy in sight.  Theirs is a futile but heartfelt protest.

Chris gets it exactly wrong – PUMAs are far less related to internet activism than to the last gasp of our popular media’s long dysfunctional relationship with the Clintons.  If they were merely an outgrowth of the internet, they would be complete failures, when in fact that are far more successful than anything the netroots has ever produced.

If you think they aren’t a success, then consider the number of PUMAs, their resources, and compare their television coverage with the Bush Dog campaign, or the internet campaigns to influence Obama on FISA or Bayh.  In terms of exposure per capita and per dollar, PUMAs are self-promotion superstars.

 I knew Incitatus. Incitatus was a friend of mine. Sarah Palin is no Incitatus!


[ Parent ]  
That, AND (0.00 / 0)
the narrative they tell (or has been constructed around them by the MSM) fits so much more cleanly into the overarching MSM theme that “liberals” can’t possibly be trusted to run the country because they can’t even manage to organize the Democratic Party without in-fighting and back-stabbing.  The key difference between this “fight” and something like the Bush Dog campaign is that the PUMA thing has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, or substance (at least as portrayed in the MSM), its all about personality and identity politics.



McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century


[ Parent ]  
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
At the end of this long road, the PUMAs aren’t about policy.  They are about process – decades of process that has gone against them.

Decades of efforts to deny Bill Clinton a legacy, in the end enabled by the Democrats.

Decades of work on feminist causes, only to end in a nasty spat where the first woman for vice candidate was derided as a racist.

Decades of work to create a coalition that could hold its own in the South, only to end with a candidate who campaigned on the (at least formerly) disastrous Mondale strategy (caucuses, minorities, upper class whites and youth, alienating the lunch bucket crowd).

It isn’t really clear to me who IS about policy at this point.  Certainly not the supposedly “progressive” left.  There isn’t any left now – there are Obama supporters, PUMAs, and Naderites.  A few websites may raise a few dollars to go after a few “Bush Dogs” for falling out of line with a progressive agenda, voting for FISA immunity and the war, while supporting a Presidential candidate who cares nothing for anything for progressive causes and in the end shutting up and shutting others up because they are so afraid of McCain.  The progressive community doesn’t WANT anything to do with policy – they’d rather deride people as racist for daring to put a white socialite in an ad, or complain about McCain’s houses (McCain, of course, being in not much of a different financial situation than Kerry, Edwards, or the Kennedys).

The PUMAs are as fine representatives of the Democratic party as anyone today.

 I knew Incitatus. Incitatus was a friend of mine. Sarah Palin is no Incitatus!


[ Parent ]  
The process continues (4.00 / 1)
no?  Just because H. Clinton did not succeed in landing the nomination doesn’t mean that her career is over, or that she can’t continue the struggles you cite, does it? Hillary has shown, repeatedly, that she’s tough and has the guts to stay in the fight.  I don’t doubt that she still has alot to contribute. The Democratic party and the the nation.

Obama isn’t perfect; neither is Clinton. Bill Clinton certainly fed the fire and dried out the ammunition of his critics, I have a hard time seeing him as a victim.  Same for Hillary.  Same for Obama.  Same for McCain.  At the end of the race, all of them are still gonna be living the life of an aristocrat, they are still gonna be major players in the political class of the nation. So, what do they have to lose, really?

No matter who gets sworn in as Prez in Jan. 2009, these issues won’t go away. Anyone that is serious about seeing them through will have to get back in the trenches (as it were) and slog it out. Of course, some of those fighters will have to be worrying about how to pay their mortgage, or their health insurance premiums, or how to feed their familiy tomorrow, but I can bet you that none of the folks running in this race will have those concerns. Not even Joe Biden.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century


[ Parent ]  
Note to Sirota (4.00 / 1)
Dear Sirota,

here, in this post, is a great example of why you do not have to look as far as the comments section to find invective — in this case “idiots”.

A small point: Net neutrality means that the network is neutral to content i.e., traffic that it carries. “Network neutral Internet” is incorrect. If you must use that sort of a phrase (rather than “content neutral Internet”), I suggest simply “neutral Internet”.

The PUMAs are not a residue of anything (and what a thoughtless way of describing a group!) — they are the result of a primary campaign that included a large amount of sexism and misogyny. Including from the Obama fan base, and at times from the Obama campaign itself. There are some deplorable opinions expressed among such groups (such as one claim that Obama is racist) but they are no worse than the stuff to which they are responding.



 
DNFTT (0.00 / 0)
(i hope i’m not too late to warn!)

[ Parent ]  
DNFTT? (0.00 / 0)
Let me guess –

Do Not (expletive deleted) The Troll?


[ Parent ]  
"feed." (0.00 / 0)
Monkey Fluids is brilliant but not always correct.

http://www.monkeyfluids.com/20…

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain


[ Parent ]  
Why is this a troll? (0.00 / 0)
Is it so easy to just use some hackneyed phrase to dismiss an opinion? Do you really believe that anyone who identifies as a “PUMA” is an “idiot”? Do you think that is a meaningful way to describe them? Is “party unity” the ultimate litmus test on who is a progressive/liberal, dare I say “leftist” (given the use of the term in the domain name)?

Or do you disagree with my correction regarding the phrase “network neutral Internet”?

If you believe that feminists (irrespective of their position on Hillary: for example, I have no interest in Obama, but much less in Hillary) have no cause to feel resentment over the way the primaries played out? Do you question my claim that Obama’s fanbase and some parts of his campaign behaved w.r.t Hillary and women?

The point of the title of my comment (“Note to Sirota”) is that Sirota complained of his treatment in these blogs, that there was no assumption of good faith. Need we ask why?


[ Parent ]  
A few quick explications… (0.00 / 0)
I wrote earlier:

There are some deplorable opinions expressed among such groups (such as one claim that Obama is racist) …

The “such groups” here means PUMA and other similar groups. In my previous comment I wrote:

I have no interest in Obama, but much less in Hillary…

Which is sort of an illogical statement (what is lesser than none? ;-)). What I meant is that I am not a supporter of Obama (though I do consider him a lesser evil than McCain), but I am more tolerant of him than I am of Hillary w.r.t their positions and actions.


[ Parent ]  
Suggestion (0.00 / 0)
If you want to communicate with D. Sirota, maybe you should find a diary/thread in which he is a participant.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]  
Dave's not here man. (4.00 / 1)
Sorry. I just couldn’t resist.

If you liked Bush, you’ll love McCain

[ Parent ]  
Re: Suggestion (0.00 / 0)
Spitball,

that’s good advice ;-), but I was being semi-rhetorical. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I dropped his name to relate his lament (regarding etiquette, etc) to the tone of this post. I am not trying to make a large issue out of [the lack of] civility in debate. In fact, the right-wing’s favourite tactic is intimidation and we have to respond in kind if we are to be effective. However, it requires the narrowest of definition of the left to describe the PUMAs as right-wing (despite, as I noted, the presence of some alarmingly right-wing discussion in their midst: the example I offered is the repetition of the right-wing claim that Rev. Wright is racist and by extension so is Obama).


[ Parent ]  
Civility is good (0.00 / 0)
Can’t argue with that, but clarity is also a positive aspect, especially on a blog.  

McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]  
Clarity (0.00 / 0)
SpitBall,

does it add clarity to call a large group of somewhat like-minded people “idiots”? It further poisons the debate. In another comment, I pointed to Roseanne Barr’s comment that “Obama just doesn’t get it”, and I think that is one of the fundamental greivances of feminists. Here, for example, is a Dem donor, in the NYT:

“I don’t think that Senator Obama understands how deep this commitment goes to Hillary, and where this passion comes from,” said Ms. Buell, co-founder of the clothing company Esprit. She stopped short of saying she would vote for Mr. Obama in November, but added: “I’m also a very, very devoted Democrat, so this is a very hard situation. John McCain is unacceptable.”

Trotting out friendly celebrity women, while letting the Axelrods and Plouffes comment patronisingly, is one way in which Obama doesn’t get it. As Roseanne points out, it doesn’t help a feminist that he has Caroline Kennedy, or Michelle Obama, or Oprah stumping for him (in a sort of “some of my best friends are gay” narrative).

These unhappy supporters of Hillary are not all people who dismiss the danger of McCain and want to cast “spoiler” votes. However, election politics is not (and should not be) the over-riding concern of the citizen, even in the choice during an election. We need to vote, if we do, on the basis of principle and higher politics, as well as pragmatism.


[ Parent ]  
No, name-calling rarely clarifies very much (0.00 / 0)
I don’t recall doing such, either.

I’m having a tough time following your train of thought, perhaps because your rhetorical style isn’t as direct and clear as I might hope. You started off by addressing a person that doesn’t seem to be participating in this thread, went through a digression about civility (or is it not a digression), and now respond to a plea for clarity by taking another tangential route to make a point about how some folks just “don’t get it”.

What’s the point?


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century


[ Parent ]  
Summary (0.00 / 0)
SpitBall,

It was not clear to me that you were asking for clarity on my part. It took your comment to mean that you felt that calling “PUMA”s “idiots” somehow achieves clarity. Now that I have a better understanding of your comment, let me try again:

a) David Sirota was (he feels) pilloried, somewhat unfairly and in personal terms, in the comment section of one of his posts.

b) He wondered why this was so (in the “netroots”, blogistan, etc), and why there was no assumption of good faith, etc.

c) I commented on this thread to draw attention to the style of expression (Chris Bowers calling “PUMA”s “idiots”) and how prevalent it is.

That’s the Sirota part and the limits of how much all of us can consider each other allies or comrades in such a climate.

The other part of my set of comments on this thread addresses the mischaracterisation of Hillary supporters and non-supporters who are unhappy with the way things went during the primaries. To that end, I offered some comments from Roseanne, others, the real problem.

In both cases — Sirota’s unhappiness with the commentators who should be his natural allies, and the “netroots” (and others’) problems with those not falling in behind Obama and the Democratic Party — there are signs to be read in the environment and manner in which we form bonds and attempt to act in solidarity.


[ Parent ]  
It is perfectly acceptable (0.00 / 0)
to point out that people are “acting like idiots” (check the quote) when they are.  That’s how children learn to behave like adults.

[ Parent ]  
Except… (0.00 / 0)
… these aren’t children and you/we are not their parent(s). And drawing distinctions between “acting like” vs “are” is hair-splitting. Idiots are insofar as they act so. What was the famous Forrest Gump line? I forget…


[ Parent ]  
A Quick Note On PUMA's | 58 comments
Donate to Open Left
ELECTION 2008 Presidential Forecast
Senate Forecast
House Forecast
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS

');

MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.

OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
Tips
McCain
John McCain
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More OpenLeft video…