This started out as a comment in response to Missypris, but it grew and grew until it evolved into a post. I loved the idea of opening up that PUMAdora's box so much that I decided to prowl around a bit and see what was lurking around the water holes of the blogosphere during breakfast.
First, I found this on what's affectionatly referred to here on our site as a "Good Lefty Bog" posted by Geekesque from MYDD:
John McCain's campaign will stop advertising on several pro-Hillary Clinton Web sites that have attacked Barack Obama for being unpatriotic and, in one case, compared the Democratic nominee-in-waiting to Adolf Hitler. . . .
Remember that the biggest PUMA blog was founded by someone who was banned from Daily Kos for posting a virulently Islamaphobic diary and who refers to Barack Obama as the "Affirmative Action candidate.".
And, of course, No Quarter is an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan, as is Hillaryis44.org.
But, other than that, the notion that PUMA is founded on rightwing hate and bigotry is a pure myth.
Well don't feel put off by that, all you cool PUMA cats, it's nothing personal - McCain is simply road testing whether a "positive campaign" plays better with the audience this year than "Islamophobia" does. Let's give him points for style, certainly. And if I've neglected to mention it, Welcome to the Vast Right Conspiracy! We may be dogs and (and bunnies) but we still love baby cats, mama cats, cute kittens and righteously angry, disenfranchised Demo-cats of all breeds.
I thought that Auntie Meme's comment on the Petulant Pumas post at Corrente was concise, cogent and telling:
Conventional wisdom that says PUMAs are just disappointed old broads who are sad that one of their own didn’t get selected. They’re not ready to get down to the nuts and bolts of governing, nor do they really have the stamina for it. It’s a battle of pie-in-the-sky vs. practicalities.
At a deeper level, the profound rift comes from the clash between Democrats who have paid their dues through long-term political activism and those who are new to the process. I’m not speaking of the candidates, per se, but of their supporters. Clinton supporters are not owed the candidacy. They are, however, owed a voice that resonates through the policies of the nominee and his organization. The Obama campaign deserves an 18-million voice yowl of protest. Unless their campaign makes substantial changes of tone and substance and strives toward truly hearing and acting on the concerns of those 18 million, the PUMA protest will take the form of not only not supporting Prince Charming, but of actively working against him.
To sum up: a) We’re harshing their mellow and that bums them out. b) We can outline our case for Clinton until we’re blue in the face, but we can’t make them hear us.PUMAS are perceived as bitter little ol ladies.The meme is propagated far and wide by both “progressive” bloggers and the SCMSM. And we know that women over 40 at some point become invisible. Proven fact—I can no longer see myself in the mirror. c) Worse yet, we can’t make them care.
Corrente looks like a site that I would like to visit again. These aren't the foaming-at-the-mouth comments of the fever swamp Left, no, no, no. These are the comments of real, honest-to-God thinking person's Democrats. Here are a few more that impressed me:
Barack Obama is UNSUITED to be President
1) completely lacking in the background and experience necessary to be president
a) less than 2 years national political experience before he decided to run b) no executive experience (i.e. he’s never run anything but his mounth) c) is egregiously untested in ’crisis’/hard decision situations (and what we’ve seen of him does not inspire confidence) d) campaign was based not on policies and positions, but on broad, amorphous, content free themes…
2) lacks the character to be president
a) an “opportunist” rather than an pragmatist — three years ago he acknowledged that he would not be ready for the oval office in 2008. b) ran an ugly campaign involving false accusations that his opponent was a racist c) had a hissy fit over the ’distractions’ that dominated the Philadelphia debate, and said that issues should be discussed — but Obama has never demanded that issues be discussed until people started looking into his background. d) refused to debate Clinton after the PA debate, even though she offered forums where ’issues only’ would be discussed e) while complaining about lack of “issues” discussion, his campaign has consistently urged the media to cover non-issue things related to Clinton like “Bosnian snipers”, “tax returns”, and “RFK/Assassination” f) when confronted with constitutencies in states that did not ’get’ him, rather than work at gaining their confidence, he treated them as morallly deficient g) tell women that they need to “get over it” and treats traditional democratic constituencies with contempt — telling them them they have ’nowhere elese to do”
and...
You’re supposed to vote for him because it’s Him. To even consider requiring any sort of political agenda is too vile for words!I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Rove but he writes we already know: Obama is only in it for himself. If anything, I’d put my money on Obama fighting against the rights of women and girls since those rights are usually at the center of “divisiveness.”
and...
—all rights are (including Constitutional ones like voting and equal protection too)—he won’t fight for any of them at all.
I thought the last two comments were pertinent to circling back to Jon Henke's post on the Libertarians swing vote for Obama. Barack's been so squishy on his Constitutional positions that I cannot think of any good explanation for those Rasmussen poll numbers, but oh, well. Maybe I'm just missing something. Or maybe those Libertarians are missing something - like their principles, their phosphatidylserine, their synapatic activity? But moving right along...
My personal favorite non-poll indicator comes from this comment on WaPo's Schmidt Takes Over Day to Day Leadership of McCain Campaign on The Trail:
Just say Nobama! We are PuMaS, we support Hillary. We are PuMaS, we have PMS. We are PuMaS, we will vote for McCain and then Hillary will win in 2012! Don't say we didn't tell you so!
Ah HA! So the strategy is to just sit tight for 4 more years of Bush's 3rd Term and then spring like a Trojan Horse in 2012. In this regard, PUMA's have so much in common with principled conservatives who are going to Just Say No Deal to McCain, install Obama and watch him flounder and fail like a flippy floppy fish out of water for 4 years while building the next Ronald Reagan to run against Hillary in 2012.
Here's the Fox/Newsweek national poll from the end of June (H/T to Real Clear Politics) indicating how Hillary Primary voters indicate they will vote in November:
Relative to other Dems, PUMA support for Obama falls, while support for McCain rises.
Here's the Quinnipiac swing state survey from the end of June that provides some clues about PUMA voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Florida closely mirrors the national numbers but the trend is more pronounced in Pennsylvania and especially Ohio, where the drop in support for Obama and increase in support for McCain is very substantial:
Women, particularly married white women, however, may be a problem for Obama, according to the Washington Post/ABC poll.
It showed that McCain has a 20 point advantage over Obama among married white women, a group that George Bush also won in the last two presidential elections.
Stephanopoulos told GMA that the figure was a "danger sign" for Obama. "This is a huge gap that Obama has to close if he's going to do well."
Whatever their motives, I like these PUMAs. They're smart, tribal, and they're not afraid to take an invisible bite out of an insincere, inexperienced candidate who lacks substance and has told them to just get over it.
