The media have been complicit in lapping up the tales of bitter old women. Any story erected around a pre-literary archetype of the destructive power of a woman scorned is destined to be hit candy, whether or not it represents any statistical reality. It's hardly clear that Team Hillary is as vast or as powerful as it claims. Polls suggest there isn't a deep pool of Obama-hating women who could derail his election.
These disgruntled women--whether they plan to vote for John McCain, sit out the election, or simply gobble up airtime--are tacitly working toward electing McCain; a candidate who claimed last week at a presidential forum at Saddleback Church that life begins "at the moment of conception" and who voted against legislation ensuring equal pay for women. These women must be well aware that a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe. I assume they don't care. But my real problem with the Hillary Harridans--and the media's relentless focus on them--is that they give new life to Paleozoic stereotypes about irrationally destructive older women.
I don't think anyone needs PUMA to flatten women into caricatures. Not to be cynical, but that's part of the business of media. Still, I think it's wrong, at this point, to draw any real connections between what are basically conspiracy nuts, a step removed from Lyndon Larouche, and the broad swath of women voters.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It's a pretty lazy critique of an unimpressive target. Anyone who looks at PUMA knows that they don't have the numbers to be taken seriously, and wasting time on their views isn't exactly constructive. As for the inflated rhetoric, calling an archetype "pre-literary" isn't very meaningful. Equally, one doesn't "hit" candy. Gold, yes, oil, yes, candy, not so much. As for the "Paleozoic" stereotype, far be it from anyone to point out that there was no human life, far less thought or steretyping during this period. Better metaphors and knowledge of history, please!
New poll out today showing only 52% of Hillary supporters plan to support Obama right now. with the rest roughly evenly split at undecided v. supporting McCain.
Great article by Lithwick...
I think it was Chuck Todd on Hardball last night who said there is this sizable pool of voters who love Clinton, hate Bush, but are undecided about who to vote for. While I think the PUMA thing is mostly an online phenom of truly deranged cranks, there does seem to be a large number of former Hilary supporters who are "iffy" about who to vote for.
If 52% of Hilary voters--by and large straight down the line democrats to dare I say actual self-proclaimed liberals--are actually undecided about who to vote for, then as far as I'm concerned this represents a kind of collective madness that is almost unfathomable. I'll repeat, I have yet to hear even one response to the following question: "On what issue is Hilary so perfect, and Obama so egregiously wrong, that a McCain presidency would be preferable."
The closest thing to a response or even semi-argument I've read on this appears to be something along the lines of the devil you know is better than the one you don't. To which I would ask, what is the nightmare Obama scenario that would be worse than what we already know about the prospects of a McCain presidency? Of course there is no rational answer to either of these questions, and if you supported Hilary in the primaries and are now "conflicted" about who to vote for, chances are "the issues" or anything even remotely resembling politics aren't at the forefront of your mind.
The fact is Hilary spent a good chunk of the campaign trying as hard as possible to convince Democratic voters that, "he's not one of us" and "we don't know him!", it was dirty, stupid, and completely successful for a good chunk of easily rooked voters. It is now incumbent on her and Bill to help undo the damage done at the conventions by kissing Obama's ass and making it as clear as can possibly be made to this sea of suburban hausfraus looking for "catharsis" that it would be tantamount to spitting in their face to vote for McCain. If she does this convincingly--a tall order to be sure--I think it will go a long way. Not for the PUMA freaks, but certainly for a large majority of these supposed "undecideds."
The common mistake is assuming that Clinton-supporters who don't like Obama feel that way because of some affinity for Hillary or anger over the primary or whatever. That's mostly what you see online, but that's not what's happening in the real world.
Obama has clearly done a great job of bringing many new people into the political process. But at the same time, I've been shocked by the sheer number of people I've encountered - mainly older voters - who have voted Democratic for ages, but simply can't get comfortable with Obama because of the inexperience issue. They're gunshy about turning the country over to someone who just doesn't strike them as ready. And yeah, maybe turning it over to McCain would be even worse, but I'm not claiming this is entirely rational thinking on their parts. Mostly I hear these people talking about sitting out rather than voting for McCain.
Of course, there are some who think that Obama is no more inexperienced than [fill in the blank] or that Grandpa is just making up reasons because he's racist. I think that misses the point though.
The people who comprise PUMA are the ultimate Hillary deadenders. They are warped, frustrated, delusional, demented, and deranged. They belong in a psychiatric ward.
PUMA members are kindred spirits with UFO buffs, global warming skeptics, horoscope readers, intelligent design advocates, abortion clinic bombers, Tim McVeigh's Facebook friends, and Holocaust deniers. They are an insult to logic, reason, common sense, and rationalism.
Hillary Clinton lost fair and square. Like her husband, she's a center-right Democrat and an enemy to genuine liberals and progressives. She's a born liar and is simply Dick Cheney in an ugly pantsuit.
PUMA members should be consigned to the wastebasket of history.
I'm going to use this thread as an appropriate platform to protest Ta-Nehisi's rigged shit in the "White Spokesman" election. He chose the candidates - no, they were shoved down our throats. And has anyone noticed that since this guy Colbert, who can't perform as our spokesman without scriptwriters and a teleprompter, was elected he's disappeared from sight - or "site."
Some of us aren't going to take this top down polling crap. I propose a roll-call vote of this blogs readers AND I want Les Grossman, the inevitable white spokesman for the 21st Century - who wasn't given a reasonable chance to compete because of Ta-Nehisi's manipulation of the process, i.e. not waiting til Tropic Thunder was released - to be on the ballot. We're not screwing around. There are other websites many of us could spend our time on - like John Fucking McCain's. There! Now all of you weakass white folks who've been manipulated by Coates, Gofuck Yourselves !!!
http://tiny.cc/hEa9h
Went unsaid: people in this group might be morons. Seriously: If you support Hillary Clinton, and not in a "she was a historic candidate" way, but in a "I support the things she is working for as a politician," and you turn around and actively support John McCain you are a moron. By actively support I don't mean just not voting for Obama; if you go off and vote for Nader, whaatever; it might not be the best decision, imo, but I can understand it. But if you actually believe in the ideals of Senator Clinton and you think electing Senator McCain is a better way towards realizing those goals and ideals, then you don't know jack about anything. Or am I being too harsh? Is there a possible counter explanation?
Ironically, the number given for these voters (11%) is the same as the number who "who are white and whose answers to at least two questions suggest that race is important to them. The vast majority of these people are reliable Republicans in the McCain camp, he said."
This would be more persuasive if Hillary Clinton had Diane Feinstein's experience, or Nancy Pelosi's,; but she doesn't. There isn't that much difference between a two-term and one-term Senator. This is where the First Lady stuff comes in and I'll grant her some credit on that, but not total (I don't consider Laura Bush to be using that argument to run for the President in a credible manner).
What shocks me is that people consider being a Senator -- a job where you don't DO anything but vote and campaign -- is somehow experience that prepares you for the presidency. Arguably, Hillary as a former state and federal first lady, has more relevant experience than Obama and McCain, but to say McCain has more experience than Obama other than age, being fed by special interest groups and parliamentary manuvering seems a bit off the mark to me. Of course since the presidency is less about resume comparison and more about "who I feel comfortable with," all kinds of conflicting forces are at play, including who is too aloof, too dark, too tempermental, too old, etc.
Bottom line is that Hillary is widely perceived as meeting the experience threshold, Josh, whether you or I might agree with that or not. We're talking about what motivates other people, after all, not what motivates us.
Part of it is simply that Hillary has been on the scene a long time and thus folks have had more time to get comfortable with her as a mainstream Democrat. It doesn't necessarily get down to the level of hyper-detailed parsing of what she did or didn't do as First Lady.
Of course, there are some who think that Obama is no more inexperienced than [fill in the blank] or that Grandpa is just making up reasons because he's racist. I think that misses the point though.
I don't, I think it is the point. The problem with "no more inexperienced than [fill in the blank]" is that that blank is huge. Too many of those folks were perfectly comfortable with some other one-term Senator (Clinton or Edwards), and going back even just a little further, I can't recall 1-term Governor Bush's inexperience being nearly the liability that it is for Obama amongst undecideds, when they were choosing between W and a sitting VP.
In fact, in my political memory, I can't recall having a serious discussion about the merits of a candidate's "experience" until this year with any of my peers, even though it certainly could have been a question in several races.
(I mean, if this was really your concern, wouldn't it be fair game to say "Arkansas? What does being governor of Arkansas get you?" At least a little discussion about it, when Clinton was trying to unseat a sitting president with 12 years experience being in the White House? After all, I'm pretty sure John McCain has house bigger than Arkansas. He just might not remember them is all... :-)
Well, look, if you really want to argue that people only discuss Obama's experience because he's black, I guess you can go that route. In my book, though, it's just word games to say "Hillary has the same number of years in elected office as Obama" or whatnot. Is it really so routine for the major parties to nominate someone who was only 2 years removed from a job in the part-time state legislature when he announced his candidacy?
I'm not saying Obama is too inexperienced, I mean I'm voting for him after all. But when you suggest the experience debate is just some kind of additional hurdle that only the black guy has to clear, I think what you're saying is that because you can stretch Bush's or Clinton's or whoever's experience to be no more significant than Obama's in your own mind, everyone else should have to think that way as well.
This would be more persuasive if Hillary Clinton had Diane Feinstein's experience, or Nancy Pelosi's,; but she doesn't. There isn't that much difference between a two-term and one-term Senator. This is where the First Lady stuff comes in and I'll grant her some credit on that, but not total (I don't consider Laura Bush to be using that argument to run for the President in a credible manner).
Exactly. The "Obama is inexperienced/unqualified" argument has never seemed persuasive to me, not only because most experienced and knowledgeable Democrats disagree with it, but also because Clinton's experience was not obviously superior. More U.S. Senators (who have worked with both Clinton and Obama) endorsed Obama than Clinton. None of the party's living Presidential nominees other than Bill Clinton considers Obama unqualified.
Of course, there are some who think that Obama is no more inexperienced than [fill in the blank] or that Grandpa is just making up reasons because he's racist. I think that misses the point though.
Um....what exactly is the point, especially since you acknowledge that this is not "exactly rational thinking"? It seems not unreasonable to conclude that many of the voters you describe are uncomfortable about voting for Obama because he is black.
The idea of Obama supporters who believe that everyone who doesn't support him is a racist is supposed to be a caricature, not reality. Please, guys, you're killing me. "Obama isn't experienced enough" isn't even a legitimate point of view?!?
Above commenter said: "In fact, in my political memory, I can't recall having a serious discussion about the merits of a candidate's "experience" until this year with any of my peers..."
I had this discussion quite a bit with my friends in 2004 regarding John Edwards. Gore also nearly selected Edwards for VP in 2000, but passed because Edwards was so unknown. People questioned Carter's experience in 1976 quite a bit as well, but the anti-Watergate feeling was so large that experience was a 2-edged sword (potentially like this year).
Experience can and has been an issue in the past with white candidates. Is every white voter worried about experience not impervious to race? No, of course not. Is every person that raises experience as an issue using that as code for race? Also, no.
"Bottom line is that Hillary is widely perceived as meeting the experience threshold, Josh, whether you or I might agree with that or not. We're talking about what motivates other people, after all, not what motivates us."
I think Steve is actually on to something here, which we should take seriously if we want to convince fence-sitting, older Democratic voters to vote for Obama in November. It doesn't help to tell people they're position is not logical (i.e., Hillary's been a senator for only two more years than Obama or experience didn't seem to count when you voted for Bill) or that in the deep recesses of their soul they still harbor racist views even if they're not aware of it.
That said, I'm not sure you have to take them exactly at their word. If experience were such an important criterion this year, we'd have Biden, Dodd or Richardson as the presumptive nominee. What I will say--even if I don't agree with this view--is that there is something new in Obama's candidacy that's frightening to older Democrats. It's not the change meme nor the reaching across the aisle stuff. It's that throughout the primary Obama refused to engage in retail politics. Unlike Hillary, he didn't slice and dice the population and speak to each group about the specific programs of concern to them. He didn't pander about the gas tax holiday in rural Pennsylvania or come out in support of offshore drilling in Louisiana. To Hillary's credit, her division of the population into various interest groups led to her vast knowledge of the mechanics of policy. But she's not a game-changer. Rarely if ever did she discuss the principles behind her positions. She wasn't going to connect the dots between,say, environmentalism and foreign policy. Obama would. I can see how this change of approach would be realy frightening to people used to be spoken to as interest groups with pet policies. I would also agree that such a bread-and-butter approach is essential for establishing a legislative agenda. But it is important to remind people that all such individual positions are always based on a coherent understanding of the US's position in the world, its responsibilities as a nation to its citizens and to others, its projected future, constitutional history, etc. That's what Obama brings to this election. It's strange because we haven't heard such talk since JFK or FDR.
Experience or lack thereof is a legitimate argument in any campaing, but this isn't just any campaign this is the campaign after BUSH. I don't care what excuses these people are making how can any Democrat or person who is left of center even consider voting for McCain or staying home? I'm sorry, but please, just please. These folks were all gung ho to take back the White House for the Dems, but when they realized that the White House wouldn't be so white they all of a sudden have questions and concerns? White folks will tell themselves and evreyone else that Obama lost because of inexperience if he loses, but they won't be able to sell that shit to black folks. We will know. We'll survive, because hell we are used to disappointment, but this country won't. Not with the right wing nut who at this point is worse than Bush. And if these Democrats cause the Democratic Nominee to lose in the fall then I say black folks will have to seriously reconsider our allegence to the Democratic Party, because it won't deserve our loyalty anymore. It will be high time that we be free agents. I know this is the last chance the Dems have with this increasingly angry black woman. They will deserve to be in a permenant minority if we lose this time and only the bigots in our party can make that lose happen. Not the Republicans and not the independents. The Democrats.
Don't these "Politician X or nobody" voters exist every year?
I can recall a certain commenter in Matt Y's day who could reasonably be called an Edwards dead ender, and there were Deaniacs in the last election and Nader voters in 2000.
The real difference between the Hillary or nobady voters and the Deaniacs is that Dean swung behind Kerry and asked his supporters to do the same (very few nader votes in 2004), whereas Hillary has encouraged her dead enders in their shared delusion.
The difference is the candidate's limited grip on reality, not that we've found a new type of voter.
The idea of Obama supporters who believe that everyone who doesn't support him is a racist is supposed to be a caricature, not reality. Please, guys, you're killing me. "Obama isn't experienced enough" isn't even a legitimate point of view?!
This is a really poor characterization of my view.
First, there are many reasons to oppose Obama, or support McCain, that have nothing to do with race. Obama is a straight-ahead Dem, and McCain has swung hard to the right on domestic issues while maintaining aggressive postures internationally. It's really easy to pick sides here based on actual policy or platform differences.
Second, when you get into soft reasons, all I am saying is that I am deeply suspicious of "experience" as meaningful. This is because I am old enough to remember a number of very succesful candidates that had one term or less in a major office before now, and don't recall much talk about it.
Now, there are two things to point out here:
a. Sure, I could be wrong. I'm believing my own lying eyes. Maybe there was more talk about Edwards or Bush being inexperienced, and I just don't remember it. Or maybe 2 years really is so different than 4 or 5 to people that it wasn't valid before, but is now. It just doesn't happen to make sense to me. So, I am suspicious.
b. Saying I am suspicious of it is not the same as shouting racism at everyone. While I have no doubt that there are, in fact, voters for whom race matters and this is a convenient cover story, I have no idea how many really. I think people form soft-value opinions for many reasons, and then later latch onto a rationale that makes sense, rather than simply saying "I like his policies, but he gives me the willies for X reason."
Too many people decide first who they like, and then second "why" they like them. I'd be absolutely stunned if race isn't part of that puzzle for some people (particularly of a certain age group), but I'd be equally stunned if it was a part of the puzzle for everyone.
I think one can split the difference here. It’s not a matter of former Clinton backers being wary of Obama solely because of stone cold racism. But that’s not saying that racism doesn’t play a role either, even though they say it’s “lack of experience”. In the end, the overwhelming majority will vote Obama; posistion on the issues will win out. But if Obama was a white guy named John Collins or something, they would end up coming around much sooner. It’s not a matter of reluctant towards voting for a black guy, its hesitation over voting for a black guy with a name they can’t spell who no one knew 5 years ago. A black man with an unusual name faces a higher standard. It sucks but so what?
Yes, you can cry racism if you want and you’d be right to a certain degree, to some degree. But you don't win votes from people by calling them racist, no matter how right you are. And at the end of the day, if they vote for him, what does their trepidation count for? It’s very likely, if Obama wins, it’s going to be a growth experience for a lot of older, less-educated white Democrats. Yes it sounds kind of pathetic to people in my age group, I’m 29. But these Dems are still a hell of a lot better of examples of humanity than the Right’s “Obama is a Crypto-Muslim who has a crazy Christian pastor just to throw everybody off”.
On the delusional argument: Still can't square Hillary's massive unpaid debt with this alleged support. Puma has been ranting about write-in votes and third party BS for a couple of months, yet as far as I can make out the 3% that HRC's debts went down is from writing off smaller line items and forgiveness not, you know, paying the bills she owes.
How does this make her worthy of consideration by sane people?