MyDD :: That's NOT what PUMA stands for

That's NOT what PUMA stands for

by Falsehood, Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:20:15 PM EST

To be clear: I am an Obama supporter, and have been so for well over a year now. I also do not endorse or agree with PUMA's positions.

The above disclaimer aside, I am a little worried about the diary sitting atop the rec list at the moment. It represents a viewpoint that gets dangerously close to the same thing that many of this site condemn - the criticism by association, and not by fact.

Put simply: that PUMA opposes Barack Obama doesn't mean that they endorse the actions of various conservative groups.

Let's go back to 2004, when many of the people here got incensed by the photo-shopped photo of Kerry standing at a rally next to Jane Fonda. That picture was a smear by association - it said that John Kerry's shared opposition to the war with Fonda tied them together, when in fact Kerry's shared opposition did NOT imply that he agreed with what Fonda had done (which she apologized in part for in 1988).

I have seen objection time and again to the false comparisons of the right - that Obama's sharing of the stage with Ayers means he's a terrorist, and that his membership at Trinity means he's a black separatist.

We are doing the same thing here. Real PUMAs - those who actually supported Clinton - are with you folks on policy, probably more so than I am, as a moderate. They are for Universal Healthcare, they are for ending the war, they are for all the positions that Clinton and Obama shared.

As Fivethirtyeight.com accurately predicted today, (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/d emocrats-swayed-more-by-muslim-misinfo.h tml) this means that your fellow Democratic PUMAs have a motivation yet greater than this policy.

They think Obama is the worst thing to come along in politics since, er... Bush. They don't like his style; they don't like his past; they don't like him.

Accusing real PUMAs of being what they aren't doesn't help. These people can be your assets - but only if you choose to not make them your enemies. They will call, volunteer, and blog like mad, but only if you make them feel welcome doing so. We can't let this become personal.

Even as an Obama supporter, I can recognize genuine reasons to vote the other way. I don't think they outweigh the reasons to vote Obama, but I'm not God, and we're a democracy for a reason.

It is ok to oppose Obama.

It is not a cardinal sin.

It is also perfectly appropriate to blow PUMA arguments to shreds, but accusing them of being in league with the right-wing doesn't do that. It doesn't change minds, and it doesn't help matters. If you have something to say to those who haven't gotten over the primaries, don't spend your time making accusations.

Spend your time talking about the war in Iraq, healthcare, and tax cuts. Spend you time talking about the needs of down-ticket races. This doesn't have to be personal.

Please don't make it so.

Tags: Puma, Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 224 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (2.00 / 7)

The problem is that there's very little evidence that "real PUMAs" are particularly numerous; polled defection rates appear to be similar to previous elections. And everytime someone traces some prominent PUMA movement they keep ending up back at the GOP.

So while there are a handful of "disaffected democrats" all evidence says that the driving force behind the "PUMA movement", such as it is, is being driven by the GOP.

This is important information to get out - we should not not not spend our time crying over a few angry voters - that's precisely what McCain wants us to do.

John McCain

by Mandoliniment on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:35:18 PM EST

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (2.00 / 5)

Agreed - but I don't think its fair to say that the PUMA movement has the GOP at its base. Individual parts; yes, but I think there are Clinton supporters who, in good faith, oppose Obama. We can't change that my demonizing them.

by Falsehood on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (2.00 / 6)

Anyone that willingly votes against their own principles out of a spite over the Democratic primary deserves everything that gets thrown at them (verbally, of course).

That would be like a Huckabee supporter voting for an atheist Democrat because they were pissed about losing to McCain.

"Damn...you know, I really like a lot of McCain's policies...he's a good guy. But darn it, he beat my candidate and it felt unfair the way it happened. Just for that, I'm going to vote for the guy/gal who doesn't believe in God. That'll teach that stupid McCain and his supporters."

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (2.00 / 1)

I think the point of the diary is that for most PUMAs their resistance to Obama is not out of "spite". The loudest and most publicity hungry probably have that as their primary motive, but there are a lot of "silent PUMAs" who never visit blogs or political bulletin boards, and from talking with them I can say they aren't feeling spiteful. They're worried. They don't trust Obama, simple as that. His recent behavior has NOT helped in that area, with these people. (I'm referring to things like equivocating on abortion rights and changing his stance on Iraq and the death penalty; the FISA issue and the public financing stuff only irritates nerdy wonks like yours truly.)

Like it or not, John McCain is very much The Devil They Know. He's not going to deliver any surprises. They know what he'll do. They won't like much of it, but at least they can prepare for it.

WIth Obama there's just a lot of feeling of "But who is he REALLY? What will he do if we make him leader of the free world? How can we tell? Maybe it's better to go with someone whose shortcomings are already well known and for whom we have strategies in place to deal with."

I'm not saying this is a good attitude; I think that even if Obama turns out to be a less-than-stellar President, he'll still do more for the causes I care about than McCain will. I'm also not saying my analysis is 100% on the mark. But it's a very anxious time in America right now. Many ordinary folks are just plain scared. And some of that fear is getting projected on Obama.

I've never been a "Reagan Democrat" (Didn't like the guy. Still don't. Don't get the here worship AT ALL.) But I think he mostly won on his optimism and his ability to calm people down in an anxious time, much like FDR and his fireside chats. I suspect one of the reasons Bush's ratings have gone into the gutter (aside from the fact that he's an incompetent moron) is that rather than reassure people, he spends all his time trying to pump up their fear levels in order to score political points. That only works for so long, and he WAAAY overplayed it.

So Obama's on the mark (I believe) when he says the Republicans want to make him "scary", but it's not because he's black. Racists are going to vote against him regardless. What a lot of ordinary non-blogging folks find scary about Obama is that he works hard to be an invigorating and empowering candidate, not a calm and reassuring one. And right now lots of people are a little bit -- or a lot -- desperate for just a paternalistic pat on the back and a "There there, everything will be all right" sort of feeling. (This was the itsy bitsy teeny tiny bit of truth in Phil Gramm's asinine statements about "mental recessions" -- people are scared, but Gramm dismissed their fear as groundless when I think most of the public's fears are entirely too well grounded in reality.)

Besides, as I pointed out in a long earlier post elsewhere, logically there are plenty of reasons people might have voted for Hillary that do not transfer to Obama -- the most obvious one being that some people voted for Hillary just because she was female, just as lots of black voters support Obama because he's black. Obama can't become a woman, so he's not getting those voters. Hillary couldn't become black, so she couldn't compete with Obama in that demographic.

It's not always about platforms and policies with voters. In fact I would argue that it is RARELY about policies and platforms with the average voter.

by SuGeAtARC on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (none / 0)

"WIth Obama there's just a lot of feeling of "But who is he REALLY? What will he do if we make him leader of the free world? How can we tell? Maybe it's better to go with someone whose shortcomings are already well known and for whom we have strategies in place to deal with."

WHAT!!??!?!?!? you make it sounds like its a chance of he may transform into a evil demon and enslave the human race .....so fear is the reason you won't vote for Obama just like fear is the reason cowards like you voted for Bush out of fear of terrorism......so go ahead vote for McCain the devil you know would have us at war with Iran and $10 a gallon gas

PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability

by wellinformed on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (none / 0)

Please read the whole comment next time.

For my part, I can't be sure now of what McCain thinks - I wasn't convinced by his swings in the primaries.

by Falsehood on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (none / 0)

(I've stopped expecting folks to read all of my comments. C'est le blog. Besides, I'm long-winded.)

I agree with you on McCain -- he's also becoming more, not less, of a question mark as this election season grinds on. But one advantage he does have that Obama doesn't is his long record of public service. This isn't an "experience" issue -- this is a case of "Well, at least we know how he behaved in the past. There's a public record of it." I suspect this is McCain's real advantage over Obama in the "experience" department: not so much that McCain is better prepared, but that he's perceived as less risky because more is known.

For example, people who don't know what it means to be Muslim have no clue how ridiculous the idea of a "secret Muslim" is. They think it's, oh, roughly like being a secret Satanist. No true Muslim would hide or deny his or her faith; they're supposed to proclaim it. Ignorance creates fear. Unfortunately we don't have time to reeducate all of America in comparative religion (though it would be time well spent, I think) so the only way Obama is going to deal with that sort of xenophobia is by becoming an overall more soothing and less challenging candidate. But again unfortunately, I don't think that's part of his style or his brand. I'm not sure exactly how to fix that; the best route may be not to try, but to push hard on the issues, ideally without invoking people's current fears.

I wish I had time to blog on the issue of election fear. Maybe next week...

by SuGeAtARC on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (none / 0)

well my bad misdirected frustration

PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability

by wellinformed on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fear is a large part of culture (none / 0)

... at least if you look at Appalachian culture.

Everyone has a different attitude to the stranger.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whatever (2.00 / 2)

Don't demonize them... as they demonize the nominee and his supporters.

by mikeinsf on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Finally! (none / 0)

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (none / 0)

We can't change that [b]y demonizing them.

It's a shame more progressive and liberal bloggers don't keep this in mind, but it appears many of them don't. Thanks for a very even handed and thoughtful diary. Something else PUMAs are interested in is a new incarnation of the progressive blogosphere - one which is based in Democratic and progressive values, instead of thriving simply on finding an enemy to demonize, over and over and over.

by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's NOT what PUMA stands for (2.00 / 5)

This is a good point. I have no idea whom we're talking about any more. I think it's largely a Republican operation mixed with a few disaffected Democrats who either don't realize they're being had or don't care.

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How do you explain these poll results then? (none / 0)

This is for July 15 --

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 47% and McCain 45%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/obama_leads_bush_by_tw enty_but_clinton_does_better_against_mcc ain

If the commenters here really wanted a progressive president, they would support an open convention so we got the most popular progressive in the WH.

by strongerthandirt on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you explain these poll results then? (none / 0)

There will be a roll call vote at the convention. Dean said so. Why do people suggest otherwise?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:52:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

strawman (none / 0)

show me the breakdowns, kid.

I figure Hillary might actually be getting that 25% of women Republicans... ;-)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent diary (2.00 / 6)

Thank you for promoting civil disagreement and common ground in one diary.

Actually, No (2.00 / 5)

If you are a Democrat, if you believe in the principles of the Democratic Party and the issues it stands for, it is absolutely NOT ok to oppose Obama.

by Hatch on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:37:17 PM EST

Re: Actually, No (2.00 / 4)

You must eat peas. Peas are what we said must be served, you must eat them. You must wear blue, blue shows you are in complete solidarity with us. You must not think for yourself. You must not have your own emotions. You must do exactly what we do and say or you are not loyal. Is the Democratic Party or did this site change into a Republican site while I was taking my break.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How are you different than Lieberman (2.00 / 3)

or Zell Miller?

by Geekesque on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How are you different than Lieberman (1.00 / 1)

How are you different from a fascist?

by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because I call you people (2.00 / 4)

names instead of having you arrested and shot.

by Geekesque on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No (2.00 / 1)

Let's take a hypothetical - that the Democrats elect a candidate who, after securing the nomination, completely reverses several positions on many issues of record; taking views that don't make sense, in addition to a major scandal.

Your argument that its NEVER ok to oppose doesn't hold water here.

I don't think anyone should oppose in this case, but making the issue black and white is foolish IMO.

by Falsehood on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok... (2.00 / 4)

If Obama had reversed positions on issues of record, and was running against the normal Democratic party platform, you might have a point.

I am talking about the actual current nominee, not some hypothetical turncoat.

by Hatch on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:48:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok... (2.00 / 1)

Whoops - you're right, misread you.

I still think that declaring another position morally irresponsible isn't the way to go about changing minds.

We can differ on that point, but agree that it's not ok to demonize people who we're trying to change, right?

by Falsehood on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Can Certainly Agree To That EOM (none / 0)

by Hatch on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No (2.00 / 2)

Dude we are Democrats if we were able to lockstep with no independent thought and no rebellion we would be Republicans and there would be no need for 2 parties. It's a fundamental part of who we are and why we even exist.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disunity & Lack Of Discipline (2.00 / 1)

These are unfortunate side-effects of the Democratic party's coalition, not ideals that the party was created to uphold. Internal rebellion is not something to strive for.

by Hatch on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disunity & Lack Of Discipline (2.00 / 1)

Yes but if we can avoid trying to destroy each other and be patient the majority will come home to momma and poppa. But we have to let them do it on their terms. Stop patronizing them and stop attacking them both tactics tend to piss Democrats off.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

damn. agreed. (none / 0)

You/They've got till precisely one week before the election to make their decision. (after that, join up with GOTV!)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disunity & Lack Of Discipline (none / 0)

Of course its something we strive for its called independent thought.

Have you read 1984?

by dtaylor2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disunity & Lack Of Discipline (none / 0)

Look at the last eight years and tell me that group think and lockstep support are a better way to go.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not only PUMA - Hill dems miffed at Obama (none / 0)

www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11750 .html

After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obama's presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November.

"They think they know what's right and everyone else is wrong on everything," groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. "They are kind of insufferable at this point."

Among the grievances described by Democratic leadership insiders: