I really hope the “picking a non-Hillary woman is an insult to Hillary women!” meme isn’t being taken to seriously.  The recent Kaine- and Bayh-madness has started to make me cling to Sebelius, who did some pretty impressive stuff on health care and energy policy as governor of Kansas.  (I’d still be pushing Edwards, but for this ridiculous Enquirer circus.  I’m completely with Jesse on how the pictures look like someone else, but obviously Obama doesn’t want anything to do with that.)

I’m for Sebelius too, and the idea that it would be an insult to pick a woman that is not Hillary is, in fact, and insult to women, since it implicitly presumes that female politicians are interchangeable.

an insult to women

This stupid PUMA narrative will not die, even though it’s a classic example of a smoke-and-mirrors media-created narrative.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so tired of trying to convince people of this. They are just sure the PUMA narrative is true, despite a clear lack of evidence.

Feminists and progressives have every right to be wary of Obama.

But voting for McCain… talk about cutting off your face to spite your nose.

Umm ... stupid question.  What is a PUMA?

The “a non-Hillary woman would be a tokenist insult!” meme seems to be a really nastily form of sexist exceptionalism: all other women are substandard choices inferior to any potential male picks, regardless of their individual accomplishments, because women just generally suck, but Hillary is the bright and shining exception to the rule!

In building up one women, propagators of this meme are tearing all others down.  Not fucking cool at all.

What can I say, trolls ALWAYS get a lot more attention than what they deserve. That’s the entire point of what they’re doing.

I would love Sebelius as VP, if she weren’t my governor.  Sometimes she’s the only one standing between Kansas and utter madness.

What is a PUMA?

PUMA n. [acronym for “Party Unity My Ass”] 1. a purported organization of Hillary Clinton supporters who refuse to accept the nomination of Obama. 2. an individual with the same sentiments.

>Umm ... stupid question.  What is a PUMA?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/23/pumas/

Next week, we talk about why Obama needs to address the Santa Claus delegation, the Easter Bunny Coalition and the Tooth Fairy Party.

Please.  PUMAs.  We have better things to do.  This narrative will die when foxnews is the only one talking about it.

I know the conventional wisdom is that you have to stomp on some feminist toes to reach the mushy middle, but I think the conventional wisdom is being generated by a male-dominated media that is easily entranced by narratives that puff up men at the expense of women.  I don’t think the voters necessarily are driving that, at least not on the issue of reproductive rights, which the vast majority of Americans enjoy.

Yes, yes, YES.  Now how do we get Amanda hired as an Obama campaign strategist?

Yeah, I don’t buy this fucking PUMA shit for one motherfucking minute. It’s classic GOP ratfuckery, as I’ve been pointing out for a while:

http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/are-you-fucking-kidding-me/

Clark and Edwards were my first and second choices respectively, but the GOP/media tag team has done a good job sinking them. Sebelius is miles and miles better than Kaine and Bayh. Jeebus, Bayh especially is exactly who I was expecting HRC to pick.

Thank you for explaining the acronym.

Funny ... the GOP doesn’t seem to have these people.  I guess Will Rogers’ quip about the Democrats was correct?  And they call the Democrats partisan?

[DAS drifts off topic]

Of course, if you have people complaining about “party unity” and how partisan Dems are, then everyone will think that the Dems. are hyperpartisan.  OTOH, if all your partisans are quiet about their partisanship, nobody is the wiser, eh?

Why all the Edwards love? He was a terrible VP candidate last time. He just rolled over in the debate with Cheney.

Is it just a coincidence that PUMA is another name for Cougar?

wait ... it’s not derogatory.  Cougars are hot.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cougar

I was part of a VP discussion with some disaffected republicans.  They were not at all impressed with McCain.  They raised a point about Obama’s VP choice that never occurred to me (being a bleeding heart liberal).  They all said they would be very uncomfortable about a ticket with a black man and a woman on it.  These are co-workers that I know rather well and they seemed to be honestly discussing their discomfort.  All white, middle-aged, male, mostly IT dept types.

Personally, I would rather have any of the women being discussed to a Bayh type white man on the ticket.  I happen to think that a woman in the “attack dog” role of VP candidate would be tough for a couple of old white guys to deal with.

Has anyone else come across this viewpoint?

Corvus

Cougars are beautiful women of a certain age who revels in their sexuality. God bless them.

Puma’s on the other hand are the sneakers Walt Clyde Frazier endorses.

Stick with the Starburys.

I thought everyone knew what PUMA stands for: People United for a McCain Administration.

(I saw this somewhere and shamelessly stole it, sorry. It was too perfect.)

PUMA, eh? Never heard that term, but I can see the MSM wanting to perpetuate the most divisive Democratic primary season in a long time.

If such a creature exists, it might better be called the Noseless Boomer Feminist.

Obama has already stepped on feminist toes—MY feminist toes, anyway—with his blather about how late-term abortions require more than “feeling blue.”  And the pandering to the religious doesn’t do it for me, either.  Let’s see an unequivocal, strong, pro-choice statement, from Obama himself—not votes, or endorsements, but an actual statement from him—and let’s see the selection of a VP who has the same record.  Otherwise?  Why would I support him? What guarantee would I have that he wouldn’t nominate someone as offensive as anyone McCain would nominate?

I have never seen Obama as progressive (thus, I don’t think he has “moved” to the center; he’s been there all along).  I also have no reason to vote for him—my state is solidly in his camp—and he has yet to give me one.  I suppose if it were close I probably would, but my vote is irrelevant, and he has done absolutely nothing to earn it except not be John McCain.  That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

Amanda:

If the PUMAs are a fraud and/or group of nutbags selling a political ghost story (and I know they are), why give them the time of day here?

It just encourages their mythology, pathetic as it is.

Let’s see an unequivocal, strong, pro-choice statement, from Obama himself—not votes, or endorsements, but an actual statement from him—and let’s see the selection of a VP who has the same record.

If the past 8 years have taught me nothing else, it’s to watch what politicians do, not what they say.  Bush talked a great game about being a “compassionate conservative,” but his actions always, always, always were the opposite of his words.  He would meet with organizations like AmeriCorps, talk about how great they are, and eliminate them.

At this point, I don’t care what a politician says.  I care what he does.  If 11 years of solid pro-choice votes aren’t enough for you, well, I can’t help you.  Talk is cheap.  Action counts, and Obama has always acted in ways that protect a woman’s reproductive freedom.  I’d rather have someone who says stupid things but votes against the Illinois “Infant Protection Act” than someone who always says the right thing in public but votes for pro-life shit like that.

Do you really think Obama’s supreme court nominations would be just like McCain’s, Narya?

Jeeze, I thought Nader voters would’ve learned from 2000.

From a far enough distance, the separation between Hawaii and New York could indeed be termed insignificant.

But that says more about the observer than it does Hawaii and/or New York.

Corvus said:

Personally, I would rather have any of the women being discussed to a Bayh type white man on the ticket.  I happen to think that a woman in the “attack dog” role of VP candidate would be tough for a couple of old white guys to deal with.

Has anyone else come across this viewpoint?

Corvus

My heart is completely with you on this, but pragmatically, I don’t think it would be a good idea right now.  The GOP punditry would have a field day and the MSM would be relentless in asking the question “Is America REALLY ready for a black man and a woman on a Presidential Ticket for the first time simultaneously?” while instilling many seeds of doubt in the minds of the low-information mushy middle voters.  Which happens to be most of America.

Those who post here and on other netroot blogs are high-information voters with highly progressive political ideologies.  It would be great if we could singlehandedly pick the next POTUS.

But realistically, we can’t.  Obama won’t win without a fairly sizeable chunk of the mushy middle low-information electorate.  And while I wish it weren’t true, I just don’t believe that particular demo is ready to elect a ticket without any white male presence.  It’s gonna be tough enough getting one non-white male person on the ticket into the Oval Office.

I do hope that I live to see the day in which an unapologetically leftwing gay black woman becomes POTUS with a transexual Hispanic atheist as her running mate.

Obama has already stepped on feminist toes—MY feminist toes, anyway—with his blather about how late-term abortions require more than “feeling blue.”

Narya, my god, you get a nominee with a 100% NARAL rating every year he’s been in the Senate, and he’s not good enough for you?  However do you propose to win an election in this country?

And what do you think Roe v Wade says about late term abortions?  They can be restricted by the government, but any restriction has to have adequate exceptions for the life and health of the mother, right?  And by “health,” we mean both physical and mental, but of course it has to be a real health issue, and not merely garden-variety mental distress, right?  Otherwise, to talk about a “health” exception is meaningless.

That’s all Obama said—although you might not like the way he put it—and it’s simply an accurate, common sense exposition of the mainstream, pro-choice constitutional position.  Maybe you think old Justice Blackmun was wrong to babble on about trimesters, and that the government should never have the power to restrict abortion no matter how far along the fetus is, but frankly, at this point, I think we need to be more concerned about defending Roe than expanding it.

We all know (and have explained at great length to antichoice wingnuts) that late term abortions are exceedingly rare and almost invariably performed to safeguard the life or health of the mother.  So, what’s the problem?

“And while I wish it weren’t true, I just don’t believe that particular demo is ready to elect a ticket without any white male presence.  It’s gonna be tough enough getting one non-white male person on the ticket into the Oval Office.I do hope that I live to see the day in which an unapologetically leftwing gay black woman becomes POTUS with a transexual Hispanic atheist as her running mate.”

Not to rain on your parade, but Obama is half white, don’t forget. Hillary Clinton as a running mate would certainly help solve the alleged PUMA problem. And dream on about the left wing gay black woman. Whoopi Goldberg told me she is not going to do it, no matter what. And Perez Hilton is still a couple of thousand bucks short of his tranny operation, so go figure.

Amanda, you’re right about one thing: the media narrative about PUMAs as spiteful Clinton supporters who are defecting to vote for McCain is mostly false.

But what you’re wrong about is the larger picture, the idea that the only people who are unhappy with Obama are those selfsame spiteful PUMAs who want to vote McCain. I know that I hate McCain, and would much rather have an Obama presidency than a McCain one.

That doesn’t mean that I like him. Or that I accept the notion that there are only two choices. 

It also doesn’t mean that I accept the way in which Obama clinched* the nomination; or, more accurately, the way in which the DNC leadership clinched it for him by putting their thumb on the scales.

And it sure as hell doesn’t mean I will not criticize Obama for adopting conservative positions and memes, or selling out the progressive base in order to chase after the equally-mythical “swing voter”.

* Insofar as “presumptive nominee even though the convention has yet to occur, and who knows what the delegates will do if it comes to a floor fight” is clinching anything.

Obama’s vice presidential candidate has to be someone who could credibly assume the presidency because the first black president would run a higher risk of assassination than the average white man. I’m not arguing that it couldn’t be Clinton (who is clearly considered credible by most Democrats) or Sebelius, just that it couldn’t be a throwaway nonentity like Quayle.

What’s the problem Rea?

Here’s the problem

He’s male. Full of male privilege. Discussing abortion just like all full of male privilege men do. (ie deciding which reason is a worthy “real” reason)

And I’m sorry, supporting the status quo mainstream on abortion just isn’t good enough.

The status quo mainsteam crap on abortion just fucked over NA women, and since I’m on of them, you’ll just have to forgive my severe distrust of it AND Obama. If he’s mainstream, he’s fucking over my people.

Just like all the rest.

The perfect being the enemy of the good, and all that.

How can supporting the status quo not be good enough when the alternative is going backwards? For progress to work, the ratchet has to grip reliably: we’re with the ones who are on our side, election after election.

Waiting for the messiah is not the preferred action for the reality-based community.

He’s male. Full of male privilege. Discussing abortion just like all full of male privilege men do. (ie deciding which reason is a worthy “real” reason)

Well, there are four possibilities:

i, He makes comments about “worthy” reasons.
ii, He states out loud that a woman should, as a matter of right, be able to get an abortion whenever she wants for no reason at all.
iii, He doesn’t make any comment about abortion at all.
iv, He gets a sex change.

As pointed out by rea above:
- Obama has a 100% NARAL rating every year he’s been in the Senate.
- Obama’s comment are in line with the current mainstream pro-life position established by Roe vs Wade.
- late term abortions are exceedingly rare and almost invariably performed to safeguard the life or health of the mother.

So the distinction between choice (i) and (ii) is, in practice, nothing. However, stating (ii) will alienate those pro-choicers uneasy about abortion, will alienate the pro-lifers who are willing to let his support for abortion rights slide and vote for him for other reasons, and allow the GOP to paint him as an extremist.

Obama is a politician.  The POTUS can only be won by a politician.

Almost certainly Clinton, if she was the candidate, would make the same sort of comments - or worse.

Flewellyn—that’s the thing. You’re not going to vote for McCain.

I’m wary of Obama, but I’m going to vote for him. He definitely has my vote, even if he doesn’t have my trust.

The narrative is not “there Clinton supporters who are wary of Obama.” It isn’t even “Former Clinton supporters find themselves siding with McCain because his agenda is closest to Clinton’s on Their Most Important Issue.” The narrative is “a bunch of hysterical middle-aged women (cougars) have formed a coalition of hystiercal PUMAs, and they’re going to vote for someone who is diametrically opposed to their political agenda in a collective political temper-tantrum.”

My biggest beef with Clinton was her hawkishness in the Middle East, but there were Clinton supporters who supported that hawkishness, and John McCain is the natural second choice. Those are not PUMAs, they’re hawkish democrats who have bought the media’s line about McCain’s “maverick” “independent” nature and feel that he doesn’t present a credible threat to the domestic policies that they feel are important.

But the “PUMA,” a pro-choice, feminist woman who loses her shit because a woman lost in the primary and decides to burn the party to the ground and vote for McCain rather than throw in with Obama is a complete media fabrication. It’s an easy fabrication because it already mines the belief that women are a bunch of irrational, vindictive bitches, and it also plays up the “tension between feminists and civil rights” angle that the media so loves to use as as wedge to prevent real progress. It’s win-win—for McCain.

I’m really a little confused here. We have a candidate who, while not glowingly perfect on reproductive freedoms is more than just alright, and we have a real mess in the economy, a war going on and a looming energy crisis to be addressed. Leaving reprodictive rights aside, one politician wants to reduce our energy use, withdraw from the war and start to address the economic issues*; the other politician wants to keep up with our current energy use by drilling in protected reserves, stay in the war until we win it (whatever that means), and keep on with the disasterous economic policies that got us where we are today.

And you are planning on voting or not only on one issue, an issue where the Democratic candidate has a stellar voting record and a passable speaking record? I honestly don’t comprehend that. Is it like the evangelicals who voted against their own interests because they were told that it would stop the dreaded spread of homosexuality??

I know you said that you state was solid for Obama, but there have been suprises in the not so distant past with close vote counts. Are you willing to risk it all on one issue?

*ya, that one was hard to phrase, especially since I’m a little leery of any ‘breaks’ coming from the government when what we really need are tighter laws, and I haven’t heard Obama say that he’s going to crack down on predatory lending or enforce tighter controls on any business sectors… but I digress.

it helps if I include the post I’m responding to hey? so imagine this right above my post…

I have never seen Obama as progressive (thus, I don’t think he has “moved” to the center; he’s been there all along).  I also have no reason to vote for him—my state is solidly in his camp—and he has yet to give me one.  I suppose if it were close I probably would, but my vote is irrelevant, and he has done absolutely nothing to earn it except not be John McCain.  That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

I would love Sebelius as VP, if she weren’t my governor.  Sometimes she’s the only one standing between Kansas and utter madness.

Indeed, in the Democratic primary for the 5th Senate District, Sebelius endorsed the challenger to a three-term incumbent who was the co-founder of “Democrats for Phil Kline,” and who is one of the most reliable anti-choice votes in the Senate.  And the pro-choice challenger won.  Dunno if that Sebelius mojo will carry over to the general election race, which was really close last time, but she’s worked wonders before.  And if she doesn’t become VP, perhaps someday… Senator Sebelius?  That’s the main problem with otherwise-tempting picks such as Sebelius or Napolitano: they deprive red states of popular Democratic politicians.  As to whether a female VP on the ticket would be going too far… Pfft.  Picking a genial self-made wealthy white guy was apparently already “going too far.”  The VP slot could go to Zombie Ronald Reagan, and “moderate” Republicans would have doubts about the ticket because a Democrat is at the head of it.

several thing:

PUMA has experience several big set back lately: 1. can’t show the money. Hillary debt is as big as ever. 2. I think their proposed conference went bust. It’s located in DC(you can bet DNC applies maximum pressure) plus nobody has money. 3. It can’t expand its base.

All web metric indicates it’s not growing anymore. estimate size at most in thousand, if not hundred.

the top site is still confluence while the rest dwindles away.

The alternative is going forwards.

Sorry, I still care about more than just a NARAL approval.

The last time Obama bothered voting on NA issues was in 2005.

Excusing him by calling him a politician doesn’t have the affect you want. That makes him even worse for NA’s. When politicians aren’t ignoring us (because they’re pandering to whites and forget that we exist when they discuss minorities) they’re killing us.

Hillary was the only presidential candidate to address tribal leaders at the National Congress of American Indians annual conference in November 2007.

The alternative is going forwards.

So if on reproductive rights McCain represents going backward, and Obama represents maintaining the status quo, you’re going to pursue the alternative in this election by…?

The last time Obama bothered voting on NA issues was in 2005.

In 2007, he co-sponsored the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.  He didn’t vote on it, but neither did Hillary—they debated each other that day in Cleveland.

Obviously, not all Native Americans are going to agree on all issues, but there do seem to be quite a few who disagree with you.

On related news

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/7/192921/5446/85/564352

  Egged on by die-hard supporters, Hillary Rodham Clinton is giving every indication that she will not go quietly or meekly into the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.

  Even as she heads to Las Vegas Friday in her first solo trip to campaign for Obama, Clinton is holding out the prospect of a drawn-out nominating vote at the convention that experts say at best would be a distraction and at worst a disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/07/politics/uwire/main4331392.shtml

Clinton - who held rallies and policy speeches at campuses throughout the country during the Democratic primaries - still owed $146,347.29 to 10 colleges as of June 30, according to the Federal Election Commission’s July reports. This included $24,238.99 owed to Penn for the use of the Palestra, the Perelman Quadrangle and the Hall of Flags.

According to campaign spokesperson Kathleen Strand, the campaign paid off all debts to those 10 colleges - including Penn - last week.

“Since the very beginning, Senator Clinton had made it a priority to pay back colleges and universities as quickly as possible,” said Strand.

In order to pay the debt to campuses and other venues, Clinton took out a personal loan of $1 million, said a Clinton spokesperson.

This brings Clinton’s total loans to the campaign to $12.4 million.

Egged on by die-hard supporters, Hillary Rodham Clinton is giving every indication that she will not go quietly or meekly into the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.

Eh, I don’t believe it.  The AFP stories based on the same internet chat came to the opposite conclusion.  It’s the media trying to stir shit up again.

Despite all of the media-created bullshit, Clinton is a very smart woman and she knows that splitting the Democratic Party means losing the election.  She’s not some bitter old hag who’s going to drag the whole party down no matter what the hysterics on Kos might think.

She’ll get her pound of flesh and remain very powerful in the party, but she’s not going to deliberately sabotage Obama.

I know other NA’s disagree with me. I don’t need to be told that anymore than you need to be told not all non NA’s agree with YOU.

Many of us however, don’t trust Obama any more than we trust any other US politician. They have *all* made claims, they have *all* broken their promises. Since day one. They all blather on about Tribal Courts and Sovereign Nations, how our health care should be better, how something just MUST be done to help with our crimes rates (except ya know, when it comes to doing something about non NA offenders. White crime against NA’s is staggering but they cant let Indians punish white people that would just be WRONG *eye roll*)

Obama is merely repeating the same damn shit we’ve heard since we were fist forced into white man concentration camps. And? This is new? Because Obama is saying it Im supposed to forget the entire history of US Goverment treatment of us?

Why?

Because he isn’t white?

That hasn’t made too much of a difference so far, I don’t see why it’s suddenly going to change. Many NA sadly enough back any candidate that so much as deigns to mention us in a speech. Pretty telling of US politicians. And as has been noted, Obama IS a US politician.

Perez Hilton is still a couple of thousand bucks short of his tranny operation

Nothing to add to the main discussion, just want to point out that the above is not okay for many, many reasons. Not least of which being that, in a progressive space, “tranny” (which is considered by some to be hate speech) is just a big no.