A Blog I Don’t Understand

Sarah Palin and an assault rifleI’ve taken time out from more important subjects before to bash the PUMA movement, but its Monday and I ran across a new PUMA blog and I had to take a few minutes to explain just how little sense it makes. The blog is titled PUMAs for Palin.

PUMA, you will remember stands for “Party Unity My Ass.

But after reading this blog apparently PUMA really means “vote for a vagina.”

If you were a Hillary Clinton supporter there were presumably certain things about her platform you agreed with. Her opposition to the War in Iraq, her stand for Universal Healthcare, her desire to reform the tax code to benefit the middle class, her expressed desire to build a new green economy. And on a more personal level you thought that someone who had been a senator for 6 years and a First Lady for 8 had the necessary experience to be commander in chief. 

Her campaign stumbled and she narrowly lost the primary to a candidate that believes in many of the same platform positions she does, but was believed by many voters to be the better change agent. 

So now you have turned to support Sarah Palin, a candidate who holds exactly none of the policy positions Hillary Clinton does. Who thinks the market should decide on healthcare, who’s foreign policy experience is the ability to see Russia from the coast of Alaska, who’s idea of a new energy economy is drilling for more domestic oil. 

The only thing these women have in common-the fact they are women. In every other disernable way these two couldn’t be any more different. So PUMA’s for Palin…I don’t get it. Are you that reverse-sexist that you will vote against your own political interests just to spite Obama and put a woman in the SECOND highest office in the land?

I think it’s utterly ridiculous. And I welcome you to defend your policy position here on thinkPOP, instead of the insular forum of your own strange world, where any female politician that gets a tough question is dealing with sexism. Where simply being a woman means you have the right to vote for someone that looks like you. Incidentally, I find it ironic that if Sarah Palin encountered a real Puma, her first instinct would be to shoot it.

PUMAs you roared to try and change the primary rules and you failed. You roared to try and rally support in Denver and failed. Now you’re roaring for Sarah Palin. It will be your third strike and I can’t wait for you to be out.


Addendum to the Get Over it Post

Lest any PUMA should come at my colleague for the previous post for being a man, let me weigh in on the topic with a decidedly more feminine take.  This posted reaction to Chuck Todd’s comment is only the latest in a chain that I have been coming across lately from the disaffected Hillary camp. 

And I have to say, that it infuriates and frustrates me to see the feminist ideal represented this way.  There was a point in the Feminist movement where the word feminist took on a negative connotation and when women began to distance themselves from that label as a result.  It began when extremists who called themselves feminists drew media attention to themselves and gave off the impression of being more anti-male than champions for females.  From that point on, feminism scampered to the outskirts of the national consciousness.  As the years have past (and some ceilings have broken and some progress made), the impression of feminism has become less volatile.  All the while, the issues facing women are increasingly nuanced and complicated (and most, not solvable through legislation).  Here enters a strong woman presidential candidate….and the subsequent backlash for her loss. 

Let me make clear that I believe Hilary Clinton lost the primary due to her Clinton name and the notorious campaign tactics we all know and loathe–not some perceived media bias.  But I’m not about to deny that people have the right to disagree with me.  I would be more than happy to discuss and debate the point.

But what bothers me about the comments of the PUMAs, as they call themselves, is how destructive they are to the view of women.  There have been quotes from women who say they related to Clinton because she admitted to being on Weight Watchers and they wouldn’t vote for some “beanpole guy” for President.  I’ve read criticisms that Obama hasn’t given a speech on gender as he has on race (as if any woman wants their situation explained by a man).  And now this post.

I’m embarrassed at these reactionary comments because they showcase the female vote as nonlogical.  The way to get those dumb women voters is to appeal to their emotions–to commiserate with their struggles to lose weight and keep up their appearance. Those are the things women really care about.  That’s the insinuation.  In a year when a woman candidate was a viable candidate for president, where was the discussion of more accessible child care for families been?  What about discussions about the challenges that women face today in business?  Work-life balance?  Not a peep.

What’s also insulting is the lack of purpose the PUMAs have.  What do you plan to accomplish by rebel voting for McCain or not voting at all??  Do you really think that that will help the state of feminism or any of the other issues you supposedly care about?  Wouldn’t it be more effective to make the current candidates answer questions about health care, and child care, and other policy issues?  Why not take advantage of the focus that’s being placed on women voters to force the candidates to discuss topics that are important to you?  Or are you all just a sliver of the population that fits the stereotype that women just follow the fads, like raw milk and organic foods and this one just happens to involve a political candidate? 

If you want to be taken seriously, then start acting seriously instead of acting out like teenagers.

From the Bureau of People that Need to Get Over It

So apparently Chuck Todd (NBC Political Director) made a comment yesterday on Meet the Press. He basically said the people still supporting Hillary despite her mathematical elimination from the nomination fight, were a essentially a small group “manufactured in manhattan.”

Well that prompted a response on The Concluence which I found somewhere between stupid and moronic:

The truth is much more frightening than that, Chuck. We did this all on our own and we are EVERYWHERE. Yes, Chuck, we are in your Whole Foods and Wegman’s. We drink lattes at the Starbucks on the corner. We take our kids to your summer camp. We swim on your beaches and pools. We send our children to Iraq. We are on the East coast, the West coast, Texas and North Carolina. We are a viral infection. We are spreading. It’s much worse than you think. Manhattan is not the headquarters. There *is* no headquarters. We are in every neighborhood and demographic group. We are like zombies who rise from the dead, who you can’t kill off. Trying to corner us on an island in NY is futile. It will be like playing Whack-a-Mole.

If PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) want to compare themselves to zombies I can go with that. Zombies can’t be killed but they also feed on everyone in sight until everything dies. I’m also no expert but I think by the end of most zombie movies, the zombies are the ones that end up losing. You know losing, like Senator Clinton did. Viral infection, sounds like something you go to the clinic in Chelsea for….

People talk about the Obama “cult of personality” but come on ladies. Simply continuing to blindly support a candidate that LOST the nomination fair and square is a level of devotion usually reserved for religious extremists. Its a free country and you can support whatever candidate you like, if you think your interests are best served by voting McCain, or not voting at all, well fair enough. But stop pretending that this nomination was stolen from Senator Clinton, you know like she stopped pretending she ever dodged sniper fire.

Though what do you get when you combine a sniper and some zombies……