PUMA members are a prime example of what is wrong with this country.
Many of my contemporaries think it is all about them, precisely because they were brought up by people who feel as the PUMAs do. Desperate and selfish, these women do not see the larger picture. Not surprising, in retrospect. Looking in the mirror, chanting "it's our time" leaves little time for thought.
I understand they wanted her to win. I get that they placed all their hopes and dreams for women upon a victory for Hilary. I'm sorry folks, she didn't quite make it this time. She had a good game, played hard, but she lost, and destroying the field of the other team isn't going to make them feel better in the long run.
Crying out angrily over their loss, clearly feeling they were cheated and owed something because of it, they continue to project an attitude eerily similar to the one expressed by giving trophies to everyone in little league so they don't feel bad about themselves. A baneful characteristic, all too prevalent these days. An action which clouds judgment, and hides truths which must be faced eventually.
Where has sense and sensibility gone?
I've never understood what those in PUMA feel they've done to deserve all this consideration they seem to expect. The fact they are alive, surviving in a world often cruel to women, is not enough. There are millions of people who managed to stay alive in a world full of more hazards than PUMAs have ever faced. If they could tell me what they have done to deserve the vengeance they are seeking, I might feel differently. At this time the purely selfish, and often hysterical, reasoning behind this movement is beyond any logic I can come up with, no matter how hard I try to find it.
Article comments
1 - EsotericWombat
You've said it.
I'd have absolutely no problem with these jokers if they simply decided not to campaign as hard for Obama as they would have for Hillary. It's understandable.
But there's no reason to turn this vitriol towards Obama, when there's someone else in the race who has in his career done far more to deserve it. If the superdelegates had secured the nomination for Clinton, I'd have made my outrage known in the moment, and maybe stayed home on election day as my state is solid blue, but between the two dates I'd be ripping into McCain whenever and wherever there were ears to hear me.
2 - Arch Conservative
Puma's may or may not be what's wrong with this nation.
If the majority of Puma's plan to abstain from voting or vote foe McCain just out of spite toward Obama then yes they are an example of something terribly wrong with AMerice.
However if they vote for McCain because they think he is actually better qualified to run the nation then there is nothing wrong with that.
As a conservative and former republican I am told by many conservatives and republicans that I MUST vote for McCain in order to keep obama out of the white house. Even though I despise obama with he intensity of 1,000 burning suns, I cannot vote for McCain because I do not believe in him in any way shape or form.
Instead I have chosen to vote for Chuck Baldwin, a man with no shot of winning, because I believe him to be the best man running by far.
In any event I'd be lying if I said that I don't find all of the back and forth attacks and animosity among the Obama cult members and the pumas highly amusing.
3 - Baronius
Maybe this is the fruits of what the Democratic Party has been sowing for so long. What started out as a noble vision of equality has turned into the pettiness and ugliness of set-asides. Groups are catered to individually. There's no vision of overall improvement, because there's no collective identity. So Obama and Clinton became a black and a woman, and a victory of one group counted as an insult to the other.
4 - Jordan Richardson
Archie, may I just say that I absolutely respect your position. My wife, still eligible for voting in the election, will be doing the same and voting for the candidate she believes in. It's nice to see people not simply toting the illusionary "two"-party system as the only way to go. Bravo from a Canadian.
5 - cooper
The media has done a lost to reduce it to such a derisive spectacle as well. Many petty issues pounced upon because it seems people prefer to watch the dramas and the pettiness, even if it is partially contrived.
My preference would be fact based reporting, less opinion, and a system in which one was allowed to chose the best candidate. For instance in my state you must be registered as a dem or repub to vote in your respective primary. This leaves those who choose not to affiliate out on the fray. Surely one vote in a primary for one candidate without restrictions seems more
6 - Jordan Richardson
My preference would be fact based reporting, less opinion, and a system in which one was allowed to chose the best candidate.
Oh come on. Why not just ask for money and free hookers to rain down from the sky?
7 - cooper
Have you ever seen a call from the public for real news? En MASSE? I haven't. Who knows it might work.
I hear grumblings but obviously someone watching the crap because it's still reeling in the money Until people really stop watching it it will continue to do so.
I'm relatively young, and news as I know it in the U.S. has always been entertainment based. i was told it used to be real news, have seen clips even of what real news used to be. A pipe dream now I'm afraid.
8 - Jordan Richardson
I'm relatively young, and news as I know it in the U.S. has always been entertainment based. i was told it used to be real news, have seen clips even of what real news used to be.
We enjoy some of this "real news" you speak of up here in Canada, but even that is slipping away thanks to the encroachment of advertisers, corporations, and government interests on the public trust.
9 - Joanne Huspek
I remember those "real" news days... [sigh] I also remember those days when candidates actually did something once in office.
10 - Baronius
The media cover the nonsense, but they've covered a lot of the substance too. If you name the top ten issues, you can find coverage of each candidate's position on all of them.
The media are up-front about how much of political campaigning is silliness. Most convention coverage talks about how staged everything is. If nothing else, such coverage lets the public know now sophisticated and jaded the reporters are. The problem is that, with everything under the microscope, it only makes the next cycle's campaigns even more carefully staged.
It's all down to a science. Each party has tailored its message to get 46-49% of the vote. They represent different things, but carefully constructed things. And it's in no one's interest (certainly not the reporters) to disrupt it.
11 - Jordan Richardson
Baronius, please tell me where I can find this up-front, self-aware media you're talking about. I've been looking everywhere.
12 - Baronius
"Up-front" sounds too positive. I guess I put it badly. I mean more smug, like college sophomores who act like they're above it all because it's easier than making an effort. Aware of the P.T. Barnum side of politics, yes; but not self-aware at all. They recognize that conventions are predictable shows, but they don't realize that their coverage is just as predictable.
I haven't watched much of this year's DNC. Maybe the coverage has been more wide-eyed, because of the possibility of drama. Generally, though, it's all balloons from the candidates and superior sighs from the press.
13 - Jordan Richardson
Ah. 10-4, good buddy.
14 - Arch Conservative
I used to scoff at people who spoke about the New World Order but now Iknow they're right.