They’re still at it over at No Hillary, No Peace:
I used to like Ed Rendell. He seemed like the straight up kind of guy that you could count on to tell it like it is. But no more. Seems Eddie boy has been sippin on the Cult-Aide. And now he wants all of us PUMAs to recognize the error of our ways and join him and the HOUNDs in defeating John McCain.
He starts with a ridiculous premise. And it goes downhill from there.
But here, have a look.
We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago, the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama, whose policies are almost identical to hers.
Well Ed, if that were true then none of us would have supported Hillary to begin with. I mean come on, does it even make sense to say that the best way to achieve the changes Hillary championed is to vote for someone that didn’t champion those issues? Does it even enter that apparently tiny little mind of yours to consider that we supported and still support Hillary BECAUSE Obama does not champion the issues we feel so strongly about?
I probably not the only one who finds the awkwardly named PUMA’s :
There is still very active resentment among Clinton supporters, mainly female, who believe sexism brought down their candidate.
They call themselves PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass). They say they will not support Obama and are organizing over the Internet.
Clinton, as she did in her endorsement of Obama when she bowed out in Washington earlier this month, told her supporters who have said they will sit out the November election – or vote for McCain – to think again.
This is a line of reasoning that the people commenting on several of the articles seem incapable of grasping. Instead, they’re slamming Obama in crypto-racist terms (They’re calling him "arrogant." "Arrogant?" What’s next, "uppity?") and tearing him down on weak grounds. For example, the same people who cannot let go of Obama calling a female reporter "sweetie" are perfectly willing to go vote for McCain, a man who called his wife a cunt in full view of reporters. Which do you think is more indicative of a lack of respect for women?
And this is where I lose sympathy for the angry and disappointed supporters. At this point, they’re reminding me of one of pop literature’s ugliest caricatures of feminists: the Ellen Jamesians.
For those of you who may not have read John Irving’s The World According to Garp, one of the big narrative themes that runs through the work is the difficulty of negotiating a gender identity in a world that wants to impose one upon you. One of the novel’s protagonists, Jenny Fields, becomes a feminist icon with her book A Sexual Suspect, and attracts a group of radical feminists who cut out their tongues as a protest against a little girl’s having been raped and rendered mute by her attackers. The little girl, Ellen James, wants nothing to do with the Ellen Jamesians, but they persist — and eventually kill her adopted father. The Ellen Jamesians are consumed by an inchoate and unproductive fury, destructive and completely selfish in its sense of assumed victimization. When I first read the book, I was outraged by the way Irving seemed to trivialize women’s anger at a society that’s fine with them being voiceless victims.
And this week, I’m sorry to say, I was reminded of the Ellen Jamesians over and over in reading comments from Clinton supporters. I do not begrudge these women their anger. What I do object to: the deployment of their rage. It’s just stupid and shortsighted.
I think, in light of Hillary Clinton lovefest with Obama at Unity, that the Ellen Jamesians reference is a nice call. Personally I would have gone with the Hiroo Onoda Society except for the fact that Onoda knew when to quit when asked properly.