"PUMAMAs" - And How the Clintons Can Channel the Power of Positive Resentment

All this talk of PUMAs and resentful Clinton backers in Denver is being exaggerated by a press corps hungry for drama. But underneath the talk is some real resentment on the part of "PUMAs" and other, less vocal Clinton backers. (There may be a lot of GOP disinformation work fueling the fire, too.)

For their part, Obama voters and some neutral Democrats have resentments of their own -- against the Clintons and their recalcitrant advocates. This conflict benefits no one. But the Clintons can pull off a major "win/win" in the next few days and change the dynamic in way that benefits everyone.

Cenk Uygur's latest post shows that he is what I call a "PUMAMA." So are some outspoken former Clinton supporters, like Taylor Marsh. "What's a "PUMAMA"? It stands for "'Party Unity My Ass' -- My Ass." They represent blowback against angry Clinton supporters.

PUMAMAs are angry about PUMAs and the less-visible uncommitted or McCain-leaning Clinton voters. They're also worried bout poll numbers showing that large numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters are still reluctant to support Obama. With the number of "PUMAMAs" growing, it's becoming clear that Hillary's future and Bill's legacy are as imperiled by these lingering resentments as Obama's electoral chances. If Obama loses, some of the 18 million-plus voters who supported him will harbor resentments as bitter and lingering as those of the PUMAs -- and if there's one thing Democrats do well, it's resentment.

Why blame Hillary? I disagree with those who knock Sen. Clinton's post-primary performance. After a slow start, I think it's been much better than those of other losing presidential candidates at this stage of the game. Sure, she tried to use her voters as a "bargaining chip" (in the words of her supporter Hilary Rosen), and the "catharsis" talk was risky at best. But overall her performance has been strong when compared with others in her position.

The problem isn't what she's done since the primaries ended -- it's what she did before. Many people feel she went too far in promoting McCain's experience while dismissing Obama's, and predicted that McCain would use her words against a fellow Democrat (which he has) with the "3 am" ad or the "McCain and I have experience, Obama has a speech" comments.

But a greater backlash from many of Sen. Clinton's fellow Democrats began when she turned a procedural dispute into a moral challenge, equating the refusal to recognize the Florida and Michigan delegations to the civil rights struggles of the past (a move she supported until it worked against her chances.) Many felt that move and others like it triggered the resentments that are now hurting the party's chances.

That's why she has staffers prowling the convention floor trying to damp down pro-Hillary demonstrators -- not because she's self-sacrificing, but because she recognizes that forces she set in motion could create a wave of ill will that threatens her future career.

We're told that Bill harbors lingering resentments of his own, because he feels the Obama camp labeled him a racist. Some did, apparently -- but others of us felt the problem was tactics, not prejudice. The sense was that he and others in the Clinton campaign were using code words that were acceptable in decades past but had become unacceptable and risky in this transparent Webwired era, where everything is scrutinized. (No less a Democratic saint than Jimmy Carter acknowledged pushing the race barrier in his gubernatorial bid, telling a civil rights leader "You'll hate the way I run but you'll love the way I govern." But that was almost four decades ago.)

This is not about accusing the Clintons or their opponents of wrongdoing, or fighting the battles of months past. The Clintons' self-interest and the party's interests are now more aligned that most people recognize. The real question is: What can the Clintons do to turn things around now? Simple: They can use that tide of resentment.

For her part, Hillary can tap into the grievances of PUMAs by redirecting their anger where it more rightfully belongs: toward John McCain and the Republicans. She can talk about his anti-choice record, his insensitive policies toward working families, the GOP record of vote suppression, and his general attitude toward women. (It wouldn't hurt if she brought up that cheap joke about Cindy in front of a crowd of bikers, either.)

Sen. Clinton can't stifle PUMA rage - and she shouldn't try. That anger comes from a deeper well than just the last few months' primary battle. Instead, she should channel it. She can warm the hearts of "PUMAMAs," too, by saying that she lost fair and square -- to a candidate she considered inexperienced and unsavvy until he pulled off the remarkable act of unseating a party's leaders.

As for Bill, reports are he's unhappy about being assigned to discuss national security instead of the economy. I am too, a little, but Hillary should do a fine job on financial issues. And when it comes to national security, nobody's better positioned than Bill to address the resentment and rage most Americans feel over five years of needless war. (UPDATE: A commenter points out that Obama has said that Bill can talk about whatever he wants - the rumors he has to restrict himself to national security aren't true. He's letting Bill be Bill, which should mean an even better speech.)

First President Clinton can point out that Bush has now embraced the Obama policy of timed withdrawals. Then he can point out that John McCain is so extreme that he's now to the right of his own administration. (He might also point out that McCain didn't think the surge would work either unless Bush put in 20,000 more troops.) Lastly, he can say that after eight years as commander in chief he knows what it takes to lead successfully, and that Obama and Biden have it.

Nobody does idealism and inspiration better than Bill and Barack. If Bill cues up Obama's Thursday night speech around a simple point -- this "idealist" from Illinois was right while Bush and McCain were wrong -- he'll quiet all the doubters. And if he says four simple words -- "it's not about me" -- the hall will explode with cheers and applause. The past few weeks will be seen not as unruly behavior but as a brilliant setup for a rousing punchline.

While conventional wisdom says that Obama needs to reach out to disaffected Hillary supporters, there's another school of thought that says nothing he can do will win them over. Only the Clintons can do that. Obama's time would be better spent reaching out to Hispanics and independents. He can't reach the alienated Clinton supporters -- but the Clintons can. They can quiet the doubters and naysayers, too, and secure their positions in the process ... by channeling the power of positive resentment.

RJ Eskow blogs at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[GLT21]

Another Karl Rove special. Can't belive how easy the press is fooled.

[zkn0120]

Honestly someone educate me on why Sen. Clinton's supporters are so angry?

[Herrington]

The damage is done. It is not about the PUMAS and their issues, it is about the perception of anger and resentment and the negative reactions they invoke in the undecided public.

Like it or not, this is a nation of low information voters. Our elections are decided by whatever snatches of sound bite they manage to remember. To properly understand the impact of PUMAS on the electorate you must boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, that is that this is now a contest of angry white women against happy Blacks.

It should not have been that and did not have to be, but Hillary chose to do and say things in the primary that divided the party along those lines. Bad enough, but to then hold her support hostage to homage paid her at the DNC gave McCain three months to exploit the situation that she created.

And for what, so that the Democratic party would make a public display of her power? Yes.

It has never been about anything other than Hillary's ego, and that ego may sink the prospects for Obama to actually accomplish the things that the PUMAS want done. In short ladies, the person you support, Hillary, has done more to screw you over than any other person in this election cycle. You are forfeiting substance for symbolism.

[carolontheweb]

It's not the right wing who is doing this. The problem is that nobody is allowed to name the real enemy.

Look at the coverage of the convention. It's an editorial decision to use bored white faces and happy black faces on the TV screen. No?

It's an editorial decision to hand a microphone to a Clinton supporter who says Obama is a Muslim.

The average voter who only walks past the TV in the health club or at the airport thinks there was a credible assassination plot in Denver yet nobody was charged. Those same voters think the Clinton voters are voting McCain.

By concentrating on the dissent [which will not happen at the GOP convention] the media create their own news and skew the coverage against the candidate they don't want.

So who is THEY -- think hard. Who is the enemy we cannot name... who is powerful in media and government­... who wanted Hillary or McCain -- gave us Bush and doesn't think Obama will give their crazy relatives a fair shake?

See - we can't even have an honest discussion of how our election process is being destroyed by media... because we can't name the enemy.

Ask yourselves­... who has the power to do this? What minority wants McCain or HIllary.. but not Obama... then watch the GOP convention and see how many 9/11 conspirators are given a microphone as 'just an average voter'....­.

It won't happen...

Wake up America... the enemy may not be named.

[likeicare]

The PUMA's are nothing more than an invention of Rush Windbagbaugh and Karl Rove -- and, b/c of their "creators," they are doomed to failure.

The Rethuglicans are having a lot of fun, trying to ruin the Dems' party, but Obama's got all the exits covered -- he's in control, as always.

And that's the really funny part about all this -- Rush and Karl and Sean and Anne, etc., etc., ad nauseum -- still haven't figured it out yet -- the time's have changed, the rules have changed, and Obama's in charge of the game, now.

[protagonia]

Operation Chaos continues yet.

Fortunately, they are bad actors.

[ruthinking]

Have Hillary and Bill been together since the primaries? An article yesterday described him as bad-mouthing Senator Obama (again!) and the Hillary camp stated that they didn't know where Bill was/what he is doing.

[lovetheworld]

I am sure she is aware that Obama also had 18 million voters during the primaries, and, that since June 4th, his campaign has registered millions and millions of voters who didn't participate in the primaries. Millions of young and/or educated whites, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans and Native Americans. So you are spot on when you wrote this: "If Obama loses...vo­ters who supported him will harbor resentments as bitter and lingering as those of the PUMAs."

After seeing Hillary's speech tonight, I am indeed hopeful that many of these PUMAs will see the light. But I must admit RJ, the PUMA group is not big at all. It really isn't. First they claimed 2 million former Clinton supporters, then 3 million. I know this is all a ruse because the PUMA founder was on FOX NEWS claiming their group raised $10 million to retire Clinton's debt. And with Clinton still deep in debt, we know that's a lie.

But as we now know, the PUMA group is not multi-racial. Its very uniform: angry, bitter, middle-aged white women. So for the record, most women (and most white women) support Obama. Its just that these women have megaphones and load voices so their numbers are exaggerated and amplified by some journalists and pundits eager to create drama for higher ratings.

In the end, Obama will be fine.

PS Not sure if I come to the same conclusion you do about Taylor Marsh. We'll see.

[imfedup]

They had a guy speaking for them a few days ago. The story was on Huffpost, and this guy was saying that no matter what Hillary said last night, he was not going to vote for Obama. He and the other PUMAs would listen to what she had to say and then do what they had to do, which was to vote for McCain, vote for someone else, or stay home.

[RepugsOut08]

Hillary's speech went a long way for me in healing the resentment I've had for her over her negative attacks against Obama in the primaries.
She still has some fence mendin' to do, however, and her standing in the Dem. party will depend on her turning this thing around.
I can't imagine her EVER saying she lost fair and square. I wanted her to admit she was wrong in dismissing Obama's readiness to lead, but this is a woman who won't even admit she was wrong about the Iraq war!
I agree that channeling the anger into fighting against McCain's anti-women policies is her best shot. She can really be effective in this arena!
Bill Clinton is such a loose canon these days, that I'll be crossing my fingers and genuflecting (and I'm not Catholic) the whole time he's speaking. But yes, let Bill be Bill.
You're right. Only the Clintons can turn the PUMAS around. If they don't even try, and we lose this election, they should be shunned like Ralph Nader.

[donzi]

What we all saw tonite was a true Statewoman, a savvy politician and a gift to this country's true ideals...a­nd she means its. A class act and a real pro. Thank you, Hillary, for what you have done for a long, long time.

[TrainSeller]

If Bill wants to talk about the economy, get him to talk about how the economic situation in the United States -- deregulation, lack of enforcement of laws and regulations, corporations' rights trumping individual citizens' rights, offshoring of jobs being rewarded -- undermines the security of the country.

But then, there's that NAFTA thing of his...

[Dap]

Dear Brother RJ,

Senator Hillary Clinton's speech tonight at the DNC was excellent she showed herself to be a leader tonight and I expect President Bill Clinton to do no less tomorrow, so this issue has become moot. I enjoyed your post nevertheless. Agape.

[MM216]

Are you listening to Hillary now, PUMAS?

[Jazzylady26]

no. is that enough for ya?

[Daps]

Enough to smoke out how much interest you really have in the Clintons over your own bruised egos.

[VoteDem2008]

I am sickof this subject...­I am I'm a white female, 49, earn

[bascombe]

PUMA is so bogus.

[abeattie]

Dude it's a super-minority preasure group created by a republican who's supported McBush since 2000.

Don't waste headspace on them. They'll be tearing each other apart by thursday.

[Aesthete]

They might be "moles" planted for the sole purpose of sowing discord and division.

[dri55y]

Just for laughs, if Hilary had won the delegate vote, how many think that Obama would be called upon to persuade his followers to now support Hilary?

And even funnier, how many think Obama would do it?