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:
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.