...if my 65-year-old mother is representative of these so-called PUMAs. She's a life-long Republican who doesn't think about the issues other than what she reads in People magazine. While she doesn't consider herself a feminist per-se, she fanatically supports ANY women involved with politics (i.e., she gushed about both Barbara Bush AND Hillary in the early 90s) regardless of their ideology, policies, etc. Case in point - she supported Bush from 2000 up until last year, when his popularity finally began to drop among the idiot 51% who voted for him in 2004. When Hillary entered the race, that was it - suddenly she was voting Democratic for the first time, but simply because there was a candidate with a vagina. I can't see her voting for Obama, unfortunately. Luckily she lives in a blue state where there's very little chance for McBush to win.

Remember that classic of pop-psychological cheese, "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus"? This offensive but rhetorically useful book (...) states that often, in conflict, women simply want to be heard.

And men don't want to be "heard" (respected, acknowledged) either? And don't yell hard and long if they aren't "heard"? Please!

As for the rest of the article, I think it's a reasonable analysis. Hopefully for these people, it's the anger part of the grief process.

(I'm not a USAian, but I really don't want another jingoistic Republican in the White House making foreign policy decisions that screw up large parts of the rest of the world, let alone screwing up domestic affairs as well (the Department of "Homeland Security", Katrina ...))

I thought she lost. Why all this?

To ALL of Hilary Clinton's supporters: I'm sorry. Truly, deeply sorry. I just wanted you to know that.

Sincerely, an Obamaton.

...whether Hillary would support the warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty bill the way Obama has. He's not even elected yet, but already he's willing to give up our Consistutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Anybody want a do-over?

...after Dodd, then Edwards, then Clinton. And I was prepared to vote for him enthusiastically. Hoping against hope.

But now, after his support of the scandalous FISA bill that the House Democrats pushed through-- with his approval-- I'd like another choice, please. Some of that Change that I was promised I could believe in. Instead, we've got Bush's supporters cackling with glee because they got an even better deal than they expected.

And holding women's reproductive rights hostage-- and saying they have nowhere else to go-- is the lowest of the low... It's what we've always expected from the GOP, though in a different form.

In fact, a party leadership (i.e, the media bigshots who call the horse race for the Dems, so they won't look weak) that could do such a thing is clearly not ready for a woman to be its presidential candidate. But, then, we all just learned that the hard way, didn't we? Right, Olbermann, Matthews, et al.?

And they're supposed to be the so-called liberals or progressives? Give me a break. They're misogynists. Period.

An interesting piece as usual. A couple of points.

First, women who are upset at being dismissed as old, white etc. aren't helping themselves by talking about voting for McCain. It is hard to feel positive toward people who claim they will act against their interests out of spite, hurt or whatever.

Second, I don't think it is realistic to expect Obama to act any more kindly toward Clinton than he has. She was his opponent, after all, and she was none too kind to him. He repeatedly defended her right to stay in the contest and has offered her many compliments. Privately, I'm sure he detests her because of the campaign she ran, but publicly he showed all the goodwill that could reasonably be expected.

In my effort to be focused, I neglected to mention that Penn, McAuliffe, et al. certainly played a big part in how things went, and I hope they both get exactly what they deserve.

"What are they going to do, vote for John McCain? No. The truth is, they're really not. Not if they care about their freedoms to control their own reproductive lives."

Welcome to the Democratic party, which perpetually takes its base for granted. You think the party hasn't taken black voters for granted? Or anyone who is slightly left of center?

The Democrats are too busy chasing religious white rural high-school-educated blue-color males in several swing states, to worry about any of their actual consituents.

If we had a parliamentary system, I'd vote Green Party in a heartbeat. As it is, I'll vote Democrat in November because the thought of 8 more years of GOP mis-rule is too horrible.

It's too bad they don't like being portrayed as racist because some of them were, and many more were just showcasing their privilege. The ultimate glass ceiling for women? Was I asleep in history during the time they just bent over backwards for black people, well black men? Their candidate lost, they really need to get over it. And they are mad because they have no where else to go? Sounds like another voting block that is consistently ignored by the Dems but because of circumstance have no other real alternatives. Hilary supporters aren't special, this feeling of being trapped isn't new and what's funny is they don't even feel this way because of policy (like say African Americans who consistently elect centrists that don't help them that much) but because their candidate didn't win? And we, the thinking people of the world, are not suppose to see her overwhelming white, female base and think "manifestation of their long denied privilege". That's complete bull.

I finally know what the Hell PUMAs are now Salon!

Thanks!

By constantly hitting the same tired notes vis a vis Hillary and her supporters, you're giving credence to the views of a few fringe feminists for whom the "perfect" is the enemy of the Good.

Knock it off. I'm beginning to think you want Obama to lose.

If Clinton supporters are tired of the “old, white, racist” label they should stop acting like the worst of the 2nd wave white feminists -- indifferent to racial progress and only interested in the advancement of someone exactly like them. When you write that these women were excited about changing history, but “Now that part is over” -- that is only the case if you don’t care about the historic opportunity represented by Obama. Our current nominee represents just as much progress as Hillary represented! Lamenting the nomination of the first black candidate because you were only interested in a white female nominee is the mentality of the old, white feminists... and it’s a very unfortunate view.

Just as Clinton supporters appear indifferent to progress on racial inequality, they also have been indifferent to racism in the media (much of it stirred up by Clinton's campaign) and instead claim that only sexism was a factor. That way, they can blame the media for Clinton's downfall instead of acknowledging that both candidates faced stereotypes and prejudice.

The idea that the party is moving on “without giving the Clinton women a real hearing -- without letting them vent their anger” begs the question, what exactly do you expect the Democratic party to do? The Clinton campaign itself gave these women a public voice that lasted for months, and I am still seeing tons of media coverage about Hillary supporters and their grievances. What more is owed to these people? Their candidate lost, and that sucks for them, but candidates lose elections all the time. Do you really expect the Democratic party to spend time and money helping these people vent their dissatisfaction with the nominee?

As for anger at Obama -- Clinton's campaign dragged him through the mud for months. They did everything possible to smear and discredit him, hoping that superdelegates would overturn the pledged delegate majority... and Obama is demonized for once calling her "likable enough" and for hiring someone she may be estranged from. Give me a break.

Clinton supporters may not be racist, but their obsession with the advancement of white women, combined with apparent indifference to racism (not to mention actual policy), makes it hard to take the PUMAs seriously.