Um.  No.

Your camp is a few thousand people at most.  The overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters have either moved on, or, failing that, wouldn't associate with the PUMAs for one minute longer than it takes to realize that a lot of you are completely loony.

people are talking about PUMA precisely because they are concerned about unity.  whether some are doing it in a douchey way is quite another story.

Somewhat more substantively, the aggrieved party (the really mad portion) is quite small.  However, the nature of the Internet is such that it magnifies things.  If it were not for the Internet you folks would mostly never have found one another.

As to the broader point?  The angry portion of Clinton supporters who haven't gone round the bend?  Most of them will come around.  Some won't.  12% or so of self-identified Democrats voted for Bush in 2004.  Had Kerry had anything like Obama's enthusiastic base he would have won despite the crossovers.

I agree.  I dropped it a long time ago.  I don't care about you. If you are willing to vote for McCain, you aren't a democrat.  Period.  So, why should I really give a darn about you?  Go and throw your temper tantrums, we've got work to do.

So, we're supposed to believe that a "movement" called Party Unity My Ass isn't out for attention?  

By the way, your poll is seriously flawed.  Clinton has never endorsed PUMA, and therefore "total unity on Hillary's terms" means nothing more than supporting the party in November.  Quite frankly I don't believe PUMA supports "total unity on Hillary's terms," since she's already united with most other Democrats.

"I site as evidence that the sore winners inability to let go is evidence that Hillary and not Obama won the soul of the democratic party this cycle."

I agree that the exit polls showed that HRC defeated Obama by a small amount among registered dems and that Obama's victory stemmed from his advantage among unaffiliated voters.  However, I would dispute your claim that the dems who voted for HRC any better represent the soul of the party than the dems who voted for Obama.

...counterproductive in virtually every way.

Both the pro- and anti-PUMA folks better get a clue that MOST OF US on these progressive/liberal blogs are beginning to look upon both sides as little more than bickering children.

As far as I'm concerned, you better both STFU or it's to your rooms for the next 3-1/2 months while the adults continue the conversation.

There's too much at stake, and far too many real issues requiring our focus now.

The bottom line is 80% of the party's membership supporting the nominee at this point in the calendar is fine. Peachy. Really. Not a problem. In fact, it's about precisely where Kerry, Gore, Clinton, et al were at this time in the calendar(s) in their respective races.

Anti-PUMA and pro-PUMA folks alike, it's to the point where if you don't have something substantive to say about something other than your own gratuitous raison d'etre, you will marginalize yourself to the point of total insignificance. IMHO, you don't have that much farther to go as far as that reality's concerned, too!

I'm going to start ripping both sides on this matter in a matter of days if the dialogue doesn't change--and change REAL FUCKING SOON.

You're fucking up OUR space. It's not my space. It's not your space. It's a community. And, as the old saying goes: TAKE IT OUTSIDE (or, TAKE IT ELSEWHERE).

In short, both sides are to the point of alienating themselves into oblivion. Keep it up and you will reap what you've sown.

these pro PUMA, anti PUMA diaries another one pops up.

Taylor, sorry man, cannot rec this one..Folks, please move on. Do we seriously want a Bush (McCain) 3rd term followed by two Jeb Bush terms starting 2012? Have we gone that bat crazy (I'm beginning to like this term)?
 

Prove me wrong Team Obama.  Be gracious.  Let bygones be bygones.  Drop the puma talk.  Focus on the General election.  Try it.

Most of us (Obama supporters) have attempted to bury the sword.  We have extended our hands to HRC supporters, we have written numerous pro-Hillary diaries, we have acknowledged our "over the top" behavior in the primaries and apologized, we have "warmed" to the idea that HRC would be a great addition to the ticket, we have sang the praises of HRC, we have acknowledged what a truly inspiring, policy wonk, fighter, and true Democrat she is, we have honored her with the distinction of blazing a path for future women who run for the POTUS.

Many of us do not see the reciprocation.  On a daily basis there are posters whose only concern is to surf the net and find something they deem a "deal breaker" or a "I told you so" about Obama.

Many have absolutely no intention in joining the effort to beat McCain.  Their mind's are closed, and nothing we or Obama, say or do, will change that.  For us to continue to "reach out" to these types of people is the true definition of insanity...Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Respect and building party unity is a two way street...

"Are you feeling that we drank your milkshake?"

Hee hee. Self-agrandizing much?

Yeah. Obama's ahead in every poll, massively ahead in the EV count, and showing strength in states McCain shouldn't have to think about.

Keep gazing into the pond, Narcissus. That lovely creature staring back at you will answer some day.

I couldn't give a crap about past primary wars.  It's over.  Water under the bridge.  I don't tease, mock, or attack former Clinton supporters any more than I would former Edwards, Richardson, or Dodd supporters.

Anyone who is talking about helping McCain though is no Democrat and shouldn't expect any sympathy from me.

I think the reason many people, especially here, are still unwilling to "make peace" is because the PUMA faction is also unwilling to make peace.  I think they are looking for mutal disarmament.

From my perspective the biggest problem is the constant attempts to rewrite history, mostly in regards to the sexism and racism that happened in the primaries.  I have said this many times and will continue to say it until I no longer have to:  There was both sexism and racism exhibited by both campaigns this spring.  They are both guilty.  Many PUMA refuse to believe that the Clinton campaign race-baited but demand that we believe that the Obama campaign was sexist because they say it happened.  Well there are millions of African Americans that say the Clintons race-baited.  The victims of racism, not you, are the final arbiters of what is racist.  The victims of sexism are the final arbiters of what is sexist.  

I should say that many Obama supporters also refuse to believe there was sexism.  They are equally wrong.

Everyone is guilty.

People are simply unwilling to play nice because we are trying to defend the truth from being rewritten by the loudest voices.

People gawk at train wrecks, they rubberneck at traffic accidents, they watch television shows in which contestants humiliate themselves, and they visit the sideshow at the carnival to stare at the oddities.

Some of them obsess about your little group for the same reasons. Human nature, I guess.

First, the disunity you're talking about is mostly a phenomenon of the blogosphere.  If I didn't come to My DD, seriously, I wouldn't know that Puma existed.  Second, part of what fascinates is the degree to which Puma folk have become the Nader voters of 2008 and don't seem able to see it.  How could this end well for you?  Say Obama wins--do you then become a loyal Democrat again?  But suppose he loses because Dems don't turn out for him--do you really think Hillary Clinton would not get tarnished with this?  First African-American candidate for president loses because Dems won't turn out for him.  Yeah, that'll look great on her resume.  

An Engliah writer suggested that following the US election through the blogosphere was like watching a freeway full of people trapped in their cars complaining about the traffic.  That still strikes me as the most insightful comment someone has made about the election.  Discussion happens, but generally not here.  Dialog involves an exchange of ideas.  When people post on blogs what they're usually engaging in is monologue (or, at best, they're looking for kindred spirits who will affirm their ideas).

One more thought.  Never underestimate the power of unintended consequences.  There was nothing inevitable about Ford's loss or Reagan's victory.  By my read, those who hope to steer politics through protest votes are usually disappointed.  A vote for Nader in 2000 looks pretty stupid today.  This year we're dealing with a similar set of worst-case scenarios.  McCain could easily appoint the one or two justices to the Supreme Court who would lock in the doctrine of the unitary executive for the next two decades.  He could commit the US to war with Iran.

Granted, there are worse scenarios.  McCain isn't likely to do anything so bad this would be the equivalent, say, of the Communists voting for Hitler (because they thought the Germans would never accept someone so radical as chancellor), or the Germans, during WW1, sending Lenin to Russia in a sealed train.  

The law of unintended consequences, though, is nothing to be toyed with.  What the Puma people deserve is President Huckabee in 2009 giving his state of the union address offering words of congratulation to the Supreme Court for having the courage to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Don't think it can't happen.  When a party splits it's always the other which benefits.

huh?

and good gravy. You must have awful thin skin. You self identify as a PUMA type but bitch that people don't take your platform (which is solely comprised of one idea, non unity) seriously enough to want to unify and play nice with you? You fail at basic logic here. You identify as belonging to a group that has as it's stated intention to sow malcontent, so the only "divide" is PUMA with reality. The party is doing pretty good. Our candidate is ahead in the polls despite a long bruising primary campaign in which the main opposition (McCain) had a free pass for months. Kinda analogous to a boxer fighting one fight winning, then having to immediately fight another fight with an opponent who is fresh and rested.

And props to CAchemist, good breakdown there.