Do they even exist outside of the lunatic fringe blogosphere?

I don't think the numbers tally up to more than a few hundred deluded folks.

So, can we please?

Can we pretty please?

STOP WITH THE FREAKIN PUMA DIARIES!?!?!?

Can I get an Amen?

what is the point of this diary? You can't insult them into falling in line.

What a shock, a Politician with an ego. who would of thiought! LOL! Yeah, and McSame is such a paragon of modesty!

Oh, more of this stupid snipe hunt.

Here's a clue: get over yourself first, and then go out and help register actual voters.

remind you of every man who got a raise and promotion before you did?

Because McCain got promotions because of his dad. Whereas Obama is just brilliant. You cannot forgive one who bests you merely on the grounds of his personal merits, without providing an excuse for your failure.

With these PUMA types, it's always about "why doesn't Barack want MY vote?"  "Why isn't he courting us?  John McCain cares enough to kiss blogs' asses?"  They prattle on as if they were appointed press secretary for all 18 Million people who voted for Clinton in the primaries, when in fact that great majority of that 18 Million is already in Barack's corner.

This is also what's driving the big Hillraisers--they want ACCESS to him.  They don't give money away, they invest it.

These are emotionally unstable people who think that their own feelings of validation are more important than the very real effects of government policy on other human beings and the planet.  They are narcissists bordering on the sociopathic.

Oh come on.  If you conflate the Hillraisers with the Puma people you're just doing John McCain's work.  The challenge for Dems at this point is to see Puma for what it is--a big psych out--and not fall into the trap of thinking that it's anything more.  

If the bona fide Puma people want to vote for McCain, hey, it's a free country.  What I don't get is why some think Clinton herself wouldn't get tarnished if Obama lost for this reason (those who cite the Ford-Reagan race as precdent for what they're doing miss an important element, conservatives turned out for Ford in '76, when Reagan came back in '80 he didn't have half of the GOP blaming him for Ford's loss).

But even that's not narcissism, it's just not thinking ahead.  And since most who supported Clinton are more practical about all of this, it's self-defeating and ungenerous to suggest that they aren't.  

I don't know what their number is, and I'm not sure that I care to know. However something certain is that the last sentence of this diary speaks right to the issue. Many of those in the so-called Puma movement harbor anti-black sentiments, and I would venture to think that it isn't just the Dixiecrats. They used to call it racism, and I think they still do.

I am not a PUMA, but some of my best friends are PUMAs.

I am voting for the Democratic nominee and opposing John McCain.

Nevertheless, I understand and share the sense of outrage that is behind the PUMA movement.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with "narcissism."

It has to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton and her 18 million voters were treated like dirt by the DNC and were shafted by the Rules and Bylaws Committee.  Just imagine the scene if Obama had won Florida and Michigan and his votes were NOT counted...and then superdelegates proceeded to give their votes to Hillary Clinton, allowing her to take the nomination.   Just imagine if some of his Michigan delegates were taken away and put in Hillary's pocket!  Add that to the despicable media sexism that was tolerated by party leaders and to the toxic environment of the netroots, and you will get an idea of why some Clinton supporters are furious.  The continued piling on by bloggers does not help, especially when it is accompanied by race-baiting as illustrated in this diary's comments.

If Obama supporters really seek unity, then I would suggest that they get behind reform of the primary system and start speaking out against sexism.  I think that would be a lot more helpful than continuing to insult Clinton voters.

First iohs, I give you credit for writing your piece.  However, I disagree with your premise.  I believe elections are about individuals, their motivations, and their values.

I have believed since Iowa that the Democratic nomination was ultimately about competing economic interests.  Those who were poor and disabled, or identified most closely with those groups, supported Senator Clinton.  Her economic platform, her history, and the persona she chose exemplified that.

Obama designed a platform that included tax cuts for the middle and upper-middle class; improvements to the healthcare system directed primarily toward those who are well-off, insured, healthy, young, or childless; and gave off enough ambiguity for the college crowd to believe they might get their student loans forgiven as well.  Based on his personal history and cultural cues, AA voters had every reason to believe their economic interests were important to Obama.

Throughout the primaries, majorities of these different groups voted their economic interests.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Voting for a candidate because you expect him or her to put money in your pocket is a tradition dating back to the Greek city-states.  

Based on my own demographics, I should be supporting Obama.  If I hadn't grown up in extreme poverty and known the incredible difference the Clintons had made on this front, I would probably support him, too.  I am healthy and well-off.  I will benefit incredibly from the health care and tax plans of both Obama and McCain.

My problem is that I don't give a shit about that.  I identify more closesly with  the poor, unhealthy, and disabled folks I grew up with.  I don't want Obama to make my heath care cheaper or give me another $1000 tax cut like he promised during the primaries.  I don't need it.  His priorities should be elsewhere.

I am not a PUMA.  I don't harbor any ill will toward Senator Obama.  I don't give a crap which of the current players wins the Presidential election.  I can understand why some people do care and care immensely.  They have their own interests, motivations, and values.  They can and will vote them.

So ultimately, yes, the political preferences of PUMAs are all about them.  The preferences of Obama's primary supporters were all about themselves as well.  The same for those who supported Romney, McCain, Clinton, Huckabee...and on down the line.

You may find your arguments more persuasive if you change your approach.

I wish you the best.

Here is a great video of the mighty PUMAs protesting in SF.

They got many more people than at their NY protest but here, surprisingly no one is armed with a tweety bird umbrella

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKIpI8l9F YA

+++ I believe the defects witnessed in pumas are not native to Sen. Clinton supporters. To the contrary, should the outcome have been the other way around, I believe that there would have been an equal (or greater) number of Obamapumas. Observing the Clinton pumas is simply a result of the outcome. Complicating matters is the fact that there are also Dixiecrats lumped in with the pumas. But racism can be tied to narcissism, and thus the need to examine pumas holds.

To me, this is the only relevant issue. PUMA is the inevitable relic of a hard-fought primary battle. There will always be a few (and they are just a few) who refuse to be reconstructed. Given the extremely close result I'm encouraged that the Party has come together as well and as rapidly as it has. We're looking good!

is 40-50 cats.