Let's not be too cowardly to have the conversation, even if it gets ugly.

My take.

I want to take a moment to post my thoughts on the recent conversation about PUMAs here. I work best with lists so here goes.

1. I support the PUMA movement in general. I never got fully involved last summer for a number of reasons:

A. I listened in on a few conference calls and felt I did not have much to add, and further felt there was no particular focus.

B. My hunch was then that Obama was all but assured of both the nomination and the election. Not 100% - things could have broken another way. But the PUMA movement did not seem to be aware of the real power involved in anointing Obama. There was a lot of rat a tat tat about writing super delegates etc (which may not have come directly from PUMAs but it was out there.). This was - to me - self evidently a waste of time. The system did not "fail to work and demand correction" it was over run and blown up. Donna B. said it: "We don't need you" The cold truth is, come November, she was right. Because of the lack of focus, PUMAs either sucked it up and voted for Obama or, voted for Palin but not in numbers that made a difference.

Obama was decided on a long, long time ago and, frankly, the plan to install him, in retrospect, was only hampered by Clinton's refusal to leave the race. For this, and almost this alone, I went from being a supporter to a deeply loyal follower. She became a hero of mine by refusing to roll over. This refusal has worked out very well for her. It made her a political leader and raised her standing with all Americans. Though the powers that be refused to let her have the prize she clearly earned - she did, in fact, win in some ways.

At any rate, the PUMAs never seemed to come to terms with the actions that might have made a difference. That being: start a third party, or focus on states they might have swung, or create a concerted effort to go after the core problem: the media - which as we know pushed the myth of Obama at every turn and trashed Palin with the same sexist glee it had Hillary. By "going after" I mean protests. In the streets. Not letter writing or blogging.

So I supported the PUMAs from a distance. With some hope, but not much expectation.

2. My unsentimental education in 2008 was all about sexism. I knew it was real. I knew it to be a core problem. What I did not understand was its depth in American culture. I am sure many women did. I did not. It did not occur to me that Clinton being female was an issue before MSNBC and the rest visibly came unhinged. Naive, I know. Uppity posted a comment here last year I shall never forget. It was something to the effect that it is not that women can't have some jobs men do - it is that a woman can't have THAT job. It strips all the mediocre men who've been elevated unfairly of their cover. I pondered that for a long while - and began to see the coverage of Clinton - mostly by men - but not always - through that lens and much more made sense. Mathews and Olbermann were only the most obvious in their female terror.

I make this point about sexism because it was new to me. I did not learn anything new about power in 2008. I have always assumed we get a few choices that are limited and the game is to get behind the best of the predetermined choices. There is a reason why some people of equal intelligence are dismissed out of hand before they open their mouths. They are not in the pre chosen circle. (Ron Paul has very interesting ideas that many more people would agree with if he was ever heard. He's not. There is a reason he's not.) I sincerely thought - at the outset - that Clinton was the best of these and did not care about her gender and stupidly thought most others did not either. Wow, was I wrong. The Daily Kos was a cavalcade of misogyny for months.

The powers behind Obama did not become evident until later. Though Obama had a base, it was nowhere near the majority of Democrats until the power players kicked in. False racism accusations removed a large chunk of Clinton's natural base with Black voters. Florida, Michigan, etc. Even then, he did not win. Caucus fraud and the media pushed him to the finish. The subtext of most negative reporting on Clinton was sexism. And "liberals" were the lead dogs. Ambition for a man: good and strong. Ambition for a woman: bitchy. Etc. Etc. An unsentimental education for this liberal indeed.

What I came to understand is that sexism is potent. Much more potent that I understood. Sadly, sometimes it was women who offended the most. Randi "fucking whore" Rhodes for example. But the "liberal" males who joined in or stood by are the biggest moral criminals in my book. By October is was self evident that mainstream Conservatives were more open to strong women than left wing alleged feminists.

With that I'll say: I'd put myself on the line as a feminist any day. I blogged repeatedly about how interesting the Palin phenom was - though I disagreed with most of her politics. Far from being an outlier - she was and is a superb example of feminism in action. No money, no family name - just determination and ambition.

3. And this is not contradictory in my book: I do not want PUMAs to become solely a "women's movement". I DO want it to focus a substantial amount of energy on the promotion of women's rights and to take the lead in addressing issues that many women are concerned with. But not to the exclusion of others.

I thought Tamerlane had some harsh but good points to make and I welcomed them. I also welcome a rebuttal. I am not of big fan of allegedly "polite society". Getting a bit rough is okay by me. Esp in the safe forum of a blog. We are not in a bar. No one can throw a real punch. One person's opinion that PUMAs may have become too focused in a certain direction should not scare anyone.

Yell back.

The "N" word, the "C" word, and death threats are off limits for ethical reasons. The drippiest pro Obama comments are too- but that is just my personal preference - it is my blog after all.

I did have some discomfort about the word "coven". In the end I found it no more insulting than my attacks on Olbermann's "mommy issues". It is insulting. I am insulting sometimes. This blog is not a tea party.

Tamerlane did start a conversation. A pretty unpleasant one apparently. But "pleasant" is not the goal. I am glad to report that people here are not cowards about sexism or racism.

I sincerely hope the PUMA movement becomes a large spring board. We are in trouble. Real trouble. Another way must be found. But it is not required. We could just sink. Country's do it rather often. Dems are taking us for a wild ride that I suspect we will live to regret. Soon. The GOP is utterly lost - and if they do revive I shudder at the prospect of their "ideas" and their leaders (except Palin, believe it or not. I don't agree with her, but I trust her). The prospect of a very negative "movement" erupting in the next few years is painfully real. We are not immune from demagogues that would make Obi's prancing and primping look quaint.

There is still an opportunity here. The PUMAs who are, lets be honest, cast offs, could - COULD be a group that emerges to lead. But if PUMAs get stuck in any victimology, all is lost.

Being rudely untethered from our "home" in the Democratic party is not a problem. It is an opportunity. Turns out the home was dysfunctional with a capital dys.

If we yell at each other along the way. So be it.