The media (which yes, in a sense includes Slate) dwells on the PUMA types because, regardless of the irrelevance of their numbers they make a "good story" as the media defines it, in that you have conflict and obsession. In that sense, it's no different than ESPN's "all Brett Favre, all the time" coverage of a few weeks ago. That PUMA also allows the pundits to continue to spin the "Clintons as power obsessed psychos" meme that they seem to love is just a bonus.

That Lithwick is trying to argue that these women shouldn't act like emotional nutcases because it allows the media to use the old "mad woman in the attic" literary archetype is, of course, inverting the problem. It's not the small number of obsessed nutty women who are the problem, but the fact that despite their irrelevance anyone pays attention to them. There are, and will be, any number of nutty splinter factions in politics, and yet we get a bunch of irrelevant whiny obsessed sore losers who can't get over "their" candidate's loss as the current "let's pay attention to them" media darlings despite their insignificance. That of course ignores the fact that the overwhelming number of Hillary voters are NOT obsessed nut jobs, but hey, can't let the facts get in the way of a good story, can we?

I realize I may be revealling an AMAZING truth to the media pundits here, but there are people who are going to be so emotionally invested in things they "ought" not care about that they act stupidly and irrationally (the average sports fanatic, for example). Paying attention to their loud and obnoxious bleating does them (and anyone else, for that matter) no good, and yet we continue to see a disproportionate share of media attention to them. Now, if Lithwick wants to talk/think about something intriguing, how about discussing the media's obsession with small groups of obsessed loons?