Are the PUMA's with us?

During the primaries, this site was Hillary central much as DKos was Obama central.  I've still got the scars to prove it.

I haven't seen the interviews with that blond woman who takes credit for starting PUMA since the convention.  I'm wondering how many of the Hillory-or-bust folk are still carrying that torch, particularly after McCain's dismissal of health as an issue for abortion.

This isn't to bait anybody.  Aside from a few subdued posts here minimalizing Obama's poll standings I haven't seen much in terms of sour grapes.  I think most Hillary supporters are on board.  But what I want to know is if there are still any Hillary supporters out there who are:

1.  Thinking of voting for McCain

  1.  Thinking of voting third party
  2.  Thinking of sitting the presidential election out

And if you fit into any of those categories, is there anything which will solidify you for Obama?

Tags: clinton, obama, PUMA (all tags)



Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I'm a Hillary supporter and will be voting McCain on Election Day.  But will vote Democratic on all other races.

by karajan72 2008-10-17 10:19AM | 0 recs
why is that?

didnt' see you muchd uring the primary wars.

Anythign we can do to change your mind?

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: why is that?

Trust me.  NOT worth the effort.

by fogiv 2008-10-17 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Anyone who votes for John McCain is not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. She's made her position clear:

No way, no how, no McCain/Palin.

You either support her, or you don't. Voting for McCain is the ultimate act of disrespect for Hillary Clinton and the ideals for which she advocates. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is delusional, or simply a hypocrite.

by BobzCat 2008-10-17 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

Some voters believe that getting a critical mass of women into positions of power will do more, in the long run, to advance women's issues than getting Obama elected. They are voting for McCain because of Palin, and voting for women in general, no matter which party.  

by half nelson 2008-10-17 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

I've never heard that opinion expressed on any PUMA website.  All they talk about is Obama.

I mean I'm sure what you're talking about exists, but it's not really what we're talking about here.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: "Angalachel's journal"...

is a site where this attitude is articulated.  

by half nelson 2008-10-17 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: "Angalachel's journal"...

Ah!  Okay.

I mentioned them below as being uncomfortable with the rightist tendencies of The Confluence, where I heard of them.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

Well, that's pretty damned stupid.  Hey, maybe if we can get more kids to smoke, the rate of cancer will increase horrendously enough that the government will increase research funding.

Good thinking.

by fogiv 2008-10-17 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

Anyone who thinks that elevating Palin to power will advance women's issues needs to have her head checked.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-10-17 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

Some voters are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, or to comb their own hair.  But what can you do?

by username 2008-10-18 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

This whole thread is silly. How can we know if these people are real? They could be McCain operatives or just Republicans messing with Democrats? I know one PUMA who is either voting Nader or Obama. He still hasn't decided. I don't think any sincere Democrat would vote for McCain.

by Lolis 2008-10-17 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I just supplied a "real" comment downthread.  I risk my TU status doing so.  I hope you, and others, respect it.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 10:45AM | 0 recs
you're real enough, Denny

I'll vouch for you.

I know around kos they had parties to counteract the trolls... ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

What is "TU status?"

by Drummond 2008-10-17 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Trusted User.  The ability to rate all comments.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

And the odds of you, a Clinton dead-ender, losing it, are basically zero.

by username 2008-10-18 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

We don't.  But this is about the right time to make one last appeal.  Some hard feelings don't heal very quickly, and it was a pretty rough fight.

But I'm hoping that McCain's abortion comments the other night will shake a few more apples from the tree.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Yay for irrational spite!

by username 2008-10-17 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I was about to say "check the diarists history", but it's been erased for whatever reason.

Karajan72 used to spam reverend wright, larry sinclair, and tony rezko updates all through the primaries, regardless of the diary topic  And that's it.  I don't think this person is a Democrat in that I've never seen a single post in favor of Clinton.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I'm solidly with McCain.  The media, Democratic party leadership, internet blogs, obama's campaign all ensured during the primaries that I will never vote Obama. Not after all the hate Hillary endured and now McCain/Palin are enduring the same thing.  Rove and Bush's attacks on Democrats in 2000 and 2004 are nothing compared to the hate being spewed at McCain/Palin and was done to Hillary.  So no....never obama.

by karajan72 2008-10-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
To date, Obama has kindly NOT

brought up McCain's vile divorce (that was the Reagans), nor has he brought up McCain's black baby (that was Bush).

We do not hate mccain here. I long for a Republican party that I might support, and I grieve at the evil that you support.

Teh media has never been a reason for supporting one candidate over another. Your duty is clear: elect the best candidate for POTUS.

Any Questions?

At least they can't call Obama mulatto (that was Adams on Jefferson)... eh?

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not responsible...
..for the media or for the GOP's
 dirty tactics.   But the misogyny and sexism that was on display during the primaries is another matter.  Democrats engaged in it, the party tolerated it.  Voters who care about sexism put their trust in the democratic party to oppose it, and feel that the party failed them.  They no longer believe that the party has their interests at heart, and so they don't necessarily see Obama as the best choice.  
by half nelson 2008-10-17 03:41PM | 0 recs
the party also tolerated racism

these are systemic problems, not character faults!!

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

oh man for a second I thought you were serious until

Rove and Bush's attacks on Democrats in 2000 and 2004 are nothing compared to the hate being spewed at McCain/Palin and was done to Hillary.

oh man that is just, wow lol yeah oh wow.

I got nothing after that man, I got nothing.

if it didn't effect the rest of us, I would hope for McCain to win, so we could see people like you complaining for 4 years that everything McCain/Palin would do in the next 4 years would not in any way be your fault. but everyone else for making you have to vote for McCain.


by TruthMatters 2008-10-17 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?


Well, I just don't see it.  I've been thinking that Obama's campaign is about the most positive I've seen since Carter in 1976.  And I haven't seen as hateful a campaign as McCain's since Bush, Sr., 1988.  But your vote is your call.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

A woman who can not name a single print publication, refuses to take any questions from the press and encourages her supporters to shout out 'kill him' and 'terrorist' is now the victim of hate?
How much crack is in your pipe?

McCain is running the most vile campaign in recent history.  Bush ran a saintly campaign compared to what McCain and Palin are doing.

If Hillary saw you, I am sure she would smack you up along side your head.

by gavoter 2008-10-17 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

SCRANTON - The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

by gunner 2008-10-17 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Great, except that it occurred in Florida.

Nice try though.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?


Arlington, Va.: The Secret Service has now labeled the "kill him" report as unfounded. Why isn't The Post giving this report as much coverage as the original false report received?

Dana Milbank:

Glad you asked, because I saw this earlier. This is actually about the incident in Scranton, not the one in Clearwater, Fla, that I wrote about here.

I wasn't at the Scranton event, but I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they've started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty -- protecting the protectee -- and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it's unfounded because the reporters can't get close enough to identify the person. /secret-service-blocking-r_n_135336.html

by fogiv 2008-10-17 04:00PM | 0 recs
Supported Clinton, supporting Obama!

Well, while I had serious problems with many of the Obama supporters over at dailykos during the primary season, they are not the candidate himself.  I've not seen anything untoward coming from Obama personally - in fact, he's run a pretty positive camapign in total.  

So, count me as a Clinton supporter who will happily cost his vote for Obama.  

I really don't see how any seriously issues-oriented former Clinton supporter could do otherwise.  To vote for McCain is to vote contrary to so many issues true Democrats (regardless of whom one backed in the primary) hold dear.  

Therefore, I am forced to conclude that those Democrats who have deserted to McCain were either 1) really not interested in the future direction of the country, 2) not interested in the issues, 3) unable to get over the psychic bruises of the primary, or 4) trolls.  Of course it could also be a mix-n-match of any or all of these!

Proud to have supported Clintons in 1992, 1996 and 2008.  Also proud to support Obama!  

Let's retake the government!

by BillCat 2008-10-17 11:31AM | 0 recs
As a Clinton supporter

I switched my loyalty to Obama when she pulled out of the race.  I'm a Democrat first and foremost.  If you're busy volunteering for Obama's campaign right now, you're probably working side by side with some of the women you insulted.  I'm one of them.

I've noticed when visiting some of the PUMA blogs recently that they're solidly infected with right wing talking points (ACORN, criticizing Ohio SOS Brunner, etc.) and seem to pick them up right on schedule just as they hit the internet.

From my observations, most of the web sites that became a haven for Clinton supporters during the primary when they were booted from Dem political forums (big mistake)were faux Hillary sites run by GOP operatives.

Sadly, many Dem forums like DU and DailyKos, fell for the GOP dirty tricks and ended up booting loyal Dem Hillary supporters right into the GOP tricksters' waiting arms.  MyDD was one of the few sanctuaries.  Most of us were too savvy to fall for the faux Hillary supporter web sites, but I'll guarantee you, Dems probably lost quite a few new and independent women voters to this scam.

Words of wisdom to the Dem forums for next time. Don't ever do a massive purge of Dem voters just because they don't support your primary candidates and don't let GOP tricksters lure you into the trap again.  

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: As a Clinton supporter

I've also noted (slightly off topic, sorry) that as far as I can ascertain, the number of women posting on this blog has dropped dramatically post primary.  That kind of bothers me.  Although I've been an Obama supporter from pretty near the beginning, one of the things that drew me to this site was strong women's voices.  Not so much anymore.  

by mady 2008-10-17 02:48PM | 0 recs
Not many places left for Dem women to post

They were banned in droves from most of the web sites during the primaries, for nothing more than their support of Hillary.  Bad mistake.

The online Dem community has probably lost many of them permanently.

Maybe we should start a new forum after the election.

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Not many places left for Dem women to post

I like this site, but would love more women's voices here instead of segregating us to another site.

by mady 2008-10-17 03:27PM | 0 recs
True, I suppose

many of the other sites have gone downhill. They did such a poor job of dealing with GOP trolls and banning long - time members, their whole environment changed.

In a way its a good thing.  This campaign has sort of pushed me away from being and active Dem. I've run like a racehorse since 1992 helping the party, then hit a brick wall with the Obama campaign.  Since then I've enjoyed spending more time having a private life and a family.  I don't think I want to go back to Dem Party activism.

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: As a Clinton supporter

Give Motley Moose a whirl.  :)

by fogiv 2008-10-17 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: As a Clinton supporter

A lot of Clintonistas helped form Motley Moose, in order to get over the mutual disrespect shown during the primary wars.  

by brit 2008-10-17 06:32PM | 0 recs
What about a third party?

I respect the strength of your convictions; I disagree with you about the facts, but I won't argue, since it sounds like your mind is made up.

But have you considered voting for a third party candidate, like Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? As someone who posts on MdDD, you're probably a Democrat with progressive values; why not take the opportunity to vote for a progressive candidate who doesn't pose a real threat to your party (and to all the good Democrats whom Obama would appoint to offices in the executive branch)? You'd still be symbolically voting against Obama.

by slvn 2008-10-17 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

There's only 4 reasons at this point in time that anyone can be 'solidly' with McCain, given how his campaign has become a triumph of the absurd.

You are die hard Republican and even a stupid insane hack like Palin being a heartbeat away from the POTUS doesn't matter to you, so party over country;

You are 'rich' and voting your ideology ($$$$) over country;

You are right wing and voting your religious wingnuttery over country;

You are down right racist.

Choose which you prefer to be remembered by.

by emsprater 2008-10-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Well, now you have said it. I don't know why it took you so long. I supported Hillary, and will vote McCain. Never, never Obama. And yes, part of the reason, just part, is that Obama supporters call anyone who doesn't love this inexperienced unaccomplished egotistical peron who was foisted on the Democratic party a racist. That in itself, that 'I'm better than you and you must be a nasty low-life redneck racist if you don't support Obama' is enough to turn lots of decent people off. Plus the sexism and mysogeny towards Hillary and then Sarah Palin, and the nastiness, and the fact that Obama really is an unknown quantity - well, I'm for McCain.
It happened first when Obama dissed Hillary at the SOTU. Just a little thing, nothing much. But it showed his arrogance and lack of manners and disdain for Hillary - and then he lied about it. And then came Rev. Wright, a perfect horror. I couldn't sit in his church and listen to him for one sermon, much less 20 years. A really ugly man who says ugly things. And then there was the fixed primary, and giving Hillary's votes to Obama. And Pleger, and Ayers, and the sleazy house deal where Rezko got money from Auchi (most likely) to buy Obama's lawn, because he was greedy and wanted a house he couldn't afford. And Obama taking credit for the work other people did in the Senate. And the Chicago connections ........ shall I go on?
Do you really want this cast of nasty characters in the White House? Not me.

So I am definitely PUMA. Country before party. Anybody but Obama.

These people really do hate America. Wright and Pleger and Ayers hate America. Michelle used to hate it - and if her husband loses she will hate it again - in her mind he will have lost because America is racist, not because her husband is a really lousy candidate and simply wasn't up to the job. And Obama is a product of all of these people - and more.

I don't post here anymore. It isn't worth the effort because most of you only want to have the echo chamber - but you asked - so I am telling you.

Oh, by the way, McCain made Obama look like a weakling last night at the dinner. Did you happen to notice - McCain talked about others. Obama talked about himself. If the words 'I', 'me' and 'my' were taken from the language, he wouldn't have anything to say. And he has absolutely no sense of humor.

by Marjoriest 2008-10-17 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

The shark has been jumped.

by parahammer 2008-10-18 12:01AM | 0 recs
This will be harsh. Intentionally.

You are being infantile.  If you were paying any attention at all around these parts, I was one of the most vocal of all the Hillary supporters.  Consistently denigrated by the "Obama horde" during the primaries, like most of us, and yes that  put a 'bitter' taste in my mouth.

However, the bottom line is that Obama can't be held to test for his over the top supporters here, just at Hillary can not be held accountable for the PUMA idiots.  Hillary herself has spoken: "No McCain, No Palin, NO WAY".  What part of that do you NOT understand?

What part of the 'Hillary sent me' effort do you NOT understand?

McCain is a direct threat to everything that Democrats stand for.  He is no friend to women, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken.  His choice of Palin over better, more qualified female GOP candidates was a last ditch effort to get both disaffected Hillary supporters who's only concern was a female candidate and the religious right  to his side.  How do you like being on the side of Phyllis Schaffley?

The true cast of 'nasty characters' we can't accept in the White House are McCain and his smear campaign (note that you have completely bought into the smears, nice job, there, loose your brain?) and Palin  with her absolute ties to a secessionist group who actually DOES 'hate' America.

You need to step back and rethink your own stupidity.

by emsprater 2008-10-18 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Yes, we really believe you when you say you care about "sexism" or "lack of manners" towards Hillary Clinton, when you claim you'll vote for the man who said that Chelsea Clinton was ugly because her dad was Janet Reno. The same man who joked about women getting raped by gorillas.

Yeah, we really buy that "lack of manners" is your reason.

I have no idea what your reason to support McCain may be, but it's most definitely not the one you claim.

Sarah Palin still "pals around" (in the form of a marriage) with a person that belonged to the Alaska Independence Party and openly declared its wish to secede from the USA. For all your bitter loathing that Michelle said she's only recently been proud of the United States (strange how some people confuse dedication to one's country with pride for one's country BTW), she's never done anything as serious as Sarah Palin's husband actually being a secessionist.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-10-18 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

And it doesn't bother you that your vote may deny the women the right to choose for a generation?

by Drummond 2008-10-18 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Have you counted all you're cats?  You should.  Obama may have stolen a few.  He and Bill Ayers like to snack on them while they plan bombings.

by fogiv 2008-10-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
I read a fair number of the PUMA

sites, and in general I don't they are supporting Obama.  

I think most of the Puma's are in complete shock that Obama is winning.  In general they thought he would get killed in the general election, and I have seen two reactions to this:

- complete adoption of the shrillist attacks on Obama from any source (Texas Darling, the confluence, noquarter)
- the growing realization that Obama will likely completely freeze them out if he wins, and concern that they will be thrown out of the party if they oppose him in the end (see alegre's)

Most Puma's need Obama too lose.  

by fladem 2008-10-17 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

At this point, the puma "movement" consists of a couple dozen republicans, dixiecrats, and psychologically unstable obsessives whose purpose is to support and validate each other's delusional thinking and destructive agendas. Their websites have only a passing interest in Hillary Clinton and her policies, and are more dedicated to promoting McCain/Palin and destroying Obama in front of their tiny audience. They've allied themselves with the republican opposition, and are no longer associated with real Democratic politics and ideas or the issues that matter to progressives. They'll try to convince you otherwise, but their transparency gives them away.

by BobzCat 2008-10-17 10:37AM | 0 recs
I think this is a slight over-generalization,

Not by much, but slight. I would actually exclude Allegre from that list. She has made a valiant effort to forbid people on her site from promoting McCain but rather to keep it to issues. Although she threw me out as soon as she noticed me, she does allow one former PUMA, who still posts here and will remain anonymous, to present opposing views. Allegre herself tends to keep her posts to pro-Hillary stuff, and I think she's in the category of people who will never be an active Obama supporter, but will begrudgingly vote for him in November.

I have no love loss for Allegre, but I do think she's in a different class than 99.9% of PUMAs.

by Travis Stark 2008-10-17 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is a slight over-generalization,

I don't have the same respect. I think she let the celebrity of blogging and the access to Hillary it afforded her go to her head. She left MyDD for the same reasons she left DKos: she couldn't back up her claims or defend her statements. But she loved the spotlight and attention so much that she set up her own soapbox and gave republicans, racists, and miscreants a place to gather to tear down the Democratic nominee while twisting the minds of the honest Hillary supporters she claimed to speak for.  

I don't let her off the hook for that. There were genuinely hurt feelings after the primary, and there were people who really needed healing. What Alegre did is escort them into a room with dishonest manipulative hacks who had no interest in helping them heal, but instead would lay into them with knives and scalpels for even suggesting that they wanted to.

At this point, I think, anyone with a real conscience has finally recoiled and left, and pretty much the only ones remaining are the coterie I mention above, churning in an urn of their own filth. And that's Alegre's audience now, and her sole means of support. It's sad, but I don't offer my sympathy.

by BobzCat 2008-10-17 12:18PM | 0 recs
Oh I agree with all of that.

But you will notice that after the primary, and a lengthy mourning period, she is attempting to tamp down the wingnuts, at least on her site, in professed hopes of organizing them later. I don't think she's noble for that, but she is different than say... the master of "partizane", who is using and manipulating his unwitting readers without them even realizing it.

by Travis Stark 2008-10-17 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is a slight over-generalization,

Agreed - I've been on her site, and that's exactly correct.

She does limit pro-McCain commentary, shrill anti-Obama commentary, and does indeed focus mainly on Hillary.

I absolutely give her kudos for that.

by zonk 2008-10-17 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is a slight over-generalization,

Me too. Some of the people on her site... well, no. But Alegre's doing the right thing about the election and standing by Hillary herself and Hillary's policies and professed desires.

On the other hand, TD, who I once had misguided respect for, reminds me of the subset of the tinfoil hat brigade who are having detailed discussions of which brand of foil best blocks the mind control rays. In other words, she's become a devoted conspiracy theorist, which is pretty much the same as a cultist. Her cult is the cult of Nobama; all facts must and will be twisted into the shape of Nobama. If there are no facts, appropriate facts will be invented.

I think that's how the real PUMAs, the ones that really and honestly were Hillary supporters, have gone. Some have realized that McCain is still awful and Hillary isn't better served by him winning; the rest have formed their own tinfoil hat brigades.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-10-17 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is a slight over-generalization,

Yep, the difference is that she's marginally more intelligent -- enough so to realize that her status as a minor internet celebrity has no future in the Republican blogosphere.  So she is different, but not in a way that deserves even the smallest scrap of respect.

by username 2008-10-18 07:27AM | 0 recs
I agree with you

Most of them were probably GOP backed sites.  Alegre is an exception, however.

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

True enough.  They're nowhere if Obama wins, and especially if Obama wins by a landslide.  That's why I think one last olive branch is in order.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

Virtual mojo to you, sir.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere, the still-vocal PUMAs are flabbergasted that Obama is ahead (as they were when the sun rose every day since HRC's loss), and are looking for any available excuse.  The less hard-core ones have switched to Obama while adopting a "hold-my-nose" pose to save their egos.

by username 2008-10-17 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

Yeah, but how many have left those sites?

by Drummond 2008-10-17 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

Hmmmm. When most posts here sit on the rec list for a couple of days with only a few comments and the No Quarter and other anti-Obama sites get hundreds of comments.... maybe you should re-think that.

by Marjoriest 2008-10-17 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

Why, because Republicans love to converse with you folks who are just LIKE them?

by emsprater 2008-10-18 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

That's about as good of a taxonomy of the PUMAs as I've seen.

Actually there's even a schism in the first group, with Anglachel and a few others taking issues with the white supremacist tendancies of No Quarter and the Confluence.  So a couple of months or so a few die-hard anti-Obama sites stopped linking to The Confluence, and the Confluence, in turn, cranked up their rhetoric even more, so if an Obama supporter wanders into their blogs they'll start screaming "RACIST", and then talk about it for weeks.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I read a fair number of the PUMA

Oh, please. Don't be silly.

by Marjoriest 2008-10-17 09:03PM | 0 recs
With this comment, I risk my TU status:
I have vacillated on how I will vote.  Presently, I am leaning toward not voting at all, the first time in eons.  I am comfortable in making my personal statement with my vote given I live in IL, a state that will not require my vote to win for Obama.  I am comfortable with my personal statement because I can  have my cake (not voting) and eat it too (the Dem will win).
I cannot vote for McCain, or any Republican.  But I can't ignore what occurred during the Dem primaries, where the MSM, Dem party elites, and the blogosphere, conspired to TRASH the most experienced, qualified, loyal Dem pres. candidate the party had to offer in order to support whatshisname.  I found it to be typical Dem loyalty (read:  lack of loyalty.  And please note Repubs don't do that to their own!)
by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

You're right.  There is no way the Republicans would have treated a former Republican first lady the way the Democrats treated Hillary.  The Republicans have at least some respect and class.  

by karajan72 2008-10-17 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Yeah! I mean just look at how Bush treated McCain in 2000. Total respect and class!

by PSUdan 2008-10-17 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:
It was not Hillary's right to the nomination.  She had to fight and she lost.   I am sick of people like you who hate Democracy and hate election and want to live in a totalitarian state where the only thing that matters is that you were married to a previous leader.
If you really want that kind of society, there is a balcony down in Buenos Aires just waiting for you.
by gavoter 2008-10-17 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

I've been on a balcony in Buenos Aires.  It's fabulous.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Giving Michigan vote to Barack is the most

undemocratic thing the Democratic party has ever done. I decided to vote fo Sen Obama because I am a Democrat and Hillary has endorsed him.

by indydem99 2008-10-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
Fucking Hell, Person

The Democrats gave her a fair shot. That is what equality is all about, folks.

I don't want you opening the door for me, unless I'm in high heels (and thus prone to falling over spontaneously) or carrying something with both hands. I'll return the favor.

She wasn't entitled to special treatment for being a lady.

If it was special treatment that she needed in order to get to be President, I wouldnt' want to tell my future daughters that!

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Fucking Hell, Person

Virtual mojo!

But for these people, it was her turn and her right, and anyone who said otherwise was "sexist."

by username 2008-10-17 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fucking Hell, Person
Sure. Screw the only person who would have really changed Washington and helped the people who need help.
The Democratic powers didn't want change, and that is why they got rid of Hillary and chose Obama.
Put Obama in the picture with Pellosi and Reid - do nothing, accomplish nothing, help nobody but themselves. Unfortunately you will see.... but it will be too late. You had a few hints - FISA, the wobbles on choice for women, more, liking Judge Roberts. Obama fits exactly with Pellosi and Reid. So what do you expect President Obama to do to help YOU? Just what the other two have done.
by Marjoriest 2008-10-17 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Fucking Hell, Person

Yeah, you really care about "choice for women" by voting for the person who believes women should carry their rapists' babies to term, and who forced them to pay for their own rape-kits.

You really care about "FISA". What, did you favour McCain's position over Obama's on this?

I still have no idea why you support McCain or why you supported Clinton but once again: it's self-evidently not for the reasons you claim. It's certainly not McCain's  "manners" (his are the worst by far), it's certainly not about sexism or misogyny, and it's certainly not about women's right to choose.

Come clean.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-10-18 11:53AM | 0 recs

you damn fuckin straight, marjorie.

We be fuckin buildin a movement here, and Obama is just the first step.

He will give me our damn civil service back, and that's all I ask this election.

The "give us all a stake in the election" is a bonus, child.

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Senator Clinton was not running as a former first lady, she was running as a Senator.

by lqbruin 2008-10-17 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

You're right.  There is no way the Republicans would have treated a former Republican first lady the way the Democrats treated Hillary.  The Republicans have at least some respect and class.

LOL! You almost had me fooled into believing you were really a disgruntled PUMA until I read that.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-10-17 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Yeah, and look how they are treating Chris BUCKLEY and Kathleen Parker. A wonderfully respectful bunch!  Grab your pitch forks and torches! Woo hoo.

by Iago 2008-10-17 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

With all due respect to your position, it seems like you believe that Hillary was entitled to the nomination. Is that what you mean by not showing loyalty?

After all, why in the world would voters need to feel obligated to one particular person within the party? The party itself is more important than any single individual and it deserves our loyalty. If voters preferred one person within the party over another I don't see how this is disloyal.

Anyways, I fail to see how the MSM, Party elites, and the blogosphere conspired to trash Hillary. The MSM gave it both ways and that's a fact. Reverend Wright was the dominant smear during the whole primary for any candidate. The blogosphere? There were plenty of blogs that trashed each candidate. Hillary was not alone. Been to No Quarter recently?

Anyways, when it comes down to it, individuals decided to vote for Obama under the system that has been in place for Democratic primaries. Individual voters are not automatons that vote based on how Donna Brazile tells us how. I realize that many Clinton supporters found/find Obama supporters to be automatons, but at that point I'd kindly ask you to remove your tinfoil hat.

by PSUdan 2008-10-17 10:55AM | 0 recs
careful with the adhominem

Respect does not need to equal votes. I truly don't see the Obama Hillary battle as having been bad for either side -- hillary could use a little more connecting with her black constituents in my book, and maybe this will help.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: careful with the adhominem

What do you base this on? Her black constituents are some of her best supporters. I would say she's well connnected with them, as her two senate victories have shown.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-10-17 12:15PM | 0 recs
Can you name three programs

that she's done to take on this New Racism that Obama is riding into office? (sorry, I sound cranky. I am cranky.)

Binilla-Silva thinks that Racism will get worse once Obama is elected, and by that he doesn't mean the KKK.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Well, consider at least a vote for Nader or McKinney.  You don't even have to like them.  But at least you would register a progressive vote.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

I'm registered.  Have been at the same address for years.  Voting is set up in the party room of my highrise.  That's not my point.  But, given my geography, my point can be high-minded; no risk.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

"I cannot vote for McCain, or any Republican.  But I can't ignore what occurred during the Dem primaries, where the MSM, Dem party elites, and the blogosphere, conspired to TRASH the most experienced, qualified, loyal Dem pres. candidate the party had to offer in order to support whatshisname."

ok I hate to break it to you but the MSM ,dem party elite and the blogosphere had nothing to do with HRC defeat and they did not conspire to trash her either so cut the 9-11 conspriracy theory crap.....

just think about this the only reason HRC lost was a FAILED caucus strategy and a failed campaign strategy

also think about this if the MSM and dem party elite are so powerful why could they not defeat BUSH according to the wingnuts the MSM is no fan of bush so they should have easily defeated bush right? just think about it  ask yourself what mistakes did HRC campaign made ?  

by wellinformed 2008-10-17 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

wellinformed, I'm sorry but I think your comment demonstrates you are uninformed.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:07AM | 0 recs
clever comeback

I admit you really turned the tables on me

But can you explain to me how Hillary's failure to win the caucus states, and not getting enough votes and delegates to overtake Obama's lead is the MSM, dem party elite, or the blogosphere fault? as you said I am uninformed so please
can you explain this to me with all due respect


by wellinformed 2008-10-17 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: clever comeback
Caucus states were generally low Dem voter states; i.e. few Dem monetary resources supplied to Repub states, so go ahead and caucus.  
Hillary ran a campaign against the Repubs.  The Dem candidates (remember the debates?), the MSM, the blogosphere, the Dem party elites, attacked the front runner, who, as a result, eventually became the underdog.  
I assume you witnessed this, too.
by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:31AM | 0 recs
we're running neck and neck in ND and WV

... where are those red states again? (I know I'm exaggerating, don't call me on it!)

Yeah, I know they attacked the frontrunner -- they did that with both Obama and Hillary, and with about equal vitriol.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 11:44AM | 0 recs

is a Republican troll who tries real hard to sound reasonable.  He falls into incoherence when he's required to sound like a real Democrat to keep up his façade.

I'm darn sure he despises Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and is only trying to sow dissention.  If you don't believe me, look up his comments from primary season.

by corph 2008-10-17 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: ChitownDenny

TU rating judiciously applied to the deleted commenter.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: ChitownDenny

bullshit.  i can only assume that you aren't really familiar with republicans or their strategies for wasting liberals' time...

by bored now 2008-10-17 02:30PM | 0 recs
Well, did you?

I can only assume your a mindless partisan who thinks anyone who says something nice about HRC has her best interests at heart, and that Republicans use a variety of means of trolling.

by corph 2008-10-21 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: clever comeback

Thank you for responding

"Caucus states were generally low Dem voter states; i.e. few Dem monetary resources supplied to Repub states, so go ahead and caucus"
-please explain how the MSM or dem party or blogosphere gave Obama the edge over Hillary based on your above comment

"Hillary ran a campaign against the Repubs.  The Dem candidates (remember the debates?), the MSM, the blogosphere, the Dem party elites, attacked the front runner, who, as a result, eventually became the underdog."

-I don't understand your upset because the dem candidates attacked each other during the debates? would you disagree with the fact that they all attacked each other ? Do you remember Edwards attacking Obama ? or as McCain likes to remind people that Biden went after Obama too?
so explain to me how its unfair for candidates  to attack HRC but its ok to attack Obama ?
please clarify

and you still did not explain how MSM is the reason HRC did not get enough delegates

And even though Mark Penn(sr campaign advisor) admitted he did not understand how the primary processed work  why do not not place any blame with him ?  would you disagree if I told you that Mark Penn is more responsible for HRC's lost then the MSM or dem party elite or the blogosphere?  do you feel Mark Penn responsible at for HRC's defeat ?

Thanks again for responding  

by wellinformed 2008-10-17 11:55AM | 0 recs
You make a valid point.

The rightwing was vicious against Hillary as long as she was the frontrunner.  I followed the wingnut blogs at that time and they were talking about her healthcare plan (remember Hillarycare?) as socialized medicine and saying she would be the end of freedom in this country, etc.

Once Obama took over the lead, the attacks on her ended and started on him.  Suddenly she was not that bad and it was Obama who was the socialist.

The most telling thing is I took a spin through the various blogs that were supposedly devoted to getting Hillary elected last night.  And they were calling Obama a socialist, a Marxist, saying he wants socialized medicine, etc.  There was no difference between those sites and the wingnut sites.  Except the wingnut sites aren't that crazy about McCain or Palin whereas the supposed Hillary sites were drooling over them.

I don't believe those supposed Hillary sites have a single Democrat posting on them anymore, if they ever did.

by GFORD 2008-10-17 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You make a valid point.

First off, the rightwing has been horrible to Hillary for years.  They are despicable.  But as far as tangible impact, let's all try to remember that Operation Chaos voters voted FOR Hillary, not against her.  Whatever you believe the final tally of OC voters was (I don't know if there is even a way to account for it), most voted for Hillary, knowing their candidate would be more likely to beat her.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-10-17 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: You make a valid point.

Exit polls put it at around 6% of Hillary's voters in Texas.

by interestedbystander 2008-10-17 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: clever comeback

Caucus states were generally low Dem voter states[/blockquote].

Of the 14 states which used caucuses in the Democratic primary, Obama is polling ahead in seven of them, and I'm not counting ND, which one poll scored a tie, as one of the seven.

by nathanp 2008-10-17 08:06PM | 0 recs
Either take this comment or leave this comment

but do it as a whole.

I know someone who does high up Democratic stuff (read when he met Obama he was yelling at him over Lamont), and I've heard a lot of gossip about this election.

Obama didn't start that Tulsa thing. That wasn't his campaign, please don't hold it against him.

Basically, Hillary Clinton decided that sinking a congressman in Illinois running for a special election seat would help her chances of becoming President. She pulled strings (like strings got pulled for Lieberman -- by both Obama and Clinton).

Let's just say that some party insiders didn't particularly like that -- and they set out to make her quit the race, since it was obvious that she had lost (Ickes says they lost on Super Tuesday, and he's right). Bad news cycle after Bad News Cycle sort of thing. The Tusla thing happened because someone was willing to bribe someone in one of the Big 3's news vaults -- and remembered the press conference. But it was basically a mass engineering of the news (which, let me tell you, doesn't mean that the Democrats control the news. If that was the case, you'd see much more positive news on unions). People had gathered ammunition, and they began to use it.

Thing is, she didn't quit (and stopped trying to sink other candidates that she wasn't running against). So, basically, everyone just decided to let the whole thing run until the end, since it was clear that Hillary's backers wouldn't let her quit (Hillary's backers were significantly different in temperament and clique than Obama's).

Discussion of this topic will be contingent on agreeing with either all of it, or none of it.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 11:21AM | 0 recs
A personal appeal to vote

This is not a battle between Conservative and Liberal that we are fighting. This is a battle of Modernism versus Romanticism. Will we step forward into modernity, or will we voluntarily chain ourselves to the world of serfs and kings?

I choose to believe in the future -- that we can make things better through practical principles.

Others believe that their country has been soiled by commoners growing richer, that everything would be better wrapped in an allknowing and yet hysterical church of America. Would-Be-Priests and Would-Be-Kings are out there -- and They Are Strong.

Again, and again, our movement has risen -- even as they kept on removing our leaders. For we are not authoritarian -- a matter that I'm sure perplexed them.

If you would not live in a country where women wear burkhas (or whatever the Religious Whacks want them to wear today), we need your vote. We need a supermajority. We need every single measure to show that Obama has won in a landslide. And that means popular vote too.

I ask for your vote, on behalf of those religious girls whose virginity is even now being sold for profit and power.

I ask for your vote, on behalf of those who might truthfully say, "America never was America to me." For the people who believe in America's principles, and America's justice, even if they know they may never see them fairly applied to themselves.

Run up the margins, please. We will need those margins for our next message -- "The Right Wing Doesn't Win Elections."

We are winning the Democratic Party back from the corporatists and the apologizers. Next, we will win a Republican Party that can afford to look forward again.

But it will take your help.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

I think your position is laughable, but I defend to the death your write to express it.  And I would give you mojo if I could -- I imagine you can still rate comments here, no?

by username 2008-10-17 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

"Right," not "write."  Ugh.

by username 2008-10-17 12:22PM | 0 recs
did you have a prob with Obama b4?

In 2004 Barack Obama ran for U.S. Senate.

How did you vote in the Dem primary?

Did you vote for Keyes, Obama or other in the general election?

Did you have concerns about Obama before he ran against Hillary Rodham Clinton?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-10-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: did you have a prob with Obama b4?

I voted straight Dem ticket, as I (almost) always have, meaning I voted for Obama for U.S. Senate.  Click on my username and you will find that I have always supported Obama's potential in pres. politics.  The good news is that the financial and  economic upheaval has delivered it to him sooner, rather than later, and it hasn't cost the Dem party another pres. election.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

While I respect your feelings, and appreciate the fact that you won't vote for McCain and feel comfortable not voting for Obama because your vote wouldn't make a difference in IL where even the Chicago Tribune has turned into an Obamabot), I have difficulty understanding the rationale of your arguments.

Firstly, you don't intend to vote for Obama because of what the MSM, Dem elites and the blogosphere did to Clinton. Apparently you do not blame Obama for that, so  how is this a reason for not voting for him? Who would you be punishing by not voting for him?

Secondly, you consider that Hillary was trashed.
Didn't she say that if you couldn't stand the heat you'd better stay out of the kitchen?

Thirdly, you are indignant that the candidate you preferred was not nominated, when she was the most experienced, qualified, loyal... Of course you're entitled to think so, and I do recognize that she is highly experienced, qualified, and
outstandingly loyal; but apparently Obama (or if you prefer, Obama's campaign) raised greater enthusiasm and won the nomination contest. In my opinion, not accepting this output amonts to not accepting the democratic process. Just because one thinks a candidate is the better doesn't entitle one to deny the legitimacy of the other candidate who is selected by the democratic process (however imperfect it may be; indeed, the worst one - I forbear to proceed).

Lastly, I don't quite get what you mean by 'repubs don't do that to their own'.

by french imp 2008-10-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

So why not vote for McKinney or Nader or write in Hillary?  I really don't get the point of not voting.  

And you're right, Republicans were extremely respectful to McCain in 2000, and did not do horrific robocalls accusing him of having fathered black children out of wedlock in order to nominate a weak Governor who proved to be one of the worst chief executives in the history of our nation.

That definitely didn't happen.

by bosdcla14 2008-10-17 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

I generally agree with you and with your statement that "the MSM, Dem party elites, and the blogosphere, conspired to TRASH the most experienced, qualified, loyal Dem pres. candidate the party had to offer".

But, I can't really hold any of this against Obama. He ran a good campaign and was a fair as can be expected in politics. While I live in a state where my vote won't matter either, I think he has earned and deserves my vote (and I hope to see a landslide erode the GOP base further).

It's ultimately your decision and your vote. But I encourage you to reconsider. When the election is over, I think you might feel good about having voted for Obama.

by LakersFan 2008-10-17 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Can we agree to disagree?

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Of course. We're both lifelong Democrats. I'm sure we agree on most things.

by LakersFan 2008-10-17 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

You've been pretty clear about this all along Chittown, and while I don't quite understand why a former President is the main source of your political agitation, I can't see how you would lose TU status by saying this.

You'll probably join Jerome and post on the front page!

Oh wait...

Seriously though. Honesty deserves some kudos. Even if I think you're wasting your vote

by brit 2008-10-17 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: With this comment, I risk my TU status:

Elections aren't about loyalty. They're about winning. If you think winning doesn't matter, then take a look around. I'm not joking, seriously take a fucking look around. This isn't a game.

I'm sure you're a good person--but you need to grow up politically. The rest of us have.

by Brannon 2008-10-17 09:02PM | 0 recs
who cares???

as has been repeatedly said, the hillary partisans who won't vote for obama was already factored in.  the same would have been the case had hillary won.  the fact is that obama is likely to have received more of the democratic vote (percentage) than any democratic nominee has received in the history of electoral polling.

pumas simply are irrelevant to obama's electoral coalition, and have always been so...

by bored now 2008-10-17 10:54AM | 0 recs
I do

They were with us before they were against us.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I do

I guess they can commiserate with the soon to be irrelevent Joe Lieberman.  

by gavoter 2008-10-17 11:09AM | 0 recs
i'd question your assumptions...

i don't know how much contact you have with clinton supporters, but given the fact that the clintons deliberately and systematically destroyed the florida democratic party -- and thereby handing the country to george bush in 2000 -- we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

they were for the clintons.  many, perhaps even most, of them were broadly supportive of democratic principles/values.  but the most ardent of them, the pumas, never gave a shit about the democratic party separate from the clintons.  they are the past.  their time has come and gone.  given the results that the clintons gave to democrats -- just ask the lady who's son is dating their daughter -- good riddance.  the clintons knew how to elect bill.  they were awful at electing other democrats...

by bored now 2008-10-17 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: who cares???

This is an insightful post.  The people who refuse to vote for Obama don't matter, because Obama was never counting on receiving the votes of people who refuse to vote for him.  He didn't plan on forming a coalition which included people who wouldn't support him.  Smart candidate, that Obama.

by Steve M 2008-10-17 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: who cares???

This too is an insightful post.

by GFORD 2008-10-17 12:13PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious Question.

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

by ProgressiveDL 2008-10-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

LOL, nope not snark.  I liked the way you interpretted the previous comment.

by GFORD 2008-10-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
nice tautology...

but, you're right.  barack is smart.  actually, he's downright brilliant at politics.  possibly the most brilliant political strategist democrats have seen in their lifetimes.

i assume that's why bill is so petulant about it...

by bored now 2008-10-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: nice tautology...

Barack has gifts that Bill lacks, and vice versa.

by Steve M 2008-10-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
i completely agree...

i admire bill's instinctive understanding of the visceral in politics.  i could cite others characteristics i admire, as well.

but there is no reason to apologize for a solid political strategy that basically wrote off votes that barack would never have won.  democrats need to be more realistic about how to win elections.  we spend far too much time fantasizing about how we'd govern before the first vote is even cast.  the fact is that pumas tended to be located in solidly blue states, and were really never going to be a factor in this election.  thankfully, the obama campaign never got fixated with responding to their cries for attention.

it's all about winning.  the clintons ought to respect that...

by bored now 2008-10-17 02:38PM | 0 recs
Hillary partisans who won't vote for Obama?

I don't think there really are any.  They're a figment of the GOP imagination foisted on overzealous Obama supporters.

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 03:25PM | 0 recs
I think you're right...

And McCain was effectively trapped into appoint Palin - probably his first catastrophic decision - because he believed there were untapped reserves of women voters who would let identity politics trump real politics.

Oddly enough, it has worked in the dems favor. But boy was McCain patronising and stupid not to realise most women would be insulted

by brit 2008-10-17 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary partisans who won't vote for Obama?

There are some. ChitownDenny, whose bona fides I have no problem with, is one. A far more extreme case is TD, but I see no reason to believe that she was ever anything but a real Hillary supporter.

There are more. Just not a lot more.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-10-17 08:22PM | 0 recs
Here's the deal.

The PUMAs now represent a tiny non-homogenous group. For the most part they're not here, but you can find them over at the PUMA sites. Allegre, New Hampster, Riverdaughter and others who were once here are now there. For the most part those sites are echo chambers with the same dozen or so people commenting on all the sites. They aren't interested in any contrary opinion, and I know that because I've tried, and been thrown off two of those sites even while being on my best behavior, because contrary opinion isn't allowed unless you are a long-term PUMA who has seen the light in which case they may put up with you.

PUMA is now an umbrella term that encompasses some people who, while still smarting from the primaries, will hold their nose and vote for Obama, but still consider themselves PUMAs. There are also many Republicans, either long time members of that party or new recruits. There are some, and I won't mention any names, who are just using the rest for an attempt at making some money or to get attention. There's a spattering of racists who have found a home there.

What there are not are pro-McCain Hillary supporters, because those terms are mutually exclusive. There are a few pro-McCain former Hillary supporters however.

PUMAs will not have any discernable effect in the election.

by Travis Stark 2008-10-17 11:16AM | 0 recs
Who cares?

Who gives a shit what they want, who they're "with," or where they go. Reality has charged forward, leaving the bitter and the hapless behind.

They were irrelevent then, they're irrelevant now, and they'll be irrelevant always; their sole role and highest aspiration in this existence is to serve as a mild irritant.

by rabidnation 2008-10-17 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Even the hardcore PUMA lady at my office is voting for Obama because of Sarah Palin.  Most everyone has come home.  The key is that McCain, while he did his best to appear personally gracious towards Hillary, chose not to run the sort of moderate-sounding campaign that might have appealed to disaffected Democrats.  Everything, including his choice of Palin, was calculated in order to mend fences with the Republican base, and he got that but he scared most everyone else off.

As a side note, I like how karajan72 had the guts to answer the precise question posed by the diary... at which point he was immediately troll-rated by two people for giving an honest answer.  Niiiiice.

by Steve M 2008-10-17 11:27AM | 0 recs
Yes the troll rating was uncalled for.

by Travis Stark 2008-10-17 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Mojo it up, Steve.  And others' too.

by ChitownDenny 2008-10-17 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Agreed.  karajan72 had (virtual) balls, and PUMAs who still support McCain are spite-blinded idiots.

by username 2008-10-17 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

As someone who actually registered with the PUMAs and who will be voting for Obama I think its simple.

Obama needs to find an excuse to talk about the Clintons in a positive but not kiss up way.

I know Obama has done that before but when he does it he doesn't connect any emotional validity to it.

When the Clintons do this they praise someone they don't like by praising the things about them that they actually do like.  This gives at least that aspect of the praise firm valid emotional contact.

Obama doesn't seem to be able to do that about the Clintons for some reason.

Anyway Palin is too much like I remember Reagan for me and having a Black president is enough of a positive to overshadow the acts of the DNC and the Obama camp.  ONCE.

I would not be voting for him if he were not black.

by dtaylor2 2008-10-17 11:37AM | 0 recs
The DNC set a convoluted

primary process that turned out to be really long, expensive and messy.  On top of that, two jealous states tried to jockey for advantage and make it worse.

But can you explain the causality by which the DNC engineered an undeserved Obama victory?

by corph 2008-10-17 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The DNC set a convoluted

Dude wants a rim-job, plain and simple.

And you need to reason backwards from the fact that Our Girl won (standard MyDD reverse logic) -- the process designed by the DNC caused Our Girl to lose, therefore it was wrong and Obama's victory was undeserved.

by username 2008-10-17 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The DNC set a convoluted

"But can you explain the causality by which the DNC engineered an undeserved Obama victory?"

2 states didn't count in our election and we call ourselves democrats.

The DNC could easily have forced a solution that got those votes included in the process.

Could have paid for revotes that were 100% fair.
Could have twisted arms to have candidates pay for it.
Could have brokered a fair compromise.

DNC chose not to largely because the chairman of the DNC had a horse in the race as did the speaker of the house.

That Obama felt the risk of 5-10 delegates was worth bringing the taint of non democracy onto the history books with the first black president speaks for itself and is a legacy he will never escape.

All for 5-10 delegates...

Dean/Pelosi were willing to forfeit democracy for all all for 5-10 delegates.

Dean and Pelosi will never be supported by me again in my lifetime and I will always have something bad to say about them whenever it comes up.

Believe it or not everyone who knows me in person knows I am a DEMOCRAT and they recognize the added validity when I say Dean and Pelosi are worthless.

by dtaylor2 2008-10-17 02:33PM | 0 recs
florida wouldn't have re-voted...

if you don't like our democracy, feel free to change it.  but don't expect florida democrats to bail you out because your candidate ran a shitty campaign.  we voted, we counted -- and the florida democratic party is the strongest it's been since 1992.

no thanks to people who don't want florida to count...

by bored now 2008-10-17 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The DNC set a convoluted

Two states held un-democratic elections. To have counted them would have made us unworthy of the term democrats.

Neither state would have held a "revote" (really a first vote, as the first votes had the validity of web polls), and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Florida had a Republican machine thoroughly invested in blocking a revote, and DOJ consent decree rules also blocked it. Michigan's Republican party blocked the revote there.

There is zero that Obama, Clinton, Dean, Pelosi, or anyone else could have done to get a revote in those states. The Republicans controlled whether it would happen and they had a huge interest in blocking a revote. It was never going to happen. Any theory that starts with Florida and Michigan and revotes is doomed to failure.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-10-17 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The DNC set a convoluted

Uprated solely for TR abuse. There is not a spec of trollery in this statement that I can find.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-10-17 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

UMMMM??? are you saying you don't support any of Obama's policies... you are just supporting his skin color ?

So you were supporting Hillary just because of her gender I take it?

by wellinformed 2008-10-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
I don't believe dtaylor is black

and regardless of that, some people will vote for "landmarkism" and others to reinforce their New Racism.

these will help Obama get elected.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't believe dtaylor is black

Am I misreading this, or are you complaining about "uppity darkies" taking your jobs?

by username 2008-10-17 12:44PM | 0 recs
you're totally misreading me

thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

I believe Obama intentionally or not promulgates the New Racism that is a systemic problem of our culture -- it helps whites and hurts blacks.

New Racism != Jim Crow.

Just got out of a talk with Dr. Bonilla-Silva about the whole subject.

very depressing.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: you're totally misreading me

Sorry for the accusation.  I found this reference, but maybe you could link to a more succinct version -- I hadn't heard of "new racism" before this.

by username 2008-10-17 01:00PM | 0 recs
Racism is still with us

(I missed part of the talk, but will summarize what I managed to hear).

Jim Crow racism is gone, but people still believe that Affirmative Action "gets blacks what they don't deserve" (nevermind that 80% of jobs come from interpersonal networking... this is NOT a meritocracy).

Mortgage lenders no longer slam doors in black people's faces -- but they steer them towards subprime mortgages, hurting them economically (and a less wealthy demographic than blacks you couldn't find).

Shops no longer chase blacks out -- but they evolve code words so that they can racially profile middle-aged blacks (the prof then told them that while they were watching him, the white college students stole some liquor -- which was true, he watched). And it's about politeness -- the "may I help you" said three times within a minute is NOT friendly.

founda link! now won't feel so guilty! enjoy...

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism is still with us

I agree that racism is still with us, and it usually now comes in relatively subtle forms compared to Jim Crow--but how is Obama promulgating racism?

by slvn 2008-10-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
he's not. but he is buying into racist frames

which "sound pretty" even if they ain't true.

and it sounds pretty good to a racist white person to vote a black guy into office, and then end affirmative action (allt eh while telling you I voted for Obama)

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: he's not. but he is buying into racist frames

Oh, right. White people only vote for Obama because of white guilt. We're back to that now?

by Brannon 2008-10-17 09:09PM | 0 recs
what flippin' part of what I fucking just said

had anything to do with white guilt?

Racist people will vote for Obama so taht they can say "see, he made it" and undercut everyone who hasn't just yet made it so far.

That ain't white guilt, is it?

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: he's not. but he is buying into racist frames

What racist frames is he buying into?

by slvn 2008-10-18 05:01AM | 0 recs
That everyone gets a fair shot in this country

I'm not so sure he buys into them, but he definitely supports them with his speechmaking.

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:18AM | 0 recs
As is sexism

which is every bit immoral, abhorrent and destructive as racism.

Its ugly resurgence in the ranks of Dem voters and activists is a problem that will have to be dealt with after the election.  At least we know it exists, now, and getting it out in the open helps us deal with it.

by Betsy McCall 2008-10-17 03:27PM | 0 recs
yeah, where it exists

Don't be too sensitive, but call it where you see it, because someone might be using some frame that they really don't want to be. (aka give folks the benefit of the doubt, but get them to knock it off anyway).

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:21AM | 0 recs
racist white folk will vote for Obama

to reinforce their New Racism (read up on that prof I mentioned, you'll see what I mean, he's done the research)

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:53PM | 0 recs
I hate to say this

but I'd rather see you vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama because he is black.  

by ClintoniteNoLonger4McCain 2008-10-17 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

Eh I could see it - all things being equal I'll vote for the minority, just because of the added value of breaking barriers.  But all things have to be equal.

by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?
I don't know what PUMA's currently stand for or if they were ever united behind one distinct set of ideals. There are so many people that potentially fall under that label and such a spectrum of different beliefs as to render the designation almost meaningless. In any event, I look forward to the day when there are simply Democrats and non-Democrats again. I thought that that day had already come, but perhaps it will have to wait for at least a few more months.
by rfahey22 2008-10-17 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Certainly, a woman's right to choose doesn't rate very highly in their priorities.  Or they are in complete denial about the danger thereto should McCain win.

by Drummond 2008-10-18 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I never carried the "PUMA" label.  The acronym itself is a little vulgar.  Party unity is a good thing.  I would have liked to see more grace from Obama towards Hillary and her supporters over the course of the summer, but it seems over time there has been a natural coalescence of the two.  Hillary seems sincere when she supports him now (at first, great a job as she did, it was obviously bittersweet for her).  Obama has been very kind to Hillary recently without being "forced" to.  

Anyway, for me, the proper avenue for redressing grievances in the primary are reforming the primary system, boycotting entities that were intolerable (MSNBC/Kos), and continuing to advocate for respect and understanding of Hillary, her causes (health care in particular), and women in general.  Punishing the United States and the whole world with another Gooper president and "Bush in a dress" (I'm sorry "Bush with lipstick" ha!) as VP, possibly president, is not going to help anything.  

Some people on the internet (obviously not all) I felt were condescending in their support of Obama, but that's such a petty concern and a  disagreement online shouldn't have consequences with such drastic ramifications (drastic meaning voting for the GOP).  

by BPK80 2008-10-17 12:00PM | 0 recs
Then why flirt with McCain at all?

How long did it take you to realize the pettiness?

I will admit I have a pronounced personal dislike for Hillary Clinton.  But her policies are fine and I don't see how even the nastiest comments from a Clinton could make me vote for McCain if she had won the nomination.

by corph 2008-10-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why flirt with McCain at all?

The pettiness was not the reason I considered McCain.  The doubts raised about Obama's ability to lead were legitimate and stayed with me long after the primary.  The haven't vanished but if I had to roll the dice, obviously it's with a "Democrat I'm not sure I know truly" v. a "Republican I don't trust."    

by BPK80 2008-10-17 12:35PM | 0 recs
have you met her?

kos called her charismatic, truly funny and not one prone to blind ambition.

As for me, I only count Tipper as true evil. Who denies kids Halloween Candy?! Like, really.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:42PM | 0 recs
Good for Kos.

Funny, mabye.  Saw little evidence of that and it's not an important criterion for me anyway.  I find McCain to be one of if not the funniest Senator anyway.

I recognized the "blind ambition" meme as a bit of a media/SNL exaggeration.  But I am not a fan of using "in it to win it" as a campaign slogan.  She showed she could be gracious after dropping out; more so than Bill anyway.

I find her claims of experience "fighting for" this or that to be greatly exaggerated.  She blew it on the most important things (healthcare, Iraq) and always seemed more interested in getting the credit than forging the consensus or improving the bill.

Charismatic?  Never met her in person, but I find HRC to be one of the least charismatic politicians I know.  What many people call her "shrill" voice simply sounds like nerves and shallow breathing caused by a lack of confidence in what she's saying.  Which I found to be mostly focus group-tested pablum anyway.  I'd rather listen to pretty much any other Democrat speak.

Anyhoo, apologies for reopining old wounds.  My main point is that despite all that, she's a good Democrat and I would have voted for her.

Didn't know that about Tipper...

by corph 2008-10-21 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why flirt with McCain at all?

The "0" was inappropriate.  Could someone who hasn't been Jeromed please counteract it?

by username 2008-10-17 12:46PM | 0 recs
My friend Nancy

was a Hillary supporter from Day 1.  Actually, she had been hoping she would run since 2000.  Early in the primaries I talked to her about the various candidates and she didn't want to talk about their stances on various issues.  She said "Hillary's my girl" and that was that.

We both got busy and didn't talk again until late this summer.  I was worried she might have taken Hillary's loss badly so I said "Sorry your girl didn't win".  I was so surprised when she responded "Oh, I was really sad at first.  But since then the more I see of Obama, the better I like him.  Now I totally support him for President.  And Joe Biden is great too."

Nancy votes for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, as I always do.  We've both seen really great nominees and some not as great.  But they are Democrats with Democratic values and so are we (we're both in our 60's now).

by GFORD 2008-10-17 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: My friend Nancy

Thank you for sharing that.  FWIW, when I was in my undecided stage, it seemed that any time I mentioned McCain, people looked like they were going to slap me.  Today, that's good news.  

by BPK80 2008-10-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Uh this was NOT Hillary central. It was a bit less hard on Clinton followers then Dkos which I had to leave once they started holding up radical right wing websites as though it proved something about her.

Here, when I stuck up for my candidate there were a few others, but it was still dominated by the Obama movement.

However I was NEVER a PUMA so to speak. I never said I'd vote for McCain. I was and am furious about what happened during the primary and as a woman I will never forget what I have now come to realize about how much misogyny & discrimination against my gender is still alive; I never thought it was THIS bad still. I am scarred to say the least & will never get over it. That being said I would have NEVER voted for McCain & know that the Democrats still need a majority in the White House for the better of this country on just about every issue.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-17 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

"but it was still dominated by the Obama movement."

Not in the beginning it wasn't.  Maybe you forget (or didn't notice) that nearly every vocal Obama supporter had their rating privileges removed solely because they supported Obama?  If I recall correctly, most still don't have it.  Jerome very deliberately set this up as the Hillary place to be.  In his defense (sort of), DKos was ridiculously Obama-centric, which is one of the reasons I came here, even as a staunch Obama supporter.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-10-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Jerome was very pessimistic

Jerome remains pessimistic, but now doesn't have a Hillary hobby horse to ride, so it seems less objectionable.

I lost the ability to comment three separate times -- and din't get this username back for months.

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome was very pessimistic

I haven't even bothered to get usernames back after they are Jeromed.  This is a fun place to visit, but the moderation is a capricious joke.

One of the few good things to come out of this whole ugly mess is that loonies like Jerome, Alegre, Larry Johnson, and Charles Lemos have permanently lost all credibility.  They may still be able to get jobs, but they will never again command any respect online.

by username 2008-10-18 07:43AM | 0 recs
I wanted this one back

b/c it's the same as mine on kos.

the others i had were BlogSurrogate57 and Blog Surrogate 57

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I don't recall any such thing to be honest.  And as someone who got TR for daring to stand up to some pretty bad statements about Clinton or denials of sexism as whining excuses (uh no it was the truth) and called names I can't tell you how many times there were obviously plenty of very radical people who managed to still rate posts (so radical in fact a few times I wondered if they were GOP trolls trying to stir the pot given how ridiculous some of their statements were & resulting characterizations of my posts).

by jrsygrl 2008-10-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Sorry to reply again. In fact at one point it got so bad that I emailed Jerome (which I have never done with a moderator before) to plead with him to do something b/c this was very bad for the party as a whole and the statements against a leading Democrat were something that should not have been appearing with such vigor on a Dem. blog. For someone that was so committed to making a Clinton only type blog, my email was actually ignored. But I will say that yes it was better then dkos as there seemed to be a bit more reasonable people here.

I used to go to daily kos all the time, esp. during the Kerry/Bush G/E. I loved it there & I have become completely disillusioned by what I saw. I also used to love Keith Olbermann & I will never be able to now even respect him after the way he treated Hillary Clinton.

Regardless, I would NEVER vote for the GOP & will of course vote Democrat.  But my perceptions of the world I live in has been changed alot - I was never an optimist but my faith in mankind has gotten ALOT more cynical. I feel alot more alone in the world then I ever thought I was and am very angry about alot of things that I thought were, at the very least, behind this party. But no I have never been a PUMA - that would be a moronic choice.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I agree with about every word you have written.  If you ever happen upon a site for people like us, I would love to go there.

by Scotch 2008-10-17 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

You could have fooled me.  Every time I put up anything pro-Obama I was gang tackled.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Like I said I even emailed Jerome at one point b/c of what was happening. I have NEVER fwiw emailed a moderator before, but I felt it was seriously something that was destructive.  Bottom line is obviously the radical supporters were able to give out ratings, given what happened to me.  As I said before it was more reasonable then daily kos, but it was definitely still biased to Obama here & the  garbage that was thrown at Clinton even here was just horrific. No Clinton friendly site would've allowed that. Hell my original point was no Democrat friendly site should've allowed that, but when it came to Clinton it seemed the rules were different.

Whatever. It is done. The actions during the primary have forever disillusioned me but I guess it was good for me to see the realities of the world I live in. And regardless, it is still better for the country to vote for Obama which is what I am doing. It doesn't change though what I have now learned about people who I thought were more intelligent and forward thinking. It doesn't change that the people who I thought were more solid when it came to my own plight really aren't so reliable. But the alternative is horrific and to protest in that manner by allowing THAT to happen is just beyond stupid.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-17 05:34PM | 0 recs
Let 'em vote how they want.

Obama's gonna win anyway. It's a free country. If they want to throw their votes away on McCain -- let 'em.

I do have to wonder, though, why they are going to vote for McCain instead of, say, Ralph Nader.

You'd think they would at least stick to a principled liberal vote more in line with Hillary's philosophy.

But, I gues they care more about revenge than voting on principle.

Be that as it may, go ahead and vote for McCain. He's gonna lose.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-10-17 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Let 'em vote how they want.

Virtual mojo.

My guess is that some of them are voting for revenge, and the rest based upon what's in the candidate's pants

by username 2008-10-17 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Let 'em vote how they want.

Well, that's something I noticed during the primary, when feelings were at their worst.  Clinton supporters were threatening to vote for McCain, while Obama supporters were threatening to vote for Nader.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 04:56PM | 0 recs
I was a "PUMA"

due to ideological reasons until the selection of Biden and Palin as the VP candidates.  At that point, I switched to Obama/Biden.

by ClintoniteNoLonger4McCain 2008-10-17 12:54PM | 0 recs
what part of that was ideological?

--curious on this end!

by RisingTide 2008-10-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
I am a Lieberman Democrat

I am very hawkish on foreign policy, and Obama is way too dovish for me.  Hell Bush is too dovish for me.  McCain is about right on foreign policy.  I am liberal on domestic policy on the other hand.

by ClintoniteNoLonger4McCain 2008-10-17 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I am a Lieberman Democrat

Just curious, but why does domestic policy trump foreign policy for you?

by Drummond 2008-10-17 04:54PM | 0 recs
It doesn't always

I look at which I can tolerate more, the Repub candidate on foreign policy or the Dem on foreign policy.

For example, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but had Dean been nominated I'd have backed Bush.  

I was going to support McCain over Obama, until Obama picked Biden and McCain picked Palin.

by ClintoniteNoLonger4McCain 2008-10-18 05:07AM | 0 recs
why does biden seem more hawkish to you?

haven't been following him so much... ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-10-20 05:22AM | 0 recs

Who really still gives a shit about some crazy schizoid group of selfish whiners?

Sheesh, let it die the horrible death it was meant to have.

by emsprater 2008-10-17 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

i was a die hard hillary backer through june. but i wont vote for the gop. mccain represents nothing hillary has fought for. nothing. im votingobama/biden-straight ticket. lets hope the ticket wins and the things we need os badly to get done happen.

by art3 2008-10-17 02:36PM | 0 recs
why are we talking about sneakers?

by FLS 2008-10-17 03:04PM | 0 recs
i love that money...

by bored now 2008-10-17 04:03PM | 0 recs

i love that movie...

by bored now 2008-10-17 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

This thread is silly.  


by Jess81 2008-10-17 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Well, I've learned considerably from it.

by Drummond 2008-10-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I figured it would be, but it wasn't. It allowed many posters and lurkers like me to vent our feelings without a big fight breaking out. That is progress. Only a few comments made me mad and that means we've come a long way from our primary battle.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-10-17 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

This too shall pass. 18 days...18 days... serenity now, serenity now.

by QTG 2008-10-17 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I have never been a PUMA if you are defining it as someone voting for McCain.  I am a die hard Clinton supporter, who is having trouble warming up to Obama.  However, I can never vote for a Republican who opposes everything I stand for.  That said, since I live in a state that is now about 10 points in Obama's camp, I don't know if I will vote for him or write in Hillary's name.

I have "hung around with PUMAs" though, and have taken every opportunity to fight with them against voting for McCain.  But the thing that was a driving factor for all of us was the sexism in the media, and the tolerance of it by the DNC and at times the Obama campaign.  The campaign rose quickly to denounce sexism against Palin, but never said a word about the blatant sexism during the campaign.  The sexism which was seen by many to exist in the DNC and the determination to get her out of the race and ignore the fact that half of the votes were for her, are the motivating issues for those left in the so called PUMA movement.  That is something that people have to understand.  Women, and many men, felt abandoned and pushed out by their own party.  

However, it is true that there is a split among all those now.  Some are voting for McCain as a statement, but at least half are not I would judge, maybe more,  and would never dream of ever doing it.  Alegre, and many who post on her blog are not Mccain voters, but are still trying to sort out the distrust of the party after what was done by many members of it and the media in general.  This is a factor that some people never noticed or cared about to begin with and continue to press the damage done by continueing to reject them and the Clintons now.  People who were hurt by it, are not about to now all of a sudden become good little democrats in return and fall in line. It's human behavior to not give in so easily, and it is not abnormal. In many other situations, their anger and actions would be considered self preservation to not trust those who have deeply hurt them. You can deal in judging them or you can deal in reality to try to improve what happens in the future.

by Scotch 2008-10-17 07:14PM | 0 recs
As usual,

you took the words right out of my mouth.

by Radiowalla 2008-10-17 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I honestly believe that there's a chasm that separates the perception of what happened during the primaries by "your" people, and that perceived by the rest of us.

Denial works both ways. This chasm is not going to be magically bridged by stamping your feet, pouting, or holding forth on your perceived grievances as though they were gospel truth. Dialogue alone can accomplish this, together with perhaps being open to the possibility that one's perception doesn't always reflect reality.

Much effort has been out into soothing these alleged hurt feelings, to no avail. The only acceptable balm, it seems, is complete capitulation to a borderline fantasy opinion with little or no factual basis that can be agreed on. Until it's understood that you do none other than yourself a favor with your vote, there will be no common ground - and that's as close to reality as it gets.

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-17 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Noone is looking for your "soothing".  They are  capable of deciding on their own who to vote for and how they can be soothed. Frankly, people who don't understand their motives, and don't care about what they are, are not able to sooth anyone. However, you can take a look at the sexism that exists in the media and within your party, and decide whether it is worth your time to recognize and work to  correct it so that the gender that is the majority of the Democratic party feels they can trust it again. In doing that, you can do yourself a favor, by eliminating the potential for more of the same in the future.  Though that may be as distasteful to you as associating with some of the Democratic party is to them.

by Scotch 2008-10-17 09:58PM | 0 recs
nominating hillary would have done none of that...

whatever sexism (or racism) exists in the democratic party exists despite the clintons' (read hillary's) absolute dominance of the democratic party for the last 16 years.  if the democratic party is sexist, as you allege, she rose not a finger to address it or a voice to illuminate it.

i find the charge of sexism in democratic party rather curious.  you make it (presumably) because a.) we nominated someone besides hillary and b.) because obama's strong candidacy allowed those who opposed her (and the clintons, in general) to unite.

it didn't hurt that she ran a shitty campaign.  we will be studying it for years as an example of what not to do to win an election.

the reality is that most of the most vocal pumas will fade from the political scene, disgusted by politics and alarmed that others do not share their unique insights into the world.  pumas will never change the democratic party because their instinct was to abandon it at the first sign of resistance.  they (threatened to) abandoned the party just as it was growing beyond anyone's wildest dreams!  we should acknowledge that they have a unique insight.  it's just not one shared by others.  that's why it's unique.

if obama receives more than 50% of the popular vote he will have done what the clintons never could.  that's not a very high bar.  another low bar would be to actually build up and strengthen the democratic party and ween us away from this cult of personality that has dominated democratic politics for 16 years.  again, not a very high bar, but we will be better (as a party) for it.

and, no doubt, you will still call us sexist.  simply because hillary ran a shitty campaign...

by bored now 2008-10-18 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: nominating hillary

I am definitely bored now, after reading a number of your comments in this thread.

by Scotch 2008-10-18 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: nominating hillary would have done none of tha

What part of this don't you get? It wasn't b/c she wasn't nominated, it was the way she & women in general were treated in a very unabashed fashion.  It disgusts me to think about how my gender is alot worse off than I ever realized.

Whatever, here we are. I am voting for Obama b/c cutting my nose off to spite my face, which is what vote for McCain would be, is a philosophy I can't get behind.

But when I see posts like this still not getting it, people who are supposed to be progressives, who are supposed to be more reliable in helping to further the women's movement towards equality, it just reminds me of how alone we really are.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-18 02:16PM | 0 recs
i understand...

i get that you wanted hillary to be treated as a special candidate, given supreme deference simply because she is female.

i understand that you wished she would have not been treated like the normal front-runner, but as some kind of savior.

and i understand that you think it is so important that hillary be treated this way that you would entertain all kinds of wild notions that contradicted what you said you believed.  I GOT IT!

look, if hillary couldn't take it, she shouldn't have run.  however, in my own conversation with her in denver, she kind of blew it all off.  she called it normal, not sexist.  she was sort of appalled that women who say they believe in choice would be threatening democrats by entertaining the anti-choice party.

so i got it.  this is america, you are free to vote for who you like.  but if you can't handle the normal give-and-take in politics, you ought to consider leaving politics alone.

i've happened to help quite a few women get elected to congress.  unlike you, i haven't wanted to shield them from the normal strains of running for office, but tried to prepare them for it.  we are electing women to office, and we allowed hillary to be the dominant figure in the democratic party for 8 years.  that you find this sexist says more about you than about the democratic party.  it's certainly not an objective reality that can be independently confirmed -- nor, as near as i can tell, is widely shared...

by bored now 2008-10-19 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: i understand...

Your entire post shows YOU DON'T GET IT. WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension?  I didn't support Clinton b/c she was a woman; I supported her b/c she was the right candidate!!!!!  I don't vote based upon gender whatsoever.

The way she was treated b/c she is a woman is THE ISSUE.  You are INCORRECT. The blatent misogyny and sexism demonstrated by what is the more progressive party is horrifying as a woman and I have to live with the fact that I am more alone with this issue then I ever thought. As a woman it is beyond frightening to know how easily my rights are scoffed at.

And in case your reading comprehension fails you AGAIN - I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!

by jrsygrl 2008-10-19 08:35AM | 0 recs
i'm assuming that you are reasonably...

intelligent.  yet the core of your argument is that women can't run for office because they are women.  not only are you wrong, but your attitude is precisely what people who want to see gender equality in this country (including politics) are fighting against.

you are wrong.  hillary was treated just as challengers would treat any front-runner.  your prejudice has led you to believe that hillary had to be treated differently, because she is a women.

once again, i return to the fact that hillary was the dominant figure in the democratic party for 8 years.  to say that the democratic party is sexist is obviously, demonstrably wrong.

but i'm not really concerned with your stubborn conclusion that democrats are sexist.  what is disturbing, from the perspective of someone who believes in equality, is that you want to handicap women because hillary ran a shitty campaign.  YOU ARE WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST.

i don't know what your problem is or why you think women can't hack it in politics today -- especially when there is ample proof that they can.  the fact that hillary lost, due to her own organizational incompetence, is a great example of this.  your framing of this feeds the reactionary view that women don't belong in politics.

we clearly disagree.  women can, and have, "hacked" it.  they don't need to be treated deferentially, or given any other special treatment simply because they are women.  women actually have a lot to offer government.  but as long as people like you argue that they will never get anywhere unless we radically alter everything means that women will sit on the sidelines and let "men rule the world."

i feel for you that you feel so alone.  i can only say that i hope that it's true, that you are alone in your thinking here.  i will continue to encourage women to run for office, and help them in their efforts to do so.  and i will continue to speak out against those like you who set out enormous obstacles in their way.  thankfully, i can point to hillary knowing that she doesn't share your frame about women running for office.  it's not about obama, it's about your view that women can't hack it.  they can.  they have.  they will...

by bored now 2008-10-19 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm assuming that you are reasonably...

Being treated equally is NOT being treated deferentially. And Hillary Clinton was a a major figure in the party and politics for 3 decades NOT 8 years. Further the fact that the PROGRESSIVE members of the PROGRESSIVE party don't see the FLAGRANT acts of misogyny and sexism is horrifying. Like I said I've learned alot about the movement that I thought was on my side and my eyes have been quite opened. At the same time I also know where my bread is buttered and to vote alternative of that would be moronic, so of  course I vote Obama.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-20 03:58PM | 0 recs
you aren't arguing for equality...

you are flat-out saying that women can't compete in an equal environment.  there was nothing, not a single damn thing, that hillary received that your typical front-runner doesn't receive.  i don't know if you are so new to politics that you have somehow decided that the way hillary was treated was sexist simply because she's the only front-runner you have ever known.  maybe that explains your reactionary thinking.

fortunately, i know that hillary believes otherwise.  what i don't understand is why you continually argue that women can't hack it -- despite all the evidence to the contrary.  YOU REPRESENT what those of us who are trying to elect women to public office are fighting against.

you are wrong.  hillary knows that you're wrong, and so do all the women who serve in congress.  that's not the problem.  your inane arguments that say women can't compete deter other women from running or contributing or helping out in other ways.  YOU are the primary obstacle to their success.  so it's difficult that to see how you believe in equality whatsoever.  you are an impediment to equality, not a voice for it.

this is exactly why i speak out everytime i see your crap.  you may not believe it, but women can hack it in this man's world.  a little help in this regard would be appreciated...

by bored now 2008-10-22 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: you aren't arguing for equality...

The fact that you view Hillary Clinton's treatment as equal to any other front runner demonstrates that you are beyond gone either intellectually or due to some other level of ignorance.  The fact that you and other see it this way is just ANOTHER symptom of the problem. The manner in which she was treated was inflammatory enough for my 92 year old, extremely active, former UNION LEADER, grandfather to go from being a Keith Olbermann fan to BOYCOTTING HIM and despite everything we say HE IS VOTING FOR McCain due to the sexism apparent during the primaries. Yeah he must just be new to cut throat politics & sexism.   Members of my family from highly political active times in the 60s are HORRIFIED by how she was treated & me - I'm in my mid 30s so thank you I'm not new to this IN THE LEAST. But yes that MUST be the explanation, b/c we must all be just dreaming this shit up. Or maybe, just possibly, YOUR perceptions might be colored by your personal bias.  Because you see I was actually SURPRISED by how the Democratic party treated Clinton, so I didn't come in with a bias against her or the party.  And uh I actually had a different #1 choice for nomination as well. Oh but yes it must be my perception and not yours that is faulty - b/c well you say so. Thanks for setting me straight jackass.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-22 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: you aren't arguing for equality...

right.  you've been arguing for months that women can't compete, but i'm the jackass.

look, i don't really care if you're one of those barefoot and pregnant people, what i care about is that your ignorance is the biggest obstacle women candidates face today.  i hear it every election cycle.

thankfully, i know that hillary strongly disagrees with you.  your reactionary attitudes are far more fitting to home-schooling sites rather than a progressive political blog.  any rational person would be able to acknowledge that hillary ran a shitty campaign, and that is the reason that she lost.  even if the media bent over backwards for her -- as you'd require -- she still would have lost.  we will be studying her campaign failures for years, as supreme lessons of what not to do.

but you will continue to argue that women can't compete and i will continue to point just how terribly wrong you are.  like i said, it's nice to know that hillary agrees with me...

by bored now 2008-10-23 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: you aren't arguing for equality...

WTF? Are you intending to respond to someone elses posts? If not, then you have serious reading comprehension issues, b/c not only have you been completely unresponsive to my posts, you are just making arguments up that have nothing to do with what I wrote. The only thing I can think of is that you honestly have a learning disability which is causing you to not comprehend what I write (in which case I apologize for calling you a jackass) or you are just responding someone else. The only other option is that you are just trying to incite an argument.
Just in case you are just trying to troll I'll break it down once again.

  1. Hillary Clinton was an excellent candidate for president, and in my opinion a far better one than our current nominee.
  2. During this primary, I have come to learn that a party which I have always been proud of for being progressive especially when it comes to advancing various causes, including the woman's movement both engaged in and deliberately chose to ignore or dismiss blatant overt acts of sexism and misogyny.  This has opened my eyes to the fact that the party is NOT as progressive as I once thought it was especially especially when it comes to the women's movement. The fact that people deny or act willfully ignorant as to what occurred is another symptom of the problem. Despite that:
  3. I am still voting for Obama b/c to do the opposite would still hurt every cause that is important to this country It does not change however, my realization that things are much more repressive when it comes to a woman's ability to advance than I ever thought possible.

Now I'm waiting for you to write something back that is completely unresponsive to anything I just posted. Hey maybe you'll act like I just argued against a woman's right to vote in this post@@

by jrsygrl 2008-10-24 03:42PM | 0 recs
i assume that you are unaware...

of the consequences of your arguments.  that's why i continue to point them out.

while you feign belief that women can run and win elective office, your arguments are centered on one basic point: women can't hack it.

look, i recognize that you are naive and probably never been interested in politics before.  i recognize your devotion to hillary -- which is why i continue to point out that hillary strongly disagrees with your conclusions (and your argument).

you simply aren't rational on this point.  how does one convince a conspiracy theorist that there's no conspiracy?  especially when that conspiracy theorist (you) has no context (knowledge of other elections or how other front runners got treated).

so my point is simple: YOU ARE THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE that those of us trying to elect women face in achieving our goal.  your axiom that women can't hack it in this environment prevents women from running, people from giving to those women who do, and everyone from getting around those women, whether to work for them or vote for them.  you are very dangerous to those of us who want to see women run and win.

i get that you need to construct this sophisticated conspiracy to explain hillary's failure.  i understand your emotional attachment to a candidate.  that's hardly a gender-specific quality.  normally, loyalty is a good thing.  but your conspiracy is so vast that you are tearing down other women just to explain to yourself hillary's failure.  occum's razor suggests another explanation.  hillary's historic highs among her negatives was already a substantial hurdle for her to overcome, but the fact that she ran a shitty campaign gave her no chance to overcome it.  the media, culture, etc -- what we call "the environment" (something that hillary knew she had to run within before she started) -- had little if anything to do with the outcome.  hillary's loss lands squarely on her shoulders.

the good news is i can assure you that she can handle it.  she doesn't like it, but she can handle it.  you might take some cues from her example.  unless, of course, you are intentionally setting back all women candidates...

by bored now 2008-10-25 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: i assume that you are unaware...
A. I have never said that "women can't hack it." What I said is that people are either deliberately ignoring or promoting discrimination and the very party which I thought was beyond that is up to their necks in it.
B. Your logic is beyond circular, convoluted and irrational. Recognizing a serious problem with a party that appeared to be more progressive than their actions dictated is a step in the right direction towards finding a solution. Pretending the problem doesn't exist and blaming those that are pointing it out for the issue is beyond insane. Basically your logic is one of "its all how you look at it." With that thought process I suppose we could tell the minority that Affirmative Action is wrong, b/c recognizing the problem that exists is only going to hold them back and they should keep beating their heads against the wall pretending things are just fine. Or better yet, maybe you should volunteer at a rape crises center and tell the victims that if they had just said "yes" they wouldn't have been raped. By focusing on the fact that they said "no" they are just perpetuating the idea that they were the victim of something malicious. It is the same thing here. You would have me IGNORE the horrific conduct of my country and the most progressive party and pretend as though everything was equal. It wasn't and I WILL NOT ALLOW someone to pretend what happened didn't really occur.
C. And as you continue to assume your garbage; I'll tell you that I am hardly naive & I have been politically active for years.
D. I'm sure you have plenty more baseless assumptions to make that are not even DISCERNIBLE in my posts, b/c the alternative would mean that you are wrong in many of the crap notions you keep looking to propagate. I find it very strange that you are even on a Democratic or progressive blog; the arguments you make are practically lock, stock & barrel Republican.
by jrsygrl 2008-10-25 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: nominating hillary would have done none of tha

What part of this don't you get? It wasn't b/c she wasn't nominated, it was the way she & women in general were treated in a very unabashed fashion.  It disgusts me to think about how my gender is alot worse off than I ever realized.

Whatever, here we are. I am voting for Obama b/c cutting my nose off to spite my face, which is what vote for McCain would be, is a philosophy I can't get behind.

But when I see posts like this still not getting it, people who are supposed to be progressives, who are supposed to be more reliable in helping to further the women's movement towards equality, it just reminds me of how alone we really are.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-18 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I haven't been the one doing the "soothing", nor would I care to attempt that kind of inauthenticity at this or any point in the future.

But dialogue requires concessions, be they in action or understanding. I refer you to my earlier statement:

This chasm is not going to be magically bridged by stamping your feet, pouting, or holding forth on your perceived grievances as though they were gospel truth

No one has ever denied that sexism exists in the media - only the full-throated attempts to smear just one campaign with it.  And by the way, the "gender that is the majority of the Democratic party" is fully on board with this candidate and this campaign. Those determined to wallow in their self-pitying, self-righteous  orgies of denial aren't going to find any takers for their versions of history.

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-18 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I haven't seen anyone stamping their feet or doing any of the other things you state.  I see people exercising their votes as they are allowed in a democracy.  It is funny how you walk around with your feathers flared and try to determine what other do and if it is acceptable.  The world is much bigger than an unnamed, faceless blogger on mydd.  Unfortunately you won't be able to determine who leaves, joins, or "comes back" to the party.  You have an equal role to everyone else in the party system, with no control over it whatsoever.

by Scotch 2008-10-18 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

The only thing funny at this point is your need to have the last word. Admittedly, mine too.

Now repeat your little sermon above before a mirror, and you'll have said everything you need to hear. Have a nice day!

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-19 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

I've had my share of fun with the PUMA brand in the past, but I'll say this: It doesn't matter what you used to be, or what you called yourself. It matters only where you are today. And if you see clearly the need of the hour, as we do, welcome home.

But if today - after this ruthless, thoughtless, devastatingly incompetent and determinedly self-serving administration has brought our finest of nations to the brink of the precipice it teeters at today - if you still carry enough of a grudge to support this administration's curmudgeonly heir and his venomous airhead sidekick - then all I have to say is, really, you deserve the GOP. Almost as much as it deserves you. That's the gene pool you'll feel most comfortable with. Please do support honorable John McAin't. Please don't ever think of coming back. And please don't forget to send us a picture of yourself tearing your hair out on election day, so we'll know what we're missing.

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-17 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Just sent in my absentee ballot here in CA.

I struggled, but stuck to my committment - I voted McCain/Palin for Pres - but Democrat on all other candidates and issues.

I struggled because I have been moving over the summer and recently from voting McCain to writing Hillary's name in on the ballot (not counting) particularly when I saw how bad McCain did in the debates and because his healthcare plan is a direct SLAP in Hillary's face.

I had the ballot filled out except for Prez. Then a friend called me, an ardent Hillary supporter and reminded me of one thing: OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - DON'T FORGET THAT, she said. The ONLY path now (since Obama didn't pick her for VP) is McCain/Palin so that Hillary can run in 4 years before she is too old.

Yup - I hear ya, I said

Then I went back to my list of WHY I would not support Obama that I wrote back in June and there were 3 things that stood out:

#1 - The voter fraud that I witnessed firsthand (in my travels to other states) and in particular the caucuses.

#2 - That the Obama campaign painted Hillary and Bill as racists.

#3 - That Obama snubbed Hillary for the VP position.

I thought about these 3 things and so much else (the unfair delegate calculation by the DNC; MI/FL; the fact that she won the popular vote) and I realized - I simply COULD NOT, in my heart or my gut, REWARD this man with my vote.

So I voted McCain/Palin and Republican for Pres - first time since Regan's reelection.

Bottom Line - I live in California and this is Obama territory. He has a comfortable lead here and the truth is - I MIGHT have voted differently had I not been so certain of the outcome.

When I wake up on Nov 5th (or if we know on Nov 4th) and I am certain I will hear Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper announcing - "We can now say with certainty that Barack Obama will be the 45th President of the United States".

Truth - I will feel VERY GOOD about that and VERY PROUD in spite of how I voted. I feel elated that my country - FINALLY - truly progressed. And I will look forward to seeing Hillary as either the Senate Majority Leader (hopefully) - or another cabinet position.

If the opposite happens - how will I feel?


But I know California will give all 55 ev's to Obama and therefore MY vote will not have mattered or even contributed to the outcome.

I'll take a deep breath, probably cry ......

Then I'll get to work on Hillary's re-election campaign.

by nikkid 2008-10-18 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?


So, if a meteor killed Hillary, would you never vote for any president ever again for as long as you lived?

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-10-18 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Ok look I got to say that voting for someone who will appoint SC justices that will continue to take away our America is not helpful to the country or any of our futures.  I get that Hillary  Clinton will probably never wind up being our president & the blatant misogyny and sexism demonstrated both mainstream and by our own supposedly progressive party is beyond horrific.

But I can't live through another 4 or 8 years of GOP garbage; it will be horrifying. And if you think it won't be you are living in another world.  I say this as someone who never truly cared for Obama & who has admired Hillary Clinton for many years.  I say this as someone who, yes is voting Obama, but I am doing so b/c it is the right thing to do when considering the alternative repercussions.  I can't live in a world with another GOP term - I can't live with this type of punishment anymore. How can you not have had enough???

by jrsygrl 2008-10-18 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

It does boggle the mind. Fortunately, I'm under the increasing impression that PUMA has received much more attention than it deserved in terms of the numbers it actually represents.

by Drummond 2008-10-18 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Are the PUMA's with us?

Boy.  I hate to say this, but after reading that post, and now having visited the PUMA sites, I don't know that I could vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination in 4 years or 8 years.  Of course, the difference is that I would vote third party and not vote for someone who would appoint judges to deprive my daughter of the right to choose.

If she's ever going to earn my vote she's going to have to thoroughly repudiate the element which was ready to do just that.  Fortunately, there are enough Chris Buckley conservatives out there with enough sense to vote for the best interests of the country this time around, so the disgruntled Hillary vote won't really matter.  From what I understand it's pretty small now anyway.

But then again, if you voted for Ronald Reagan, a woman's choice was never on your front burner of concern.

by Drummond 2008-10-18 02:38PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads