PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Tonight I decided to see how the Republicans dealt with tonight's smackdown, Obama style.  Naturally, I went to A1egre's site, NoQuarter, and TDarling's blog (I'm a sadomasochist).  I was taken aback!  I had a great time.  So you don't have to sully yourselves, here's what I found.

A1egre still thinks the movement is relevant, and vows to keep up the fight.  To hell with women's rights, it was all about Hillary.  Shining golden Hillary.  Amazingly, this was about what I expected.  Same old stuff.

TDarling has HUGE picture of McCain and Kay Bailey Hutchison on the front page.  Under it you see her beg McCain to choose Kay as VP.  Nice.  No democrat on earth would ever want that lady within 1000 feet of the Whitehouse.  This person is and never was a progressive.  Pure republican fraudster through and through.

Now for the total batshit insanity.  NoQuarter...

  "Thoughts on Obama's Speech Tonight »
   By SusanUnPCgravatarcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name:
   August 28, 2008 at 11:30 PM

  As I was listening to Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer's astute commentary on Obama's speech, it dawned on me what Barack Obama did tonight. Obama delivered his version of Hillary Clinton's stump speech to the Invesco crowd tonight (although she would have delivered it far better than he because she truly cares about everyday Americans)."

FOX eh?  And of COURSE he cribbed that speech from Hillary!  That's change you can Xerox!  It gets better.

  "His terrible voting record on "infanticide" (live birth abortion) is a problem for anyone on either side.  His voting record on gun rights will alarm 2nd Amendment hardliners.  His associations with known, unrepentant terrorists will shock millions of Americans."

Man, these guys are the biggest frauds around.  PUMA was simply Operation Chaos.

Tags: fail, Fake, false, Frauds, PUMA, Republicans (all tags)



After tonight...

...anyone who still mouths the tired old messages of the PUMAs are irredeemable.  No outreach is necessary as they are as intellectually bankrupt as those who still maintain that the moon landings never occured.

we have an election to win, so no time to waste on the electoral version of the flat earth society

by xenontab 2008-08-28 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: After tonight...

What moon landings?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/hoax/p hoto15.jpg


by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-29 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Actually, to be fair, Alegre says pretty clearly that she will NOT vote for McCain.  She also says she won't - ever-  vote for Obama & encourages her followers to vote as they choose.  (Though the inference is that choice must not include Obama, the Democratic nominee.)  There are a few mildly dissenting voices such as a commnter named "Catfish" who says she/he will definitely vote "against Obama", thus for McCain.  

by January 20 2008-08-28 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

I sorta wish catfish, catfish2, or gatopescado was around so I could ask her/him the question that has been burning a hole in my brain since she/he posed it a few months ago: Did Barack Obama actually have an orgasm during his Invesco speech?

Seriously though, there's a sick part of me that finds those sites incredibly entertaining in a "Holy shit, the mental gymnastics needed to continually feed this type of blind hatred with an outrage-of-the-day is absolutely amazing" kind of way.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-28 10:36PM | 0 recs
there's a good argument that

that particular question is RACIST. I know it wasn't yours to put, but... read skepticalbrotha as he deconstructs a similar picture.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-29 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: there's a good argument that

I'd be curious to read it.  Do you ahve a link?

by Jess81 2008-08-29 08:56AM | 0 recs
Her position is still stupid.

But if she chooses not to be a part of America's future, opting to sit sulking in her room, who are we to stop her.

by GFORD 2008-08-28 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Her position is still stupid.

I am very disappointed in Alegre.  I thought she was a real Democrat.  Now I find out she likes running a blog more than defending her country's future.

by Beltway Dem 2008-08-29 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

When the hardest of the hard-liners steps back from the edge, that's a good sign. Maybe it was the Clintons' speeches and the convention, maybe it was the time that has passed since the primaries, maybe she never would have voted for McCain.

But you always have to take good news where you can get it.

by TCQuad 2008-08-28 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

She says she's always been a Democrat & will could never vote Republican.  She then cites some of the significant reasons - reasons on which we all agree.

Focusing just on the true Dems in this group, those who feel terribly aggrieved by the process - rightly or wrongly, I still have a hard time seeing how they rationalize their choice.  Let's follow the proscribed logic that Obama will lose & Hillary will run in 2012.  How does a President HRC reverse the damage caused by, and only by, McCain's elevations to the Supreme Court?  I respect Hillary (And this is not a new-found respect post-convention speech - check my history I've never said a bad word about her.)  But even a strong president Hillary Clinton, elected with a landslide mandate, can't fire the justices.  If we lose Roe in the next cycle it's going to take a decade to have any hope of getting it back.  Of course Roe is just the most obvious risk.

This group doesn't trust Obama.  Okay, let's just accept that.  But if we can trust McCain on anything, it's his commitment to Roberts/Scalia/Thomas - school justices.  He's stated it clearly & he has a near-perfect record as an anti-choice Senator for his entire career.  So looking at McCain as a stop-gap, or stepping-stone to Hillary as president ensures that her administration enters with genuinely impossible tasks ahead.  As crushing is it must have been for Hillary to lose the nomination, I imagine it would be worse for her to think that her very ideals were quashed on the way to a success in the next run.  It would nullify so much of what she's struggled & fought for over her 35 years of service.

I'm too lazy right now to go and reword this but I should point out that I'm talking about those who are not just withholding their votes, but working/hoping/praying for Obama's defeat.  

I expect that the only answer we'll have is the suggestion that McCain isn't really anti-choice, or that I'm looking at slight setbacks that only pale when compared to the horrors of Obama.  If there is a truly considered explanation I would love to hear it.

by January 20 2008-08-28 11:42PM | 0 recs
You assume too much.

It's one of the frustrating things of all this.  All the noise and dust clouds suggest that Alegre and Susanhu and the rest have some deeply held political objectives that they are trying to protect, like, for instance, a woman's right to choose, Roe v. Wade, etc.  

But they don't have any political objectives, just a my-candidate-shoulda-won objective.

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 12:52AM | 0 recs
Re: You assume too much.

Well I can't speak for Susanhu (and don't want to,) but Alegre states her objectives clearly.  That's why I really do wonder how she squares the idea that four years of McCain would do anything but destroy most of Hillary's (and Alegre's own) goals.

I'm not suggesting this is an argument in which to engage them in any way.  Maybe I'm missing something & there is a a way that the Court can remain safely split for the next four (nearly five) years.  What I see are some pretty old liberal/moderate justices and a lot of young members of the Federalist Society eyeing those seats.  

by January 20 2008-08-29 04:31AM | 0 recs

Here lies PUMA  
August 29, 2008


by Hill4Life 2008-08-28 10:29PM | 0 recs

Make that Aug 28 :)  Man, past my bedtime.

by Hill4Life 2008-08-28 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

There are a lot of democrats that don't like what Obama and friends did in the primary.

They pissed on democracy and generally treated Bill Clinton like less than Reagan.

I have no problems with them if they stay away a cycle.

Many of them have been loyal democrats for decades and deserve the benefit of the doubt that you so disdainfully expect us to give Obama like it is his god given right.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-28 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Many of them have been loyal democrats for decades and deserve the benefit of the doubt that you so disdainfully expect us to give Obama like it is his god given right.

He's the Democratic nominee and he is the flag-bearer of our party.  "Loyal Democrats" support the Democratic nominee every election year and especially when it means this much.  Poseurs bitch and whine and moan because their favorite candidate lost.  Are you a loyal Democrat or poseur?

by blueAZ 2008-08-28 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

It is not even a question that needs to ba asked at this point.

by Brandon 2008-08-28 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

No he really isn't.

He is the flag bearer of our party + GOP crossover + independents.

If it was just our party voting he lost.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-29 10:32AM | 0 recs

This is utter crap: they didn't piss on Democracy.

by fladem 2008-08-29 03:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Bull

They pissed on democracy and I will never stay silent on that.

Caucuses showed a ~10-20% bias to Obama relative to similar primary in same state in tex it was 12 on same DAY.

They pissed on democracy and Dean and Pelosi held their hair while they did it.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-29 10:35AM | 0 recs
The PUMAs keep saying they will vote for McCain.

Our response:  "Mm, okay"

But they didn't go away. Instead we got "We really mean it.  We're really going to do it."

Our response:  "Buh bye"

Any bets on whether they will just go and vote for McCain now?

by GFORD 2008-08-28 10:41PM | 0 recs
Who cares?

It's a free country.  They can vote for whomever they want.  Swines and pearls.

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 12:58AM | 0 recs
My point exactly.

They can vote for whoever they want.  And they don't even need an RV plastered with stupid pictures to do it.

by GFORD 2008-08-29 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

You really don't help anything by continuing to post with a name that mocks Clinton supporters.

by Steve M 2008-08-28 10:45PM | 0 recs
Oh great another diary bashing Alegre!

Nothing spells UNITY like a diary bashing Hillary supporters.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-28 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh great another diary bashing Alegre!

A diary poking fun at PUMAs is going to prevent unity?  Gosh, you people really are humorless.

by blueAZ 2008-08-28 10:56PM | 0 recs
They aren't Hillary supporters.

Hillary supporters support the person Hillary supports - and she made it crystal clear that she is 150% behind Barack Obama.  If they hadn't already done so, PUMAs lost the right to call themselves Hillary supporters this past Tuesday.

They are now the opponents of the Democratic nominee, period.  They are not on our side.  They are not our allies.  They are our opponents, and we should do everything we can in order to prevail against them and John McCain's other allies.  Our country deserves no less.

by mistersite 2008-08-28 11:12PM | 0 recs
They are simply

Not democrats, media narrative be damned, they are just not democrats and have to be treated as such.

by Brandon 2008-08-28 11:14PM | 0 recs
I dont think you get it...

As Hillary supporters,  our emotions are still raw.  This was an historic election and women have to once again "wait our turn".  Its been devastating for us, even for those of us who are supporting the Democratic nominee.

Diaries that mock the sisterhood are going to break open the scab that Hillary and Bill have worked so hard this week to attempt to heal.  

My advice?  Dont write them.  As President, Obama would never antagonize lets say Russia,  during strained and difficult negotiations the way Obama supporters seem to enjoy antagonizing Hillary supporters.  Its just not the way to go about healing a party.

BTW Alegre is a Democrat.  She is sitting out this PRESIDENTIAL election, not voting for McCain, and still voting for DEMS downticket.  She is also committed to working for Democratic causes, like universal healthcare.    

Have you ever sat out an election before?  I know people of both parties who have.  It doesnt mean they have changed parties.  It just means that they dont happen to support a particular candidate.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-28 11:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont think you get it...

I agree with a lot of your post, but the part that I cannot possibly comprehend is how any rational person can say that they are planning to fight for things like universal health care and then plan on not voting for the most important person in the whole equation.  No sane person that has been paying attention for the last 8 years thinks that ANY form of UHC will be signed by a President McCain.

To put it more simply, it doesn't matter how hard people like her claim that they will fight for universal health care if they're willing to rally against the only person that would potentially sign the legislation.  Period.  If we don't have a Democratic president, universal health care simply will not happen.  They are putting their personal anger and frustration above Democratic causes, which is fine but let us at least be honest about it.

To put it even more simply, it's like telling people that I'm going to perfect the art of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the next four years, but I refuse to buy peanut butter because I don't like it.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-29 12:38AM | 0 recs
I agree that our democratic causes will not

happen if a Republican is president.  Thats why I have made the decision to hold my nose and vote for Obama, in spite of any hard feelings I hold. But some are not there yet.  We have till November to get them on board.  The way to do that is to welcome them, not to be angry at them.  That was the whole point I was making in my post.

Hillary and Bill have done all they can.  Its up to Obama and his supporters to take it from here.  And the way to get them on board is not to mock and ridicule them.  You have to realize something----these are LIFELONG Democrats.  One can say over and over "oh they are just Republicans pretending to be Democrats" but that doesnt make it so.  

Its time to get serious about bringing our party together and imo the first order of business is for Obama to meet with PUMAS.  

by Sandy1938 2008-08-29 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that our democratic causes will not

No.  The first order of business is for Obama to go out and meet with undecided voters across the country.  What do you want Obama to meet with you about?  He's not Hillary, therefore you're not going to be happy.

Look, at this point, there are probably a solid 2,000 of you.  I just can't get over the fact that PUMAs seem to think they have any sort of power here.  They couldn't get their candidate elected the first time around, that's what started this, and now they're going to march and make fun of a stage and expect people to take them seriously?


by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-08-29 04:25AM | 0 recs
Careful reading comprehension would indicate

that I am not a PUMA, nor have I claimed to be one.  Nice attempt at unity though. touche!

by Sandy1938 2008-08-29 07:00AM | 0 recs
Real Democrats

piss on PUMAs from a considerable height.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-29 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I dont think you get it...

I read alegres post and agree she is definately a democrat. I respect that she won't vote for mccain as his values are different than hers. And I don't have a problem with not voting for our ticket if you have serious enough reservations about him.  

However I am very annoyed by their portrayal of the campaign and there malicious attacks on obama. I'm sorry but they just cross the line of decency. Both sides had their grievances. They focus on their 18 million but never credit us with obama's primary win. Instead they point to the DNC and Howard Dean. I just find that disrespectful to the rest of us.

So I respect their democratic credentials but I don't respect their behavior. I apologize if this offends any Hillary supporters who carry themselves with dignity but feel raw about the primary. But I can't grovel to people who disrespect me for my views.

by kbal 2008-08-29 01:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I dont think you get it...

Skip voting for President?
Not since 1972..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF2erYQWI Os

by nogo postal 2008-08-29 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh great another diary bashing Alegre!

A, they're not Hillary supporters, and b) the day they reign in their bigotry and overall nastiness, no one will have any reason to call them out.  Yesterday was a post calling Michelle Obama an "ugly bitch".  Why would you defend that?

by MeganLocke 2008-08-28 11:32PM | 0 recs
I am not defending that.

I am defending Alegre though, who never said that.  I am also saying that it would serve Obama's interests much better if instead of having his supporters say "Oh the holdouts are a bunch of crazies" they would maybe just say a prayer and hope that by November they will be reached.  Maybe Obama can meet with them the way McCain has to let them know they are an important part of the Democratic coalition.  Just a suggestion.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-28 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not defending that.

Umm. . . Alegre did say that Michelle Obama was "a word that rhymes with witch."

by shalca 2008-08-29 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I am not defending that.

Alegre thanked a poster on her blog for coming up with an "Osama Bin Biden" logo and said it was "great work." Her fellow cultists routinely call Obama a Muslim and his wife "scary and evil." These people have forfeited any claim to our respect in all but the most formal sense. They are deranged and deserve our pity.

by urban shocker 2008-08-29 01:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I am not defending that.

" I am also saying that it would serve Obama's interests much better if instead of having his supporters say "Oh the holdouts are a bunch of crazies" they would maybe just say a prayer and hope that by November they will be reached. Maybe Obama can meet with them the way McCain has to let them know they are an important part of the Democratic coalition.  Just a suggestion.  "

I agree with you that we shouldn't jump on every Clinton supporter who expresses doubts about Obama.  But I don't think PUMAS who constantly insult & denigrate Obama & his supporters are entitled to any respect.  And meeting with somebody like Riverdaughter or Darragh Muprhy would be a waste of time, since they've already made clear they won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.        

by Peter H 2008-08-29 08:24AM | 0 recs
Alegre isn't every Hillary supporter

by BrighidG 2008-08-28 11:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh great another diary bashing Alegre!

Repeat after me- PUMAs are NOT Hillary supporters.

Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

by skohayes 2008-08-29 02:55AM | 0 recs
This is bashing

PUMA's not Hillary supporters.

You know there is a difference.  In fact, I don't think you can say after this week that a PUMA supports Hillary.

by fladem 2008-08-29 04:15AM | 0 recs
Alegre is a mentally imbalanced loon,

not a Hillary supporter.

She worshipped Hillary the icon, and quite honestly doesn't give a crap about anything Hillary truly values.

So, screw Alegre.  She deserves neither praise nor understanding nor sympathy.  She just deserves to be ignored.

by Geekesque 2008-08-29 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Well, here's a twist... a private jet from Alaska landed in Dayton 4 hours ago...

McCain must feel that he's in real trouble... it's going to be female Gov. Palin from AK...  

That's going to shake things up, now, isn't it?

by LordMike 2008-08-28 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Where are you getting that from?

by rfahey22 2008-08-28 10:58PM | 0 recs
by LordMike 2008-08-28 11:11PM | 0 recs
It could be an interesting test.

I look at the puma movement like I look at reasons for Iraq, as old ones for their existence fall, new ones are created. Facts dont matter, when one reason goes down in a flame of stupidity, a new one arises. There is one that I do believe to be true though, and that is that many women feel that the time for a female candidate is now and if that is the number 1 issue, Mccain picking Palin will get them, because they have shown that it is not about Hillary at all, it is so much simpler then that.  

Sarah Palin is strongly pro life, and is conservative enough too energize the republican base while attracting women who felt this was their year.  It should be interesting.

by Brandon 2008-08-28 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Well, Romney is also scheduled to be there, and it's unclear if Pawlenty will show up.  He may be summoning a number of the finalists.

by rfahey22 2008-08-28 11:23PM | 0 recs
Huh... Sarah Palin...

A real pic.  Not photoshopped.

http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2 007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 01:06AM | 0 recs
Actually, the author says it is photoshopped.

by chrisblask 2008-08-29 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Isn't Sarah Palin facing indictment?

by MeganLocke 2008-08-28 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

I don't know, I'd leave the central cast of characters at Alegre's blog out of it.  They're not undercover Republicans like SoCal and Susan Hu are.  They've just got some serious issues.

I think they're drunk tonight.  Every post is misspelled, and half the posts are apologizing for having let loose the night before or whatever.  I think they're taking this all really, REALLY hard.

by MeganLocke 2008-08-28 11:29PM | 0 recs
I move we stop talking about them

no oxygen, no fire.

by notedgeways 2008-08-29 12:17AM | 0 recs
It's all our fault.

If we had just reached out and tried to understand people like Catfish and Susanhu, they wouldn't be voting for McCain now.  

And, wow, just read that excerpt from Susanhu's diary...  she actually believes that Obama can be defeated because of his gun-control and anti-abortion positions.  Do you see what we have done!  By not feeling Susanhu's pain over the loss of Hillary, we haven't just driven her into McCain's arms.  We have made her a pro-lifer and a gun-rights advocate as well!  

My god, we better reach out to her, and fast, or else she will start wearing jackboots and designing her own thousand year reich.  And it would all be our fault!

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 12:42AM | 0 recs
Re: It's all our fault.

Dumbo, it's snark like the stuff you just posted that makes good, lifelong Democrats start supporting school vouchers, defense of marriage acts, trickle-down economics, Intelligent Design curriculum, and the privatization of Social Security.

You are destroying the Democratic party!

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-29 12:48AM | 0 recs
Re: It's all our fault.

LOL.  The whole time we were calling out people like susanhu and texasdarlin for the GOP trolls they were, and whaddya know, hopped right on the straight talk express afterwards.  Were there people on the blogs like this back in 2004?  Who so badly latched on to Dean/Gephardt/Clark/Edwards that they couldn't handle it when Kerry won, and went over to Bush's side?  Hell, the way Kerry and others treated Dean was worse than whatever Hillary and Obama did to each other.

by Skaje 2008-08-29 01:08AM | 0 recs
No, there were not,

and I was very involved here and at DailyKos (and other blogs) at the time, so no.  

Uh, correcting myself -- there probably were some people like that, but they weren't outspoken and organized, if there were any at all.  I remember a few Naderites dropping in from time to time just to get hollered at and leave.

by Dumbo 2008-08-29 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No, there were not,

Yeah, that's all I remember too...just a handful of Nadertrolls.  What a bunch of sanctimonious assholes they were.

But all the real Democrats sucked it up and came together for Kerry.  That's what we do, we come together to support the candidate who is most like us.  It's not even a question of "did he personally suck up to me enough during the primaries", it's just "is our candidate better than the Republican?"

Kerry was better than Bush, Obama is better than McCain.  Not too hard to see.

by Skaje 2008-08-29 09:20AM | 0 recs
quality snark


by libertyleft 2008-08-29 01:42AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Over at noquarter they're mocking Obama's "purple lips".  Apparently they've never seen an African-American before.  We called them out for the racists they are and we were shouted down and some of us were even banned back in the day from mydd.

Look at the way they mock Kerry and his wife too.  The whole lot of them were Republicans to start with, they were only for Hillary as far as she was useful in stopping Obama.

It's weird to see them praise Hillary and Bill Clinton's DNC speeches so much but completely ignore everything they were saying.

by Skaje 2008-08-29 01:11AM | 0 recs
Quite honestly, if a bus full of NQ

readers went off a cliff, my only concern would be whether it leaked engine oil into the environment.

by Geekesque 2008-08-29 06:14AM | 0 recs
Narcissistic Dead Enders

I had to look at Alegre's blog after reading this. These people have made a cult of their own disappointment and rage and are worshipping it like a Golden Calf while concocting a "stabbed-in-the-back legend" worthy of the Freikorps circa 1920...

Alegre gets enthusiastic about puerile  smears her cohorts come up with like "Obama bin Biden." These folks are gone. They basically belong someplace like Free Republic.

by urban shocker 2008-08-29 01:33AM | 0 recs
Just a bunch of 911 truthers in

search of a new hobby.

Next hobby:  licking John McCain's $500 Ferragamo loafers.

by Geekesque 2008-08-29 06:11AM | 0 recs
What you don't understand....

I am not a PUMA.  Repeat, NOT A PUMA.  That being said, I understand where they are coming from- and you obviously don't.  To them, this primary was a travesty.  The DNC acted completely without scruples, and Hillary Clinton (who won more votes that Obama)- was pressured to drop out of the race even while winning almost every major primary.  Florida and Michigan were handled completely terribly- and the RBC Meeting was a sham- giving Obama delegates from a state where he wasn't even on the ballot!
So, you see, to the PUMAs this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.  They want fair primaries- no more caucus shenanigans- where party fanatics overwhelm "normal everyday" voters and elderly are expected to spend 3 hours in a gymnasium trying to have their vote counted.  No more party leaders pretending to be unbiased while clearly pressuring a winning candidate to drop out of the race (hello Dean and Pelosi).   I could go on here- but I won't.

The point is- we must try to understand where the PUMAS are coming from lest we allow this portion of our party to split away forever.  I know that so many of you want to be mad and arrogant about it- "oh those menopausal women"- or "repubs pretending to democrats" - or "there's only a few of them".  Well, believe what you will- be arrogant if you will.  That will not solve  the problems.

by easyE 2008-08-29 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What you don't understand....

But how does that translate into anger at Obama and votes for Hillary?  Hillary Clinton actually benefited from the RBC solution.  She gained net delegates - Obama had a net loss.

Had it been up to her, she would have gotten none.  She controlled nine committee members and every single one of them voted to strip Michigan and Florida completely.

I've heard the argument, it just doesn't make any sense.  You never have a valid argument when  you are asking to change the rules after a contest is finished.  It is made even more invalid when your proposed change intentionally skews the result to your favored side.  And it is even worse when you originally agreed to the rules that you are now decrying.

Everytime this argument is made it shows that the person making it is interested in reaching a conclusion first, and then grasping for reasons to justify it.  If it wasn't that it would be something else.

by MeganLocke 2008-08-29 06:26AM | 0 recs
What you don't understand.

They're saying the things that resonate with you but they have a totally different agenda.  They know people are disappointed that Hillary lost and they are using that emotion to promote John McCain.  I've watched this being craftily developed by rightwing trolls on the pro-Hillary blogs.

Freepers pretending to support Hillary came up with the 'let's all sit this one out'.  Then the same people started saying 'that won't be enough, let's vote for McCain' and finally saying 'and let's vote for republicans downticket too'.  It was trollery at its finest.  Pretend to be on board and then over time begin to move the narrative in the direction you want it to go.

by GFORD 2008-08-29 06:37AM | 0 recs
PUMA = Catnip for the braindead media

by activatedbybush 2008-08-29 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

Most of Alegre's behavior has been indefensible, and continues to be, despite her protestations of being a "lifelong Democrat." She's been a disingenuous, even dishonest blogger, morphing from a Clinton backer to an Obama hater at sites like this before launching her own forum around which to gather a flock of admirers while filtering out any voice that contradicted her illusions.

Those real Clinton supporters who gravitated to her site got sucked into a vortex of hatred and irrationality, spurred on by republicans and racists who clearly delighted in sowing chaos and confusion among sincere Democrats. Their presence was obvious: they're the ones who leapt at any comment which bordered on reason and respect, spewing venom against Obama and attempting to shame and malign any Democrat who suggested that Obama was anything but unthinkable.

Alegre monitored a forum which enabled malicious individuals to mess with the heads of real Democrats. The pain and confusion of the woman in that CNN clip from the other night is, to a great degree, the fault of Alegre and her ilk, who put their own agendas first. That she plans to carry on in the same vein demonstrates that she, like McCain, doesn't get it.

Sadly, Alegre is herself a casualty, a victim of the internet limelight to which she became addicted. And the prominent enablers at this site bear some responsiblity for her damage, as well, IMO.

by BobzCat 2008-08-29 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs Unmasked Themselves Tonight!

It's sad, I originally defended alegre, had her figured as one of the real Democrats among a crowd of less than honest Hillary "supporters" (like susanhu, Larry Johnson, Universal, etc.)

Turns out in the end, she was only there for Hillary, not for any of the things Hillary fought for.  All the criticisms of Obama supporters as being in a cult of personality...it happened to her.

by Skaje 2008-08-29 09:44AM | 0 recs
No offense

but that could be said of other bloggers with some "internet" limelight.  You only see the hate on one side. I see it on all sides.  

There were other sides, one with a lot of orange, that permitted hate and misogyny on a regular basis.  Let's not play the "pointing fingers game"; the personal attack game.  It does not heal, it only escalates.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-29 07:00AM | 0 recs
Keeping this rift going

is playing into the republican hands.  So please let it go.  There will always be extremes of every movement that will be loud.  But they do NOT represent the majority of Hillary supporters, or Hillary herself.

Please let it go.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-29 07:02AM | 0 recs
Unwanted question - prob get burned

Don't care.

IF, big IF, Obama had lost the nomination by a hair ....

AND since both Obama and Clinton supporters feel that the opposing campaign was "not nice", with false accusations ...

Does anyone think that African-Americans in at least SOME numbers would be angry, disillusioned, feel betrayed, you name it????

Would I call that select group of African-Americans who had seen their strongest and best candidate Un-Democratic Party people ... say they were never truly Democrats?   NOT ME, not in a million years.

I'm not saying that staying pissed off about Hillary's loss is the way to go.  I'm just saying this:

When a person is angry about a situation or event, telling that person they are WRONG to be angry ain't gonna get it.  Telling that person to just "put the past behind you" ain't gonna get it.  Listening, understanding, yes even to the rants, without a whole bunch of "you are wrong because of ..." will help angry people to see what it is they are angry about.

Quite frankly, I feel some anger about the treatment of Hillary - and I wasn't even an ardent Hillary supporter from the top.  That anger won't make me not vote, or vote for McSame, because I'm a woman and he is not a person who displays the values that I hold.  

But I recognize my anger and am ready to deal with it - in increments - and I can understand others' anger - even at me.

All I'm saying is that if people keep kicking angry Hillary supporters in the teeth, there will be fewer chances of reconciliation, understanding, coming together for the common cause.

I'll go back to my little life where I've struggled for years to deal with rage - sometimes struggled successfully I might say.

by Southern Mouth 2008-08-29 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Unwanted question - prob get burned

These aren't Hillary supporters.  This is a battle between real Hillary supporters, and frauds that are using her name to destroy everything good that Hillary stands for.  You must get this through your head.  These people ARE NOT HILLARY SUPPORTERS.  They are trying to destroy everything Hillary by using her as a wedge.

by Hill4Life 2008-08-29 08:15AM | 0 recs
Do they say they don't support Hillary?

Or is your statement an assumption based on the behavior you see?

by Southern Mouth 2008-08-29 08:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads