Puma Bashing [Updated]

[Update--For all those who have asserted this diary is not factual. These are the facts: He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. No one disputes this. This was not only due to the security of the situation. An interview, by the way, is not any of the preceding. And in the place of real media coverage we were shown stage managed questions and the appearance of press conferences. Get it? Stage managed. If you think this is a small matter and that I am nitpicking--we will converse again in a year or so. Obama's treatment of the press has been deplorable. I am not saying the press isn't also deplorable, ok? What I am saying is this isn't any way to improve matters. We are reaching the point of a stage managed, state run media. Obama shows no inclination to reverse this aweful trend. And I will stand up for improving real media access, no matter who the candidate is!!!]

I made a different choice than the Hillary supporters who joined Puma which means Party Unity My Ass. It was a hard choice. And at first I was irritated at those who refused to support the nominee as Hillary had done and asked her supporters to do.

But Enough is Enough!!!

Leave the pumas alone. I do not think they are dishonest, misguided or stupid. I do not think they are ripping Hillary off. And I certainly do not think ridiculing them, bashing them and humiliating them serves any useful purpose.

So get over it!!! Some Hillary supporters will not back the nominee. And they do so for excellent reasons, be it dislike of Barack Obama  and/or outrage over the way Hillary was demeaned in the media and railroaded by the DNC.

I saw a clip today from Andrea Mitchell who was about as outraged as I have ever seen her over the fact no reporter was allowed to ask a question of Barack Obama in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Everything the American public saw out of those two places about Barack Obama's trip was staged. This is something even  G.W. did not dare attempt in the general election contest. Mitchell said:

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Gives you pause, doesn't it? And if it doesn't, it should.

Barack Obama is exercising  more press "management" than even George Bush.

So I think the PUMAs serve a legitimate purpose. They are saying that the primary contest was rigged which is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. And they are saying that practices like fake news conferences by a presidential candidate are not something they will vote for.

They are not saying this directly, but by their  existence These aren't just sore losers. And they aren't all weird and crazee. Many of them are longtime democrats who believe the Democratic Party needs to change, become more responsive to its members and more fair.

I could never be a PUMA, anymore than Hillary could be. But I respect their intention. It is time to stop smearing them and  accusing them of  being disloyal to Hillary. They are refusing to do as she has asked, but that is their right.

This is the way a democracy works. People get to promulgate their cause and act on their convictions. In this spirit I say  the PUMAS show us that democracy--at least at this level--is alive and still kicking--which is all to the good.

Tags: andrea mitchell, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, PUMA (all tags)



Howdy Linfar

We've agreed, here at MyDD, not to discuss or bash that group any further.  Last call went out, and the deadline has passed in the last day or two.

Nobody's going to mess with them here anymore.  It's over.  We've moved on.

I appreciate the sentiment in your diary, but you are a day or two too late.  No biggie.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-22 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

Hi reap--I think a moratorium on any subject is silly. We are all talking about it and thinking about it because it is relevant. I think Mitchell's comments today are serious. Any group putting pressure on Obama to open up his press relations, etc. is valid. This group does that--by saying they will not support press management of this sort.

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

I'm willing to give any candidate a pass if they're in a warzone.

As to the politics?  Obama has to walk an incredibly fine line on this trip.  His staff is jealously protecting his image right now, and they need to be.

I'm sick of losing.  I want a candidate who runs as near to a flawless campaign as is possible.

Besides, the three-point shot was real.  What more do ya want?  :)

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-22 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar


I thought the 3 point shot was CGI?

Damn, that man DOES have game! (Snark!)

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

When you have a President who is less available to the press that GW was; when you have a President who does as he pleases and then stages a "news conference" with flunkies who ask fluff questions,and when you have a Prsident who punishes people who publish articles he doesn't like, maybe you will care less for the basketball shot and more about what was staring you in the face in the general election.

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

It ain't gonna happen.  Until I see any legit reason to worry, I ain't gonna worry.

Does Barack Obama keep the press at arms-length?  Yes.  Does he hide from them and live in a bubble?  Absolutely not.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-22 04:45PM | 0 recs
totally full of it

Your claims are all false.

There was a press conference today and there were plenty of tough questions.  In fact, Andrea Mitchell asked one of them.

And there were far more reporters who wanted to be on the plane than spaces.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-22 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: totally full of it

He answered a very tough question last night, and answered it very well!

This is a man who can really think on his feet.

by William Cooper 2008-07-23 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: totally full of it

Trolled for trollishly trawling hours of Obama responses to find one where he stumbles.

How many McCain points for this sad little attack I wonder?

by duende 2008-07-23 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

I think you are a bit off base with this statement.  see previous post.

by mariannie 2008-07-22 10:29PM | 0 recs
Opuma Bashing

Sorry, this is a repeat post from the bottom of this diary. But you'll see why I put it up here

Linfar. Having disagreed with you in the primaries, I've come to listen to and respect your diaries in the last few months. I don't always agree - you wouldn't expect that from people on this site - but you were always passionate and interesting. And unlike others I could mention, you were always genuine enough to engage in debate with other posters.

I do think the conflation of Puma/Obama here is a little confusing. All politicians should be held to account, and there IS a danger that Obama is taken so high into the stratosphere he loses connection with his base and reality (always a danger for politicians in the bubble of modern media). So those points are valid.

But lots of other people read this blog like myself, without access to the daily updates on US media.

I think you should address the points made by other posters about Obama's press conference.

Politicians and pundits (and posters) should be criticised when they fail to listen, but there's a corollary to this...

They should be praised when they do listen.

Are you listening, Linfar?

by duende 2008-07-23 02:12AM | 0 recs

Like I care what Mrs. Greenspan the Warmonger thinks anyway.

by Bush Bites 2008-07-22 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah.

She is a piece of work.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-23 06:17AM | 0 recs

1) If Obama did nothing but answer reporter questions at every turn A) this would no longer be a fact finding mission and B) I'm sure the press would be all over him for being so presumptuous as to take questions as though he were the president/decider.

You are being manipulated by Andrea Mitchell. She is a McCain supporter through and through. Sounds like a bit of journalist envy more than anything else. I guarantee you that if she had one of the exclusive interviews, she would be singing a different tune.

by highgrade 2008-07-22 03:58PM | 0 recs

What are you talking about? He had a press conference TODAY.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-22 04:55PM | 0 recs
Actually that clip was from days ago...

I feel like we must have been watching two different interviews.  I didn't think Mitchell seemed outraged in the least.  And for that matter I can't believe anyone would be outraged that a presidential candidate went overseas for a reason other than a press photo op.  I think he wanted to send the message that he was there for our troops in a serious and honest attempt to assess the situation and feelings on the ground.  

If he had gone over there and staged photos and talked only to the press when he should have been talking to troops and generals I would have been personally offended.

Lastly, Obama did a great press conference this morning from Jordan.  Mitchell was there and had plenty of access.  Here is a good read from the 45 min press conference:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/22/ 101618/912/216/555076

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-22 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

It doesn't matter to that group whether they have a valid complaint or not. They knock Obama for everything, whether real or imagined.

BTW, Obama met with reporters for an hour today to answer questions. Darn him! He did it again. Took the complaint away before it even got legs.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-22 05:09PM | 0 recs
Mitchell is outraged, what else is new

The reason there wasn't a press pool is because the Iraq/Afghan leg of the trip was an official CODEL and travel was done by the military. Press could NOT come along for the ride. Period.

If he had given a press conference to whatever media wanted to pay their own way to Iraq/Afghanistan I suppose he could have. But so what? He would have been criticized for that as well if he had I suspect.

As soon as he got to Jordan, where the official CODEL ended, and where his own campaign had flown the entire press corps of the free world to join the rest of the non-CODEL trip, he did what? Gave a press conference.

Now Andrea Mitchell knows all this, she is pissy about something else (maybe she got denied a one on one) but whatever she has always been pissy about Obama.  Keep in mind who she is married to.

And since Andrea can't remember a Presidential candidate doing this before, well maybe she has memory issues as well. All the way back in March when presumptive Republican Nominee John McCain hit Iraq, unannounced, without press.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wire Story?id=4459769

McCain's visit was not announced and he was believed to have been in the country for several hours before reporters were able to confirm his arrival. It was unclear who he met with; no media opportunities or news conferences were planned.

If you notice from other media accounts of the trip, it was also covered media wise by members of the Military press. Known by Andrea Mitchell as the "fake press".
Check out the credit on the photo.

It's standard operating procedure. The Military does it for all official delegations. The only difference this time is that people are paying more attention.

Here's a CNN video report of McCain then. Notice all the video of Sen McCain has been taken by the defense department (the fake press managed by McCain).


So maybe someone should inform Andrea how these things work.

by br549x 2008-07-22 06:47PM | 0 recs
Mrs. Greenspan spent a lot of time...

...spreading Bush and McCain's propaganda and now Obama's ruining it all !!!

by Bush Bites 2008-07-22 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Howdy Linfar

I heard on NPR that all of his photo ops and interviews are totally staged by the military and controlled by the military - his campaign has NO control whatsoever in his schedule.  

by mariannie 2008-07-22 10:27PM | 0 recs
PUMA seems only to have

relevance here.  They simply do not matter.

Who cares?  I have far more respect for people who vote for Nader or McKinney for ideological reasons than I do for sore losers who backed a centrist candidate.

All PUMA does is demean Hillary Clinton.  

They simply don't matter.

by TomP 2008-07-23 07:24AM | 0 recs
I know...

I've moved on. After my last diary over the weekend, I'm done negotiating with "PUMAs". As long as they stop trolling around here, I'm done with "PUMA".

by atdleft 2008-07-22 04:22PM | 0 recs
PUMA Moratorium, My Ass

There will be no moratorium!

This has nothing to do with the fact that PUMA adherents are obviously easy targets and notoriously poor sports to boot, making their resulting hysterics a highly entertaining spectacle for the terminally bored.

No, this is a matter of principle. Sure, now that you moratorium-bots need me, I'm supposed to simply yield to your cultist mandates? Yet, where were you when certain comments and responses of mine went unmojo'd and unloved, permanently lost to the ignominy of the ignored?

The PUMA Moratorium My Ass, or PUMAMMA movement plans to take a stand for the right of everyone to freedom of speech (including rants, bloviation and random drooling) and to permanent adulation by sockpuppets, no matter how long-winded or tiresome the subject. Stay tuned!

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass

You've inspired me!  I'm off to write my first PUMAMMA diary!


by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass

Don't hold back. This is a serious movement, and the obvious nobility of our cause should be beyond question.

In keeping with tradition, make sure your diary is replete with smears and innuendo - and don't forget to tip off the rest of us once it's up. Overactive imaginations and drive-by recs, that's the kind of stuff "movements" are made of.

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-23 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass

I have deep experience with "movements," since I eat a lot of bran.  

Thanks for the encouragement!

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 03:49PM | 0 recs
I haven't agreed to that.

We've agreed, here at MyDD, not to discuss or bash that group any further.

What I agreed to was not recommending anymore diaries with PUMA in the title.  They still deserve to be bashed, and I'd love to do it, but it's what they want.  

It's sort of like a submissive trying to provoke his dom into beating him.  If you want to make these trolls go away, just stop beating them, dammit.  It's the only way you can really be cruel to masochists.

by Dumbo 2008-07-22 09:48PM | 0 recs
Go Linfar!

You have a strong voice and while somebody posted a "no more PUMA diaries" diary yesterday you express it more emphatically than everyone else. Recommended!

by catfish2 2008-07-22 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Go Linfar!

I'm shocked.  SHOCKED! to find gambling going on in this place.

by kasjogren 2008-07-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I don't respect them in the least, and I honestly don't care about their Democratic resumes.  That said, unless they provoke something stupid here, I'm not going to make a point of acknowledging their existence.

by rfahey22 2008-07-22 03:45PM | 0 recs
You make some good points here.

I disagree with some of them, but I see what you're saying. I'll try to lay off the PUMAs, but if they decide to be pissy about my decision to support the nominee, I'll probably snipe right back at them. It's got to be a two-way street. Live and let live.


by sricki 2008-07-22 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You make some good points here.

that's fair ricki. this is all about debate and difference of opinion. We have a serious one going on here. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend [to the death] your right to say it.

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:49PM | 0 recs

I think I've probably vilified them enough. Hey, at least this place isn't an echo chamber, I guess...

by sricki 2008-07-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Right,

right, it is not an echo chamaer--and we don't want it to be. It's all about accountability. I find this tendency in Obama about the press to be very worrisome and troubling.

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Right,

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

I'm going to give him a pass on this one since my sense it was done for security reasons and rather than intentionally keeping the press at bay. If that was the case why even invite them to be on the plane for the rest of the trip.

by jsfox 2008-07-22 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Right,

But that would make too much sense. PS. How does anyone know for sure the secret service didn't implement this policy?

by Dog Chains 2008-07-23 08:15AM | 0 recs
Nicely said, sricki...

While I vehemently disagree with all things "PUMA", I'm so done fighting with them. If they want to keep embarrassing themselves by trashing Democrats, they can go ahead. I just want none of it, and I don't want to engage the trolls any longer.

by atdleft 2008-07-22 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Hey, I wonder if Andrea's nose is out of joint, cause she is used to being "big dog" with the Republics cause of her Hubby.

Now, I am NOT happy if Obama goes into mole mode and won't talk to the press, but I don't trust Andrea a bit, her outrage seems a bit too personal.

"Everything the American public saw out of those two places about Barack Obama's trip was staged. This is something even  G.W. did not dare attempt in the general election contest. Mitchell said:

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq."

Well, I saw the press question and answer today?

Personally, I expected this.  They were going to push back, no matter what?

I heard almost a contradictory criticism, that Obama was speaking TOO MUCH and was out of line, doing this on a congressional junket?

And, I think, if the Puma's think they are doing some good, well, more power to them?

I fail to see one of their primary rationales being played out, that they are going to punish the media for treating Senator Clinton so bad by voting for McCain, but, again, everyone gets to choose.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

WSB, you remind my of my Momma who operates on the premise that if she doesn't like it--it didn't happen. Obama's press management is becominhg legendary. And in my opinion it is not healthy

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I don't get it...What is so wrong with trying to control the message or the narrative in a General Election.  Seems to me to be good strategy especially when it is helping us against a third term of Bush.

What's the big deal, every politician attempts to do this in an election year?

by hootie4170 2008-07-22 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

hootie, the totalitarian state of any stripe would be so pleased by your comment. You have just demonstrated the way people today do not understand or care about a free press. Give us stage managed "news" and we are happy. He's in a campaign, who cares if we are being told the truth. Isn't that what people said about Bush and the war?? We are in a war, for heaven's sake--you can't expect the truth.

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

linfar...If you're trying to tell me that "Free Press" equals truthful news I've got a bridge I'd love to sell you...The fact is even when the MSM has access to your so-called "free press" and the truth, they distort, edit, and mangle it to make it fit their meme and then they feed the bullshit to the viewers.

If this is an attempt to stick up for the MSM, I'm afraid I can't support that cause.

by hootie4170 2008-07-22 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

No, hootie, Not sticking up for msm. But stage managed infotainment that looks like the real deal is even scarier to me. I would like to hear Obama say that he will support bringing back the fairness doctrine and that he is insterested in improving the accuracy and fairness of the media. I have heard no such thing from him. If somebody has any info that says otherwise, I would love to hear it. We have to improve the media not substitute fake news and say well, the media sucks so what the hey...

by linfar 2008-07-23 07:36AM | 0 recs
This is a different generation, Lin

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States ...

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

The first few days were part of the Senate trip, and now we are on the campaign part. His priorities were the soldiers . . . today it shifts to a trip funded by the campaign . . . and he properly held a press conference.

The press just craves Obama, and whines . . . yet they only send ONE reporter to cover McCain last night upon his arrival on NEW HAMPSHIRE!!


by Veteran75 2008-07-22 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

This is true... Jake Tapper was on the Ed Schultz show yesterday talking about this.  Nonetheless, Obama has done interviews with the press in every country he's been to thus far and will do 3 major interviews -- one for each network.

by froggyman 2008-07-23 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

thanks froggyman. Yes. it is true. and it is troubling. This is as troubling to me as his FISA vote. I would think progressives would be up in arms at Obama's stage managed press "conferences" and photo ops. We need someone fighting for a better, improved more "free" press and doing so by leading the way.

by linfar 2008-07-23 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing


We appreciate your concern.


by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

You are being very naive if you think that by not having press events 'staged' it will automatically mean what the candidate says is the truth.  EVERY candidate does this...when they let go for one minute, even if off the record, the press distorts what they say and we have instant chaos within the campaign and the message.  Frankly, I think Obama does too much 'free talking' and would be shut up from time to time.  has nothing to do with his events being staged.

by mariannie 2008-07-22 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Well, I don't blame the campaign for caution during this trip, at all. First, there seems to be entirely too much interest in a potential gaffe. Moreover, the press constantly described the risks associated with trip, and most of these risks relate to perceptions (which gives the press enormous amounts of power). And, because the press is habitually shallow and obsessed with inconsequential crap, I frankly don't blame our candidate for keeping some distance during the trip.

Again, my sympathy for the campaign's guarded posture is mostly limited to this trip. During the ordinary domestic phase of the campaign, I would hope to see greater openness.

by DPW 2008-07-22 04:04PM | 0 recs
Um, Barack has been one on one...

...with every freaking network this week.

I'm sorry Andrea Miller feels slighted, but what question did she need to ask? "How's your chest pass?"

by Lieber 2008-07-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, Barack has been one on one...

Lieber--that is her point!! Nothing was real. It was all staged. Yes, he got a lot of press converage-- of stage managed news. Mitchell is right. There was not one moment of genuine news coverage in the way we normally  think of it.

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, Barack has been one on one...

The first part of the trip was known to be restricted from the press. The press had their chance to ask any question they wanted in Amman, Jordan today.

Mitchell is full of it. Sure, the images were stage-managed. They always are. But whining about being locked out is disingenuous.

by elrod 2008-07-22 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, Barack has been one on one...

When there is "genuine news coverage" of McCain, then I will agree that it should go both ways...

We have yet to see genuine criticism of McCain.  For all of his failings, for all of his gaffes, we have yet to see sincere criticism via the media for it.

The media is incredibly hard on the Democratic nominee... they have been for years.  

That Obama has the ability to control SOME of his coverage is a plus, not a minus.

That Mitchell may have her nose out of joint is her too bad.

by JenKinFLA 2008-07-22 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, Barack has been one on one...

This is the same "free press" that is openly mulling not covering the conventions because they're "not news" and it's too expensive to do so, right?

It's up to the press to preserve a "free press," not politicians.  When the "free press" universally adopted McCain's stance that this election is only about Obama and that any little gaffe would be a dealbreaker, the only rational course was to control the message as well as possible.  The press is always free to get off its collective ass and force the issue; it's not up to anyone else to do the reporters' job for them.

by rfahey22 2008-07-22 08:25PM | 0 recs
Concern noted

and filed and forgotten.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-07-23 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

This is the way a democracy works. People get to promulgate their cause and act on their convictions.

Then non-PUMA members should be able to exercise their rights as well.  If we want to provide factual evidence to counter some of the PUMAs accusations, then we are well in within our rights as well.

They don't get free reign to knee cap Obama and then fall back on the "this is a Democracy" excuse or the "I guess you don't want party unity" meme.  

Fact is some (not all) PUMA's only purpose is to ridicule and insult Obama with no intention on making the Democratic Party "better".  Those are the ones I have issues with.

by hootie4170 2008-07-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Ok you are a few hours late 9:47 to be exact. However,  since you did it with more passion and less snark (read none) than I did.  No harm no foul.

I've moved on and choose to ignore those that no longer shall be named.

by jsfox 2008-07-22 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

oh dear, I have been dealing with a family crises and just swamped. If I am rehashing old news here and your diary covered this--I apologize

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

No no! Not to worry! as I said your diary was more passionate where mine was just a tad snarky :)

Apologies certainly not needed, Beside it's turned into yet another lively discussion

by jsfox 2008-07-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

"Obama's press management is becominhg legendary. And in my opinion it is not healthy"

Well, considering the fact we have gotten CLOBBERED in the last two GE by BAD news managment, I wonder?

I did say, I don't want Obama to go into Mole Mode, but I think, again, our candidates have done a crappy job in press management, it's a mixed blessing at best?

Hey, I think I might have liked you Mommy, if she thinks like me! (Wink!)

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Momma winks back :) :)

by linfar 2008-07-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

And they come in all stripes, I'd like some party unity, but not the bullying kind, i want them to listen. This fake news thing may be okay for now, meaning he can get away with the tight marketing for now, but no honeymoon lasts forever, and once it's over, then the press will remind us that we elected a man who scripted everything, but called his rival too scripted.  What goes around comes around, those of you who are four-square behind him, tell him this is plain stupid. if he's too fragile to take out without 'protection,' he's proving he's not ready.  And if he is ready, why would he need to pretend he isn't?  

by anna shane 2008-07-22 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

"then the press will remind us that we elected a man who scripted everything, but called his rival too scripted."

I will live in that future disaster if it comes, right now, as I said, I would rather have the campaign try to get it's message out and control the news cycle a bit.

Anne, will you at least admit, Gore and Kerry did a MISERABLE job of controlling the message, they were always on the defensive.

The Republics beat their campaigns at virtually every turn?

YES, I want balance, I don't want Obama to go into a shell, but trying to control the message is NOT inheriently a bad thing.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

it's hypocrisy, but okay, it's okay with you, and given that he's our candidate and he can't speak for sure without putting his foot into it, he does need to be scripted. but every smear he made on Hillary turns out he's worse.  Remember, she's so scripted?  This isn't even a script, it's editing.  And it all sets precedents. I'd far rather hear what he's about, whatever it is, can't be as bad as John, but at least it would be refreshing.  They're both personality driven candidates, and he has the better personality.  

by anna shane 2008-07-22 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

What do you have to say about this after finding out that he did give an interview with a CBS reporter in Afghanistan and then held a one-hour press conference today?

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-22 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

From the famous Anna Shane of Alegre's corner, you hear crickets...

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 09:09AM | 0 recs

Those Alegre's Corner people are nasty and brutish (I don't know how solitary, poor or short they are).  Some of them are out and out racists.  Those who aren't are morally corrupted enough to welcome the racists in without a word of protest.  Anybody who writes over there has no credibility with me.  I even got an account there some weeks ago so I could respectfully disagree with some of the bilious shit I saw spewed, but after I wrote my first comment, which never got published, I was quickly banned.  Seems about what anybody would think would happen, but it's still kind of sad.  They rant about their right to free speech, but then don't want any dissent; that's altogether within their rights, of course, but it does kind of make them look like hypocrites.  I think that when they talk about free speech, what they really mean is that they have the right to say anything they want, and nobody has the right to call them on their bullshit.  Kind of a one-way freedom of speech.

by Mumphrey 2008-07-23 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh.

how charming.  We're all Democrats, and calling us ugly names isn't the way to foster unity.  Just makes you look like sore winners.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh.

Those who go out of their way to help get McCain elected, aren't Democrats.  Those who latch on to every nutso conspiracy theory that comes along the pike, as long as it's about Obama, are not Democrats.  Those who let freako racists scumbags hang around and spout off on their sites, and don't run them off at the first sign of racism are not Democrats.  And those who tag along with Alegre or Texas Darlin or Larry Johnson at their freakshows are not Democrats.  It takes more than just saying, "Hey, I'm a Democrat, too," to make somebody a Democrat.  ANYBODY can claim to be a Democrat.  Hell, Joe Lieberman does.  But it's what you DO rather than what you Say that shows who and what you are.  I'm sorry, but that's that.  Joe Lieberman is no Democrat, neither is Alegre and neither are you.

by Mumphrey 2008-07-24 10:50AM | 0 recs
Oh Jesus,

Can we please just stop with the 'Revenge for Hillary' thing? PLEASE?

by Maori 2008-07-22 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

No I don't remember that, and I never said anything like that nor do I remember Obama saying anything like that.

It's NOT Hypocrisy, as people have stated the first half of the tour was run by the military, so it's not like the Obama camp was running the shots anyway?

And, as far as he can't speak without putting his foot in his mouth, I have seen 2 interviews in the last two days and the press conference from today?

So far, so good.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Is he a baby, or is he a grown up.  OF course you don't remember, it wasn't above your radar, that was one of those 'negatives' he thought she carried and deserved.  I want him to win, and so far this is working, he still has the press and the public doesn't like him being bashed, even when it's right, so as far as practical, this seems okay. Of course not everything is edited, some is simply scripted.  I'm not holding onto grudges, just not forgetting that there have been two standards, I think he would have won the nom without the smearing, but that's just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong and he needed to do that. I think he'll win the GE without having to edit for news, or to script. He just needs to learn not to give his own opinions, without first telling them to his advisors and getting feedback on how his words will be understood. Enough with the explanations after the fact, he should learnt to script himself, if that means not speaking when you don't know what you're talking about.  He's improving, I can see that, but this is too careful for my taste. But it's his campaign and I'm very glad he's really trying to win.

by anna shane 2008-07-23 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Is that blank verse of free verse?  I always confuse the two.

by Jess81 2008-07-23 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

It's free verse--has no rhythm or rhyme.  Blank verse has rhythm but doesn't have rhyme.  I don't know what it is when it has no rhythm, rhyme or point...

by Mumphrey 2008-07-24 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

He fielded questions from the press in Jordan, and conducted one-on-one interviews before that.  Would it really have made a difference to you if he had held TWO press conferences at his trip?  Three?  Be honest.

Or perhaps you didn't know about the press conference.

by Jess81 2008-07-22 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

It's about releasing edited video, it's not about whether or not he's ever spoken to the press and let them take their own video and use it like they will.

by anna shane 2008-07-23 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

The DOD doesn't allow that, as has been pointed out again and again.  Please quit the act.

by Jess81 2008-07-23 07:22AM | 0 recs
I dont care who you vote for

Andrea Mitchell is angry because she is not getting much access, gee another older white woman feeling disrespected because she is not entitled to things.

Bitter older white woman to not direct media management.   Mrs. Greenspan is a bitter hack.

by Brandon 2008-07-22 04:06PM | 0 recs
Stop it...

You're being sexist & downright tasteless.

by atdleft 2008-07-22 04:24PM | 0 recs

Andrea Mitchell is biter because she is personally not getting press access.  The disgusting level of narcissism that makes her reporting a joke is the same vein of sexist self righteousness that makes "pumas" a joke.  

Party Unity is irrelevant to these people, And I feel no constraints in telling them I don't give a damn who they vote for.

by Brandon 2008-07-22 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No

bitter older white women - sexist, racist, dismissive of independent thinking, motivation smears, you've covered quite a bit here.  

by anna shane 2008-07-22 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop it...

thanks adleft. As ever some will go to the gutter.

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont care who you vote for
awww spoken like a true douche bag.

keep it classy, Brandon.
by alyssa chaos 2008-07-22 04:31PM | 0 recs
i still do not understand...

how this guy doesn't get TR'ed for this stuff.  i rarely drop the 1 or 0 - but most of what i read from him warrants it.  he was running aroung calling HRC (a sitting DEMOCRATIC senator) leatherface - and save for a few of us - nobody drop the TR.  strange i say - strange.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: i still do not understand...

dude its cause people are lazy, including myself. I dont want to waste my energy on the trash. Id rather go mojo it up.

apparently Brandon is the golden child and all his shit gets a pass.

by alyssa chaos 2008-07-22 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

ya know...
to me anyway
you were moving forward...

Then this..

"So I think the PUMAs serve a legitimate purpose. They are saying that the primary contest was rigged which is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. And they are saying that practices like fake news conferences by a presidential candidate are not something they will vote for."

Would you please support, in any way that the Primary contest was rigged in Obama's favor?

Could you give examples of "fake news conferences"?

You are now saying that these positions of PUMA's are legitimate?...

You have written with articulate passion since the end of our Primary..
This, to me, flies in the face of that. What am I missing?

As long as PUMA's continue to post bullshit here..
it is a live issue.

The belly of PUMA

If you can find any PUMA website...where there is not a commenter(s) not calling voting for McCain...let me know.

by nogo postal 2008-07-22 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I am not endorsing any of those websites at this time. And if you don't think the primary contest was "rigged," I certainly will not persuade you otherwise. But I am not a lockstep person. I support the nominee. Does that make me blind to press management on a scale not even Bush could manage? When Andrea Mitchell gets her buns in an uproar, you know something is seriously amiss. How many people who wantched the nightly news shoing scense of Obama's visit to Iraq and Afghanistant understood there was nothing "live" about it?

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

What the hell happened?  Was I unconscious for a decade?  When did Andrea "Frickin" Mitchell become the spokesperson for all media?

by hootie4170 2008-07-22 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Linfar, I thought you were bat shit crazy for a while.

I have realized you are either that, or a master manipulator.

I recall your horid post on the death of Russert, and now you say the Primary's were fixed?
Are you claiming voter fraud?

You never fail to dissapoint Linfar.

You do the same tricks everytime, start a thread with nobility then end it in shame.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

When Andrea Mitchell gets her "buns" in an uproar, you're right, it's because something is seriously amiss -- the Democrat is trouncing the Republican. Her complaint is a partisan pro-McCain move. It has nothing to do with "preserving a free press", unless the definition of "free press" is "pro-Republican".

I think anyone who's seen any news report from Iran and Afghanistan over the last 6 years or so and paid any attention knows there's nothing "live" about it. There has been and will be no "live" coverage from those regions. It's the same when GWB goes there, or McCain, or Lieberman, or Clinton for that matter. Yes, a lot of people don't pay attention, and for them I'm sorry. But that doesn't mean that Obama did anything different, or wrong, or worse, or whatever than anyone else who's visited, nor does it mean that he could have done anything different -- he couldn't.

Faux outrage and concern about something that the candidate has zero control over and is done the way it's done for well-known and long-established reasons just isn't very persuasive. Obama has been praised throughout this campaign for being very accommodating to and forthright with the press (remember the Chicago media w.r.t. Rezko, for instance?). There's been more criticism of him for having too much media coverage on this trip than too little, and outside of the war-zone countries, it's been quite open and accessible.

It's certainly possible to argue that the primaries were rigged, but if so, it's a very open question whom they were rigged in favor of and whether the rigging worked or not. There's at least as strong an argument that they were rigged against Obama as in his favor.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-07-23 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

As I recall, there was non-stop positive coverage of a particular candidate up until super-Tuesday.  That candidate was not Obama.  As I recall, there was also a candidate that had questions planted in the audience.  That candidate was not Obama.  Given the first point, I don't see how the claim can be made that the election was rigged.  Given the second, I don't see how that other particular candidate would have been any better in this respect.  Indeed, these practices began with Bill's presidency.  Without message control there's no way the dems can win.

by Philoguy 2008-07-22 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I sure hope that isn't true.  Because you can't control the message, you can only make yourself look afraid.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

"Because you can't control the message, you can only make yourself look afraid."

Anna, I'm sorry but that is a completely ridiculous comment.  What planet have you been living on?  It's called "Marketing,"  and it works, whether we want to admit it or not.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

then who next with be marketed? That is very cynical, and I think untrue. the voters right now actually like Barack, and forgive his blunders cause he's new and they think his heart is in the right place.  He may think it's because he's marketed himself, but it has less to do with him than he thinks.  He could do a lot of things differently and still be elected.  I think he would have won the nom without having to smear anyone, or misrepresent anyone. These are in my opinion mistakes he's made, because they make him look marketed, and not a regular guy who wants to be president, in an election year when Americans want a regular guy who didn't grow up in DC.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing
Jeez, what the hell?
"Regular guy"?
I don't want some "regular guy" to be president, I want somebody a good deal better than "regular".  I mean, we've seen how well this "regular guy" thing worked out the last 7 years, haven't we?  People though Bush was more "like them" than Gore or Kerry were, right?  Turns out, maybe most "regular guys" wouldn't be too likely to be good--or even passable--presidents.
I don't really care if Obama isn't some "regular guy."  I don't care if he likes arugula or French cheese or dijon mustard.  It doesn't bother me that he went to Columbia or that he lived in Indonesia.  But then,m I guess I'm suspect, since I like arugula and French cheese and dijon mustard, and I went to the University of Pennsylvania and I lived in Honduras for 2 years, so I guess I'm not "regular" enough for people like you either.
I think people like you, who seem to revere jus' reg'lar ol' folks enough to want them living in the White House and running the most powerful country the world has ever seen deserve somebody like George Bush.  The trouble is, when you vote on your childish fetishes in enough numbers, the rest of us end up with your pathetic "regular" misfits running our country (and it IS our country, too) into the ground, and WE suffer, too.
So take your "regular guy" crap and go back to Alegre's Corner and rant away about "affirmative action" and "black culture paranoia" among the other dead-enders over there.  But for the love of God, why can't you just stew away in your bitterness and inconsequentiality on your own and not try to take the rest of us down with you?
by Mumphrey 2008-07-23 12:08PM | 0 recs
everyone's regular

only some pretend to be superior, but Americans don't have respect for those who crown themselves, because this is a Democracy, sort of, anyway.  Barack may get elected and he may be a terrific president, I certainly hope so, but he's just a person, and his record hasn't shown his greatness, if he has some. If he's great, he'll need to prove it.  In the meantime he needs to win, and preening isn't the smartest way to win over thinking voters.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Anna -  Whether my point is cynical or not is really immaterial.  This is a fact:  Marketing works, otherwise advertisers would not spend $100 billion a year in the US, for that very purpose.

You can have a marketing strategy to make someone appear elitist, (happenned during the primary), or a marketing campaign to make someone look like a regular guy, (chimpboy in 2000).  When marketing is done well, it's invisible.  

Again, irrespective of the moral judgments of manipulating people's behavior patterns, marketing works.  I'm just glad that we have a nominee who truly understands this approach, and knows that it's the best way to fight the GOP machine, (which is very, very, very good at marketing).

It means that we finally get to win.  I'm glad that he's handling the press during this trip, exactly the way he is.  It shows me that his campaign has the discipline and sophistication to win.

I applaud them wholeheartedly!

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-07-23 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

it's not invisible.  i'll be fine enough with Barack, when he wins, and until then I'll be blogging my opinions about how he can be a better candidate and a better president.  This looks like short term gain, long term pain to me.  If he's got it, he doesn't need to edit and script.  He has the media, but without the media he wouldn't be our candidate, and if they turn on him he won't be our president.

His strengths are things he rarely shows - he has humor, and he can be unscripted and funny.  He doesn't always take himself so seriously.  

His shortcomings are his arrogance, perceived and real, and his smallness, don't ask me to explain, you probably think anyone he punishes deserves it.  He's not worse than many other candidates who got elected, but he's not better and this is a time when a better guy could get elected.  

I know he's a newcomer and I can cut him slack, but I won't stop telling him how he comes across, that may help him more than any of his cheerleaders.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Marketing has been a key factor in most ever Presidential campaign since the mid-1800's, and television marketing has been critical in every campaign since (and including) JFK's. To suddenly be surprised and upset that marketing is involved in a campaign is to suggest that you've been tuned out for the last 50 years.

Not all marketing is bad, either. It's possible to both have a truly great product and to market it in an aggressive fashion. For those that like Bill Clinton, for instance (and I count myself generally as one of them, his flaws notwithstanding), he was a very good product that was also well-marketed.

I would also argue that he did win the nomination without smearing or misrepresenting anyone, or at least to a much lesser extent than he himself was smeared and misrepresented. Water under the bridge and all that, but I have very little doubt that the anti-Obama smears were far more widespread and effective than the anti-anyone-else smears.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-07-23 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

then he's not new politics after all, that's just marketing? I knew that, and I still don't like it. Call me idealistic but I think someone who's prepared and has shown the ability to unite, and who is clear about priorities and realistic on how to get there, could be elected.  I don't think anyone needs to pander to the hate filled to form a majority, I think there is a majority for a hard working, experienced, open and above board candidate, especially after that marketed George Bush, compassionate conservative indeed.  I want something new, is that hard to understand?  He's finding his voice, I'm hoping he'll listen and become that candidate.  He hasn't the experience himself, but all he needs to do is get those experienced on board, and tell us who he listens to,who he agrees with, what he wants to do and how. Then i'll be glad to vote for him, not vote for a roll of the dice but for a clear policy maker and a proven leader.  

by anna shane 2008-07-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I don't think it's possible to elect a President without marketing. I don't think it's been possible for a long time now. I certainly don't think any President within, say, John McCain's lifetime has been elected without marketing.

Marketing is an absolute necessity, not an option. It's not a black mark on any candidate that there's marketing. The type of marketing can be a plus or minus, but the mere existence of it is about as controversial as the fact that both candidates breath air, and without it they'd stand about as much chance of getting elected as they would if they gave up breathing air.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-07-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

that's very sad. I think it's necessary, to elevate the process. Now it's Barack, but who's next to be marketed?  Arnie? Shall we have the guy who reduces the pay of state workers to balance the budget marketed to us?  Ronny was marketed, was that good?

What we need are better candidates, some standards, some kind of rating system for qualifications, like for judges.  If people want to vote for an unqualified candidate, so be it, but let's have some standards.  Enough with the marketing, personality stuff, let's get some excellence.  Wouldn't it be great for Hillary to have been the least qualified, so qualified were all the contenders?  Bet she wouldn't have run then, she'd have been glad with the pick and not felt the need to lead this country out of it's huge problems.  

have you read Madeline Albright's book? Steven Colbert did a great interview of her, and she's one very smart and very sane woman.  I read that Barack now has her as an advisor, I sure hope he's listening. And he might be, he's getting together a transition team, a year later than he ought to have, but sooner than he might have.  That's a good thing. Also, he now has 300 foreign policy advisors, and he's taking daily tutorials. It seems he's trying to get up to speed.  

by anna shane 2008-07-25 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

It may also be worth noting that Obama could have thrown up an airball. Or, maybe it's not worth noting. But, he did sink his one and only shot, so he gets some love from me.

by DPW 2008-07-22 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing


by Brandon 2008-07-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

YESSSS, and it counts!

by Veteran75 2008-07-22 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I swear I thought he sank two??!!  Or was it an instant repeat?

by mariannie 2008-07-22 10:51PM | 0 recs
Press control

Frankly, I'd need to see more evidence than this that Obama is controlling the press in an unhealthy way.

I guess one can always choose to see the dark slant on things (my principle argument with PUMAs, by the way) or one can choose to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt.

It is possible that he is taking this trip to LEARN -- to inform himself first-hand to begin to address his supposed weakness in foreign affairs.  Were it me, perhaps I'd want that opportunity to LISTEN and learn before formulating opinions the press will then hammer into "but didn't you say" positions.

It strikes me that the man is too often damned if he does or doesn't, especially with PUMAs.  He's never gone to Iraq or Afghanistan so he doesn't have McCain's "cred" as someone who has.  So he goes.
Oh.  So he's trying to turn his trip into a media circus for campaign purposes.  (come on.  At this point if the guy sneezes it's a media event) so he limits the access of the media to his FACT FINDNG TOUR and now, oh, he's limiting the access of the press and he's worse than George Bush.

Come on.  As with so many of the faux outrages from every direction over the past month -- cut the guy some slack.  He's SUPPOSED to be the Democratic nominee we SUPPORT.  I'm not suggesting he get unconditional hero worship -- I am suggesting, wow, he get the benefit of the doubt, from DEMOCRATS anyway.

Jesus, I'm scratching right through my scalp this season.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-07-22 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Press control

I am not outraged. But the stage managed press reports which appeared to be real mirror Exactly the reports from Iraq--before during and now. I mean does anyone care about freedom of information anymore? Or accountability from candidates?

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Press control

There was a press conference THIS MORNING.  So why are you complaining?

by politicsmatters 2008-07-22 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Press control

The best thing is that Linfar is just going to ignore that fact so that she can push her agenda. Multiple people have mentioned it to her but she just keeps ignoring facts.


by Darknesse 2008-07-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Press control

I'm going to be frank --  I only care about seeing Obama elected.  Someone wrote a diary a few weeks back asking what our "tipping point" with Obama would be and mine was a dead girl or a live minor of either gender.

To get serious here, I'd have to see some fairly egregious behavior from Obama to even consider McCain this season.  I do not think this country or the lives of so many people I care about can withstand four more years of Republican rule.

I still don't see evidence of some damning suppression of the press.  I see a highly magnetic and revolutionary presidential candidate visiting two war zones. I have no clue what that entails, what his specific goals are for the trip, his reasons for conducting it as he is.  That would be a great place to start, as a matter of fact. ASK THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN why they are limiting the press as they are and then go from there before making daming conjectures about it.

Bottom line, I don't understand the rush this year to pillory the nominee by those who claim to support the guy.  Maybe it's Bush Fatigue and we are all terrified of being similiarly snookered by our own kind.  Maybe we all set our expectations of Obama far too high.  Maybe some folks just can't let go of the lingering dispair that Clinton would have been the stronger candidate.

But at the end of the day, seeing Obama elected is Job 1 for me.  Plenty of time to tear him apart, shine a flashlight up his nose and hold his feet to the fire starting in January.  

the alternative is just too unfathomable.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-07-22 05:08PM | 0 recs
Am curious about your age but

it is none of my business.

It is a civic duty to ask questions. Voters have the most leverage during an election, not after. Even a candidate with good intentions can go astray. Power corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Press control

He wasn't in IRAQ as a candidate, he was there as part of a Senate trip!

Now he is on the campaign funded leg of his week . . . and the press is in tow.

There is a difference, even if there shouldn't be. It would be inappropriate for him to tow along the full press while part of a 3-person Senate team.

by Veteran75 2008-07-22 05:14PM | 0 recs

I understand that with MyDD as a vigorous primary site for both Clinton and Obama supporters that there'd be a lot of folks interested in PUMAs. But the reality is: they don't matter.

The number of Democrats voting for McCain is no higher this year than any other year. Sure, there are lots of undecideds out there and Clinton voters angry at the primary. But McCain is getting about 10% of Democrats and Obama is getting the same number of Republicans.

I don't know what the motives of PUMA are. I'm not sure if PUMA really exists, or is just a couple of people with a website. But they don't warrant a whole lot of attention here.

by elrod 2008-07-22 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

They sure do get it though, don't they?


by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 04:30PM | 0 recs
You have to admit

The occasional food fight keeps things lively in these parts.

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-22 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: You have to admit


I have to admit the title even got me to look.  So I guess my disgust should be self disgust.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I respect the point of view you've expressed, Linfar, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here.

There's nothing wrong with holding our nominee's feet to the fire. There's been plenty of searing criticism from a diversity of sources, both within the blogosphere and without. And few have taken issue with these: Why? Because it's always been abundantly clear that their goals were honest, their criticism constructive.

PUMA, in contrast, has long forsaken any claims to respectability or balance - from its laughably undignified name to the batshit insane individuals that it continues to front. I wouldn't trust this coterie with critique of a ham sandwich, never mind the task of keeping the presumptive nominee honest.

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Is there some rule around this place that dictates that any diary with PUMA in its title automatically goes to the recommended list?

Is the fact that Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the press corps did not accompany the Congressional delegation to Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq really that important?  The press doesn't usually go - the video of Congressional trips is usually provided by the DOD.

In any case, why belittle an engaging topic with discussion of a misguided splinter group?

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 04:29PM | 0 recs

I thought we were done with this tiresome topic.

If you really want people to stop trashing PUMA, best not to talk about it at all.

As for message management, who cares?  The press isn't being shut out.  I don't know what you mean by "staged".  Scheduled?  I don't think any reporters asked "staged" questions.

by JJE 2008-07-22 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: bleh

No reporters asked any questions. The military handled Everything!! Get it?? What was sold to the American public as news conferences and press availability was staged. It was fake.

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: bleh

It wasn't staged and it wasn't faked.  It was handled in accordance with DOD rules.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: bleh

Except it was presented as something Quite different. Get it??

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:51PM | 0 recs
explain this ludicrous assertion.

Link us to one Obama interview that was done with anyone but the press corps.  The pictures were given to the press by the troops, but how does that make them staged?  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-22 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: bleh

No every piece of footage and photo was tagged as from the DOD, All the photos all the film. If was presented as something else it wasn't presented by the campaign that way. The DOD handed the pix and footage to press how they chose to report it is not, was not the campaigns doing.

by jsfox 2008-07-22 05:38PM | 0 recs
Ludicrous non-issue

Here is a quote from Major Garret of FOX news:

Q; Why isn't the press with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A: Because that trip (the "war" part), is a congressional delegation
trip (codel, for short). There are strict rules on media coverage for
codels. Only the Senate Majority Leader or a full Committee Chairman
can bring a traveling press corps on a codel trip. Obama is not a
committee chairman. His traveling companions, Sens. Jack Reed,
Democrat of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska,
aren't either. That means no traveling press. US taxpayers finance
codels and the military runs the flight schedule and procedures.

This was posted on Teachers.net:  http://teachers.net/chatboard/topic22992 5/

Now, it is a pretty sad day when we start attacking our own candidate on an issue that has FOX news defending him.

Enough truly is enough.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Ludicrous non-issue

So now you are quoting Fox in order to debunk someone standing up for a free press?

you might want to look at the video. the intgro is the coverage!!  Fox has Always supported press censorship. Who the hell supported Bush every step of the way? Fox is virtually state-supported tv.

by linfar 2008-07-22 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Ludicrous non-issue

Oh please.

I used FOX to show that even his open enemies know that this is a non-issue although I knew there would be something on it on the web, because when the pictures were first broadcast on CNN it was made clear that these were DOD films.  That is why the pictures of McCain in the marketplace of Baghdad were all the same on all of the networks:  the DOD filmed the trip.

And yes, Andrea Mitchell knew that fact.

There is nothing wrong with campaigning for McCain and tearing down Obama, but you should at least be honest about it.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Ludicrous non-issue

It seems like the old Linfar is back.

I am not buying a bit of what she is selling.

Look at her diary history if you have ran out of things to do.

This is just another attack on Obama, according to Linfar anything he does outside the relms of perfection is suspect.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-23 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Ludicrous non-issue

Lin . . I dislike FAUX NEWS too, but the DINFOS SOP is accurate. Andrea Mitchell is whining when she should have had a staffer with the LONE member of the press with him last night in NH!

by Veteran75 2008-07-22 05:19PM | 0 recs
Thank you

And why does Andrea Mitchell not know this?.

Answer: Of course she knows. But McCain needs all the help he can get.

by Neef 2008-07-22 04:51PM | 0 recs

its just her obvious bitterness at at Obama not respecting her "entitlements" as a "member of the media."  Rank narcissism, people around here know something about that.

by Brandon 2008-07-22 05:42PM | 0 recs
Andrea Mitchell

has been disgraceful during this trip. No press? what about the Lara Logan interview (the only one I had time to watch)? Lara Logan has some fricken juice, and if you saw her on the daily show you know what I mean. How many times has the hotel Mitchell was in blown up?

And then the whole "Mr McCain are you frustrated?" bit. What!? Why not just write his lines for him?

It's a complete and bizarre irony that McCain gets pass after pass after pass after pass, and people are questioning Obama's press management. Let Obama joke about killing population X, see how far that goes.

"A real press issue". No shit there's a real press issue.

by Neef 2008-07-22 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I still say PUMA are a bunch of cats who are very catty.  They ought to be giving money to Hillary to pay off her debts.  So should Andrea Mitchell.  Isn't Mitchell married to Greenspun??  She should be able to afford some bucks to Hillary.

by Spanky 2008-07-22 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Susan from 29-- You'e earned your money, ok? Move along now and go trash someone else who is expressing a point of view you deem unfavorable to your guy.

by linfar 2008-07-22 05:04PM | 0 recs
She rebutted your point

factually, and with a source. Your response is a pout.

Why aren't you more aggrieved at the Republican who's getting a pass, than the Democrat who's following the rules?

by Neef 2008-07-22 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I beg your pardon?

You post a diary based on a falsehood, I introduce reality and I am somehow "trashing" you?

First of all I'm not sure how suggesting that you are bashing the Democratic candidate by spreading a falsehood is trashing you.

Second, this was a DOD trip.  They set the ground rules.  Andrea Mitchell knew that.  Now you do too.

You need to find another fact to claim people are PUMA bashing.

Good luck with that.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Oh the irony

A diary criticizing Sen. Obama of censorship censoring rebuttal.

I give you tremendous credit for supporting the nominee, but this diary combines one part valid criticism with two parts puma hyperbole.

I think that response to factual rebuttal was unfair.

by iohs2008 2008-07-23 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Tight media control...limited questions...almost reminds me of....HILLARY CLINTON.

I could care less about the so called PUMAs, because (a) they don't appear to be open to persuasion and (b) Barack is doing just fine in the polls without them. But all these diaries on the subject, both pro and against, are pretty tiresome.

by animated 2008-07-22 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

What is so pathetic so far in this diary is no one really gives a rat's ass for freedom of the press. It is just a quaint idea left over from some long ago time...If its good for Barack screw all that other stuff--like Fisa and Freedom of the Press.

by linfar 2008-07-22 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Freedom of the press doesn't mean that they get to have total access during fact-finding missions.  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-22 05:07PM | 0 recs
oops didn't mean to post yet...

Freedom of the press refers to the right of all people to freely and fully express their opinion without fear of interference.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by the UN general assembly in 1948:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

It has absolutely nothing to do with access to politicians.  Nice try.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-22 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

People have addressed this issue in their comments. You keep ignoring their replies or belittling them. So Obama did not hold a press conference for a period of time lasting less than 48 hours. Big deal. He held a press conference for an hour today where he answered all questions posed by the press. This has been pointed out more than once. Why have you failed to acknowledge that?

As far as PUMA members go, they get treated like anyone else on this site. If they spout discredited points of debate they will get called on it. If they refuse to engage in a real discussion, they will get called on it. If they spread lies then they will get called on it.

That is not suppression of free speech. That is evidence of Obama supporters exercising their right to free speech. The trouble seems to be that most PUMAs sit in the echo chambers found in Alegre's basement or on Larry Johnson's hate site and then come here and are outraged that their nonsense gets challenged. They don't want free speech. They want everyone else to agree with them, no matter how silly they act.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-22 05:29PM | 0 recs
You were mistaken

You fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the trip and the press rules that governed it pursuant to DoD regulations.  This misunderstanding caused you to believe this was some kind of egregious free-speech issue, rather than a common and non-noteworthy occurrence.

Now that your error has been pointed out, the appropriate thing to so is acknowledge your mistake, rather than leveling the ad hominem at those who knew more about the facts than you did.

by JJE 2008-07-22 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You were mistaken

Not going to happen.

As usual, when pesky "facts" get in the way of Linfar's agenda, this is what happens.

Fingers in the ears, lalalallaa, and all that.

by Darknesse 2008-07-22 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Freedom of the Press???  what has that got to do with Obama's scripted performance put out by the DOD as such a visit always is?  Why do you have to make this an Obama attack??  This is NOT under his control - and if the press is doing its job, they would know and respect this and not report it the way they are.

by mariannie 2008-07-22 11:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

That's B.S.

We have freedom of speech as well, but everyone knows there are rules that go along with it.

Much like there are rules that go along with freedom of the press.

The press has a right to cover events. But there is no law that says Barack Obama (or anyone) needs to hold X number of press conferences and sit down with X number of journalists while on a trip controlled by the Department of Defense.

There are rules in place, put there by DoD, and they are there for good reason. Everybody knows this. It has been protocol for years. Why wasn't this a big issue for you before this particular trip?

What's becoming clear is that, for you, it has less to do with freedom of the press, than it does with Barack Obama.

by PSUdan 2008-07-23 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I'm not really certain what the association is between the PUMA's and Obama's press coverage?  

But I don't think any of us are particularly interested in the PUMA portion of your diary any longer.  We've just had our very cathartic purge of that sort of thing.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-22 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing
 Puma Bashing is boring and useless, and a consensus was recently agreed to by all either explicitly or with silent assent. It was also agreed that we would not be provoked into doing anything that could be construed as Puma Bashing.
 That pretty much sums up what the current state of affairs as regards this particular issue, unless I miss my guess.
by QTG 2008-07-22 05:12PM | 0 recs
This is a lie: Lara Logan interviewed Obama in Af.

Please delete the diary if you have any honesty.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/2 0/ftn/main4275864.shtml

by John DE 2008-07-22 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a lie: Lara Logan interviewed Obama in

Ah ha! Now we know the source of Andrea Mitchell's outrage. Someone else got the exclusive interview. I'd be interested in hearing linfar's answer for this, but I'm afraid she doesn't seem to be interested in a real discussion of the issue.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-22 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Thank you, linfar, for your voice of reason.

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-07-22 05:29PM | 0 recs
Bush-style imperial Presidency

different politics.  I hope.

by activatedbybush 2008-07-22 05:31PM | 0 recs
In your hands all hope...

is hopeless.

by tonedevil 2008-07-22 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

A group called "Party Unity My Ass" doesn't strike me as being representative of anything. If you are bitter and upset, say it plain and don't cloak it in the personality of one candidate or another.

You can kind of call me confused for your criticism of press management by the Obama campaign. What specifically are you referring to? Codels don't do press, and Obama has been able to get his message out regardless. Is he to have a Q and A session every single day about nothing? And anything else is tyrannical dictatorship? I think the remnants of the straw man named Obama built up by Senator Clinton supporters are still being used in discourse here.

There isn't any "getting over it" it's about making an informed decision when you vote. No politician is going to care if you didn't vote for them when they won, and there is no turnout requirement for a valid election in the US. If a group called PUMA wants to exist to wallow in all sorts of bitterness that is fine, but don't expect them to matter when it comes to this election.

by wengler 2008-07-22 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I, for one, don't find the PUMAs numerous or significant enough to warrant attention. Yet I still find myself drawn to diaries like this. And yes, I still check Hillaryis44 from time to time. Like watching a car crash or some other morbid obsession.

Maybe of some interest: a Brazilian reporter contacted me via my MyDD public email in regards to this diary I posted...
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/29/1424 0/1096#readmore

She didn't catch the satire (hard to translate, I suppose) and was disappointing that I wasn't the PUMA she hoped I was. We exchanged a few emails, and I found it very interesting that her newspaper (www.correiobraziliense.com.br) was running a story on this.

I suggested she post a diary here to attract whatever PUMAs still trolled this site, thinking that more than one would happily grant her an email interview. From what I have seen, she never took my advice.

by LandStander 2008-07-22 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Wow - what a blast from the past that was!  

It's funny - there were so many pro-Obama comments that were rated (2.00/0) indicating that whoever mojoed them was deleted - this was back when you could expect to be banned for pro-Obama statements as soon as Jerome caught wind of them.

by Jess81 2008-07-22 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Funny how Jerome hides.....

Man if there is one person in politics I want to have a beer with, its jerome.

got to loosen him up a bit

Jerome if you are reading this I live in Baltimore, I think you are in DC, I will take you out for drinks

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
I agree with your sentiment about PUMA.

I'm freaking tired about reading about them, blah blah..I think some of them will come back and would support Obama for GE. Most of them will support the Democratic downtickets. Some like the proverbial prodigal kid will actively work to sabotage Obama candidacy before returning to the party fold. So /ignore PUMA unless I see one on the mountain trails. Then I run the other way!! hah..
On the other side am I worried about the stage managed trip or lack of access of the idiotic media..not much..When the MSM will be willing to ask tough questions of the politicians including the top ones, then restricting that flow of information would have been problematic for me. For today's quisling media..umm nah..

BTW where can I find those books you wrote? Are are they out of print?

by louisprandtl 2008-07-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
I'm supposed to worry...

...about what Mrs. Greenspan says?

by Bush Bites 2008-07-22 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I thought we were done with the PUMA diaries.

by Saintcog 2008-07-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

"So I think the PUMAs serve a legitimate purpose. They are saying that the primary contest was rigged which is not the way a democracy is supposed to work."

I fail to see the legitimate purpose in the PUMAs spreading this claim since the primary contest was not rigged and since democracy worked as it was intended to work.

There is nothing noble in people who would throw our nominee under a bus just because they wanted another Democratic candidate to win the nomination more.

by Wayne in Missouri 2008-07-22 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Apparently, in Linfarland, an election is rigged when the person with the most votes won.

by Darknesse 2008-07-22 07:55PM | 0 recs

A couple of days ago Linfar posted a diary professing support for Obama. Now two days later comes a diary apologizing for those who would hurt him, denigrating the party and people who chose him, and attacking him in the bargain.

I withdraw my previous praise. Once a bitter dead-ender, always a bitter dead-ender.

by Beren 2008-07-22 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Linfarland

Even better, attacking him with Voldemort's MO, making shit up and ignoring the truth no matter how many people point it out to her.

Either dishonest, stupid, or trollish. Not sure which.

Leaning towards dishonest.

by Darknesse 2008-07-22 08:10PM | 0 recs
Either dishonest, stupid, or trollish.

Classic McPuma any way you dice it.

by Beren 2008-07-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I would amend that to "the primary process worked as it was intended to work."

The Democratic Party's process for choosing a nominee is one which, under rules agreed upon by the candidates through the DNC, combines open and closed primaries, open and closed caucuses, and sometimes a mix of both for the purpose of ultimately assigning delegates to the national convention, a process which helps the party determine which candidate and which campaign organization can best represent the party and compete successfully in November.

That process worked quite well.

The only people running around calling the primary "rigged" are those who either weren't paying attention the last several cycles, or who simply are mad that the results didn't favor their candidate.

I find it intellectually dishonest at best.

by BobzCat 2008-07-22 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Thank you, Linfar. I appreciate your diary.

by nikkid 2008-07-22 07:20PM | 0 recs
Leave the pumas alone

If they can't the heat, they should stay out of this kitchen with their bitter and poisonous hatred.

by Beren 2008-07-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I'd like to see the video of Andrea Mitchell being outraged at Pentagon propagandists hired as "military experts," or her umbrage at the way the press corps rolled over on WMD and got suckered by the shock and awe of embedded journalists. Or for that matter, the hands-off approach to McCain taken by the press in general.

There's a point to be made about Obama's coverage on this trip, but Mitchell's protests doth sound like too much after too little.

by BobzCat 2008-07-22 07:53PM | 0 recs
Andrea Mitchell being outraged

Oooooooh! Andrea Mitchell was outraged that Obama didn't allow her to exploit his visit to Iraqastan! Who gives a damn?

by Beren 2008-07-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I caught it this afternoon and I can't say that there was any outrage.  There was no raising of the voice, no angry expression, just a remark that this was occurring.  Interesting how things get spun.

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 01:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

"And I certainly do not think ridiculing them, bashing them and humiliating them serves any useful purpose."

I agree with you there.  I do think they have earned the bashing and humiliation though.  And those of us bashing them don't do it because we think they are going to change their minds; we do it because we know very well that they aren't open to considering any viewpoint other than bashing Obama.

"I do not think they are dishonest, misguided or stupid."

Well, that's where we have to disagree.  I think most PUMAs are at least two out of the above three.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Yeah I didn't see Andrea Mitchell getting all indignant during the Mission Accomplished photo op so forgive me if I don't buy this false indignation.

by kasjogren 2008-07-22 08:06PM | 0 recs

i have been saying for a while now that PUMA is being dismissed at the party's peril.  and clearly senior party officials agree with me.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: rec'd.

Interesting article CG.

Here's my take on this, at least an interesting scenario.

I'm figuring it's about 50/50 Senator Clinton is the VP pick.

But, what I think is interesting is, I think what that would result in is, the PUMA movement birfurcating right down the middle.

I think there are folks like Larry, Susan, Harriet, and some of the Ex MyDD folks that would simply stay radically opposed to Obama, and say any PUMA coming back is a traitor to the cause.

I think they have morphed beyond any harm they believe was done to Hillary, and now they think THEY have been attacked, by Obama, by the party, by the blogosphere.

Plus, I think, in places like Ohio, it's not so much they were voting for Hillary, they were voting against The N^^^^R.

So, I think, there are even people being called PUMA's or angry Clinton voters that are something else.

Still, I'm begining to think it's the smart play, putting her on the ticket.

But, I don't see it as a resolution to the war of the PUMA.

We shall see.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 08:38PM | 0 recs
you may be right...

but what's even more 'concerning' to me...  most of the electorate are not bloggers or political junkies like us folk online.  even partisans.  

i think (although admittedly its based on personal interactions - rather than statistical facts) that this is a much larger problem than is being discussed.

HRC conceded almost 2 months ago and still party unity is a problem???  but you're right - if she is on the ticket, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: you may be right...

I think the Party Unity issue IS being driven by insiders.

And, the story is also being driven by the media picking it UP from the insiders?

IF there are big donors fighting about retiring Hillary's debt vs contributing only to Obama, those are people with big egos, some of the Clinton folks were counting on access, and figuring the are not going to get it, why contribute to Obama.

Who knows what motivates those people anyway?

Think about it, the media is following the blog leads, and articles like you linked ARE written by insiders ABOUT insiders talking about insiders?

Who knows? Even IF Senator Clinton had dropped out much earlier, the polls may be exactly where they are today, Older White Folks might have NEVER warmed up to Obama, just felt he is too young, too different from them.

It's not neccesarily cause and effect to me.

But, as you say, we shall see.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: rec'd.

So...what do you suggest?
Their name says it all about their mindset, and intentions.
No one is going to beg, or kiss their asses for their votes, much to their dismay, nor are they going to be allowed to control this nomination, or election.
Hillary lost. Sorry if a few people choose to take it personally, but the Democratic party is not beholden to them.

That's life, you can't always get what you want.

by Maori 2008-07-22 08:59PM | 0 recs
listening would be a start...

yes - some are lost causes.  

but i really think many cannot get over what went down in the primary (and in some ways i agree with their dismay).  and many are revisionists about what happened.  its over - people can be honest about what occurred even though its not always going to be particularly flattering.  

what has become the status quo has been to bash, insult and dismiss people that haven't boarded the train.  not a winning strategy.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: listening would be a start...

I think the other thing Obama's campaign has to do AND are doing is really drive new registration and GOTV campaigns.

If he lost a chunk of the democratic base, be they PUMA or just democratic folks who would never vote for Obama because of his age, his experience, or whatever.

I think it all may come down to, can he drive people to the polls like they came out in the primaries and more.

I'm thinking he can, and since I go to the USSC at least twice a year, I think Ginsburg and Stevens are hoping the same thing.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-22 09:17PM | 0 recs
not sure i agree there...

the only way the dems win is base plus, plus, plus...

new voter registrations is not going to cut it.  and i suspect that the 'move to the center' is acknowledging' this.  its a big tent for that precise reason.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 09:28PM | 0 recs
Don't confuse

not agreeing with not listening.

by JJE 2008-07-22 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't confuse

i don't - but i also have two eyes and saw a lot of nonsense from many individuals - not just PUMA.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 09:29PM | 0 recs
We've heard them

They won't accept anything less than Obama handing Hillary the nomination altogether, or forcing her onto the ticket as VP.  
A political office is not a consolation prize, someone has to lose, and people need to move on.

The only thing that 'went down' in the primary, was that Obama won. Nobody cheated, nothing was 'rigged', the popular vote was never the criteria.
For them, the issue is really simple, basically, the woman was supposed to win, not the Black guy. The fact that it didn't happen that is apparently an egregious outrage.

They can flatter themselves by imagining this is still about winning their votes, or them 'boarding the train', but most people understand that that ship has long since sailed, and there's nothing to be gained by wasting time sucking up to racists, and people who just want the personal satisfaction of everything stopping just for them, and everyone kneeling and catering to their ridiculous demands.
That's just not how the world works. Sorry.

by Maori 2008-07-22 09:34PM | 0 recs
i think your last comment there.

kinda proves my point.  you are assuming you know why they are upset and calling them racists.  never mind - i cannot assume to know or speak for them - but alas - neither can you.

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: i think your last comment there.

I didn't say all of them were racists, but I've been to their sites, and it seems a good portion of them are, I've also read their myriad grievances.

Point is, they're not the populational uberforce they think they are, despite their self-reinforcing rhetoric. They're also, in most cases, not acting like people worthy of the type of consideration, and concessions you're suggesting.

by Maori 2008-07-22 09:51PM | 0 recs
for the record.

i am suggesting listening and honesty as concessions as you call them....

by canadian gal 2008-07-22 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: for the record.

Listening to what?
What is there to listen to?

This has never happened in an election, people basically demanding that reality be overturned because they didn't like the results.

They want Hillary, we all get that, but the decision has been made.
What else is there?  I'm not being snide, but you seem to believe they have some super-secret agenda that no one's heard yet. I'm just curious as to what that would be.

by Maori 2008-07-22 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: listening would be a start...

I think this is a wise comment, cg.  thanks

by linfar 2008-07-23 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: listening would be a start...

Listening would be wise for you as well..

We have shown that your diary is just full of lies and misrepresentations, yet you refuse to acknowledge reality.

LISTEN: Your diary is based on a falsehood.

by Darknesse 2008-07-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Listening has been a lost cause.

CG - I have a lot of respect for you, but I simply don't get the "listening" meme.

Don't you think it's been tried? Just how mind-numbingly repetitive do the wails of the revisionists have to get before we're allowed to dismiss them out of sheer frustration? Just how many hours need be wasted debunking recycled primary smears before these obvious trolls are treated with the scorn they vastly deserve?

Precisely what are you looking for honesty about, and from whom? How many admissions does one need that harsh words were indeed exchanged during the primaries - from both sides? That the overt sexism in the media was repugnant, as was the dog-whistle racism? And having made said admissions repeatedly with little success, why should they be entertained any further?

Let's lay off the innuendo and lay out those facts that some of us may indeed have missed. But  no more hand-waving, please - let's have some solid arguments about what precisely should be done, and why.

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
listening meme?

its really v. simple - a lot of people (yes - many here as well) have short memories about what happened in the primary - supporters of candidates.  and the v. summary you provided is denied by many i assure you.

i suspect that this much of this carries over from the primary wars whereby many a BO supporter would ignore or cheer on smears on HRC while screaming bloody murder at the same treatment if given to BO.  additionally now that it is over and 'to the winner go the spoils' as they say - its v. easy for the same people to say 'so sad, lets move on to the GE'

some people were reviled - yes reviled at HRC's treatment in the primary - (and yes i am one of them) and cannot turn their passion of with the flick of a switch (not me). this is combined with complicated issues of sexism and partisanship.  

i suspect that some of these people would rather take themselves out of the equation rather than voting for a candidate (and supporting a party) which they feel watched or promoted what they view as serious injustices.  you can choose to disagree with them and rekindle the primary history - but what purpose would that serve?

rather - you might consider (and suggesting to others) that the way to get others on board is though understanding and or addressing their concerns.  beating someone into submission never works.

by canadian gal 2008-07-23 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: listening meme?

Thank you for the response. Please help me with this:

I think I speak for many here when I say that we're very aware of the hurt feelings and even the revulsion you speak of. We're under no delusions that it's difficult. And we have nothing but respect for C4Os like yourself that have had the courage to rise above their misgivings, as earlier laudatory diaries have shown.

I understand also that some haven't been able to rise above said misgivings. That doesn't damn them at all. And if PUMA was little more than a support group, I doubt you'd see the kind of vituperative you're seeing here. Unfortunately, PUMA supporters have consistently shown by word and action that they are far more interested in spreading disinformation than in honest dialogue. How exactly does one practice compassionate listening to deliberately provocative propaganda?

Further, you claim that my earlier admissions are denied by many. I'm sure there are hard partisans to be found on either side, but the idea that they should be rooted out and made to humbly admit the error of their ways is a tad presumptious, don't you think? And even were this possible, what evidence do we have that the above capitulation would be met with a sudden change of heart, by permanent contrarians that have long since hardened their hearts to everything that the presumptive nominee stands for?

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-23 10:21AM | 0 recs
no evidence.



by canadian gal 2008-07-23 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: listening meme?

I guess the memories are short on both sides.
I was reviled - yes, reviled by the way Obama was treated. The guilt-by-association tactics, the idea that it's necessary for Blacks to PROVE their patriotism, when all Whites have to do is a), be White b), show up in a flag pin. It was a real eye-opener about the way this country views minorities.
There was plenty of victimization to go around, and Hillary gave as well as she got, so let's please retire that, there was no Tuesday's Child here.
That's what happens in an election, it gets nasty. It's really surprising that people who are complaining about sexism, the same ones who crowed about Hillary's 'toughness', are making the case that women should be treated differently in politics, or that unfavorable results are somehow invalid, because some people were mean to the girl. They're not doing the women's movement any favors by trying to have it both ways. Either women are 'tough', and can get out there with the boys and get their knees scraped like everyone else, or they're not, and need to be protected, excused, and in the end, given their way because their feelings may have been hurt. I don't want that kind of equality.

As for the PUMA's, they're a fringe group, nothing more, and not a very nice one at that. Too much time has been spent on them already.
It's not about getting them on board anymore, from what I've seen, I don't want them on board. They can do what they want with their votes, become Republicans, whatever, but what they can't do is show up on Democratic sites to take pot-shots at The Happy People, trash the nominee, or attempt to sabotage the nomination. Not without being called on it, and yes, possibly insulted.
And the whole, "You need us, so you have to put up with our craven bullshit" thing is just that. No one needs anyone THAT much.

by Maori 2008-07-23 10:50AM | 0 recs
Just to chime in
You got that right: I'm a white guy, but it sickened me--and still sickens me--the way black candidates are presumed to have to somehow "prove" that they're just as much "real" Americans as we REAL white Americans are.  Does anybody really believe that there would be this unholy made-up stink about Obama's "forged" birth certificate--and head on over to Alegre's Pesthole: they're still flogging that--if he were a white guy?  I sure don't.
If there's one thing I most hope comes from an Obama administration, it's that we in this country begin at long last to talk openly and truthfully and willingly about our truly wretched history of racial oppression.
by Mumphrey 2008-07-23 12:40PM | 0 recs
just an example...

of what i am talking about here.

got TR/HR by a few people after i pointed it out - and one 1 BO primary supporter (whom i respect a lot) gave one.  see what i mean?

by canadian gal 2008-07-23 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: just an example...

One, I see two BO primary supporters (duende and alyssa) on the list.

Two, the fact that someone hasn't TR'd that comment doesn't mean they endorse it. That's what mojos are for. What I TR depends on whether I read it, my state of mind at the moment that I read it, and whether it upset me sufficiently in that moment to react to it. Attempting to draw broad conclusions based on this seems a bit of a stretch.

And speaking of mojos, I guarantee that there are far more disgusting and incendiary comments being made against Obama that get gleefully mojo'd the moment they make an appearance. What does that prove? Only that there are an abundance of idiots posting on this site, and little else.

by Sumo Vita 2008-07-23 10:32AM | 0 recs
I'm concerned too

But not about Obama. I'm concerned that even after many, many comments pointing out that Obama had a long press conference this morning, the diarist absolutely refuses to acknowledge that what she reported as fact is simply not so. Linfar, ignoring facts doesn't make them go away, and you're pattern of ignoring Obama's press conference and every single comment pointing it out in this diary makes you look like it's more important to you to prove that Obama sucks than it is to look at the situation honestly. I really can't think of another explanation for your lack of responding to every single comment pointing out that the key "fact" in your diary is faulty.

by glopster 2008-07-22 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

I'm sort of disappointed in you Linfar - your (and Andrea Mitchell's) argument was refuted; the least you can do is modify or retract your argument.

by Jess81 2008-07-22 10:23PM | 0 recs
nobody has yet explained

in any coherent way how Hillary was railroaded by the DNC.  It's just taken as a "known fact" among her supporters,

by hekebolos 2008-07-22 10:24PM | 0 recs
nobody has yet explained

in any coherent way how Hillary was railroaded by the DNC.  It's just taken as a "known fact" among her supporters.

by hekebolos 2008-07-22 10:25PM | 0 recs
Holding Obama's feet to the fire is a good thing

But if one of these folks vote for McCain, then perhaps they deserve him.  This is not an election where the candidates are about the same on the issues.  It's a clear choice and if a Hillary supporter votes for McCain, that means they probably were not a supporter of Hillary's issues.

by zmus 2008-07-22 10:52PM | 0 recs
OPuma Bashing

Linfar. Having disagreed with you in the primaries, I've come to listen to and respect your diaries in the last few months. I don't always agree - you wouldn't expect that from people on this site - but you were always passionate and interesting. And unlike others I could mention, you were always genuine enough to engage in debate with other posters.

I do think the conflation of Puma/Obama here is a little confusing. All politicians should be held to account, and there IS a danger that Obama is taken so high into the stratosphere he loses connection with his base and reality (always a danger for politicians in the bubble of modern media). So those points are valid.

But lots of other people read this blog like myself, without access to the daily updates on US media.

I think you should address the points made by other posters about Obama's press conference.

Politicians and pundits (and posters) should be criticised when they fail to listen, but there's a corollary to this...

They should be praised when they do listen.

Are you listening, Linfar?

by duende 2008-07-23 02:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Transcript of the Obama press conference here:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/c ontent/article/2008/07/22/AR200807220107 9.html

I listened to the press conference on C-span, and very few if any of the questions by reporters were heard, so  you'll see a lot of "Question: OFF MIKE" here.

So, Linfar, we've established that you were wrong about Obama controlling the press (on CODEL trips, press isn't allowed), and not talking to reporters (see link above).

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

by skohayes 2008-07-23 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

So now the PUMA are concerned about Obama's ill treatment of the Media?

Last time it was them concerned about the Media's ill treatment of HRC. Those big cats are moving so fast...

My guess about Andrea Mitchell is that she's pissed off because she was in that plane circling above Washington while Obama and Clinton were meeting quietly at Dianne Feinstein's place...

I don't know if she was there in that plane but I guess it's something like that. Another bruised ego...

by french imp 2008-07-23 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Are there any reality-based PUMA's out there?  Linfar, you certainly don't qualify.

by DaveG 2008-07-23 04:55AM | 0 recs

Whatever your disagreements with Linfar (and I have many too) she is certainly not a PUMA. She has publicly said she will be voting for Obama. Perhaps an apology is in order?

by duende 2008-07-23 05:23AM | 0 recs
Bash CBS instead

For "editing" the supposed interview with Obama, Katie Couric, and McSame. Edited out his gaffe, but it's been recovered.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/video-o f-the-mc.html

by Mae Scott 2008-07-23 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing

Hi Linfar,

I haven't been around here much lately, but I heard you had a diary up.  Thank you for posting this.  As we have "discussed" before, we may have made different decisions about who to support, but we both agree on the basics of democracy.  Thanks for speaking up in support of that!


by cjbardy 2008-07-23 06:25AM | 0 recs
There is NO excellent reason for

people who claim to hold Hillary's political values to try to get McCain elected.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

by Geekesque 2008-07-23 06:57AM | 0 recs
At least I know what PUMA means now

I honestly had no idea what this meant.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-07-23 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Happy to enlighten you Mayor Mac.

by linfar 2008-07-23 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]
Andrea Mitchell?
We call her Mrs. Greenspan at our house.
After she married Alan Greenspan back in 1997.
by nogo postal 2008-07-23 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

And Obama has now held a SECOND press conference after his first one yesterday, even as McCain canceled his one scheduled press availability for the week.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2008/07/tales_from_the_jv_squad_no_ pre.php
The one scheduled McCain press conference of the week has just been canceled, we are told. No word as to why. Grumble, grumble.

Why? Scheduling. Which is like answering "food" to "what did you eat for breakfast."

My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage.

And you're still claiming it's Obama who is ducking the press?

For shame!

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

I will never understand comments on diaries that refuse to accept facts. A press conference in Jordan--if that is what it was--isn't a press conference--if we even know what the term means anymore--in Iraq and Afghanistan.

by linfar 2008-07-23 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Hi Linfar,

I think what people are asking to acknowledge is, the military controls the schedule when you are in an active war zone, I.E. Iraq and Afghanastan.

They are saying this:

Obama had nothing to do with scheduling the press conferences on those stops, it was the DOD.

In Jordan, then his campaign CAN have some input to the press access.

So, some of the premise of your post, that Obama is ducking the press is really a matter of circumstance, not some Andrea Mitchell scolded "Obama is ducking questions" statement.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-23 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Your diary is the one that refuses to accept the fact that Obama has held TWO press conferences. These are not fake in any way. The questions were not screened and journalists asked anything they wanted.

To characterize these as anything but real press conferences is intellectually dishonest.

Why do you keep implying that these aren't real press conferences? What was missing in these that would be included in your definition of a real press conference.

And to harp on WHERE the press conferences were held is ridiculous.  Who cares? Obama took unscreened questions on live tv two days in a row yet you want to claim that this is a sign of restricted media?

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 08:39AM | 0 recs
I never understand diaries

that refuse to accept facts in the first place.

by JJE 2008-07-23 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Besides being wrong about allowing an entourage into an active warzone,  what you've failed to do is explain to us why we should care.  Its not as though the press unable to ask Obama questions about Iraq and Afganistan while he's in Jordan?  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-23 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Your update still does not solve the problem with this diary.  As others have repeatedly pointed out throughout this thread, CODEL prohibits press from coming along on these excursions.  As such, this is an issue to address to them, not Obama.  Hopefully you will fix this error and stop dishonestly portraying Obama on this matter.  Once again, the practice of promoting dishonest half-truths rears its ugly head.

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]


You are just not telling the truth when you say And in the place of real media coverage we were shown stage managed questions and the appearance of press conferences.

Obama has held two press conferences -- these are real press conferences, with journalists from the international press asking questions.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 07:53AM | 0 recs
Who's hiding from the press - McCain
"Ben Smith notes that with McCain's press corps eager to ask some followup questions about McCain (a) not knowing when the surge happened, and (b) accusing Barack Obama of seeking to deliberately lose wars for political gain his campaign decided to cancel his press availability. What Smith doesn't note is that this cancellation comes hot on the heels of 48 hours worth of non-stop whining about how the press is paying too much attention to Obama's trip and ought to focus more on McCain."
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2008/07/gotta_get_away_from_me.p hp
by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 07:56AM | 0 recs
Seriously, go away

What purpose does this diary serve? And leave the PUMA's alone, sorry, this is a progressive site they continuously make the concious choice to come to and try to get the non progressive elected, yet they need to be left alone? Have you people no shame? I try to avoid it like the plague lately but this diary on the rec list?

by Dog Chains 2008-07-23 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, go away

I don't see how there is anything to be gained from coddling or listening to the PUMAs.  Last night I perused comments to TexasDarling's diary on how Obama's birth certificate is allegedly a forgery.  The level of conspiracy theory I witnessed there, coupled with the sense of being an antagonized group with everyone plotting against them resembled the way Christian fundamentalists talk about being persecuted in the United States (despite Christianity being the dominant religion).  I really do not believe that any persuasion or meeting of the minds is possible with these people.

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, go away

I am referring to the diary over No Quarter.  The worst moment occurred when someone proposed the radical hypothesis that perhaps Hawaii uses multiple printers to print birth certificates, thereby demolishing the entire hypothesis of the diary.  Predictably, the person was immediately dismissed and derided.  Why?  Because these people are not interested in facts or truth but only those things that already suit their views.  The minimal condition for communication between two people is 1) charity in interpreting others, and 2) a willingness to recognize facts as the arbiter of the truth of what is said.  Where these things are lacking (especially the latter), dialogue is impossible.  This has been a constant problem from the beginning.  Whether we're talking about the dishonest math trotted out surrounding who won the popular vote, or the suggestion that the election was somehow rigged, we continuously find these sorts of distortions and an unwillingness to concede points when facts to the contrary are presented.  At that point there's nothing left to do but give up.  

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 09:24AM | 0 recs
Obama was less progressive

is what the PUMAs believe, which is one reason why they are so pissed. The New Deal Democrats is dismantling with Obama.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was less progressive

Ironically, many Obama supporters believe that Clinton is less progressive.  This view was based on her hawkishness as indicated in war vote,Iran vote, and public statements, her economic policies (Bill continued neo-conservative economic policies of dismantling market regulation and social programs, though in a somewhat muted form), her ties to corporate lobbyists, her support for things like the flag burning amendment and video game prohibitions, and the way in which she distanced herself from activists.  I've never really understood how people can look at Clinton and think that she is a champion of progressive causes, which isn't to say that Obama is.

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 09:37AM | 0 recs
Yes until I learned more about her I thought same

That is the old CW (Conventional Wisdom), that she's the more cautious, corporatized, scripted candidate.

But she smashed that myth in the second half of the primary, to anyone who was paying attention and not suffering from CDS.

Also, being more hawkish is sometimes the more progressive stance.

Being more hawkish on human rights (and women's rights are human rights) is seen by some as more progressive. JFK was a hawk, he outflanked Nixon, on the Cold War, from the vantage point that winning the Cold War would be a triumph for human rights.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Strange diary.  I don't understand why it is on the rec list.

by futbol dad 2008-07-23 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Linfar, you're update is as bad as the diary.

All of what you say is true, and all of it is irrelevant. DOD regulations are that when there is a congressional delegation which is not headed by a committee chair, the press does not come along.

This has true for McCain, who took an overseas tour as HIS party's presumptive nominee, and it has been true for Clinton.  If you're uncomfortable with the practice, then you should say so and tie it to the treatment that all members of Congress get.  On the other hand, if the fact that this is defense policy changes your mind, then you should say so.

What makes no sense is to continue to portray this as Obama's decision, or as somehow a sign of his troublesome disregard for the press.  It is not.

You have built up a reservoir of credibility here.  Don't blow it on a manufactured issue based on a falsehood, because if people aren't comfortable that you're capable of adjusting your opinions when presented with facts, you're going to find yourself being double and triple checked at every turn and dismissed out-of-hand.

by Jess81 2008-07-23 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

So the premise of this diary is that PUMAs have a right to be upset because there are things that are upsetting about Obama which also make the diarist upset.  

Then the example of a legitimate cause of upset turns out to be completely bogus -- Obama didn't have press conferences in Iraq and Afghanistan because those are the military rules, he has held two press conferences in two days, and the press conferences were completely real with no screened questions.

Surely then it follows that the reason why the PUMAs are so upset with Obama is that they raise false, bogus issues.

(And what's next, diaries about PUMAs have the right to be upset about Obama's purported fake birth certificate or about what Michelle Obama supposedly said on a tape no one has heard?)

BTW, I resent being told to leave the PUMAs alone. I would ignore them if they didn't raise intellectually bankrupt arguments.  But if they are posted, well, sometimes I will respond.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Rhetorical practices like the ones seen in this dairy and which you outline in this comment are the reason the most ardent and extremist Clinton supporters got so much heat during the primaries.  Whether it was distortions of Obama's present vote, mischaracterizations of his relationship to Ayer, the constant refrain that Obama's muslim, the Rhezko flop, or the silly whitey tapes, there has been a consistent practice of taking things with a grain of truth and completely distorting them while simultaneously refusing to surrender claims when sound, documented evidence to the contrary is pointed out.  I suspect that Clinton lost a number of potential supporters in the blogosphere because of these sorts of practices among her followers.

by Philoguy 2008-07-23 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

I can understand why Andrea Mitchell is upset, because the cable media would have liked nothing better but to accompany Obama every step of the way and provide live commentary (they see themselves as the interpretors of events which occur during the 24 hour news cycle, and lose clout with their viewers if they can't play this role).

Given that Obama is a candidate for office, though, and not a policy maker, I don't get the argument that this sort of non-stop coverage adds anything to our understanding of him or what he might do.  What difference does it make, really, if he answers the question "What will you do about Iraq" inside Iraq or a day later?

To compare this to the Bush administration's shenanigans in this area is silly.  In order to make the case for lack of transparency, one needs a reasonable argument that there is information which is being withheld.  People have written whole books on how the GOP has stage-managed Iraq.  What's the missing info here--what Obama had for breakfast?

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-07-23 09:12AM | 0 recs
Does the phrase Cheney's Energy Task Force

ring a bell? Do you remember why it was a big deal?

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Does the phrase Cheney's Energy Task Force

So your comparing Dick Cheneys Energy Task Force, to the fact Andrea Mitchell had a hissy fit, cause she didn't get an exclusive sit down with Obama?

Man, with that reach, you must be good on the tennis courts.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-23 09:31AM | 0 recs
Hissy Fit

She reported -- calmly -- that the press had been cordoned off from Obama up to that point.

Your choice of phrase could reinforce a negative stereotype of women as emotional and trivial.

Mitchell has covered five presidential administrations and she reported that she'd never seen access controlled to this level. Coming out of George W. Bush's administration, that is a newsworthy fact.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hissy Fit

Mitchell's claim is ludicrous on its face, because the standard Bush mo when it came to visiting Iraq was not to tell the media, arrive by surprise, spend a few hours in country, and then leave w/o the media's being involved at all.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-07-23 10:23AM | 0 recs
bs alert

So you're comparing a task force that operated in secrecy and refused to release records of who was included


a candidate for whom it is chronicled with whom he meets and who has held TWO press conferences in two days with members of the international press?

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: bs alert

Excuse me, but you seem to be confusing this issue by introducing facts.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-23 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Does the phrase Cheney's Energy Task Force

Dick Cheney's energy task force didn't have a press conference the day after they held their meeting.  You're conflating two dissimilar issues: not providing information when and where the media wants it, and not providing information at all.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-07-23 09:57AM | 0 recs
Why was the Energy Task Force a big deal

I don't get the argument that this sort of non-stop coverage adds anything to our understanding of him or what he might do.  What difference does it make, really, if he answers the question "What will you do about Iraq" inside Iraq or a day later?

Why couldn't Cheney just say a day later that he held a private meeting and they discussed some trivial energy issues. Why wasn't that good enough?

by catfish2 2008-07-23 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why was the Energy Task Force a big deal

I've seen your postings at NQ so I know what you write when you're not here.

Here you're just intellectually dishonest, conflating talking to the press a day after being in-country with NEVER releasing ANY information.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 10:25AM | 0 recs
You can't respond to the content

so you attack the commenter's credibility.

by catfish2 2008-07-23 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You can't respond to the content

More BS.

I DID respond to the content.  

I responded to your absurd conflation of a secret task force that wouldn't release any records with the travels of a presidential candidate who has held two press conferences in two days.

And I responded to the diarists' absurdities as well.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-23 10:51AM | 0 recs
He is a policy maker

Given that Obama is a candidate for office, though, and not a policy maker,

by catfish2 2008-07-23 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Ask them to stop bashing us and we will stop bashing them. Anyway, why are you putting out a new PUMA diary when PUMA could have easily been avoided in this diary. It seems to me that the PUMA sympathizers need to follow their own advice.

MOre stage managed than Bush? Seriously. The press is just sore because they thought Obama is their friend. Sure, go ahead and attack Obama on his handling of the press. It is a valid point to bring up. But to say he is worse than Bush when it comes to press based on ONE tour? Did you see how Bush handled the press during his 7 years as President? The screening at his rallies was something else.

by Pravin 2008-07-23 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

PUMA is working for torture, for the executive being able to snatch you at whim and hold you indefinitely, against health care, for forcing thousands more middle eastern girls into prostitution, for the slaughter of Iranians, for higher fuel prices, for more of the financial deregulation that is responsible for the current crisis.

It doesn't matter if some of them are too dim or too self-involved to realize- they are still responsible.

They are the enemy. They deserve ridicule and and contempt.

by wrb 2008-07-23 09:28AM | 0 recs
Ludicrous Non-Issue [Updated]

Turn on your TV set.  Andrea Mitchell got the first question (she turned it into three) of the first press conference Obama held on this trip.  However, what I posted yesterday is still true and completely refutes your argument that Senator Obama locked up the press and wouldn't let them join him in the Middle East.

Here is a quote from Major Garret of FOX news:

   Q; Why isn't the press with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq?

   A: Because that trip (the "war" part), is a congressional delegation
    trip (codel, for short). There are strict rules on media coverage for
    codels. Only the Senate Majority Leader or a full Committee Chairman
    can bring a traveling press corps on a codel trip. Obama is not a
    committee chairman. His traveling companions, Sens. Jack Reed,
    Democrat of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska,
    aren't either. That means no traveling press. US taxpayers finance
    codels and the military runs the flight schedule and procedures.

This was posted on Teachers.net:  http://teachers.net/chatboard/topic22992 5/

Now, it is a pretty sad day when we start attacking our own candidate on an issue that has FOX news defending him.

Enough truly is enough.

His press has been totally positive and massive on this trip. He is accompanied by the network anchors for heaven's sake.  The cable news shows are covering this trip non-stop, interspersed with pictures of McCain riding around in George HW Bush's golf cart and arriving, unnoticed by the press in NH (or was Obama responsible for that as well?).

The only negative was Andrea Mitchell's hissy fit when Lara Logan got the first sit down interview with Obama in Kabul.  And this diary.  And for being a silly self centered hissy fit, this is a good match.

If you had any contact with reality, you would be complaining about how there is too much press coverage of Obama's trip.  That would have the virtue of at least containing a teaspoon of truth.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-23 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Unapologetic even in the face of facts, to the point of dig-in-the-heels belligerence and a reinterpretation of reality, rather than admit to being wrong on any point.

McCain hasn't been too successful with this approach, either.

by BobzCat 2008-07-23 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

I asked you to respond earlier to a question and my offer still stands;  You might actually convince me that you have a valid concern if you do.  Name one question--not even one press conference--but one question that Obama answered to anyone but the national press corps?  

I'm just asking you to back up your assertion that he actually staged events rather than merely had pictures taken by the DOD.  That is a pretty serious accusation so it seriously needs to be linked.  Thanks.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-23 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Soooooo. Obama has been in the Middle East a handful of days and Mitchell starts carping about not having access to him? Saints preserve us.

Can we at least have some reporters who have a somewhat marginal level of integrity asking the tough questions?
We've had Mitchell and Couric asking questions that, frankly should be asked, but they come from such suspect sources I want to dismiss the questions as inherently being "gotcha" attempts. Mitchell has massive conflicts of interest and Couric carried a massive torch for Clinton in the primary. She did a 60 mins piece that was entirely fluff, talking about drinking tea, what her high school nickname was... etc.

And sorry, but all I've seen from PUMA has been inane blithering from overwrought, overextended primary losers. The % of primary voters right now who say they don't support Obama is the same % of Republican Primary voters in Oct 2000 who said they didn't support Bush.

The press thing may be good to keep an eye on, but as of now it reeks of "concern" concern, especially under these circumstances which former posters have addressed.

Don't take Mitchell too seriously as a reliable source.

And for the love of Buddha, lets cut PUMA off to sink on their own. This is one of the very few places that actually talk about them any more.

by notedgeways 2008-07-23 11:53AM | 0 recs
Lift the ban

I say we lift the ban on PUMA bashing.

It seems like the PUMAs ignored or not are back in full effect.

You really think for a fucking second Linfar did not know of the ban?

Man some of us on here are dense.

Someone please for the love of god, find me a republican blog (other than noquarter and riverdaughter) were they attacking McCain the way Linfar is attacking OBama.

Man we are sooooooooo weak,  people like Linfar prove why we will lose, because for alot of democrats their pride and reputation is far more important then the sake of the country and it's citizens.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-23 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Lift the ban

dear demslandslide, my mother has alzheimers and I have been buried in the effort to find her a caretaker. No I didn't know about the ban. surprised?? If you haven't noticed I haven't been able to post much at all. jeeeze...

by linfar 2008-07-23 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Lift the ban

My condolences, but again you are pulling the same puma crap, shifting the subject.

You bringning up PUMA and defending them is not the transgression and you know it.

Show me where, one little place where Republicans tear McCain apart on the web.

Please I beg you, show me.   Until then consider yourself part of the Democratic cancer.

How, where and why we got people like you in our midst is beyond me.

You simply hate Obama, and I find no reason to hate him.

I doubt you were this pessimistic and negative towards Kerry, Gore, or either Clinton.

Why do you despise him so much?

We have lived under an administration that had decimated our constitution and our way of life, and you site there DYING to find some angle to attack obama.

screw PUMA, we dont need them not at all.

I would rather lose with dignity, then lose with a bunch of slimy whiners dead set on causing us to lose.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-23 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Lift the ban

this anger is really not pleasant to have around MyDD seriously! tone it down a notch please. just because someone else isn't enamoured of Obama to the degree you are DOES NOT condone bashing them like this.

by swissffun 2008-07-27 02:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Puma Bashing [Updated]

Sorry you could never be a PUMA, Lin. Actually, I don't understand why. This diary has outlined some of the very many reasons long time Democrats like me have chosen that option. Actually, I see no other option. I thing Mr. BO is an empty suit and a fraud. And that's because I've been in it since February and have been paying attention to more than the MSM...besides doing my own research. I miss you at Hillary's voice. I miss your pro-Hillary diaries. I know she wouldn't mind if you continued to support her. Susanclare

by susanclare 2008-07-23 05:45PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads