Bad News For PUMAs

Via John Cole's Balloon Juice, I have tragic news for our PUMA fans here at My DD.

The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.

The state has received multiple requests for a copy of Obama's birth certificate. State law does not allow officials to release the birth certificate of a person to someone outside of the family.


"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai`i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai`i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

I predict a great gnashing of teeth at the Confluence, or even No 25 Cents, or perhaps they'll ignore this story completely?
And checking over at Riverdaughter, not a word about any birth certificate, though plenty of noise is made about how the right wingers are paying attention to PUMAs again.
Desperation makes strange bedfellows.

Tags: Barack Obama, birth certificate, PUMA (all tags)



Re: Bad News For PUMAs
Well, the first thing that will happen is that the Director will be accused of  either or all of the following -
Being in the tank for Obama, part of some vast conspiracy, paid off etc etc etc
by jsfox 2008-11-02 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Exactly what I was going to say. Check Free Republic - that's exactly what they will be saying. And it will be directly related to Obama's visit to see his grandma, too. They knew all along he was really going there to get the birth certificate issue taken care of. This is PROOF. Funny stuff, and it will never end.

by veggiemuffin 2008-11-02 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
Right. Proof doesn't matter. What matters is their anger and bitterness because it's all they have.
by Spiffarino 2008-11-02 07:06AM | 0 recs
Anger is everything.

Deep down, they all know that it isn't true.  Their ability to hang on to these things is not proof of their gullibility at all.  They want to sling bullshit.

Look at any of those videos of McCain supporters waiting in line, shouting that Obama's a muslim or a terrorist.  When the questioner asks them, do you really believe that, they get uncomfortable at first, then they get hostile, and they shout it out again, as if yelling an epithet.  

The more over the top, the slur, the better, because it better expresses their anger, not their beliefs.

by Dumbo 2008-11-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

The idiots actually subscribed to something like the following disjunction:

1.  Sen. Obama was not born in the US.

  1.  If he was born in the US then he renounced as a young boy in Indonesia.
  2.  If he didn't renounce then surely he must have renounced sometime.

Conservatives also believe that 1,2, or 3 should be determined by a court of law (making it so one person can cancel out 70 million + votes).  They don't understand that previous case law has said that citizenship determinations are a political question.  I then gleefully like to point out that if we are going to play the strict constructionist game (or even the Bush v. Gore game) they have no recourse through the courts.

As I predicted, the PA case got tossed for standing.  

There's something in that story about petards and hoisting.

I wonder what PUMA land will be like on Wed.

by AZphilosopher 2008-11-02 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I never try to set the conservative, email believers straight on this point precisely because they believe against evidence that 1, 2, or 3 must be the case.

I merely point out that if there were a problem as big as they were saying, it would affect the EC ratification in the House.

by AZphilosopher 2008-11-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Confluence's Effluence has little influence

on its own Flatulence.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-02 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Confluence's Effluence has little influence


"The Flatulence."  I likes that.

by Jess81 2008-11-02 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

PUMA:  Abandoning the issues & Reinforcing gender stereotypes since mid 2008.

by lockewasright 2008-11-02 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Which gender stereotypes?  I'm just curious.

by Sieglinde 2008-11-02 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

1. Hillary as Good Little Girl. "She's doing what the party wants her to do, not because she believes in an Obama presidency."

2. Hillary as Victim. "She's only saying what she has to for her own political survival."

3. The Us-Girls-Gotta-Stick-Together mentality or - in other words - Women Can't Go To The Ladies Room Alone. The notion that women should no be thoughtful individuals but mindless Stepford wives in how they vote. "She's a woman so we have to vote for her."

There's a few to get started.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-11-02 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I posted over at Alegre's corner once and it got deleted. I then posted that if it's all about women, then why not support Cynthia McKinney. That post got deleted as well.

by xodus1914 2008-11-03 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

That women are vindictive and that women let their emotions make them irrational.

It's the damned annoying thing about stereotypes:

In the face of a multitude of examples to the contrary, so many people will accept anything that can be seen as fitting the stereotype as confirmation of the truth of their views.

It happened a lot during the primaries when people were labeled sexist at the first suggestion that they might support some candidate other than Senator Clinton.  A lot of people reach conclusions and then look for the evidence to support that conclusion instead of the other way around.  This allows them to accept anything that they can possibly stretch or twist to fit as proof.  

by lockewasright 2008-11-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Nah, they'll say:

"Aha! Even Hawaii is in on the conspiracy!!!"

by Bush Bites 2008-11-02 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Because it's not real America!

by KLRinLA 2008-11-02 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I have a serious question--does it matter what Obama's birth certificate says?  No one questions whether his mother was an American citizen.  Given that she was, he is a natural-born American citizen regardless of where he was born.  That makes him Constitutionally eligible.

Seems like this would be a complete non-issue.

by slynch 2008-11-02 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Not for those that believe the White House is for white people.

by Hill4Life 2008-11-02 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. If he wasn't born in the US, then it gets squirrly becasue his mother was 17 when she had him, but you need to be 19 to pass on the citizen rights if the father is not a citizen.
Trust me, they wouldn't have spent this much time on it  if, there wasn't a big payoff. LOL
by xodus1914 2008-11-03 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I'll assume you're right about the age issue for passing on citizenship rights, but I'm not so sure about it (I've never heard this before, and I can't imagine the justification for making the age 19).

But, I think the reason that they made an issue of it is because they were simply hoping to paint him as un-American.  I don't think they seriously were ever going to challenge his eligibility (if they were, they could still do it, but I haven't heard anything about it over the last few days).

by slynch 2008-11-07 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

People will believe what they want to believe. PUMAs have already made the decision to share something in common with the Clinton haters of the 1990s.

by wiscogirl101 2008-11-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Don't take the GOP bait

The PUMA movement was mostly engineered by the GOP to take advantage of the divisive Dem primary.

The sites you speak of are controlled by GOP sock puppets.  Continuing to keep the non-controversy alive only works to hurt Dem party unity.

by Betsy McCall 2008-11-02 07:59AM | 0 recs
But, but...but...

ALl thosE GREat diarists who had the only recommended diaries a few months ago can't be wrong.

The EXAct Same DiARies LeadINg the rec list for so long must prove that the PUMAs are right!

There has just been a CONFLUENCE of events that caused them to verify the birth certificate.  When the PUMAs are pushed into a CORNER, they will give NO QUARTER to those who chose The One(tm) over THE ONLIEST AND BESTEST CANDIDATE EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!1!

They cheated!  I put all of my self-identity and self-worth into a candidate, and she didn't win!!  What do I do now!?!



by Sully Fick 2008-11-02 08:43AM | 0 recs
Who cares?

There aren't enough PUMA's around to worry about anymore.  I was a very strong Hillary supporter and a very strong Obama doubter in the past but any Democrat would have to have gone over the edge to still be against Obama.  Nothing should bring back people to the home team more than a winning performance and Obama has truly shown himself to be a winner.

by lombard 2008-11-02 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares?

Spot on, correct.

For those of us who wanted Hillary for admiration as well as genuine electoral map concerns, given that the Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina strategy appears to be working, we have nothing to complain about.  

I'd much rather be wrong about my doubts on the nominee in April than make the wrong decision with consequences that will last until I'm in my seventies (me, being 28, and the threat of a young McCain appointee sitting on the bench for 40 years--it really can and would happen).

by BPK80 2008-11-02 01:27PM | 0 recs

I wouldn't say "strange bedfellows". IMO, there is no longer any difference between right-wingers and the crowd at goldberry's site.

by taylormattd 2008-11-02 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Even worse: Republicans failed to prove that Obama's autobiography was ghostwritten by Ayers.  I seem to recall that this was a favorite conspiracy theory on some "Democratic" websites as well. rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 5063279.ece

by rfahey22 2008-11-02 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I think it's time to put away the puma fights, Hillary has won most all of her supporters though logical reasoning. And Bill, did you hear him when he appeared with Barack.  PUMA's are now a small number of Hillary supporters, a very small number, and quite a few infiltrating pugs.  I think it's time to get past it from both sides, they'll have to live with a Barack win and I assume or at least I hope many will come to back him, because he'll be doing such a good job.  

Also, I have no doubt that had the super's gone to Hillary there would be a percentage of his supporters who would be continuing to make even wilder claims about her.  Hillary had the opportunity to prove the Chris Matthews of the world that their ideas about her were prejudice generated, not fact generated, since all their nasty predictions have been proven wrong and many times over.  Barack has also proved some wrong, by not sidelining Hillary, by not sidelining Bill, by talking about the gains made when Bill was our president, and most of all by taking over HIllary's vast number of retired professionals and experts and listening to them.  

The party has united under Barack, just like Hillary promised, How many of those who can't stop checking out PUMA activities said nasty prejudiced and false things about HillarY Were you one of them?

So, give it a rest?  

by anna shane 2008-11-02 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Virtual mojo.

As someone who is strongly anti-PUMA, I agree that it's time to put this to rest, with one caveat: that we learn from this silliness next time, and try not to let it happen again.  Remember that in 2006 or so, Larry Johnson and Alegre were front-pagers on TPM Cafe and Daily Kos, influential member of the left blogosphere.  It took months of their acting crazy for them to lose their influence, and in that time they caused a lot of ugly strife and wasted time discussing irrelevant pseudo-issues.  Next time, we need to be more willing to call out influential crackpots.

by username 2008-11-02 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

then it has to be learned from both sides.  Al has come out and said she'd never vote for John, and I blog there still, lots who've thrown support to Barack still blog there and there are real conversations that take place.  I took a lot of personal heat for being for her and for thinking that the primary going on was a good thing for everybody (which is now received wisdom, go figure) and asserting that Hillary would never sabotage Barack for her own ambitions, and it went on quite a long time. turns out I was right?  So, apologizes will be accepted if offered.  

Also, Larry helped Barack probably more than most of his supporters, and maybe more than he wanted to. He vetted the silly stuff so that when John used it it was already old and boring and it didn't get any coverage.  I don't know where Larry stands now, I guess he's still hoping Barack will drop out or something, but he was a big help.

Larry did a helpful thing and you guys getting ballistic over it was a good thing too. It worked to keep any October surprises from taking place.  Whew!!?

by anna shane 2008-11-02 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I took a lot of personal heat for being for her and for thinking that the primary going on was a good thing for everybody (which is now received wisdom, go figure) and asserting that Hillary would never sabotage Barack for her own ambitions, and it went on quite a long time. turns out I was right?  So, apologizes will be accepted if offered.  

Give me a break anna. I'm glad you're on our side but don't try to rewrite history here.

Pretty brave of you to come into a diary about PUMA's and bullshit rumors asking for an apology.

Also, Larry helped Barack probably more than most of his supporters, and maybe more than he wanted to. He vetted the silly stuff so that when John used it it was already old and boring and it didn't get any coverage.  I don't know where Larry stands now, I guess he's still hoping Barack will drop out or something, but he was a big help.

Is this snark?


This is Larry "Whitey" Johnson on a ratty ass blog (the thing is fugly ) we are talking about.

Larry is no Drudge. At least Drudge makes an effort not to come off as unhinged.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-02 08:40PM | 0 recs
C'mon now Spiff

She's right that the crackpot goofballs on our side in the primary did help by airing out all the potential game changers before the Republicans got their October Surprise guns loaded.

We're not giving these people credit, per se, just like I don't give Rush Limbaugh credit for perhaps carrying states like Texas and Indiana for Clinton and ensuring that our awesome long primary worked to its inevitable conclusion with an extra few months of media coverage.  

I guess it's more of a "no harm, no foul" sorta thing.  The PUMAs are to be pitied, and have set a fresh, fantastic example for future races.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-03 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
Hey spacey, I think anna is right in her first paragraph, the extended primary did turn out to be very good for Democrats, Clinton was accused of trying to sabotage Obama so she could run in 2012, and turned out to be a very strong supporter and big fundraiser, so in that respect, anna was right.
As for Larry and his blog, I wouldn't spit on the man if he was on fire, he is a POS and deserves no respect or admiration from Democrats.
by skohayes 2008-11-03 05:26AM | 0 recs
Many of them

have aided the most reactionary elements in this country.  They have participated in the worst sort of slander.  

They are not Democrats.  And they aren't going to find it easy to get back into the Democratic Party.  People who have labelled Obama as socialist, two faced and worse may hope it will be forgotten.

It won't.

And the notion that the associations with the right that most Puma's have made over the last 3 months will be forgotten is nonsense.

by fladem 2008-11-02 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Recommended for "No 25 Cents" - few things have irked me so much this year as Democrats caring what registered Republican Larry Johnson has to say about the election.

by robitude 2008-11-02 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

You have posted a very divisive diary.  Your ire should be spent on Republicans, not disaffected Democrats.  In fact, had you spent the same energy addressing the "Bad News" for Republicans, you might have been successful in getting undecided voters to support Obama.  That, obviously, is not your objective.

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 10:56AM | 0 recs
Of course.

Because undecided voters have swarmed MyDD trying to find information that makes their decisions easier.

Sorry, but websites that peddle rumors about fake birth certificates deserve to be belittled.

by psychodrew 2008-11-02 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course.

Your point is well taken, with the exception of acknowledging the lurkers, who, as evidenced by a few recent diaries, never left.

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course.

I this because until voting ballots have a space for "Why Did You Pick This Candidate," the why's of so-called "protest votes" are irrelevant.

Only the pick is counted in the end, not the why. And it's reasonable for candidates to assume that every vote for them validates their policies.

So says your friendly election judge (who's expecting one very long day on Tuesday).

by Its All So Goofy 2008-11-02 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

At this point, a "disaffected Democrat" is a "McCain-voting Republican." A vote for McCain is a tacit acceptance of GOP policies, regardless of the voter's intent. The end result is the same.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-11-02 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
You know what Denny? At this point, I couldn't care less about undecided PUMAs.
They've been led around by the nose by Republicans for the last 6 months, and are too wrapped up in their own dependency to see what is plain to everyone else.
When facts are presented to refute the claims that they and their divisive hateful groups have been pushing, I fully intend to post it on this blog.
Get over yourself.
by skohayes 2008-11-02 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
I understand your frustration.  As a Dem, you're entitled to be frustrated.  After the past two pres. elections, all Dems are entitled to be frustrated.  But, we're not Repubs.  We can voice our opinions, yet be on the same page.  What's lacking is the discourse to do so.  
I have no doubt you see this reasoning espouses your ideals, too.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

At what point does the spouting of vitriol and lies become a question of morality and decency?

Larry Johnson is "on the same page" as me?  I think we can count that one out.

What about someone who repeats LJs.....what should we call it..."October-Surprise-prevention discourse"?...lies?...horseshit?...

I don't think I'm on the same page with that either.  Holding my tongue seems a little too passive, as well.

What about someone who only includes LJ (and The Flatulance) on their blogroll?  Well, I'd have to say that the inclusion of those blogs on one's blogroll would cause my opinion of them to drop significantly.

And, I'd say so.  With snark, if necessary.

by Sully Fick 2008-11-02 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
You are free to "discourse" in any way you so please.
Others are free to do the same.
I am NOT on the same page as RW trolls and their sockpuppet PUMAs.
by skohayes 2008-11-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

That's discourse I agree with.  On the other hand, anyone not "emotionally invested" in Obama, but yet a Dem, should be able to express their opinion.  I've seen too many opinoins espoused by Dems, on this site and others, that had nothing to do with supporting Repubs, get trashed, name-called, hide-rated, etc., including opinions espoused by "not seen recently" blogfathers.

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I know what goes on here, Denny, I'm aware of your type of "discourse".

by skohayes 2008-11-02 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs


by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

What discourse are you adding to?  Do you dispute the facts of Barack Obama's US citizenship?  Many PUMA's do, and they have been fed a dose of ***t by conservative fellow travellers.

I am amazed that on the day before a historic victory by dems (I hope!) PUMA remnants are still defending Larry Johnson and the demagogic filth that he was spreading all those months ago.


by wintermute1 2008-11-03 04:36AM | 0 recs
What happened to dialogue Denny?

I don't understand, Denny. Most the time you post on Obama sceptical diaries encouraging 'discourse' and 'dialogue', and now you criticise this diarist for speaking out?

by brit 2008-11-03 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to dialogue Denny?
When is attacking dialogue?  One of us is missing the point here.
I've "discouraged" attacks on the Clintons.  I've "discouraged" attacks on the Obamas.
Attacks do not lead to dialogue.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-03 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to dialogue Denny?

Then it's completely subjective. I read no attack on the Clintons here, merely an exploration of political possibilities.

by brit 2008-11-03 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Well, there you go.

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign.

I had no idea.

by Bush Bites 2008-11-02 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Interesting how Obama's past affiliations are so important to some people but LJ's aren't.

by psychodrew 2008-11-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

As someone who is ex-CIA, LJ's connections are very important - after all, if people like him are running counterterrorism intelligence, this country is in deep doo doo, indeed.

by rfahey22 2008-11-02 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

there is no political purity test, larry is a voice and he gets to have his voice, no one needs to go read his site or monitor him.  it's way over time to try to smear people who have opinions you disagree with.  Barack is going to win, it's time to celebrate, not smear, we're finally getting a Democrat and we're finally going to have an adult in the white house.  

by anna shane 2008-11-02 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

I'm sorry, but I disagree.  I find him to be a poisonous demagogue who has no problem advancing lies in order to manipulate the election (I'm still waiting for that whitey tape).  Making fun of him certainly causes him no harm, though it may clue some in to the fact that he's a fraud.  And no, it's not a "smear" to point out that he has advanced lies with zero basis in fact (the birth certificate conspiracy, the whitey tape conspiracy, etc.).  He does not merely express a difference of opinion, he actually cons people by creating fiction and passing it off as fact.

by rfahey22 2008-11-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
You've engaged in discourse.  
Mojo to you!
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
&quot;Whitey&quot; Tape

I always had a suspicion that when the counter arguments arose that Michelle was really saying, "And George Bush!  WHY'D HE let New Orleans drown?  WHY'D HE ignore millions of people and put them in stadiums?" that the proponents of the "whitey" tape had major egg on their faces.  Last thing I saw about it a while ago was that McCain would "only" use it if he was down by 80 electoral votes the week before Election Day.  

Um....  !?  ... drum roll  ...?

Yup.  It's the "Why'd He" tape.  

by BPK80 2008-11-02 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Whitey&quot; Tape

yes, that was actually explained. But can you imagine if that allegation had come out for the first time last month, or if the Ayers thing was new and not sooo old and who cares, if the story still needed to be looked into and there weren't time to fully discredit it?  The pugs sat back and let the dem's do our own vetting with guys like Larry, and it all got worked out and was shown to be nada long before the primary was over.  Whatever his motives, and I sure don't know, he did Barack and the Democratic party a big service.  

by anna shane 2008-11-02 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Whitey&quot; Tape

I think you're right!

All of this stuff was so explosive back then but now it's really stale.  Good points, Anna.  :-)

by BPK80 2008-11-02 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Whitey&quot; Tape

Just a historical note: the "why'd he" explanation was also a hoax: the guy who spread it explained that he did it as a counter-smear.  It's better to have that floating around than a non-existent tape that will never be produced.

by Jess81 2008-11-02 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Whitey&quot; Tape

Thanks.  I always thought the tape existed but that it had been misconstrued or misinterpreted.  If it turns out the tape doesn't even exist...

Well, at someone gets a good grade for creativity in deceit?  

by BPK80 2008-11-02 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

well, then his poison was shown to be no longer effective, to be poisonous you need to really poison, and that didn't happen, In fact the opposite happened, the country got to see that no one gave a hoot, it was all much about nothing.  And the over-the-top hate against Hillary, mainly at dkos and throuth media didn't hurt her either, she came out of all that much stronger than had she been treated with deference. Even Barack saying she's untrustworthy didn't hurt her, she's more admired than ever, and just as effective. It's really true that what doesn't kill you makes you strong.  You should send Larry a thank you note for inoculating Barack against the real poisoners.  And I should send one to Barack for making those statement that proved baseless and never hurt her with real voters.  See, no one's perfect?  But, we all got to get along?  

by anna shane 2008-11-02 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Where did Barack Obama say that Hillary was untrustworthy?

by cmize 2008-11-02 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

see, that's the problem, you didn't even notice.  I'm fine with Barack and very glad he's winning and I fully support him, but that doesn't mean the primary wasn't awful for women.  She's clearly not untrustworthy?

by anna shane 2008-11-03 06:37AM | 0 recs
There are plenty

of those types at alerges corner, where you hang out.

by fladem 2008-11-03 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
" we all got to get along?"
No, not really.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-03 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

then I'm a better Barack supporter than you, I don't need to agree totally with anyone to know we're in this mess together and it's only by being together that we'll make it through.  These are very tough times now, get over it?  

by anna shane 2008-11-03 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

But, wait, there's still Michelle Obama's "Whitey" tape, right????

It's coming soon, right???


by LordMike 2008-11-02 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs
On the eve of a blowout victory to our paty, I think the header is unfair and offensive to some, it implies there are Hillary voters out there (in large numbers) who are fighting Obama.
This smear is coming from the conservatives.
by rolnitzky 2008-11-03 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Hilary voters /= PUMA.

by Dreorg 2008-11-03 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Pumas, how funny. They should vote for McCain because all they obviously care about is the skirt, but what's between the ears.

by NY Writer 2008-11-03 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad News For PUMAs

Signed, a Hillary/Obama supporter

by NY Writer 2008-11-03 06:56AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads